Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, there's no question, we need to do a better job of helping people who are laid off from their jobs. Even though only 3 percent of this country's jobs are affected by trade, if it's your job, it's an important one.

But when workers try to get help, what they find is this program is bureaucratic and inefficient and slow to respond. There's a big mismatch between the skills our workers have and the ready jobs that are available for them. But TAA does not do a good job of matching those skills and those workers. And I think there's been a good-faith effort to try to make this a better program, but, in my view, the underlying bill makes it a bigger program, not necessarily a better one.

TAA is a leaky bucket, and I think we're making the bucket bigger and we're pouring more money into it. I don't think we're fixing the holes that really harm workers.

For example, in the bill today we actually enhance duplication of efforts rather than streamline it. This bill prohibits a worker who's laid off for trade reasons to going to the local job training center to get help. In fact, what we require is a new State-run program that has no track record, has no proven success, and we relegate them to really a second tier training system.

In Houston we have WorkSource. It's at 35 different sites around our region. It helps about 340,000 workers laid off, has put 53,000 back to work at higher than average salaries. It's a great proven product.

Under this bill, a worker can't even go down the street to take advantage of those computers and that networking and that work with businesses, but we set up a less efficient one, unproven for them. It doesn't make sense.

I object to the pay-for as well. We are actually making U.S. companies less competitive as they sell overseas. As you know, today it's not enough to buy American; you have to sell American. We want to sell John Deere tractors and Apple computers around the world, and this bill, unfortunately, actually punishes those companies and hurts the workers for them.

The Republican substitute is more flexible. It's less bureaucratic, and provides some commonsense training programs that will actually get workers back to work at a job they can raise their family on, which is what I think there is bipartisan support for.

Madam Speaker, I voted to create the children's health care program, and I believe in it. But let's be honest. These changes are more cosmetic than Dr. 90210. This bill still isn't paid for. It still doesn't cover poor kids first, and it still allows abuses like subsidizing adults to continue.

And what's especially sad is that today, while the California tragedy unfolds, most Americans see homes in flames, lives lost, and families huddling in football stadiums as their life's possessions go up in flames, the Washington Democrats see political opportunity.

While dedicated California lawmakers rush home to their communities, Democrats rush their bill to the floor.

It seems like none of us in Congress, either party, ought to look like vultures circling above the burned out homes of California families gleefully eyeing a cynical chance to try to pass their partisan legislation.

This proves what we said all along. This isn't about the children. It's about defeating George Bush. Some hate him so badly they will sacrifice whatever morals and integrity to win at all costs.

Democrats promised to change Washington, but it's business as usual up here; and it's the children who lose.

As parents we teach our kids to sit down and work out their differences, that fighting doesn't accomplish anything, that big boys and girls find a way to work together. When this political trick fails, and it will, why don't we apply the same lessons up here and work together to find a reasonable, fiscally responsible way to help cover our kids who need our help?

Madam Speaker, that gentle reminder is not enough. It is despicable to have a Member of this Congress accuse this President, any President, of willfully blowing the heads, quote, blowing the heads off our young men and women over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Having a brother who is an Army medic and served in Iraq, having spent this weekend with a family who lost their son in Iraq, it is beneath contempt, beneath contempt, to have a Member of Congress stand here and accuse the President of, in effect, assassinating our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is dead wrong. And it is beneath contempt as well that we will sit here silently and allow such a remark to be tolerated, accepted if not embraced. And I will guarantee you, no Member on this side will stand up here and disavow those remarks, unfortunately, today.

It is bad enough that we are playing politics with the war. Now we are playing politics with our kids. The claim that the Republicans don't support this program is equally untrue. We created it. This is a great program. It keeps kids healthy. It helps their families avoid serious illness, keeps them out of our emergency rooms. It is a great program.

When we created it, we did it the right way. We sat down with the President, President Clinton, and we worked out a good plan for kids. And then, more importantly, we believed in it enough to pay for it. We paid for the whole 10 years. This plan does not. It is only half paid for. It is only half paid for. It is just like these predatory loans; the first years are affordable, and then it balloons beyond what we can pay for it. If we believe in it, let's pay for it now. It allows abuses to continue. It doesn't cover the poor kids first.

My question is, why don't we sit down, why don't we quit playing political games with our kids, sit down with Republicans and Democrats with the White House and find a solution that is right for our children.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, it's appropriate that we talk about a $600 toilet seat because, indeed, this bill smells to high heaven.

The truth of the matter is you will hear a lot of wild claims made on the House floor today, but in truth the Joint Taxation Committee, Congressional Budget Office, and every other independent agency has testified that passing this bill will cost the American taxpayers more than $1 billion. It is a testament that this program is working and will continue to work to save dollars for the American taxpayer by going after those who owe their taxes on behalf of those of us who pay our taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3056. This bill would eliminate a program that is actually making money for the government: overdue tax bills collected by qualified private companies from people that owe too little for the IRS to use up valuable resources in going after them. To date, the IRS has turned over 90,000 cases worth nearly half a billion dollars. And the dollars add up to the tune of $32 million collected since last month, and there's more to come. As I said, more than $1 billion over the next decade.

This is money that is helping to close the tax gap and is revenue that the Treasury Department can use to hire more employees. Under the program the IRS can retain up to a quarter of the collection to hire additional enforcement workers, and already some $5.7 million has been designated by the IRS for collection activities and $20 million has gone toward deficit reduction. So it is helping reduce the Federal deficit.

Some argue that collection agents have harassed taxpayers. The reality is that these agents are held to the same standards as IRS employees when it comes to protecting taxpayer rights. As a matter of fact, out of 51,000 cases, it was testified at our recent Ways and Means Committee hearing there were no, zero, violations of taxpayer privacy, zero.

These companies do face difficulties in finding the correct person, as the IRS does not provide the collectors with the taxpayers' last known phone numbers. This might be an area to look for reforming, rather than killing, this important program.

Some argue that the IRS could collect the same debts more cheaply if they could hire more employees. But the truth of the matter is these taxpayers have already been contacted four times by the IRS and they have not had luck in collecting them.

A GAO report in 2004, General Accountability Office, says that these private companies can recover $4.60 for every $1 spent while additional IRS employees would recover less, would be less efficient in recovering.

The bottom line is that the program is working, taxpayer rights and privacy are being protected. The program allows IRS to do what they are good at: enforcement of higher profile debts while allowing private collection agents who have to be qualified to collect smaller debts owed by tens of thousands of taxpayers.

And private debt collectors aren't a novel idea. Other Federal agencies and many States, 40 States, and thousands of local government agencies use private agents to collect everything from overdue income taxes, alcohol and cigarette taxes, to local property taxes. It's working, and it would be a disservice to taxpayers who actually pay their taxes on time to discontinue it now.

The bottom line truly, Mr. Speaker, is are we serious about closing the tax gap. Are we serious about collecting the debts that are owed? People here tend to always see things in black and white, and you will hear this in the debate today. You are either for or against the IRS, for or against private debt collectors.

The truth of the matter is our goal is to collect the taxes the most efficient way. It will take a partnership of our IRS employees, who do an excellent job, and private debt collectors, who do an excellent job in the tougher debts, to collect in order for the taxpayers to truly get the dollars that they are owed and this country the dollars that are truly owed.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the General Accountability Office has testified that, in fact, private debt collectors are more efficient per dollars than the IRS employees with these types of debts, which is what we are comparing. And, again, we have IRS employees with the ability to levy liens and fines, they are able to compel certain types of taxpayers to pay efficiently, and they can go after the larger, more complex cases very well. It is this group here that we've had difficulty collecting taxes from in the past that these proven tax collectors across 40 States have done such a good job collecting. And that is the bottom line; are we going to collect the taxes of the American people or not?

With that, I would yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), who has worked very hard on behalf of American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this practice has already generated nearly $6 million for additional IRS agents in collection activities at the agency.

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that at the Ways and Means hearings, the Government Accountability Office testified they had looked for but could not find any evidence that the private collection agency selected individuals for the survey based on their perception of what the responses would be. I would point out that the same agency testified that there were zero, no violations of any privacy rights through 51,000, and growing, cases, zero violations. And I do wish that those telephone tapes could be played here on the House floor so members of the public as well as Congress could hear the professionalism of those phone calls as they seek to identify sensitively the individuals who do owe dollars to the American taxpayers.

I will point out, too, that if these debts were so easy to collect by the IRS, why did the IRS already have four opportunities to collect them from each taxpayer before they were turned over to these agencies, who have done such a good job, a solid job of collecting them?

With that, I would yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) who has not only fought on behalf of taxpayers but has a number of women and minority workers and professionals in his district who have done a wonderful job in this arena.

(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that while the claim has been made that our taxpayers have been harassed, IRS itself has testified there is a 97 percent satisfaction rate with the process that is already in place with these private collection agencies. I must point out, too, that while a claim is made that past Congresses starved the IRS, the truth is actually the opposite. The agency last year added over 200 new field collection personnel. This year's budget will add even more agents to the IRS. This program that is being sought to be eliminated has already generated almost $6 million for more IRS agents in a collection agency.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time does each side have remaining.

At this time, I would reserve the balance of my time.

I would point out it is difficult to have an abusive program when there is 97 percent customer satisfaction and zero privacy violations and zero Fair Debt Collection Act violations. Zero. I point out as far as efficiency, you don't have to take anyone's word on this floor if this program is working. Attached to this bill is testimony that says eliminating it will cost the U.S. taxpayers $1 billion.

So you don't have to take our word for it. The experts who are independent, who have looked at this issue, know this is an efficient program for the U.S. taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

MR. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, our information is somewhat different from the information just propounded. We believe indeed the record would show there have been 83 complaints. These complaints include taxpayers who have

received letters with another taxpayer's information inside. Now, if this isn't a taxpayer privacy violation, I don't know what is. At least one fine has been assessed, and this is in the early going of the program.

Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge perfection is a pretty hard standard to meet, but they have not met perfection and they have not generated the money in collection that was advertised at the beginning of this endeavor.

With that, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), who has long had concerns about this initiative and worked hard to end it.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that private debt collection is used by 40 different States, whose Governors are Republican and Democrat, and thousands of local government agencies and organizations, again, both Republican and Democrat. This isn't an issue of privatization, it is an issue of efficiency. This partnership between the IRS and private debt collectors for this group of taxpayers who are hard to collect those taxes from will yield an additional $1 billion for the American people.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Chamber that more than 40 States, not just this administration, more than 40 States, Democrat Governors and Republican Governors, use the exact same type of collection techniques, the same partnerships, to do what is right for the American people.

I would point out that we have heard claims today of literally tens of thousands of people who have been harassed by these private debt collectors, all the abuses. I would simply challenge you to name one. In this debate today, name one. Name the person, name the case where there was a privacy abuse or thousands of harassing phone calls. I would predict there will be no name mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that attached to the majority's bill that this House is considering today, according to the majority's bill, the Joint Tax Group testifies and asserts that this program, that is working today, will collect $1 billion more. You can hear every claim you want on this House floor, but their own bill says to the American public that this program will collect $1 billion more than if it were to be eliminated. That is not at dispute today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

I will be brief, Mr. Speaker.

We hear a lot of claims today about the efficiency of this program. But our agencies, the independent agencies, the Government Accountability Office and Joint Tax, make the point attached to this legislation that this program has worked, is working efficiently, and will save U.S. taxpayers more than $1 billion.

You will hear today about abuses. But the fact of the matter is they can name not one in any independent agency, including the IRS, the Treasury. Examination of the program has showed 97 percent customer satisfaction, zero privacy violations, and zero Fair Debt Collection Act violations, zero, no matter what is talked about.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is, the question before us today is not about privatization. This is about credibility. This majority has talked about closing the tax gap, what is owed and what is paid. Yet today we will widen that tax gap by over $1 billion. So the question is will we walk the walk, or just talk the talk about the tax gap.

This partnership between the IRS and these private collection agencies is working for the American public. We ought to let it continue to work for the American public, because we can use that $1 billion for health care, for education, for helping our veterans, for a number of important priorities in this budget.

And we will have some type of a financial standoff here in a few months, yet we let $1 billion escape our grasp. I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise today to recognize an important milestone in the life of one of my constituents. Mrs. Doris Lockey has served as the manager of the Social Security Administration District Office in Conroe, Texas since 1986. This alone is noteworthy.

But October 22, 2007 will mark her 40th anniversary as an employee of the Social Security Administration. Starting out as an account number clerk in 1967, I doubt Mrs. Lockey thought she would still be serving her Nation today. Whenever the residents of Texas' 8th Congressional District need help with their social security benefits, Mrs. Lockey is the person they turn to. No matter how big or small the problem, Mrs. Lockey always makes herself personally available to help. This was most evident in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita when, along with her team, she helped numerous individuals and families with their benefits and so much more.

While after 40 years most people would be celebrating retirement and the chance to collect the benefits she has spent a lifetime overseeing, Mrs. Lockey shows no signs of slowing down. I know that the people she works with on a daily basis have learned from the dedication she has demonstrated over the years. And today I hope that all of our public servants and Americans appreciate the dedication she demonstrates on a daily basis.

Mrs. Lockey is not just defined by the work she does for the Federal Government but the impact she has on our community. She volunteers with numerous local organizations that make life in Montgomery County, Texas better. She just finished a term as the President of the Rotary Club of Conroe and has served on the boards of the local United Way and The Friendship Center's Committee on Aging. Still today, she serves on the United Way's Success by Six Leadership Committee and is a very active member of Longmire Road Church of Christ.

In knowing Mrs. Lockey, what I find impressive is the fact that she takes the time to mentor a local child at Runyan Elementary School every week. The stories she is able to tell, the life lessons she is able to impart to young children provide our youth with a tremendous opportunity.

Today, I join with her family and friends, Southeast Texas, her colleagues at Social Security Administration offices in Conroe, Houston, Pasadena and Galveston, the American people and my colleagues in Congress to mark Mrs. Doris Lockey's 40th anniversary as an employee of the Social Security Administration. I am honored to recognize her amazing contributions and offer my best wishes and encouragement as she continues a life of public service with the Federal Government and her numerous volunteer activities.

Mr. Speaker, if you lose your job and lose your home or are forced to sell at a loss, only in America do you get a bill, a tax bill from Uncle Sam for forgiven debt. Having witnessed this during the terrible Texas recession of the 1980s, it is nothing less than shooting the financially wounded. There's no question this is long past time to correct this unfairness.

I applaud the authors of this bill, Representatives Lewis and Andrews, and all of those who have helped bring this to the floor today. There is serious question, however, about the way we pay for it.

Raising taxes on the sales of second homes unfairly taxes families who live in one city, but are forced to work in another, and couples who have scrimped their whole lives to enjoy a retirement home they dreamed of.

It is a poor way to fund this bill.

This $2 billion tax hike unfairly punishes those who make their house payments to help those who can't or who find themselves in a bad situation. It's a false choice, completely unrelated to each other. And yet those who profited millions of dollars from the sale of predatory and risky loans walk away unscathed. What type of accountability is that?

Because this pay-for has had no real study, no in-depth analysis by Congress, I and others worry there may well be unintended consequences that damage the value of second homes and, in the long run, not today but in the long run, harm lake communities, vacation communities, and retirement communities around the Nation whose economies are dependent upon these types of homes.

There are better ways to offset the tax cost of this bill, including raising more than $1 billion simply by allowing government workers in 457 plans to have the option of a Roth-style IRA, an option available to millions of workers in the private sector.

I am hopeful that before this bill goes to the President's desk that a change is made, whether that recommendation or another. This is an important measure to help those who are losing their homes or are in a bad situation. There is surely a fairer, more thoughtful way to pay for it.

Madam Speaker, it is bad enough that Congress continues to play politics with the war, now they are playing politics with little kids.

Despite broad bipartisan support for children's health insurance, this new leadership has settled on a divisive scheme to score political points rather than sit down and work out a reasonable solution.

Make no mistake, earlier you heard somebody say this is just a time- out. It's not a time-out. It's a cop-out. It's a cop-out to all the political hacks in Washington who want to spend 2 weeks covering your television sets and our newspapers and radio airwaves with their misleading ads rather than sitting down with us.

Meanwhile, the working poor who are parents are wondering if they are going to have any insurance for their kids past Christmastime. It doesn't have to be this way. I was here in Congress when we started this program. We sat down together with President Clinton and worked out a good program. There are a lot of us Republicans willing to do the same today.

I am hopeful that President Bush's veto will finally move our Democrat friends to stop playing political games with our kids, to sit down and pay for this bill and make it a reasonable one, end the abuses we all know are there and move this bill in a way that the President can sign it because our kids need this bill and we need to stop. It is shameful these political games we are playing here today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I stand in support of this legislation. I appreciate the chairman's leadership on extending it. I stand on behalf of Representative Wally Herger, who is author of this legislation and ranking member, lead Republican on the Trade Subcommittee of Ways and Means.

In my view, free trade is working on America's behalf. The free trade agreements we have today are producing more and more sales of American products and services around the world, nearly doubling those sales. Even though our free trade agreements are with countries that only represent 7 percent of the whole global market, in fact, they buy almost half of all that America sells and produces. In fact, we have a free trade surplus with these countries of over $5 billion. Conversely, much of our trade deficit, 80 percent of it are with countries we don't have free trade agreements with.

Nonetheless, at the same time we have to do a better job of helping those who lose their jobs due to the ever-changing world marketplace. We need to give workers more training options and more flexibility to get back on their feet as soon as possible.

Trade Adjustment Assistance has been successful in helping many adjust to job loss because of trade. The benefits, including the health coverage, tax credit, are very meaningful. Trade Adjustment Assistance can be improved in how it is administered to get people certified and trained more quickly, and changes can be made to get people back to work soon. However, this is an expensive program, costing taxpayers nearly $1 billion while providing assistance for about 54,000 workers per year. Accordingly, as the committee and as this Congress looks forward to covering additional workers who lose their jobs because of trade, we must look at it carefully to make sure we are getting the help to those who need it, that we are doing it efficiently, that we are giving them the educational tools they need to get back to the workforce just as soon as possible. And that is an area that I think will take considerable discussion, but I think there is common ground among Republicans and Democrats to try to make sure that we get as many workers back to work as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the previous speakers as well that there are lots of challenges that face American workers these days. And whether it is from competition here at home or competition from abroad, technology, or just the fact that our economy continues to transition, families need help in moving with that transition, acquiring the education, the skills. We have a huge mismatch between the jobs available in this country and the skills of the workers who can fill them, and it is important that we bridge that gap.

I would close with this point that Congressman Herger has made, I think, in all of these hearings. Trade Adjustment Assistance is just one tool in a larger policy toolbox to help workers and families and communities adjust to the new global economy. Trade Adjustment Assistance isn't the proper response to all job loss. Currently we spend billions of dollars each year through a large number of Federal programs, including Trade Adjustment Assistance, to help Americans who lose their jobs.

I think, as we work on this, you take decades-old Federal programs that need reform today such as TAA, improve their effectiveness, improve their efficiency, make sure that we are really getting that help down to families that need it in a timely way, sometimes in advance of those job losses, with the education debit cards and other new ideas that can help these workers recover more quickly. I just think there is an opportunity to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to try to resolve this and find a real good solution for this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the amazing accomplishments and career of Craig Biggio. Over the past 20 years Craig Biggio has become as much a part of life in Southeast Texas as barbecue and high school football. The legacy he leaves on the field is only rivaled by the legacy he leaves off of it. He brings the same passion to helping children and the Houston community as he does in compiling career numbers that will surely land him in the Professional Baseball Hall of Fame someday.

Craig Biggio and his wife Patti have made a direct impact on lives of countless Houston families. By raising millions of dollars and offering his thoughtful support and leadership to Sunshine Kids he has proven a true role model for the kids in the number seven jerseys at Minute Maid Park. Trips to sporting events and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo have provided a moment of joy to families affected by cancer.

Craig Biggio would have fit right in with the baseball immortals, Williams, DiMaggio and Gehrig. Biggio has been accepted by Houston as one of their own by playing the game the way it should be played. He always played tough and hard-nosed, but respectful of his teammates and opponents. While never one to be driven by statistics, his passion for the game has surely led to a spot in Cooperstown.

Earlier this summer, he joined the fraternity of select players to accumulate 3,000 career hits. He has collected four Gold Glove awards, been selected to seven All-Star teams and amassed enough career doubles to rank in the top 10 all-time. But most importantly to Astro fans are the team records he set in games played, runs scored, hits and doubles while leading his team to six playoff appearances in 9 years.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to join with Astros fans across the country, baseball fans everywhere and my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to recognize the amazing career and character of Craig Biggio. In an era where we just as often see our sports icons in the news for the wrong reasons, Texans can be proud to have witnessed one of baseball's greatest performers on the field and a tremendous example off it. I will cherish being able to share in the joy of watching Craig Biggio stretch a couple more singles into doubles over the last few months of his career. It has been a pleasure to watch him play the game the right way. On behalf of this Nation, I am honored to recognize Houston Astro Craig Biggio on his 3,000th hit, a tremendous career and being a man of tremendous character.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does do some good things, no question. It does focus on renewable energy, providing incentives for plug-in hybrid vehicles. It encourages energy-efficient homes and appliances in buildings. All of that is very good. We need to be more green as a country, and we need to have a balanced portfolio. Without question. But this is, I think, an extreme way, in some ways even a vindictive way, to achieve it.

In this bill, we create a tax on suburban moms for buying Explorers to take their children around town. We punish American companies for creating jobs here in America. We punish them for creating energy here in the United States.

There are 1.8 million jobs related to energy. What this bill does is encourage outsourcing. It actually decreases production in the U.S. of oil and gas and punishes companies for investing in the United States, a tax break that was not singled out for oil and gas. In fact, 73 Democrats on this floor supported the investment in new manufacturing and new investment in the United States.

This bill increases dependence on foreign oil; cripples America's fledgling biodiesel industry. It kills a major renewable diesel problem. There is no nuclear, no hydrogen, no new refineries, no transmission lines, no coal-to-liquid, no clean coal technology.

But it does have a study on the carbon footprint of the American Tax Code, which surely ranks just below suing OPEC as an effective way to lower prices.

Whether you call this a ``$6 a gallon gas'' bill, a ``hug Hugo Chavez'' gas bill, a ``less energy'' tax bill, the fact of the matter is we all want a new direction. But we want a new direction away from higher prices. We want a new direction away from dependence on foreign oil.

The truth is, we have to get serious about lessening our dependence on foreign oil. Light bulbs alone won't do it. New production of oil and gas, along with these new renewables, will.

Mr. Speaker, we are told this bill is fully paid for and is fiscally responsible. But how many times have we seen this same tax break on the floor supposedly paying for another bill? Is it the second time, third time? I don't mind double-counting, but there is something offensive about triple-counting. I think that is what got Enron in trouble in the first place.

Today we are using this as an excuse to raise taxes and cut jobs and cut energy production here. It is not fiscally responsible.

And by the way, the tax on SUVs is not Hummers. It is above $15,300, and that is a lot of Explorers and a lot of small business vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, for the Record, there is only one party that fought hard to make sure our seniors had life-saving drugs, even though our colleagues across the aisle had 8 years of the White House and control of the Senate and never brought a bill to the floor to help our seniors with their medicines.

And I'd point out that while many lobbyists in Washington support this bill, I've not heard from one hospital, not one nurse, not one physician, not one senior who supports this bill.

380,000, that's how many Texas elderly will likely lose their personal Medicare plan as a result of this bill. 107,000, that's how many seniors in the Houston-Beaumont-Huntsville region will see serious cuts in their Medicare Advantage plan, or be forced into other plans with less health care coverage as a result of $50 billion of unnecessary and drastic Medicare cuts.

This is kid care versus Medicare. And only in the poisonous environment of Washington do politicians pit children against their grandparents. It is a cynical and a false choice that will leave many seniors stranded without the health care plan that fits their needs.

I, like others, support covering more children for health insurance, but not at the expense of elderly.

I sit on the committee charged with preserving Medicare, keeping seniors healthy; and these Medicare Advantage plans are the preferred plan for many of our Texas elderly. They're especially critical to our rural and low-income and minority seniors because they provide a comprehensive plan with medicines and emphasis on prevention.

I also believe that before Congress expands CHIP to higher-income families, it should first help the children of low-income families which the program was designed to serve. Maybe we should subsidize the coverage for the bank president's kids, but shouldn't we first help the health care for the bank teller's kids?

Texas, like many States, barely covers half of the children already eligible for this; and, as a Congress, our goal should be to cover the children of working poor first.

Mr. Speaker, if we want good jobs for our families, it is no longer enough to buy American; we have to sell American, sell our products and services throughout the world. The good news is that, since January, what we are selling overseas is growing faster than what America is buying from overseas.

The way to sustain that positive trend is to keep finding new customers like Peru and Panama, Colombia and South Korea. If we are serious about creating better jobs, Congress should pass the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement this year. Korea is one of the top ten economies in the world. They are our seventh largest customer, and an even bigger customer for America's agricultural community.

This agreement will give us access to nearly 50 million new customers and open the door to competing better in the entire Asian market, including against China. This agreement will lower border taxes and barriers to America's manufacturers, technology, insurance and financial services companies, our farmers and ranchers.

This fall, Congress needs to spend less time settling old political scores and more time opening up markets for good old American products in Korea.

Mr. Speaker, this tax increase, however called, ripped from the headlines, ``Cayman Islands, tax cheats, tax dodgers, Caribbean.'' The only thing they didn't work in was Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan.

The fact of the matter is I had planned to vote for this farm bill until this ``dark night'' tax increase. And here's the key. You hear them talk about 2002. The Treasury Department said ``close the loophole.'' There is a reason they're not talking about 2007, because since then, in the 5 years, this Congress closed those loopholes. The Treasury Department closed those loopholes. And that same Treasury Department they cite today says this is a tax increase that jeopardizes U.S. jobs, cuts investment to this country, violates tax treaties, and keeps companies from creating jobs in the United States. And it also punishes U.S. energy companies for exploring in our deep waters and for honoring their Federal contracts.

This rule is a sham and deserves to be voted down.

Mr. Speaker, traveling to Iraq this past weekend to see firsthand how the surge is working, I really expected the worst. Instead, I am very encouraged.

Communities all across Iraq are turning against al Qaeda and working with Iraqi and coalition forces to take back their cities. Half of Baghdad is no longer safe for insurgents. Al Qaeda is not down and out but clearly back on its heels, rejected by the very communities and religious leaders it claims to fight for.

Now make no mistake, there are still serious challenges, including high-profile bombings, the need for Iraq's Government to resolve key issues now, and Iran's continued support for terrorism. But I am convinced the new strategy is working, and we have impressive leaders and impressive troops in place to see even more progress.

Mr. Speaker, while Congress has the right to debate this war, it has the responsibility to help win it as well. That means letting this new strategy work through the end of the year, or the beginning of the next, if we are truly serious about a stable Iraq and a safer America.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Carol White Physical Education Program was named after a longstanding and dedicated public servant here on Capitol Hill. Carol White, a long-time Chief of Staff for Senator Ted Stevens, who aptly named this program because they have dedicated their lives to trying to make this country better inside our schools and out. This program provides the funding basically to help schools initiate and expand their physical education programs, which is just a great goal, and many of the grants have been used for playground equipment on schools.

Physical education is important. I think we all know that. Our young people are becoming more and more static between video games and television shows and sometimes lack of outdoor recreation. We are seeing more obesity. It is important that PE be part of an integral curriculum of our schools. In fact, our States and local districts have targeted PE as an area that they want to reintroduce back to the curriculum for our children.

The only reason I raise this program up is to have some type of thoughtful debate about who should fund PE programs and, more importantly, what should our Federal priorities be.

I ask that because I know that today we are running a deficit. We have a major national debt. I know that every dollar that we spend above the deficit, and we will run a deficit again with the budget we are discussing today, but I know that every dollar that goes to our public debt is picked up by these same children we are trying to help where it will result in a tax increase for families. So it seems right and proper that we scrutinize every program regardless of how much we might admire the person it is named after.

This program has been rated by the program assessment rating tool as the results not demonstrated at this point. I imagine that is why the President did not request funding for it. Like the chairman, who has identified apparently 200 or more programs for dismissal, we have to make tough choices.

What we are seeking here is a simple question. In our rural schools and our smaller schools, they have the money to buy playground equipment or to build a swingset for kids. What they don't have is money to hire a special needs teacher. What they don't have is money to help kids read and write at grade level. What they don't have is money to help try to prevent the dropouts that are hitting our schools and a case where nearly half of our minorities in eighth grade or ninth and graduating to 12th grade. It just seems to me that from the Federal funding level, our local schools can afford a playground set. What we need to help them with is what they can't afford, which are teachers to help our special needs kids; equipment to help our kids with disabilities; teachers in science, in math, and technology subjects; food for kids who come to school hungry. Despite the merits and the goal which are so laudable for this program, it seems to me that we ought to set our highest priorities to help schools with what they cannot do today, which really is to help our kids read and write, to help our special needs students reach their potential, to try to stop this horrendous dropout rate in America.

So I would propose that we, as the President suggested, not fund this program, reserve those resources. And, again, these are tough choices you always have to make through the process. It is not much fun either way. I am sure the chairman did not delight in cutting any of the programs that he had proposed. It is just a way that we try to get closer to a balanced budget and try to prioritize where we fund our schools and our kids and, again, try to make the greatest use of every tax dollar we have.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.