Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a good friend, devoted mother and grandmother, and outstanding advocate for service work in her community and throughout the country, Mrs. Sharon Wagner Braiteh.

In 1995 she was one of the top five nominees for the Houston Mayors Award for Outstanding Volunteer Service. In 2000 she was recognized by the Legal Assistants Division of the State Bar of Texas with the Exceptional Pro Bono Award for her work with Child Advocates, the Texas Volunteer Lawyers Association, and as a speaker and educator in numerous HIV/AIDS events. In 2001 she was recognized by Catholic Charities as their volunteer of the year. She served six summers as a counselor for the Texas Children's Hospital/AIDS Foundation Houston CAMP H.U.G. She is a 2003 graduate of Project LEAP, and has served as a volunteer with the Texas Medical Center Hospice. She has also worked with the National Youth Leadership Forum on Medicine annually since 1998.

In 2004 Sharon was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. As she had done before she immediately became involved in helping cancer patients throughout the country by becoming an integral part of the Angel Flight Organization that provides free air transportation for patients seeking treatment in major medical centers throughout the country.

Despite her ongoing battle with non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Sharon remains an integral part and member of her church, Palmer Memorial Episcopal, and as a member of the Community of Hope and Angel Flight continues to give aid and assistance to patients who come from out of town to the Texas Medical Center for treatment.

The Rotary Club of Lake Conroe will plant a Texas native Live Oak Tree in Memory Park adjacent to the new Charles B Stewart Library in Montgomery in Sharon's honor to commemorate her efforts on behalf of all the causes she has championed and as a reminder to the citizens of Montgomery County, the entire Eighth District and all the world of her tireless and devoted efforts for those in need.

Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring this outstanding woman and in applauding her work in expanding education and service to all who seek it and have benefited from it, and in inspiring many to love and serve, including her daughter who is nearing completion of her nursing degree at Lamar University.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill which would provide a short-term extension of current trade preferences to our Andean neighbors.

I have always supported the Andean trade program designed to help create alternative jobs and economies to those in the drug trade and to offer hope to these nations.

And it has worked. Millions of jobs have developed in the region in the flower industry, in agriculture, all that contribute to stabilization and economic growth, all of which are in America's interest.

But preferences which are one-way trade into America aren't permanent. They aren't designed that way because they matter. The impact on American asparagus farmers, which has shrunk by a third as a result of these preferences is a good example. And that's why it's imperative that we work with our Andean neighbors to transition to two- way free trade agreements that balance and strengthen our relationships.

Not only is two-way trade fair, but it benefits all parties by encouraging more permanent investment in nations where rule of law, property rights, democracy and higher labor environmental standards are insisted upon. This helps create even more jobs in the legitimate market, more so than the preferences do today.

As an example, Peru's legislature today voted to amend our agreement that incorporates important labor and environmental provisions negotiated by Chairman Rangel, Ranking Member McCrery and others.

Approving the pending free trade agreements with partners Peru and Colombia have significant security and foreign policy implications as well by strengthening our hand against President Chavez in Venezuela and his corrosive influence in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I support the preference extension. We shouldn't disrupt current trade flows or hurt our friends in the region whose livelihoods depend upon this program, but we need to move forward in a timely manner with agreements with Peru and Colombia.

I am hopeful that Ecuador and Bolivia understand that one-way preferences are temporary and require a good faith effort on their part to address outstanding trade and expropriation issues if they wish to continue.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the Jasper High School Bulldogs on their 3A Texas State Baseball Championship. Jasper, TX, is an enchanting town in southeast Texas and a proud part of the Eighth Congressional District.

The Bulldogs stormed through the State Tournament outscoring their opponents 25-7, including a 14-4 victory in the final game to set a record for most runs in the 3A State Championship game. This was their first trip to the finals, after semi-final runs five previous times.

Every member of the team contributed over their championship run and Ryan Ellis was named the most valuable player of the state tournament after he drove in four runs with three hits and pitched the final 2\1/ 3\ innings in relief of starter Aaron Stephenson. The Bulldogs played with a team mentality the entire season, and they should all be proud to call themselves champions.

Members and staff of the Championship winning team include: Head Coach: Shawn Mixon; Assistant Coaches: Steve Smith, David Ford, Joey Brown; and Players: Malcolm Bronson, Ryan Ellis, Taylor Hart, Justin Parsons, Chantz Pryor, Blake Weller-Alexander, Jaylon Clotiaux, Robert Shellhammer, Aaron Stephenson, Cord Yates, Travis Reagan, John Bradley, Garrett Harrell, Fermin Gonzalez, Parker Phillips, Tyler Ernest, Ty Parker, Matthew Daniel, and Marx Marcantel.

Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring the Jasper Bulldogs as they continue to be champions both on and off the field.

Mr. Speaker, my message today is to our State Department in Houston. We have a problem, a serious passport problem that reached a crisis stage. We have families who applied in February for their passports that have not received them yet. We have wives that can't meet their soldier husbands on leave from Iraq. We have families who aren't able to go to experimental surgery out of this country, families leaving for the last time before college together who are simply denied the opportunity to travel.

Our passport offices are overwhelmed. Our people wait in line for hours, if not days, getting there at 4 o'clock in the morning. We appreciate the 20 additional staff the State Department sent. They are overwhelmed. We appreciate the 1-800 number. It is a middle man and causing more problems.

We need more staff. We need more information call lines manned 24/7. We need more resources. It is wrong. As our constituents tell us, they feel like they are in a third-world country. We think they deserve better treatment than that; and this deserves immediate attention, immediate, absolute action by the State Department.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the 34th Annual National Emergency Medical Services Week, designated this year May 20-26, 2007. It is truly a privilege to honor these brave men and women who provide essential lifesaving services to our communities throughout the Eighth Congressional District.

EMS Week serves as a time to honor and celebrate our medical emergency personnel. These men and women respond to tragedies and situations we pray never come to us or our loved ones. They respond at a moment's notice to people caught in unimaginable circumstances and work tirelessly to provide emergency treatment and offer hope.

As children we all learned the value of stop, drop, and roll. Today our children learn those lessons and more that help keep them safe. From paramedics and EMTs to police officers and fire fighters, each serves a crucial role in keeping our communities educated and prepared to prevent future emergencies.

As we observe EMS Week this year let us not forget those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while performing their duty. These great men and women who have dedicated themselves to protecting and saving the lives of our loved ones should not be forgotten. The safety of our friends and families depends on individuals like them who arrive to work every day prepared to respond, protect, and save lives.

As we celebrate this week I salute every hardworking American for their role in ensuring the safety of our communities. I also encourage you as residents to become aware of health and safety issues and familiarize yourself with emergency procedures. Let's all chip in and do our part to ensure our neighborhoods and streets remain safe for all to enjoy.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of debate tonight about the need for the affordable housing fund. This amendment relates to what I hope will be the fairness of the affordable housing fund. Right now in the first year the allocation for the affordable housing fund is restricted to Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, but only in Louisiana and Mississippi.

This is Hurricane Rita, the fourth largest hurricane in the gulf coast history. It was actually larger than Hurricane Katrina. On the Texas side, the area that I represent, as you can see here, we had 70,000 homes damaged or destroyed. That is 70,000 homes damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Rita.

Today, 18 months after that hurricane, what no one in America knows is that 10 percent of those who fled Hurricane Rita have yet to return to southeast Texas. Ten percent have not come home because they have no home in southeast Texas.

What this amendment does is provides a fair treatment for Texas communities devastated by Hurricane Rita. It takes the principle, same hurricane, same devastation, we should have same treat.

Under this amendment, Louisiana and Mississippi would still receive the bulk of the allocation at 70 percent and 20 percent, and Texas would be eligible for 10 percent. My preference would be to not take a dime from Louisiana and Mississippi. I understand how devastated those communities are. But I have seen the devastation in our southeast Texas communities. Our roofs are torn off and our homes are destroyed. Our people can't come back to their communities because there is no housing. And these counties are predominantly Democratic, poor, with heavy African American populations. Ironically, these were the same counties across the Louisiana line who were the very first to open their homes and shelters and churches to those fleeing Hurricane Katrina. Yet today, they can't rebuild their own homes, they can't return to their own communities because this is often called ``the forgotten hurricane.''

What I am hopeful is that the current allocation is an oversight. And the fact of the matter is that the national media moved over so quickly over Hurricane Rita that not many people understand just how badly the communities were devastated.

I am hopeful that the majority will agree with me that we don't divide a hurricane along State lines and don't provide different treatment for the same hurricane for the same communities. Where we don't have homeowners in Orange whose homes have been destroyed with no help, but their cousin down the road in Lake Charles gets the help they deserve. That is not what this government is about.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment. We ought not have two classes of citizens in America: Those who have help from hurricanes and

those who are left stranded. I think this Congress is better than that.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the arguments that my friend from Louisiana has made, but I think it is important to understand that you can't tell someone in one State, your home is destroyed, your roof has been torn off, a tree has gone through it; but you are in this State, so we will help you. The exact same hurricane and the exact same devastation, forget it, take a hike. You deserve no help from us.

I don't think any citizen in America who has seen their home destroyed ought to have to compete against someone else in another State to get Federal help. I mean, aren't we supposed to be treating our citizens equally?

And when you have a hurricane that's devastated both sides of the State line, why are we dividing that hurricane along the State line? Mother Nature can't do it, and Congress shouldn't either.

We should help those people, regardless. One hurricane, same treatment, same devastation. I think we have a moral responsibility to help people who no longer can return to their homes, whether it is in New Orleans or whether it is in Orange, Texas. We have the exact same moral responsibility to help, and I cannot see how we, as a government, can justify different treatments, treating one group as second-class citizens when they've done nothing but suffer devastating damage and open their own homes and hearts and churches to help others. It is wrong.

Let's not divide this hurricane along State lines. Let's help these folks.

It is a negligible change for our friends in Louisiana and Mississippi. It is a huge help for the people in southeast and east Texas who have no homes.

I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia giving me a few minutes.

I don't know anyone who would support a housing fund that turns its back on your citizens who were devastated by the fourth largest hurricane in gulf coast history. I also don't understand a Congress that has citizens compete against each other who have both lost their homes, who aren't just living in trailers.

My people, maybe we have 1,700 living in trailers, but we have another 10 percent who don't live in trailers who can't even come back to the communities that they used to live in, can't even come back. They're not living in trailers. They've moved away. They can't come back because there is no housing.

Their only fault apparently is that they were on the wrong side of the State line for the exact same hurricane, and it seems to me I would prefer not to pick a 70 percent, a 20 percent, a 10 percent figure. I wish there were a better way to do it.

But I do know this. We ought not pit families against each other for competing for dollars that they all need and provide one on one State line all the help they can get and another, we just turn their back.

I know how much this has harmed Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. There's no question about the need there. What I'm saying, there is an equal need for each family in southeast Texas who are poor, who are predominantly Democratic counties, heavily African American communities, the ones who rely and need this housing. I just think this body ought to look at all of them equally to provide that help if we can do it.

Perhaps this body will turn its back on these people. Well, I will tell you what, when it came to Hurricane Katrina, they didn't turn their back on the evacuees from New Orleans. One little town of 500 took in 500 evacuees on the very first night, doubled their whole population just to help. We had folks in Orange who stayed up for 72 hours straight helping people from New Orleans on buses who had lost everything and lost families. These are the same people we're turning our backs on tonight.

I don't know what the allocation is, Mr. Chairman, a fair one is. I honestly don't. I do know that we ought to provide equal help and equal hope to these communities devastated by the exact same hurricane.

If the question is did I vote for a housing fund that would turn its back on my communities, well, no, I did not vote for that housing fund.

I don't know anyone in this body who intentionally turns their back on any communities. I do know that my district is Texas, but with redistricting I never know what State I may end up in.

But as of this moment, I know my communities well and I think, just as Mr. Jefferson, just as Gene and others know their communities and how much heartache they've gone through, I feel strongly that this body ought to try to help equally communities devastated by the exact same hurricane.

Our policy ought to be no second-class citizens in recovery and hurricane relief. Treat them equally for the same hurricane.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Brady of Texas

Amendment No. 34: Page 130, line 8, strike ``75 percent''

and insert ``70 percent''.

Page 130, line 11, strike ``25 percent'' and insert ``20

percent''.

Page 130, after line 11, insert the following:

``(iii) The allocation percentage for the Texas Department

of Housing and Community Affairs shall be 10 percent.''.

Page 130, line 19, after ``in connection with'' insert the

following: ``(i) in the case of the grantees specified in

clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A),''.

Page 130, line 20, before the period insert ``, and (ii) in

the case of the grantee specified in clause (iii) of

subparagraph (A), Hurricane Rita of 2005''.

Page 149, line 16, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.

Page 149, line 17, before the semicolon insert the

following: ``, and the Texas Department of Housing and

Community Affairs''.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the House of Representatives' attention to the many accomplishments of the Memorial Hermann Healthcare System. This year marks the system's 100th year of providing the most advanced healthcare to the people of Texas. Though the Memorial Hermann name has only been in use since 1997, the hospitals that form this great healthcare system have been a cornerstone of the Houston medical community for over a century.

Their story began in 1907 when Rev. Dennis Pevoto led an effort to purchase an 18-bed sanitarium in downtown Houston, and converted it into what would eventually become known as the Memorial Hospital System. Under its new leadership, the hospital would treat all patients, regardless of religion, race or their ability to pay--a mission that has not changed in the hospital's 100 year history.

Seven years later, prominent Houstonian George H. Hermann bequeathed nearly $2.6 million for the construction of a hospital dedicated to treating the poor and sick of Houston. By 1925 the Hermann Hospital was accepting patients and opening a school of nursing. Eventually, the two hospitals would merge to form what is now known as Memorial Hermann.

Throughout its first 100 years, the hospitals that now form the Memorial Hermann system have been at the leading edge of medicine and technology. Their many firsts include being the first general hospital in Texas to receive penicillin (1943), performing the first cardiac catheterization in Texas (1946), being the first hospital in the nation to be air conditioned (1949), establishing the first general practice residency in Texas (1957), establishing the first hospital-based speech clinic in the South (1965), being the first community hospital in the nation to offer routine hearing tests for newborns (1969), and performing the first ever hand transplant (1992). These accomplishments and many more have brought the medical professionals of Memorial Hermann national and international recognition as one of the best in the business. In fact, Memorial was first voted a ``Top 100'' hospital in the nation beginning in 1996.

Today, the Memorial Hermann Healthcare System encompasses 16 hospitals employing nearly 19,000 throughout Texas. Its state-of-the- art facilities treat patients and train the nation's next generation of physicians across the state, including in my hometown of The Woodlands.

Madam Speaker, the lives this wonderful hospital has touched are countless. I congratulate them on reaching this magnificent milestone and wish them the best for their next 100 years.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Gay Chionsini, a unique and caring friend that I personally had the pleasure of working with in the Greater Beaumont Chamber of Commerce. Gay enjoyed a wonderful career with the Chamber and after nearly three decades of outstanding service decided to retire on April 30, 2007. Gay ended her career much the same way she started, as the face of the organization to all of its members and the community at-large. Like many others who have contributed to our community-based organizations and chambers all over Texas, Gay built strong relationships and a wealth of goodwill in and outside of the Beaumont business community. Gay's hard work, wisdom and dedication were critical in the day to day operation of the chamber and the achievement of its future goals.

Gay has had a distinguished 28 year career working for the Greater Beaumont Chamber of Commerce and during that time served as the membership sales director, projects manager, office manager, executive secretary to the president, assistant to the director of public affairs, and secretary to the director of transportation. Gay and I had the pleasure of working together in the 1980's and I can tell you from first hand experience Gay was the consummate team player and I can not think of a better ambassador to the Beaumont community than Gay Chionsini.

It is with deep respect and admiration that I commend Gay Chionsini for her 28 years of service to the Beaumont area, and wish her and her family the very best in retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a dear friend and outstanding advocate for higher education, Mrs. Mary Matteson-Parrish. Mrs. Matteson-Parrish served on the North Harris Montgomery Community College District (NHMCCD) Board of Trustees from 1993 to 2005. During her tenure she served as Board Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary and Audit Committee Chair.

While on the Board of Trustees, Mary co-chaired the citizen's committee which worked tirelessly to conduct a successful petition drive and election campaign that permitted the Conroe Independent School District to join NHMCCD in 1991 thus creating higher education opportunities for thousands of Montgomery County students and workers. In addition, Mrs. Matteson-Parrish's commitment to improving access and enhancing the educational opportunities for citizens led to the growth of the North Harris Montgomery College District from 6 to 11 independent school districts and the expansion of services and facilities from three campuses to five comprehensive colleges: North Harris College, Kingwood College, Tomball College, Montgomery College and Cy-Fair College.

This week Montgomery College will name its art gallery the Mary Matteson-Parrish Art Gallery in testimony of the community's appreciation and respect for Mary's dedication to and leadership in providing high quality educational opportunities for the citizens of Montgomery County and the entire Eighth District of Texas.

I join with these communities in honoring this outstanding leader and in applauding her work in expanding educational opportunities to all who seek to learn.

Mr. Speaker, our prayers are with the Virginia Tech families as well.

Paying tax is bad enough, but the time it takes to figure them out, I think, is almost worse. You should not need an accountant to do your taxes or live in fear of making an honest mistake.

For our children's sake, we need to sunset this Tax Code and replace it with something far simpler, like a flat tax or, my choice, a retail sales tax. Can you imagine never having to fill out a tax form again in your life? Can you imagine having the IRS completely and totally out of your life?

Let's not forget we need to keep taxes low. Tax Freedom Day for Texas families is this Thursday. That is the first day since New Year's that Texas families will begin working for themselves, not for the government.

My constituents are worried that the new Democrat budget allows President Bush's tax relief to expire, which would raise taxes $2,700 a year on our families. Washington needs to tighten its belt before it demands that our families tighten theirs.

Well, thank you. And I appreciate joining the two gentlemen from Georgia who continue to look out every day for the family's pocket books, rather than Washington's pocket books, which I fear is too deep. And the point I always try to make, I am in my 11th year in Congress, serve on the Ways and Means Committee, have worked on all of President Bush's tax relief. And I am convinced that Washington has all the money it needs. It just doesn't have all the money it wants. And there is a big difference between the two.

And tonight, as you and I talk, millions of Americans are scrambling at the last minute to file their taxes, rummaging through cabinets and drawers and bank statements, anxious to try to comply with the complicated Tax Code. And they are willing to pay their fair share. But our code is so complex that they worry.

Paying taxes is bad enough. But the time wasted in figuring them is almost worse. You shouldn't need an accountant to do your taxes, and you shouldn't live in fear of just making an honest mistake. For our sanity's sake, and I think for our children's sake, we really need to sunset this awful Tax Code and replace it with something far more simple, like a flat tax or my preference, a retail sales tax. And I love the retail sales tax because, can you imagine, can you imagine never having to fill out a tax return again in your lifetime? Never. Can you imagine the IRS being completely, totally out of your life forever?

And as we talk about how complex this code is, let's not forget we need to keep our taxes low. Tax Freedom Day for Texas families is this Thursday. And that is the first day since New Year's that Texans will start working for themselves and not for the government. For the rest of the country, on average, you have still got two more weeks, April 30. In fact, most families in America will get to the fifth month of the year. Can you imagine? The fifth month of the year before they stop working for the government and start working for their dreams, for their families, for what they want to accomplish in life. And I think most of us would feel better if we felt that Washington wasn't wasting so much of our hard-earned money.

My families are worried that the new Democrat budget allows President Bush's tax relief to expire, which would increase taxes on families in Texas $2,700 a year; $2,700 more for each, a typical Texas family.

I talked over the April work period with Kirk and Sandy Noyes of the Woodlands; visited with Marty and Ty Drake in their home in Livingston; Buck and Ava Anderson of Cleveland in their living room; sat down in the kitchen with Ed and Connie Heiman of Magnolia; Elmer and Pauline Hensley of Lumberton; Pat and Ashley Canfield of Huntsville. We talked about what that $2,700 would mean to their families, and they talked about the medical bills for their young children because co-pays and deductibles add up so quickly. They talked about car insurance, how expensive that is. Marty Drake is a police officer. He said, You know, I will work overtime, all of my high school football games, use all that money just to pay that extra bill.

One woman, who is it? Connie Heiman in Magnolia, she works at a doctor's office just so she can pay the health care. And she said, We don't have any extra money. And her husband runs the flooring store in Magnolia. He said, I can't work longer. I work 6\1/2\ days a week as it is.

And my belief is that we are, despite what Washington thinks, we are an overtaxed Nation. And all you need to do is look at your own day to understand it. We wake up in the morning, get in the shower, we pay a water tax. We grab a cup of coffee, pay a sales tax. Drive down to work, pay a fuel tax. At work we pay, not just payroll tax but income tax as well. Get home at night, flip on the switch, walk in the door, turn on the lights, pay the electricity tax, pick up the phone, pay a telephone tax, turn on the TV, pay cable tax, kiss

our wife goodnight, pay a marriage penalty tax and we do that every day of our life. And when we die, we pay a death tax. We are an overtaxed Nation.

And in my belief, we need to continue, not just for our economy, but for our families, we need to continue President Bush's tax relief because our families can't take this extra hit. The marriage penalty will come back to life. That is wrong. In fact, Ways and Means, and I will finish with this, because we have other Members who need to visit as well. But we did the tax relief not for grins and giggles, but for two important reasons. One was fairness. The marriage penalty is unfair. The death tax is unfair. The State and local sales tax structure, it was unfair for other States to have an advantage. And another reason is to spur this economy. After 9/11, we took three big hits: 9/11, the recession and the wonderful Enrons and WorldComs of the world. Our economy took huge hits. We targeted tax relief, and we have had 40 straight months of job growth, created 7.5 million new jobs. We are going to risk that? We are going to risk this strong economy raising taxes on families and small businesses? It doesn't make sense. My belief is Washington needs to tighten its belt before we ask our families and small businesses to tighten theirs.

Mr. Chairman, I look at our families in Texas, everything seems more expensive these days, whether it is getting your kids through school or paying medical bills or insurance or paying light bills; and it is tough enough for family budgets to stretch as it is. I just cannot imagine why we in Washington would hand our families another tax bill for $2,700 for Texas families and expect them to like it, especially since we can balance this budget without that tax increase.

When I talk to our Texas seniors, the first thing they tell me is, please stop spending our Social Security money, quit spending the trust fund; that is our money. Yet, the Democrat budget spends that Social Security trust fund. The Republican budget for the first time in 40 years stops spending it, preserves it for Social Security.

When I look at small businesses, who are the backbone of our country and really struggle to make payroll, I used to be a Chamber of Commerce manager. I know how hard it is to meet that payroll. And 26 million small business owners, we are going to hand them another tax bill of about $4,000 on top of what they struggle today? That is just asking too much, especially when we can balance the budget without those tax increases, without taking senior's Social Security, and do it the right way.

That is why I respectfully disagree, strongly disagree with this bill and why we need to pass the Republican alternative. It makes much more sense for our families.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee, Mr. Saxton, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

A couple of corrections here. Let me make the point that the American economy is still one of the strongest in the Nation, in the world, the largest economy in the world. We have had 42 straight months of job growth. We have created 7.6 million new jobs under President Bush. We have low unemployment. And this was all done as President Bush inherited a recession as he took office.

I should make note that President Clinton inherited an expanding economy. President Bush inherited one that was slipping into recession. And you don't need to take my word for it. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Laureate and President's Clinton's own chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, observed the economy was slipping into recession even before President Bush took office.

So let's talk about the facts. Let's talk about this budget. I actually think it is a healthy thing that we are arguing over how to balance the Federal budget. That is something that ought to be a goal of both parties.

And, frankly, as a Republican, I am convinced one of the reasons we got fired from management of Congress is that we forgot to pursue a balanced budget. We forgot to limit spending. We forgot to try to look out for the American taxpayer.

I oppose this Democratic budget because it increases the Federal deficit by billions of dollars next year. It continues to raid the Social Security trust fund, and it does include the largest tax increase in American history. And that is not only fiscally irresponsible, it means a staggering $2,700 tax increase for our average Texas family of four.

Now, this budget will spend nearly $3 trillion next year, and we will impose almost $400 billion of tax increases to finance new Federal spending. If you look at what it does, it allows President Bush's tax relief to expire, bringing back the marriage penalty, bringing back the death tax, cutting the child tax credit in half, and raising the income capital gains and dividend tax rates.

And their budget, closer to home, next year it also kills the State and local sales tax deduction, which I and others on both sides of the aisle worked so hard to restore. That State sales tax deduction saves Texas families $1 billion annually, and they will see a new tax increase shortly after this holiday season.

And what is, I think, most absurd, I was listening to the chairman of the Budget Committee's discussion on shenanigans and I thought, I have not seen a bigger shenanigan in any budget in history than what is called the reserve account in the Democrat budget. What they say is, we will do tax relief for middle-class families, but we will pay for it with the reserve account. You ask, what is in the reserve account? And not a single dime, not a single dollar. It is as if someone said, here is a check for what I promise you, but the bank account is empty. I don't know if there will be money in it ever. I don't know how to put money in it. But, trust me, here is a check. Those reserve accounts are the biggest shenanigan.

And after years of criticizing President Bush for not eliminating or at least reforming the alternative minimum tax, the Democrat budget doesn't allow for even 1 year of it, which means an additional 20 million Americans will be hit by this growing tax next year.

I am backing an alternative budget, the Republican budget, that balances the budget in 5 years without a tax increase and ends the raid on the Social Security trust fund.

It seems to me tonight we have probably as clear a choice as we have had in many years between the Democrat philosophy of balancing the budget and the Republican.

The Democrat philosophy in this budget is, we will balance it, which is good for them. We balance it by increasing spending and increasing taxes on hardworking families.

The Republicans approach is, we will balance it a different way, by limiting the spending and by keeping the tax relief that families need. And there has never been a clearer choice.

And I think, too, I look at the promises that were made last campaign by

our new majority. We are going to reduce the deficit. Yet, under this budget, the deficit will actually increase $36 billion in 1 year, $36 billion. That compass is headed the wrong direction.

They said, we will stop spending the Social Security trust fund, but they spend all of it this year and in every year. And they say, we promise middle-class tax relief, but, instead, they provide tax increases on families and small businesses and single moms with children.

In a moment I am going to go through some of those tax increases which, frankly, as expensive as life is these days for most families, I know our families in Texas can't quite handle that big a hit.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to make the point that under President Clinton's watch we did have a strong economy. It turned out that much of it was false, based on the supposed paper accounts of Enron and WorldCom and others. Too many families woke up after the Clinton administration and realized that retirement fund they had counted on their whole life wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

And I will make the point, too, that after the attacks of 9/11, after this recession, after this administration handled the fallout of this recession, that we bounced back with tax relief that created 7.6 million new jobs in America. We are going in the right direction.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), former head of the Republican Study Committee and one of our leaders on fiscal discipline.

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

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

The gentleman does make many relevant points, just not relevant accuracies.

The truth of the matter is he claimed that the Democrats balanced the budget in 1994, but there was a $200 billion deficit in 1994. In fact, it was the Republican Congress that balanced the Federal budget for the first time after 40 years of Democrat leadership in Washington, D.C.

The gentlewoman from New York claims that manufacturing jobs were lost under President Bush, but manufacturing losses began in 1998, 1999, and 2000 under President Clinton's administration.

And while I agree with the gentlewoman that the $9 trillion debt is unconscionable, I will point out that in every budget that we passed in the 10 years that I have been here, Democrats voted against it because it was not spending enough. And the gentleman in front of me just said we haven't spent enough on Katrina, we haven't spent enough on education, we haven't spent enough on health care; yet they say we shouldn't be spending this much. And that $9 trillion debt, when I go onto their Web sites, when I look at the press releases on all the pork barrel projects, I brought home this highway fund, this university research, I brought home this special program, now, either they didn't support that spending or they are just claiming credit for that spending.

You can't have it both ways. You can't be fiscally responsible. You are spending too much. No, you are spending too little, and I am taking credit for what you did.

The fact of the matter is when we look at the Democratic budget, what we see is a massive tax rate, massive new spending, all in an effort, I think, to reclaim the title of the biggest government possible.

I try to explain this to my taxpayers back home and my families, what does this budget mean to you?

You look at an elderly couple in Texas with $40,000 income. That is where the husband and the wife is still working. Under the Democrat bill, this elderly couple in Texas, their tax bill would rise by $1,000 a year. That is a lot of money for a senior citizen and his wife.

A family of four with $60,000 in earnings, that is maybe a firefighter and a secretary, this bill would increase their taxes by $1,800. A family of four, which probably is struggling already to make ends meet.

For a single parent with two children and $30,000 in income, that is a single mom working in the local school district, under Republicans, at the end of the year she would get back almost $2,500. Under the Democrat tax increase bill, she would get $1,600 less.

I know in Washington $1,600 doesn't seem like a lot, but when you are a single mom working at the local school district with two kids, that is a lot of clothes, that is a lot of car insurance, that is a lot of medical bills for young people. This budget hands these families a tax hit that, frankly, they can't afford.

Taxes will rise, on the average, for 26 million small business owners by almost $4,000. That is a lot of payroll. That may be the only profit they make all year.

Then, by eliminating the lowest tax bracket, you are going to take 5 million taxpayers in America who didn't have to pay taxes, we are going to hand them a tax bill and say we want to do this so we can spend more in Washington. So that we can try to balance the budget on the backs of hardworking families in America, we are going to spend more.

What my Democrat friends have never figured out is, Washington has all the money it needs. It just doesn't have all the money it wants. It is time we know the difference.

I am supporting the Republican alternative, which balances the budget without this massive tax increase. In fact, there is no tax increase at all. For the first time in many, many years, it does not spend the Social Security trust fund, which is just critical.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that good people disagree on this war, but, in my heart, this bill betrays our troops, ensures defeat and guarantees that when our fighting men and women come home to America, the terrorists will follow.

This bill cannot stand on its merits, but is brought with promises of spinach and peanuts and pork.

Not content to let our soldiers win this war, this bill instead substitutes a brilliant military strategy that gives our enemies this timetable: America will raise a white flag next year, but if you fight harder, we will quit sooner.

Thank God General George Washington wasn't hamstrung with such brilliance.

After the attacks of 9/11, I recall our enemies predicting America did not have the backbone or the will to persevere in this war. This bill proves them right.

On Monday, we buried one of our heroes in our community, Private First Class Cory Kosters. As I witnessed the remarkable courage and faith of his family, as I watched his flag-draped coffin presented at the National Veterans Cemetery surrounded by his friends and airborne brothers saying their final good-bye, I promised myself I will not quit on our soldiers, I will not quit on their mission. I will not guarantee America's defeat, nor allow future generations of Americans to live in terror because we lack the courage and conviction of the greatest generations that preceded us.

Madam Speaker, watching television late last night I was reminded of the vivid contrast between Congress and the war on terror. On the one channel I watched Members of the House theatrically debating this nonbinding, that means pretend, resolution, while the other channel showed an American chopper hit by a rocket- propelled grenade and billowing black smoke, falling in the death spiral to the ground, killing all American soldiers aboard.

Tonight our soldiers face real bullets and real explosive devices; we debate a pretend resolution. I wish I could say this is merely a waste of time, but it is far more damaging than that. As Lincoln warned, a house divided itself cannot stand. Yet today our Congress stands divided for all the world to see. Our enemies are smiling and our soldiers are sick at heart.

Don't take my word for it. Let me read you an e-mail I received this week from a decorated Army soldier who served in the gulf war and again in Iraq on this war on terror.

He writes: ``The troops support the mission, support the President, and support the surge. We are moving the brigade out of here soon. I cannot be more adamant about the fact that partisan politics is hurting the mission and the morale. We want to win the war not the White House.''

I fear that some see that in the other order. The troops want to complete this mission. Congress wanted a change in the strategy, they got a change, now they don't want to support the change. That is exactly why Vietnam vets complained about politicians not allowing them to win. And this is not Vietnam all over again, but the politicians are making the same mistakes they did back then.

Let the generals run the war; you guys handle immigration. Well, listening to this debate, perhaps we should just turn the running of the war over to Congress. Unbeknownst to America, apparently the most brilliant, articulate military strategists have to be here in Congress. But a word of caution to my fellow MacArthurs and Pattons. It is easy to run a war when you are 6,000 miles from Baghdad and hold a microphone for a gun.

There can be only one Commander in Chief. The moment Congress begins interfering in battlefield decisions is the moment we are assured of losing this war and that moment is dangerously near.

I support this surge. If our military leaders and the Commander in Chief need these extra soldiers, I am behind them 110 percent. Am I certain the surge will work? No. But I am certain the consequences of failing in Iraq will ultimately cost us many more innocent lives and a much darker future, not just for Iraq but for my family and yours.

In Iraq and Afghanistan we are in a battle of wills. Should America retreat, should we withdraw prematurely, we will not only cement our reputation as a Nation that talks big and acts boldly, but at the first sign of difficulty shows no will, no backbone, no strength to keep our word.

The world saw our lack of will in Vietnam, they watched us run from Somalia, and today they see our backbone disintegrate over Iraq. They watched us for a quarter of a century, we wished away the terrorist attacks in Khobar, the USS Cole, and the first World Trade Center bombing.

Finally it hit home and already some in Congress are flying the white flag. Think. Nations like Iraq and Afghanistan who oppose terrorism are faced with a choice. They can live with terrorists among them or live in a free society with the protection and the backing of the world's greatest democracy. That is us. With their lives and the future on the line who will they choose? Is it not sad that today the world has just about decided that America will not keep its word, America cannot be counted on?

Terrorists know that while they can never hope to defeat our military on the battleground, they are assured if they just hold out, they can defeat us in Congress one opinion poll at a time. This is a test of wills, and whether we got here for the reason you agree with or not, it is a test. I believe we are here for the right reasons, and it is incredibly naive to believe that all of the terrorist organizations in the world were conveniently gathered in Afghanistan, like a Rotary Club.

We are wrong to pursue terrorist safe havens other than those that harbored al Qaeda on the some wobbly theory we should not pursue drug cartels other than the ones we believe smuggled in the drug that destroyed your child.

Due to technology and financing, terrorists are not limited to states and regions, and we have to pursue them. But whether or not you agree with how we got here, we are there in Iraq. And the nation of Iraq and our Nation have everything riding on the line. Eliminating Iraq as a safe haven for financing, training terrorist groups in the Middle East is a mission we must complete for our sake.

Thomas Edison once observed many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up. If we fail in Iraq, we sentence our children to a lifetime of fear, of fear of going to the mall safely, going to work each morning and returning home safely, the fear of going with friends to a sports stadium without being torn apart in an explosion.

If we believe the price of war is high, wait until we endure the price of terror here in America. Our soldiers are giving their blood, what are we giving them? A resolution.