Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for the United States to remain the greatest economic power in the world, it is no longer enough to simply buy American, we have to sell American. We have to sell our American products throughout the world, our products and services created by the most productive workforce on this planet.

But when our businesses and farmers try to compete, they discover that Europe and Asia have aggressively negotiated trade agreements with other countries that tilt much of the world in their direction, leaving the U.S. and our companies and businesses and farmers at a severe disadvantage.

That is unfair to American farmers, it is unfair to American businesses, and it is especially unfair to American workers who can compete if given a level playing field and other countries are held accountable to the same trade rules.

Rather than build economic rules around our Nation that only harm American jobs, restrict what we can buy, and raise prices on our families, we must use American muscle to secure favorable trade agreements that tear down the ``American need not apply'' signs that close off potential customers from our products.

In the coming days, the House of Representatives will give final consideration to the Dominican Republic Central American Free Trade Agreement, the most significant trade agreement in a decade. It will open 44 million new customers to American products, help America win the textile war against China, and honor America's commitment to democracy, freedom and human rights in our hemisphere.

With me tonight are a number of Members of Congress who have examined this trade agreement and feel strongly about it from the standpoint of national security and jobs and agriculture. Joining us tonight is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), who spent a decade with the Department of Justice, the last 4 years as the deputy attorney general in Texas, and understands the national security implications of this trade agreement.

If the gentleman would stay for just a moment. You have spent your whole life in law enforcement and a number of your recent years in protecting homeland security from threats. One of the key points you made is that while we are fighting a war against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan with our men and women, the fact is we fought a war, as well, 20 years ago in Central America, moving those countries away from communism and socialism toward democracy. They have made real progress, but we still have leaders like Castro and Chavez and Daniel Ortega and FMLM, some of the most Socialist anti-American groups in this hemisphere opposing us because their point is democracy does not work, human rights does not work, the rule of law does not work. Communist does. Come, step backward in time.

One of my colleague's points was the worst thing we could do would be to give that region back to the Communists and Socialists at a time when they have made so much progress.

My understanding, too, is we are seeing letters from legislators down in Central America who are being financed by our Socialists down there who say they are opposing it on the merits, but in fact they are getting a nudge from the enemies of freedom to do so.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for his commitment to law enforcement and homeland security in our hemisphere.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn now to a gentleman from Colorado who has a wonderful background. He is a farmer. He is a rancher. He is a community banker. In recent years he has served as an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee. I yield to a good friend, a good colleague from the great State of Colorado, Bob Beauprez.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's leadership. The key point, many of them that he made, was that America's agricultural community is so strongly behind this trade agreement. There are nearly 70 ag associations around America who are supporting this. In fact, the American Farm Bureau Federation believes that we will sell almost $1.5 billion more ag products each year to Central America. That is our beef, that is our chicken, that is our pork, our corn, our milk, our potatoes, you name it, at a time when a lot of the world is closed to America's ag products.

We have got the most productive ag community in the world; but if we keep making things cheaper and faster and better but do not have anyone to sell it to, the price just goes down. We want those ``American need not apply'' signs to be torn up all throughout this world, give our ag community a chance to compete. Watch what we will sell around the world.

And we ought to start with Central America, a neighbor, a proven neighbor, who cannot only buy our goods and services but is easy to ship to and in the process we are going to continue to help those six countries into stronger democracies, a stronger rule of law. It is truly a win-win situation.

I appreciate the gentleman's leadership. As a business person, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) knows what small businesses and small farmers and small communities have to go through to compete, and giving them a level playing field is good for Colorado and good for America as well.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), who served, before coming to Congress, as a district judge for more than 2 decades. And his background is just filled with decades of common sense. He did a great job on the bench in Texas. Here in Washington he has been intent not only on national security, supporting our troops, but also in serving on his committee, finding ways to help our American economy grow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman made excellent points tonight in that we need the customers in Central America for our American Texas ag and small business communities. And for national security, this is exactly the wrong time to turn our backs on Central America.

One of the other points he made is deals with China, and the fact of the matter is he talked to that gentleman who said we can survive China.

Since January 1 around the world, of course, all the quotas went off; so anyone can import any of the apparel, the clothes we wear, the towels we use, and China has just swamped the world, including the U.S. And some people say, well, let us just give up; China is just going to win. But that gentleman's point is exactly right. If America partners up with Central America, we grow the cotton in Texas, which is why the Texas Cotton Council supports this. How we can do the fabric and yarn in American textile plants with American workers, send it down to Central America. They cut it, sew it, put it together, and send it back.

So today what is interesting is that if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) and I go to a store down here and buy a shirt that says ``Made in Honduras,'' about 70 to 80 percent of that shirt is made right here in America. But if at the same store we pick up one that says ``Made in China,'' there may be, may be 1 percent of American content there.

And the fact of the matter is if we partner up with American agriculture, with American workers in textiles, which is why so many of the textile industry is supporting this, partner up with Central America, we can survive. We can beat China in the textile areas. We can save jobs in America and save jobs in Central America.

And my understanding is just since January 1, Central America has already lost 28,000 textile jobs to the Chinese. We know where some of those folks might be headed to find jobs. And the fact of the matter is, I think, from an immigration standpoint, Central America wants to keep its best and brightest and hard-working at home. If we partner up, not only do we save American jobs, we save Central American jobs and help preserve our immigration and borders in the process. I think the gentleman made a wonderful point to that extent.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Texas on national security and on our Armed Forces and today in support of our American Texas farmers and businesses as we partner up with Central America, and I appreciate the gentleman very much.

Mr. Speaker, we have another gentleman from Texas, who, like the previous one, has experience that relates directly to creating jobs. He has been a small business person for more than 32 years, is an accountant and a small business owner in west Texas. He understands that America needs to be able to sell its products around the world, that Central America can sell them to the United States today and they have for 20 years. Now it is our turn to sell into that growing market.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Texas. Several of the points he made, such as the fact that Central America already sells in the United States, and now is the chance for us to sell our products to those 44 million new customers, and that is critical.

Mr. Speaker, I see people who make fun of Central America and say they are too poor and too backward, not worthy, I guess, of trading with the United States, and they could not be more wrong. Economically, I think, those critics are pretty unwise. Central America is already our tenth largest trading partner, and growing. I do not know very many successful businesses that have made it very long by only selling to one or two customers. It does not happen very often. The fact of the matter is they have the potential to grow even larger. They are not large by American standards, but they are large by world standards, and those 44 million customers already buy more from the United States than Italy, which is a world power. They buy more from us than Australia. They buy more from us than Russia, India, and Indonesia combined. In fact, if you took the total economies of Central America together, it is larger than 33 sizes of the United States, those economies in total, and they have not even begun yet.

It makes great economic sense, at a time when America needs more customers, to strengthen the ties with the customer in our backyard that is the tenth largest, and growing every day. My colleagues know how important it is. There is a reason why Europe and Asia and China are trying to get trade agreements with Central America, because they want to sell their products there. But it is time for us, it is our turn to sell there, and I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude myself, but before we do that, I want to turn to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight in the House Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger). He has been looking for ways to strengthen democracy around the world for many years. He is a big supporter of finding new customers for California's products. In fact, California is the largest agriculture State in America. And he has also here in America helped to rewrite our welfare laws, so he understands what it means to get people back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) speaking about this issue, because opponents to CAFTA say that does not matter. It would help our trade deficit if we just ignored selling all of our products to Central America. I do not understand how it helps our trade deficit to turn down 44 million new customers, in all of the ag, in technology and small business and manufacturing trade that we have and want to sell to.

I would ask the gentleman, how does that help our trade deficit to turn down a growing country and all of those new customers?

I notice, too, the gentleman serving on Ways and Means, all we hear about is NAFTA; but what the critics do not tell you is that there is one huge difference between the two agreements, ignoring for a minute that during NAFTA years Texas grew by 1.7 million jobs. Our economy grew by 75 percent, we doubled our sales to Mexico, ignore all of that.

But the big difference is, Central America already sells most of its products in the United States today; they have for 20 years. If a company wanted to move away, they had 2 decades to do it. Now it is our turn to sell into Central America. Those are the ag sales and manufacturing sales and financial and insurance and telecommunications and chemicals from the Gulf Coast and forest products from east Texas, and ag from west Texas, and a number of products that we are looking for the new jobs and the new customers that this agreement provides us.

Well, I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for coming tonight and being part of this key debate.

Let me just conclude with a question. In recent years, a bipartisan Congress has extended its trade hand to the Muslim people of Morocco, the sub-Saharan nations of South Africa, our Asian allies in Singapore, and our Arab allies in Jordan. Why would Congress balk now at extending the same hand of trade to our Hispanic neighbors in Central America?

This is good for America and our workers, this is good for Central America, and this will help us defeat China in the war in textiles; and later this week I look forward to the House of Representatives joining the Senate in engagement, in jobs, rather than isolationism and turning our back on a region so close to us.

Mr. Speaker, the world has changed. It is no longer enough to just buy American; we have to sell American. We have to tear down these ``America Need Not Apply'' signs that are throughout the world and give us a chance to sell our products and our goods from around this Nation that are as good as anybody's in the world.

My frustration, Mr. Speaker, is that the whole world is able to sell into the United States. We can go down the street here into stores and buy anything we want, but too much of the world is cut off to America, to our goods and services, especially from Texas, where we produce good products, like other States.

The Central American Free Trade Agreement reverses that. They have been able to sell into our country for 20 years, and for good reason, to help them move out of communism and socialism. But now it is our turn to sell our products to Central America. They are not large countries by our standards, but they are large by world standards. They are our tenth largest customer. They buy more from us than Italy does, which is a major economic power. They are a good customer. They can buy more and more of our goods and services.

That is just one of a number of reasons, including national security and winning the textile war against China, that we ought to be supporting the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 22, 2005, I missed rollcall vote 296 regarding a proposed amendment to the Constitution authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. I fully regret not being able to participate in the vote. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Harris County Precinct 4 Constable Deputy Frank ``Scott'' Claborn who was killed by a drunk driver while escorting a road construction truck in Harris County, Texas on February 19, 2004. Claborn and his family reside in Magnolia, Texas in the Eighth Congressional District.

Deputy Claborn and 13 other Texas Law Enforcement Officers will be honored at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2005.

Deputy Claborn's wife of 16 years, Paula Claborn and her 11-year-old son Tanner will remember a husband and father whose devotion and love of family was unsurpassed.

Paula's father, David Hill, the highly respected and loved constable for Montgomery County Precinct 5, told a reporter in the days following the accident that, ``He (Scott) was one of the best fathers I have ever seen. I could not have handpicked a better son-in-law.''

Praise for Claborn also came from his fellow officers and colleagues, some of whom he had worked with for 14 years. One remarked that he was very kind, never complained, and always had a smile on his face.

Like many law enforcement officers Claborn worked extra jobs to supplement his regular income. His son, Tanner has juvenile diabetes. The extra work, like escorting the construction vehicle the night he was killed, helped augment the cost of the $6,000 insulin pump Tanner needed. Tanner, bright and popular young man, was released from the hospital just 3 days before his father lost his life. The drunk driver had a blood alcohol level three times over the legal limit.

Deputy Claborn's sacrifice touched many lives in the Houston region. The 100 Club of Houston pledged $10,000 as a college scholarship for Tanner. The Harris County Precinct 4 Constable's Victims Assistance Unit set up a memorial fund to help pay for medical bills and other expenses. The Magnolia Community has rallied to the family's side.

The Claborn family and hundreds of others will gather in our Nation's Capital to honor the lives and memories of the men and women who devoted their careers and laid down their lives to make our communities safer.

It is so fitting that a memorial to these officers, like Scott Claborn, who patrolled neighborhoods and safeguarded communities from across the country be located in Washington. It is because of their faithful duty that American citizens enjoy the liberties and freedoms others are left only to dream about.

Mr. Speaker, I know this family. They are wonderful people who love their family, their God and their Country. I ask you to join me in saluting the thousands of law enforcement officers on patrol every day on our streets and consider the sacrifice they and their families routinely render.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall votes No. 133 and No. 134 on April 26, 2005, and rollcall vote No. 140 on April 27, 2005. On April 26, 2005, I was returning from Texas after attending a Social Security workshop in Galveston with President Bush and on April 27, 2005, I was at the White House meeting with President Bush.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 133, a Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1268, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes; I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 134, a Motion to Instruct Conferees on H. Con. Res. 95, the Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2006; and I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 140, a Motion to Recommit H. Res. 22, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that American small businesses are entitled to a Small Business Bill of Rights

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of serving with Bob Matsui on the Subcommittee on Social Security, and it was a real privilege.

You always hope that we will send to Congress men and women of just great decency, who love their country, love their community, love their family so dearly and are willing to give back to all that and do it in such a good, positive way. That is what Bob Matsui stood for and still stands for in my mind.

There is a saying that you make a living by what you get; you make a life by what you give. By that measure, Bob Matsui had a very rich life because he gave back so much to this body. He gave back so much in his example to other Members like myself, and he truly gave back to his family and his Nation, and I consider it a privilege to have served with him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Texas Lyceum on their 25th Anniversary. The Texas Lyceum, a non-profit, non- partisan organization, is the foremost incubator of leaders in Texas.

The original Lyceum was a grove of trees in ancient Athens where Aristotle educated the leaders of the day on issues critical to the time. Key issues were debated and focused through the lens of enlightenment and character. So, in 1980 when a group of young leaders recently named ``Rising Stars of Texas'' by Texas Business magazine, began exploring the idea of establishing a leadership confederation based on providing solutions to problems in Texas, Aristotle's Lyceum seemed an appropriate model.

Tieman H. ``Skipper'' Dippel and an impressive group of founders including: Bud Shivers, Mike Hopkins, Ann Quirk, Jim Windham, John Connally, III, Rob Mosbacher, Ken George, Scott Bennett, and others too numerous to mention teamed with Texas Business magazine and George Kozmetsky to establish this forum which represents the diversity of the state and emphasizes constructive responses to issues critical to Texas.

The Lyceum has always endeavored to bring out the best in people and enlighten the next generation to the power of ideas. It teaches leaders to focus on where they are alike rather than how they are different while still valuing the rich diversity of Texas. To accomplish these purposes, the Lyceum conducts quarterly meetings to educate its Directors and other policy makers on the important issues of our times and sends its members back into the community armed with the most up to date information available.

The Lyceum also publishes the Journal of the Texas Lyceum, a mainstay for policymakers looking for insightful and thoughtful solutions. Each issue is edited to be in keeping with the Lyceum's philosophy of valuing differing opinions from our state's leaders. This document was invaluable to me and my colleagues when I served in the Texas Legislature.

Twenty-five years later, the Texas Lyceum boasts over 600 alumni and 96 current directors. Judging from where Lyceum alumni can now be found it is obvious that the Lyceum has successfully met its goal of educating the next generation of leaders in Texas. The Lyceum should be extremely proud of its accomplishments.

From the courtroom to the board room, from farms and ranches to the world of high tech, from medical centers to the oil fields, from education intuitions to houses of worship, and from city councils to the halls of Congress and even the White House, Lyceum alumni are woven through the leadership structures of the state of Texas and this nation. Numerous state legislators, Members of Congress, a sitting U.S. Senator, the current Governor and even the current President of the United States are all Lyceum Alumni.

The Texas Lyceum membership reflects the rich diversity of Texas and succeeds because it seeks to identify and prominently promote the unique values of our state that bring us all together as Texans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in saluting the over 600 men and women who have participated in the Texas Lyceum since its inception in 1980. For a quarter century now the Texas Lyceum has been committed to promoting the stewardship of the values, traditions, resources and diversity that is Texas.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 90, my flight from Texas brought me to the Capitol one minute after the vote was closed. I intended to vote ``yes.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, to honor and congratulate the Polk County Enterprise on their centennial anniversary, which they are celebrating throughout this year. The Polk County Enterprise has been a faithful banner of news and source of record for generations of residents in East Texas. From a humble founding by young entrepreneur Will West in the fall of 1904 the Polk County Enterprise and its parent company Polk County Publishing has grown to a circulation of over 60,000 including seven weekly and bi- weekly newspapers, three shoppers, and two job-printing operations.

Throughout its 100 year history, the paper has had only 16 publishers. Mr. Alvin Holley, the current publisher of the Polk County Enterprise has served in his post for the last thirty years--the longest of any publisher at the Enterprise. I am pleased to report he has no plans to retire anytime soon.

Mr. Holley got his start in the newspaper business as a paperboy for the Corsicana Daily Sun. The papers sold for a nickel each, Holley's profit was two cents per paper. That may not seem like much by today's standards--but back then a movie show cost only nine cents.

Mr. Holley stayed in the newspaper business--and after high school worked in the newspaper's business office and occasionally was assigned news stories. He was named the advertising manager in 1963 and served there until 1972 when he took a position with the Polk County Enterprise. Two short years later, Holley bought the Enterprise and remains its publisher to this day.

Mr. Holley credits his paper's success to the employees that keep the presses running. In a recent interview, Holley estimated that the combined years of service of current employees exceeds 430 years and that the average length of service is 14 years. That says a lot.

The men and women of the Polk County Enterprise and Polk County Publishing Company not only love what they do for a living, but also obviously love their community.

From the days of Linotype to today's high speed desk top computers, the Polk County Enterprise has covered all of the happenings in East Texas.

With a loyal staff and publisher who is just as likely to be caught working at the news desk or delivery bays as he is his private office-- I am confident the Enterprise has many more exciting years in store.

Mr. Speaker, our nation's hometown community newspapers have been the trusted source of news Americans have depended on since our nation's earliest beginnings. The Polk County Enterprise has a proud legacy and it is an honor to represent the communities they serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. I urge you to join me in congratulating the Polk County Enterprise on their 100th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. First, let me join others in thanking him for his leadership on the Committee on Ways and Means as chairman for 6 years on the Subcommittee on Social Security, a resident and leader in Florida, which has a number of America's seniors who care so much about this issue.

Back in Texas I know that every senior I visited with in the Eighth Congressional District is worried about two things: their health care costs and their Social Security. Prescription drugs, the new technologies are doing just a wonderful job of creating a great quality of life, but it is so expensive. They are worried about getting generic drugs to the market faster so they do not have to pay so much for these pills. They want more preventative services under Medicare so they can detect that illness early and get treatment, prevent it rather than having it occur to them. And they want to make sure they can see doctors they know. All important issues on health care.

And they also want to make sure Social Security is there for them, for their children and for their grandchildren, with greater cost-of- living increases, that it is something that they can count on.

And for our seniors the great news is they are golden under Social Security. Virtually nothing that can even be contemplated will change for Social Security seniors, and that is the great news.

But our goal has to be to preserve Social Security once and for all for every generation. Once and for all, meaning not another Band-Aid, because we have gone through this exercise before. We have raised payroll taxes. We have raised the age, and then in another 20 or 30 years we are right back where we started. Let us solve it once and for all. Secondly, let us solve it for every generation. We know that seniors above 55 are in very great shape with this. But the baby boomers, we know there is not enough funding for them. And the young people today, I just do not see how we take money from their paycheck, a promise to have it ready for them when they retire and we know for certain we cannot deliver on that promise.

And one thing we will hear in this debate is we will hear lots of people talking about we are dismantling Social Security, we are making huge benefit cuts, there is a guaranteed risk to personal accounts within Social Security. But what those same Members of Congress will not tell people is that they have their own retirement invested in personal accounts just like the one the President has proposed. In fact, Members of Congress, our staffs and our fellow co-workers invest $15 billion every year, new dollars, into personal accounts. They are invested and grow over time just like the accounts we offer and propose for Social Security. And people back home always ask me, How come these personal accounts are safe and secure for members of Congress's families but all of a sudden they are a guaranteed gamble for us? How come it is good enough for your families, but not good enough for people who pay your salary?

It is a great question, and my thought is those who claim that personal accounts are such a guaranteed gamble perhaps ought to lead by example and withdraw from the Thrift Savings Plan and see what happens. My guess is they will tell us wait a minute, that is how I am going to build my nest egg. My question is why do we not allow other Americans, the ones who pay our salaries each day, to build their own nest egg as well?

What we are offering for seniors is to preserve it, but for young people we are offering them a choice. For the first time in their lives, they are going to get a choice in Social Security, real dollars in a real account or an IOU in some imaginary government ledger. Real dollars in a real account that build up over time that is theirs, for their retirement, and when they get to 65 they are not begging government for help in Social Security, they are not calling on their Congressman. They are calling on their financial adviser because they built up a nest egg that belongs to them and they have got that power.

And the fact of the matter is that back home in Texas, I always ask two simple questions of the people I work with because they really have great questions on Social Security. And I ask them, personally, they are 50, or 60 years old, they are a baby boomer like me. If they could go back, way back when and put all of that money that has gone from their paycheck in a traditional retirement account and let it grow over the years, would they be better off today than they were under Social Security? And invariably they would say, I would give anything to have that money back. Then I ask, if Social Security could have put that money into real accounts, real dollars into real accounts, and let it grow over the years, would Social Security be better off today than the financial mess it is in? And invariably they answer the same way, yes.

Why not start now to build the same type of security? We know the right thing to do is to move from this pay-as-you-go system that will just run out of workers eventually and actually much sooner than we all wish, to move it to traditional retirement accounts within Social Security so that young people have real dollars in real accounts so that they can rely upon their Social Security. It is, I think, irresponsible by some to scare our seniors. It is irresponsible to ignore this huge crisis.

I call it a crisis because it gets so big so fast. We have got to move now. It costs us $600 billion a year every year we delay, $600 billion. The more we talk, it costs taxpayers. Why not, after decades of gabbing about this, let us come together and solve it? And I think too we have to be responsible for our seniors as well, focusing on their health care, making sure that they have their Social Security guaranteed with real cost-of-living increases. That is what the President's proposal does. And, Mr. Speaker, there are so many great ideas out there that have been proposed by Republican Members. I would give anything if any of our Democratic friends who care about Social Security would just come up with a plan. Just an idea. Just anything.

I read this week that they said Democrats will offer no Social Security reform, which is one of the most important issues facing our Nation and our future generations. They have got good ideas, bring them forward. Let us talk about it. Let us work out a solution in a bipartisan way. Let us think beyond the next election. Think about the next generation. I am convinced and optimistic and hopeful we can fix that.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, could I go back to what he said. Did he say there is a Democrat Member of Congress being attacked for being open to working with the President?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I will tell the Members one thing the chairman has always said is that this is not Republican Social Security, this is not Democrat Social Security, this is not white or black or any other ethnicity Social Security. This is Social Security for Americans, period. We ought to come together as Americans in Congress on this issue and solve that.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 17, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the city and people of Conroe, Texas, as they celebrate their centennial anniversary. Home to more than 43,000 Texans, Conroe is a vibrant city that embodies the rich heritage familiar to so many pioneer Texas towns.

From Isaac Conroe's first view of the acres of lush forests that berthed a thriving sawmill and train stop to the discovery of oil by George Strake that increased the population of the city five times over in just five weeks, every generation has faced its joys and challenges. The fortitude of Conroe's citizens and their leaders has always proven up to the task.

This fortitude is perfectly illustrated in the city's response after fires ravaged the fledgling downtown. A fire in 1901 badly burned the business district of the city. The community immediately rebuilt. Another fire in 1911 leveled the same district. This time--as if to dare the fire to try one more time--the people of Conroe rebuilt with brick.

The citizens of this community have also proven their willingness to help a neighbor or stranger. During the oil strike of the early 1930's, thousands of able bodied men descended on Conroe looking for work and a way to escape the Great Depression. Lifetime Conroe resident Edith Clanton remembers her mother renting out every room in their home to strangers desperate for a place to live.

Today, another generation of business owners, school teachers, community leaders and families are making their home in Conroe. Today, as this city surveys the last hundred years with well deserved pride it will also consider what the future has in store.

Mayor J.F. Collier, the first Mayor of Conroe, saw electricity come to Conroe. Today's Mayor Tommy Metcalf is witnessing the spread of another type of current running through this city. New technology, thriving new businesses, residential developments that are the envy of the nation, academically outstanding schools, and a deep respect for the diversity and needs of the entire community are all a part of this new current. They all play a key part in keeping Conroe healthy and strong for the future.

Many more bright years are ahead for Conroe. The history of this city reminds us that great things--great cities--start with every day people who live their lives one day at a time, determined to leave things better than how they found them.

Mr. Speaker, our nation's hometowns like Conroe, Texas, are what make America strong. It is an honor to represent this community in the U.S. House of Representatives and I urge you to join me in congratulating the City of Conroe, Texas, on their 100th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 856, I call up the Senate bill (S. 2986) to amend title 31 of the United States Code to increase the public debt limit, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

The issue before us is really America's responsibility to pay its bills, to meet obligations that America and Congress, as our Members, have already incurred.

Before September 11 and the war on terror, the Republican-led Congress paid down nearly half a trillion dollars in public debt, marking the first time since 1969 that Congress had reduced the national debt. Today, America is fighting an elusive and determined enemy abroad, while working to stimulate the economy and help industry still recovering from the 9/11 attacks.

At this extraordinary time, with our Nation's many obligations, the government is nearing the debt limit. If the Treasury cannot issue the debt, the government may be unable to meet many of its obligations, such as the regular investment into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Republicans want to do the responsible thing. As a result, Congress is increasing the debt limit to $8.1 trillion.

Holding the line on spending and raising the debt limit are not mutually exclusive, and it is important to remember that. Earlier this year, the House approved a lean, responsible budget that would cut the deficit in half within 5 years, hold the line on spending and guard against Democrats' calls for job-killing tax hikes.

Republicans are committed to reducing America's debt through responsible and restrained spending. Congress must meet America's priorities such as Social Security and Medicare. That is why raising the debt limit is so critical. But, in doing so, we can remain steadfast in our quest to eliminate the waste, the fraud and abuse on behalf of all taxpayers and future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I do have a bipartisan request. Tonight's measure is an appropriate time to discuss spending and deficits and solutions, but as we debate this and as we make our final vote, let us not punish our seniors, let us not punish our elderly, let us not punish our military just to score political points. If the debt ceiling is not increased, America cannot pay its bills. We cannot meet existing obligations. We will not ultimately have the cash on hand to pay Social Security benefits, military retirement, Medicare benefits, unemployment benefits and other trust fund obligations.

As raw as this recent election was, as bitterly contested as it was, with hurt feelings all around, we need to work together as Americans to take responsibility for our bills. Let us not default on our obligations. Let us not stop the checks to our needy who are counting on us. Let us not use our elderly as political pawns in trade for a seven second sound byte back home. They deserve better. We have a responsibility to pay our bills.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remaining time.

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

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

Some people have a short memory around here. I do believe that reducing the debt, restraining spending is a bipartisan effort. We have to work together. But I recall my friends on the Democratic side, when Republicans proposed a Medicare drug plan of around $400 billion, our friends on the Democrat side proposed a plan of $968 billion. We did not spend too little; they wanted to spend more. When we talked about unemployment extensions, they increased it $30 billion over the Republican plan. It was not that we were spending too little; they wanted to spend more. And when we talked about welfare reform and the need to move people to work, they added $52 billion, my Democratic colleagues, so concerned about the debt. It was not that we were spending too little; they wanted to spend more.

And when we are talking about moral obligations, I guess I would ask this: Is it a moral obligation when you trumpet that press release for that new firefighting equipment, for that new road you got, for that new university research, for that farm bill you championed, when you stand for the ribbon-cutting back home, and when you court public approval for spending tax dollars? Do you also have the moral obligation to pay for it?

Today, the issue is are we going to pay the bills of America, pay for the spending that has been incurred and take responsibility for our own actions?

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

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

Like a mortgage payment, like a credit card payment, we are paying for past decisions by this Congress, some of them decades old. In fact, if we are talking about the past 40 years of control by our Democratic friends, we are talking about raiding the Social Security trust fund, increasing the debt, and in more recent years voting against every bill because we did not spend more. Because we did not spend more.

Republicans are standing up for this responsibility. We understand that America took three big hits to our economy on 9/11: the recession President Bush inherited, the attacks of 9/11 that cost us almost 2 million American jobs, and then the technology bubble burst and the scandals from the false economy of the 1990s.

America fought back. Republicans fought back with the simple principle: if we want to create jobs in America, leave the tax dollars in America, in our hometowns, on Main Street in our small businesses. By fighting back from a hit that would have sent most countries stumbling to their knees, we are creating jobs, we are increasing revenue to the Federal Government, and the deficit is dropping.

But today, the question is, for all those Members who have been so eager to trumpet that press release, so eager to take credit for that spending that they brought home, the question is: Are you going to step up and pay the bills that America and Congress has incurred, or are you going to vote to stop our Social Security checks, stop the retirement checks to our military, stop the Medicare payments so important for the elderly?

It is bipartisan, whether you agree or disagree with how we got here. And that is a fair argument. Republicans and Democrats have a different view of this, and that is a healthy one. But regardless of that, if you supported the farm bill, if you supported the road bills, if you supported the water projects, if you supported the road projects, then step up and pay the bill tonight.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), a long-serving Member with strong leadership on the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

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

``We did not spend a dime around here for the past 10 years. All the spending is yours''?

That is not what you told your constituents. I have seen your press releases. You said you secured the road project. You said you championed university research. You said you got that road project. Here is my question: Who are you not leveling with, the voters back home or the people listening tonight?

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

``Mr. Speaker, we did not spend a dime around here for the past 10 years. It is all your spending.'' That was 2 minutes ago.

Today, it is, yeah, we spent a lot, but you spent more. Well, there is a difference. What we spent our deficit on was tax relief for the American people. I readily admit that. When we look at the deficit today, and we do share this, the fact of the matter is 50 percent of our deficit is caused because of this recession and we have to strengthen this economy. We have to get into a stronger economy. Twenty-five percent of it was new spending, spending that you have claimed credit for, not tonight, but you have claimed credit for years and years throughout the districts, in your speeches and in your campaigns. And the rest of that, that small amount left, is for tax relief to get people back to work, to help small businesses create jobs and get this economy strong again.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are stepping up tonight to accept that responsibility to get the economy going. We are going to pay our bills. We are not going to claim credit for spending, lay the blame on another party, and then try to stop the checks for our Social Security recipients and our Medicare recipients and our military retirees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, tell me the moral clarity of going home each week and trumpeting that press release for the firefighter fund or the road project or for

that water project, and then stand up here tonight and tell us we are not going to pay the bill for it. So the seniors who need their Social Security checks, the heck with them. The military retirees who are counting on their retirement, the heck with them. I got my press acclaim, I got my public support, but you, you on the other side of the aisle, you take responsibility for making sure those checks get there. Tell me the moral obligation of that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let us do a quick fact check here. Eighty-eight percent of the debt that we are raising today comes from government transfers, or from past debts before President Bush's administration took office. Eighty-eight percent of that. So we are paying for past decisions, including past Democratic administrations and Democratic holds of this Congress.

Second point. Our deficit and our debt is way too high. I think we all agree on that. I do not know anyone here who thinks otherwise. That truly is bipartisan. Let us keep in perspective that publicly held debt today is 37 percent of the economy. It was as high as 49 percent in 1995 during President Clinton's tenure. The fact of the matter is the debt and the deficit is too high at all levels in America's history, and at some point at the end of this debate after this is all done and we get out and get through with all of our purging of our frustrations on how we got here, we are going to have to work together to balance this budget, to start paying down this debt and find some solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I think it is important to keep focus that 88 percent of this debt occurred through intergovernmental transfers or before the Bush administration. It is a shared debt and a shared responsibility. The way we do not tackle it is to cut off the retirement checks for the military mothers and fathers of those serving today. That is exactly the wrong way to do it, the wrong way to duck responsibility. Together we can agree to pay our bills and then work together to reduce the debt.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds as a reminder that it is the economy that has caused this deficit; it is additional spending both for homeland security, supporting our troops, and for those press releases Members in this Chamber have so proudly touted back home. Today, and in fact we could have taken away all the tax cuts and we would still be running a deficit in America. It is time to pay our bills. Let us not cut off checks to our Social Security people simply for partisan purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first, on behalf of this side of the aisle, join with the Minority Leader in praising the service of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). His grandson ought to be proud of his granddad, his service here, both for our country here in Congress and in Texas where, as a fellow Texan, I can tell my colleagues I am very proud of his service and proud to have served with him.

There is something else we share as well. We share a debt in this Nation and we share a responsibility to pay those bills. The debt we face tonight is shared. Eighty-eight percent of this debt occurs from intergovernmental transfers of before the Bush administration. This is debt generated over decades and decades that every Member in this House today had a hand in creating.

The solution in the end, after all of the rhetoric is said and done, is going to be to join together for spending restraint, for abolishing obsolete agencies, to eliminating the billions of dollars of duplication, to getting a backbone to say no to projects. And, in fact, we have the opportunity starting in January, maybe tonight, to have a fresh start about working together, Republicans and Democrats, to again balance this budget and to start paying down that debt.

But, in truth, the question tonight is much simpler than that. The question is, are we going to pay our bills? Are we going to take responsibility for that press release, that project, that water funding, that university research, all of those things that we have championed and ran on back home, are we going to

take responsibility to pay those bills tonight? Or are we going to vote to go into default, to not meet our obligations, to stop our Social Security checks to the elderly or retirement checks and medicare payments?

It is time to gather Republicans and Democrats to pay our bills, to look out for our seniors and to vote yes on this debt ceiling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I agree with much of what our distinguished friend from Texas has said; and, again, he has been a long champion of balancing the budget and reducing this deficit. And he is so right, and we all agree: Deficits do matter. They mattered before we got here. They will always matter.

But jobs matter, too. Jobs matter, too. We did not ask for the attacks of 9/11 that not only struck the heart of our Nation, they struck two million American workers from the payroll. We did not ask for the recession. It was inherited. And we did not ask for the Enrons and the WorldComs and the technology bubble that not only cost so many workers their jobs but really damaged, I think, everyone's hopes for retirement in the future.

How we respond to that challenge, there was a difference, a respected difference. My colleagues on the Democratic side felt that if we kept the money here, if we spend and target different ways, that would move us out of the economy, and that is a fair position.

As Republicans, we felt otherwise. We thought if you want to create jobs

in small business, leave the money in small business. If you want to create jobs on Main Street, leave the money on Main Street. If we want families to be able to recover and to make ends meet, let them keep more of the hard-earned money that they in the past have sent to Washington where, unfortunately, we have squandered with so many I think obsolete agencies and duplicative programs we would all agree with.

But the fact of the matter is leaving the money at home worked. We are creating more jobs, and we need to do more. I think, ultimately, after tonight is over, that is the solution we can agree on: continuing to grow this economy so more people work and they pay taxes and Social Security and Medicare, and then together, working together, identifying all of the wasteful spending, getting the backbone on spending, saying no when it would be easier to say yes, maybe doing without, with one less press release on that project back home, all of which, by the way, we have a responsibility today to pay for those bills and these spending projects.

This motion has nothing to do with PAYGO. And I would respectfully say PAYGO as I have seen it really means higher taxes, unfortunately higher spending, and unfortunately fewer jobs. I just respectfully disagree on that. But the fact of the matter is if we keep the economy going, if we will work together on spending restraint, I know that we can balance the budget. I know we can pay down the deficit. But tonight we have a responsibility to pay our bills, to meet our obligations, to keep the checks going to our Social Security recipients, for our military retirees.

I would respectfully urge this Chamber to vote ``no'' on commit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2986, the Senate bill just passed.

Mr. Speaker, let's be honest: Republicans don't ship American jobs overseas. Neither do Democrats. Why would they?

But our own U.S. Tax Code does, and that's the responsibility of both parties in Congress. It's time we stop pointing fingers and start working together to save American jobs.

That's what the American Jobs Creation Act does. It removes the job- killers in our Tax Code.

It's a proven, commonsense principle: Stop punishing those who build in America. Lower the tax burden on those who manufacture and produce here in America, with a higher tax rate if you build it overseas.

Create jobs in America's small businesses by letting them keep more of what they earn--making it easier to buy that new computer, that new printer, that new machinery so they can compete with anyone, anywhere.

And for all those small industries--whether they are American companies making bows and arrows, tackle boxes, small aircraft, or U.S. films--let's get rid of the job killers where our Tax Code treats them worse than their overseas competitors.

Some critics may ridicule these provisions, but it's no laughing matter to the American workers in these small industries.

This bill also restores sales tax fairness to the Tax Code, easing the sales tax burden on American families and giving a direct economic boost to Main Street.

In States like mine, it means delivering $1 billion of tax relief to Texas families each year, and creating enough new jobs to fill nearly every seat in the Toyota Basketball Arena with a new Texas worker.

Best of all, every taxpayer in America will have the option of choosing to deduct either their state and local income taxes or sales taxes, whichever is highest.

Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Bill Thomas, the key support of Majority Leader Tom DeLay and hard work by my colleague Sam Johnson of Texas, we have re-opened the door to sales tax fairness that has been locked shut for 18 years.

Every legislator from a sales tax State should support this bill because this opportunity may not occur again for another two decades, if at all.

In conclusion, let's get the job-killers out of our Tax Code, and create jobs right here in America.