Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Samantha Moore as the winner of the 2006 Original Oratory National Championship. Having a history of excellence, the McDowell Speech and Debate team continues on this path with Moore's achievement; it is my hope that they will be able to continue to succeed long into the future,

Moore is a high school senior and member of the school's speech and debate team. She recently competed in the original oratory category at the National Catholic Forensic League Championship, established in 1953. After winning out over hundreds of students to even compete in Chicago, Moore defeated 200 of the top young orators in the country to capture the National Championship. She was among over 2,300 students from 500 schools that competed at the Grand National Championship. Because of the impeccable delivery of her self-written speech, Moore was able to captivate the judges and attain a near-perfect score.

This is an unprecedented achievement for a student in Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District. It is the first time that any student from Northwestern Pennsylvania has captured a National Championship in a speech event in over 20 years.

Moore represents the talent that can be found in America's youth. The very greatness of this country is founded upon its future leaders. Moore is an example of academic excellence and leadership. For her accomplishment, she deserves congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me at this time in congratulating Samantha Moore, her family, teachers, and team on the National Championship with wishes of a successful future.

Mr. Speaker, I was present and voting during the series of rolled votes that included rollcall No. 261, on ordering the previous question on the role for Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia and Independent Agencies FY 2007. While I was recorded as ``yea'' on the vote, I intended to cast a ``no'' vote on rollcall No. 261.

Mr. Speaker, I was present and voting during the series of rolled votes that included rollcall No. 261, on ordering the previous question on the rule for consideration of H.R. 5576, Transportation, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C. Appropriations for 2007. While I was recorded as ``yes'' on the previous question, I intended to cast a ``no'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I need to start my remarks with an acknowledgment of the extraordinary leadership that the gentleman from New Jersey has provided long in the House as a defender of religious freedom, and the topic before us with this resolution is one that I know is very dear to his heart, and so I am grateful for his leadership on this topic.

Madam Speaker, this resolution is simple and self-explanatory. Any truly free society must, by definition, accord its citizens freedom to seek a relationship with God according to the dictates of their conscience and choose spiritual leaders whom the worshipers believe are best suited to guide in establishing that relationship.

Recently, the People's Republic of China violated the religious freedom of its Roman Catholic citizens by imposing Beijing's choices for bishops rather than allowing the Vatican to make these appointments. This resolution condemns that action and calls upon the Chinese government to refrain from any further unauthorized ordinations.

There are few actions, Madam Speaker, more central to religious practice than choosing the spiritual leaders of a congregation. Each Sunday, Catholics throughout the world celebrate Mass and communally recite the Apostles' Creed, which includes a statement of belief in the holy Catholic church. As an intimate part of that belief, Catholics acknowledge the supreme leadership of the Pope of Rome in all spiritual matters and as the chief administrator of the church.

I am sure none of us would tolerate government coercion of any type in choosing the leaders of our churches, synagogues, temples, and religious organizations. Nevertheless, the Chinese government does not allow Catholics to run schools or recognize openly the authority of the papacy in many fundamental matters of faith and morals. The Chinese government also continues to insist as a precondition for establishing diplomatic relations that the Vatican cede its role in the selection of bishops to the government-controlled Catholic Patriotic Association. A government that purports not to believe in God at all has no business choosing religious leaders.

Madam Speaker, the leaders of China consistently seek to position their country as one of the leading nations of the world. The Chinese people make no secret of their goal to establish their nation as an equal to the United States. Well, leadership brings responsibility. Religious repression is wrong wherever it occurs, and civilized nations rightfully deplore the lack of tolerance found in many backward and regressive societies. China, however, claims to aspire to a higher standard, which is why their recent actions are so disturbing.

China is an ancient nation with a proud history. They are the fountainhead of Eastern philosophy, the birthplace of Confucius, possibly the greatest secular thinker the world has ever known. Analects 15:23 of the teaching

of Confucius states: ``What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.''

The early Chinese emperors embraced this teaching, and China was providing shelter and refuge to Nestorian Christians when Europeans were still burning heretics at the stake. Unfortunately, while religious freedom has been moving forward in Western democracies, it appears to be on the retreat in China.

Nevertheless, China became a signatory to the Uniform Declaration Human Rights when they joined the United Nations. The ordinations that we today condemn are a direct violation of Article 18 of the Uniform Declaration of Human Rights, which states, and I quote, ``Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest this religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.''

No one forced China to join the United Nations or to ratify the Uniform Declaration of Human Rights. They did so freely and without coercion. Indeed, the government in Beijing worked diligently for many years to displace Taiwan as the recognized government of China. Consequently, they now have a responsibility to live up to their standards and their great history, proud traditions, and U.N. obligations. My resolution calls upon them to do just that.

Madam Speaker, I hope that my resolution will focus attention on the advancement of religious freedom not just in China but throughout the world and particularly in our own country. Thomas Jefferson taught us that, ``God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.''

Whatever liberties we may possess, whatever privileges we may earn, whatever prosperity we may enjoy as individuals or as a nation, the most fundamental freedom of all is the right to establish our own relationship with God. This is the seminal freedom of all other freedoms that we cherish.

Whenever, wherever this core freedom is under assault, free people everywhere have a fundamental responsibility to defend it. We cannot ignore the suppression of religious freedom in China and expect it to endure in the United States.

Now, while we can, Congress must intrusively and decisively take a stand on behalf of Chinese Catholics and all others who wish to worship God in a manner and through a confession of their own choosing. We must insist that all members of the community of nations respect individual religious freedoms as the condition for mutual respect. Any nation that interferes with individual religious freedom and the freedom of spiritual communities to order their own affairs to the degree that the Chinese government has intervened in Catholicism cannot aspire to a place of leadership in the modern world.

Repression, Madam Speaker, is like a cancer. Left untreated, it will grow in size and power until it overwhelms the entire body. Only by vigorous early intervention can a doctor stop the spread of infection or a free nation prevent the spread of repression. If we do not stand with the Catholics of China now, who will stand with us in the future? And if we don't stand with Chinese Catholics, how can we aspire to be a symbol and defender of freedom throughout the world?

Madam Speaker, I call on my colleagues to pass this resolution.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I recently introduced a new version of legislation that I have introduced in the past, the Simplified USA Tax, or SUSAT, which reforms individual and business taxation while promoting economic growth, investment and personal savings, all tenets of a strong and stainable economy.

Tonight I would like to focus my remarks on a critical component of SUSAT, which in my view provides a powerful antidote to the national savings crisis that we are combating today.

Mr. Speaker, clearly our Tax Code is too complicated, and it is riddled with obvious inequities. Its current structure punishes savings and investment, which reduces economic and job growth and burdens domestic industry struggling to remain competitive. If Congress is going to succeed in reforming the American tax system, and I believe we must, we need to create a stable Tax Code that gives Americans a fair opportunity to save part of their earnings.

Thrift has helped provide Americans the security and independence that are the foundation of freedom. Savings buys tools to make Americans more productive. Productivity raises our living standards to the highest in the world. But in recent years America has gone into debt, and it seems like we have stopped saving altogether.

In 2005, stunningly, our national savings rate was in the negative for the first time since the Great Depression. America is facing a quiet crisis, the fact that our economy is now more dependent on foreign capital than on foreign oil.

As you can see in this chart, whether Americans save or not simply does not affect them personally; it impacts on our national economy. As the savings rate has declined, our trade deficit has gone further into the red. Apart from the short-term market gains in the late 1990s, the trade deficit has closely tracked the savings rate. Taking the punitive taxes off of savings and encouraging the practice must be an essential element of reforming the Tax Code because it not only translates into personal savings for working families, but it also has a job creating progrowth macroeconomic impact.

In my tax reform proposal everyone is allowed an unlimited Roth-like savings account in which they can put a portion of each year's income they save after paying taxes and living expenses; and after 5 years all money in the account can be withdrawn for any purpose and all withdrawals, including accumulated interest and other earnings or principal are tax free. Nothing can be simpler and nothing can give the people a better opportunity to save.

While Congress has taken some powerful measures in the past few years to improve the Tax Code, particularly for individual taxpayers, clearly we need to do more. We need fundamental tax reform. For too long the Tax Code has been a needless drag on the economy. That is bad public policy and certainly not fair to Americans whose living standards are lower because of it. It is time that we made some fundamental changes.

I firmly believe that faster economic growth must be the key goal of tax reform, and encouraging Americans to save is one way of achieving that goal. Roth IRAs have a proven track record of increasing savings, and removing red tape, and expanding their impact will go the distance in altering the course of our national savings rate. SUSAT has the potential to serve as part of the groundwork for this kind of reform and ensure that Americans can keep more of their hardworking tax dollars, establish financial security, and invest in their future.

Madam Speaker, last night, ABC Nightly News in the height of irresponsibility reported that the Department of Justice is ``investigating Speaker Hastert.'' That report has been denied by both parties.

Such a blatant falsehood comes at a time when the Speaker of the House has reached out to work with our friends on the other side of the aisle to ensure that the separation of powers within the Constitution is fully upheld.

It is sad to say that at a time of declining and questionable journalistic standards, with an increasingly shrill and partisan ideological media, at a time when national news broadcasts seem to have more of the flavor of entertainment than hard news, ABC News has written a sad new chapter in the annals of yellow journalism.

I support a free press. I believe it is a fundamental institution that is central to a free society. But ABC News, Madam Speaker, has, at a stroke, reduced the credibility of our national media. Mr. Hastert's reputation, however, remains impeccable among those of us who have had the privilege of working with him.

Mr. Speaker, I had a leave of absence on Friday, May 19, for family business. If I had been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall vote 173, ``yes'' on rollcall vote 174, ``no'' on rollcall vote 175, and ``yes'' on rollcall vote 176.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his superb work in conference. I rise on behalf of this conference report because I stand here today on behalf of the next generation.

We have heard some rhetoric on the other side, but the fact remains, the next generation needs new jobs. The next generation needs economic growth, and it is fairly clear, contrary to the rhetoric on the other side, economic growth helps the working class. It is the key to social justice, and ultimately, it is the solution to our deficit.

We need to leave in place the current tax policies that are working, that have been so successful in creating the fastest growth in 20 years, 138,000 jobs created last month, 18 consecutive quarters of growth averaging 3.2 percent. Our trading partners for the most part cannot match that. We are doing it because we have put in place clear growth incentives, including the right rate on capital gains and the right tax treatment of dividends.

The other side wants to repeal those reforms. The other side wants, as usual, to raise taxes. The other side wants to talk about revenues that, if these tax rates went up, probably would not be realized. There is an absurdity to the tax policy as advocated on the other side that schedules a capital gains hike, that schedules a phase-out of the proper tax treatment of dividends, and puts in place all sorts of distortions that ultimately will reduce the effectiveness of the market.

What we need to do is continue our commitment to economic growth and send a clear message to national markets that we are going to continue the tax treatments, the tax policies, that have yielded these economic benefits.

Let us pass this legislation. Let us extend for 2 more years the tax treatment of capital gains. Let us continue our commitment to economic growth.

May I add, as I was listening to the comments of the speaker from Michigan, he was mentioning the other taxes that people pay, other than the income tax; and he should have noted that those are their Social Security and Medicare contributions. For the most part, those taxes are a process of earning benefits.

It is fairly clear that the Republican majority has taken thousands of families off of the Federal income tax rolls to their permanent benefit.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commend the Northwest Collegiate Academy's recent success at the 25th Annual United States Academic Decathlon, USAD, in San Antonio, TX.

The USAD is a national competition in which teams of nine students, three from each recognized academic level, compete in 10 separate academic subjects, including mathematics, language and literature, social science, economics, art, music, and science. Each team member has to compete in each of the 10 subjects and their combined scores determine the overall team winner.

Once again, the Northwest Collegiate Academy made Erie and all of western Pennsylvania proud by demonstrating the scholastic excellence of its students. The Academy's team cruised through this year's local and State competitions, winning all three of the local events and the final State wide competition. Along the way, individual team members won numerous awards for excellence in all of the academic subjects and the team as a whole often took all the awards for a given subject.

However, the team's outstanding run did not end at the State level. The team scored 38,992.7 points out of a possible 60,000 during the 3- day national competition in San Antonio. This showing earned the team a well deserved silver medal in competition. Furthermore, the team members continued to show their individual brilliance by winning awards for their proficiency in specific subject areas. Matthew Faytak earned six different awards at the competition, including a gold medal in art and a gold medal for being the highest overall scorer at the honors level. Joining him on the podium was Christina Radder who won the bronze medal in music and the bronze medal for being third highest overall scorer at the honors level. Both Matthew and Christina were also recognized for high scores in economics, mathematics or science, as were four other team members, Greg Nieder, Dan Juilfs, Shane Kelley, and Alexandra Talarico.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my fellow members will rise with me at this time and commend the nine members of the Northwest Collegiate Academy team, Matthew Faytak, Christina Radder, Alexandra Talarico, Shane Kelley, Greg Nieder, Caitlyn Pierce, Dan Juilfs, William Steinbaugh, and David Zielewski. I congratulate each of these students for all of their academic achievements and wish them continued success in their future endeavors.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I think the time has come, particularly after the last speech, for a reality check here.

What we have seen since the 1990s is that the key to balancing the budget is economic growth and pro-growth tax policies. That is what our budget resolution stands for and what our budget resolution promises to preserve. In the 1990s, when we balanced the budget, and I might add we balanced the budget because we had a Republican Congress committed to fiscal austerity, we were able, through controlling spending, to allow the growth in the economy to overcome a budget deficit that the other party, frankly, couldn't deal with when they were in the majority.

By putting in place pro-growth economic policies in 2003, this Congress laid the groundwork for an economic recovery which has generated unprecedented revenues and, in generating those revenues, has steadily brought down the deficit and brought it within reach of control.

Now, I will be the first to admit this budget document does not fully account for the cost of war. It doesn't account for the cost of some of our recent national disasters. Those have always been treated as one- time expenses, and appropriately so. But our underlying deficit, in my view, is being dealt with in this budget in the most direct and credible way, and that is through restraining spending and allowing us to maintain in place pro-growth tax policies.

Now, what the other side doesn't tell you, and what they are really hot for, is that they want to see a tax increase. They want to see us forced to raise tax rates above those contemplated in our 2003 tax policy. Our existing tax policy, as then Chairman Greenspan conceded, has been critical in growing the economy; growing the economy last year at a rate of 3.5 percent, the envy of the industrialized world; growing our economy in a way that allows us to find new revenues even as we create wealth and we create jobs.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I will be the first to concede that in congressional districts like mine in northwestern Pennsylvania we have seen the downside. We have seen an economy that has lagged behind the national economy. We have seen the effects of unfair trade. We have seen job losses that haven't fully been recovered, particularly in the manufacturing sector. But the solution is a growing economy.

And what this budget resolution promises is that we will be able to maintain the tax policies that have produced the growth even as we curb spending and show fiscal restraint. In the process we are in a position to set up this country to escape from the budget deficit, to lower national debt as a proportion of the national economy, and, over time, position ourselves to hand to the next generation a prosperous America.

This budget resolution is critical to the long-term economic health of our country, and it is based on a philosophy of pursuing pro-growth policies that allow us to generate the revenue that we need. The other side, by pushing us towards policies that would raise taxes and ultimately take more resources out of the economy, I think threatens that growth and threatens that recovery.

Ultimately, I believe, there is a clear contrast here, one in which I am very proud to stand on the side of growth and opportunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to appear opposite the gentleman from Maryland. I realize he is not seeking reelection this year and is aspiring to move up to a higher level. I may say at the outset it has been a privilege working with him on the Ways and Means Committee for the last 12 years. I have come to admire his talents, even when they are enlisted on behalf of something as weak as the instruction before us today. I look forward to debating the point.

Mr. Speaker, we have a motion to instruct that has been put before this body that sends exactly the wrong message. It is a message that is essentially against economic growth and against job creation, and it would put Congress on record, on the brink of our success in a tax conference in favor of things that we have in the past voted against. This instruction in some areas is amorphous, and elsewhere is perverse, and in effect it is an instruction that leads us inevitably to a tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that since 2003 our gross domestic product has seen its fastest growth in 20 years, averaging a robust 4.4 percent per quarter. This is extremely important, because as we have grown the economy at this clip, we have generated new revenues, new revenues that we had not anticipated in our budget, new revenues that have held down our deficits, new revenues that have created an opportunity for us to finance our social needs. And as we show restraint, as we do in the budget resolution we are voting on today, it holds forth the promise of our getting back to a balanced budget, something that the other party was never able to achieve when they were in the majority.

This growth is important to note, because it is attributable in part to the reduced rates on capital gains and tax dividends.

We have a pro-growth tax policy in place, which has allowed us to expand the tax base and generate revenues outside of the estimates in our budget. I would like to point out that ultimately the path to a balanced budget has to be through high growth rates and ultimately through the financial discipline that today's budget resolution will suggest. Yet, the motion to

instruct conferees before us in effect puts off to a date in the future the opportunity to continue to extend the current tax rates on those pro-growth parts of our existing tax policy, with potentially perverse results.

I would like to also point out, since we have heard so often and we have heard on the floor today that the tax policies we have in place only benefit the affluent, I would like to point out who in the real world has been receiving the reduced rates and therefore whose taxes will we will be raising if we fail to extend the current rate.

Mr. Speaker, it is notable that 54 percent of those families receiving dividend income had incomes of less than $75,000 and they received an average of $1,400 in dividends. That is very significant for those families. Together, families with incomes under $100,000 have more than $20 billion in dividend income.

In 2005, an estimated 10.3 million families in the 10 and 15 percent brackets will save on their taxes because of the 2003 law. So the rhetoric that this tax relief only benefits the wealthy is vacant ideological posturing.

If we let these rates expire, it would be in effect a tax increase on many Americans, including a lot of middle-class Americans. Not only would the lapse of the reduced rates impose a tax increase, it would particularly discourage equity ownership among working families, among whom we have seen a stunning 91 percent increase in stock ownership. To turn back the clock on policies that have more American workers owning a stake in their future is simply the wrong thing to do today.

Our side also strongly supports extension of the savers credit and the research credit, which is why both of these policies were extended in the House-passed bill. That is already in there. Unfortunately, almost every single member of the minority voted against extending those incentives when the House voted on the bill last December.

I should further point out that our side also strongly supports extending relief from the AMT. In fact, I am a cochairman of the Zero AMT Caucus and I have been vigorously advocating repeal of the AMT since I came to Congress, an ugly tax legacy of the previous majority. The House has spoken on this issue, and it is worth noting that we voted overwhelmingly in December to extend AMT relief as a stand-alone bill. By moving this relief outside of reconciliation, we can shield millions of families from the AMT without having to raise taxes to do so.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct is asking for a tax increase on effectively the seed corn of the economy. It is asking us at a critical time to put a brake on economic growth when we need it most.

If we are serious about maintaining the forward motion in our economy, I would suggest that we need to maintain our current tax policies and not undercut our efforts to maintain them. I am calling on the House to vote against this motion. It is the right thing to do.

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, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 more minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) in order to steer the discussion away from religion and back toward economic literacy.

Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire of the gentleman on the other side if he has no more speakers, I am prepared, since I believe he has the power to close, I am prepared to make a closing presentation, and I will yield myself accordingly such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there are obviously a couple of things on the record that need to be corrected.

One of the earlier speakers made a comment about it being hogwash, I think was his elegant term, that the pro-growth policies that this majority put in the Tax Code have helped the economy, have helped economic growth in this country which has achieved record rates, have allowed us to generate new revenue that in turn would bring down the deficit, and yet, in the contrary position, Chairman Greenspan just a few months ago, when he was still in office, testified before our Joint Economic Committee and made very clear that the tax policies of this majority, particularly as they apply to the more dynamic side of the Tax Code, have been successful in generating economic growth and have been successful in helping the economy. It is precisely about maintaining these tax policies and not doing a tax increase that we consider this motion to instruct.

I think this motion to instruct would be perverse. It has been challenged here whether this motion to instruct, in fact, represents a tax increase. It is curious that some in Washington still argue that when you have put rates into place and the market has adjusted for them, that if you allow those rates to lapse, somehow that is not a tax increase. Only in Washington is that kind of fantasy engaged in.

What is fairly clear is the tax policies that are our majority and our majority's budget resolution attempt to preserve are tax policies that have been beneficial to the economy, and the alternative is clearly a tax increase.

Let us consider the AMT for a moment, and I think this is very important.

To listen to the other side talk about the need to deal with AMT relief through this budget reconciliation overlooks the fact that the House passed an AMT bill by a margin of 414-4 a few months ago. At that point, clearly an overwhelming majority, over 400 Members of this body, felt that passing a bill specifically to deal with the AMT was the right way to go.

So when we had another Member on the other side suggest that it was essential for someone to vote for this instruction if they are serious about dealing with the AMT is absurd. The House has already dealt with the AMT and in a manner that I think is appropriate.

It is appropriate for our tax conference to be in a position to deal with other issues, including extending existing tax policies.

Now, the gentleman from Maryland pointed out at the beginning of his remarks that the current tax rates are going to be in place until the year 2008 on capital gains and on dividend income, and that is, quote, unquote, plenty of time. I would suggest to the gentleman that the markets may disagree with him. The markets are assuming that we are going to extend current rates, and certainly in the past we have never scheduled a tax increase in these areas in advance and telegraphed the punch. I would suggest that markets might respond to this in a very strange way; and by adopting this motion to instruct conferees, in fact, I would suggest it would send exactly the wrong message at a time like this to the markets.

Some might argue that going back to the old higher rates, raising taxes in that manner, might generate revenue; and yet we have heard testimony before the Ways and Means in recent years that suggests that the revenue-maximizing rate in capital gains, according to one expert, might be between 20 percent and 15 percent, but in the next order of probability might be between 15 percent and 10 percent.

I would suggest, since the gentleman from New Jersey raised the question of

morality, there is not really a coherent morality in setting tax rates in a particular area that are above the level at which they will generate the most revenue. I think that the current rates on capital gains clearly have been beneficial, and it is not clear that we are going to generate additional revenue if, as the gentleman on the other side would like to do, we increase those rates.

We have generated revenue that was not captured in our calculations by lowering these rates. Our experience with raising capital gains rates over the years is that the revenue that was supposed to occur rarely does, and that suggests to us that perhaps the 15 percent rate might be an ideal place to generate the most revenue, not that there is ever really a compelling argument for setting a rate at the revenue- maximizing rate.

I think there are also some things that we ought to consider about some of the figures that were thrown out here. I, in my initial remarks, pointed out some of the clear benefits to the middle class that have accrued from the current tax policies, and the gentleman on the other side of the aisle challenged that and trotted out some figures.

I should simply point out for the record that the joint committee has given us different figures, and the other gentleman's argument I found to be a saturnalia of static analysis. So I think that those who are following this debate can listen and make up their own minds. I think that clearly the current tax policies are justified on the facts, and the other side has not really offered a coherent position for adopting a new tax policy.

My feeling is that workers who have taxable assets, who have seen the value of those taxable assets which they are holding toward retirement increase because of the growth, increase because the market has gone up, may I suggest that they have seen a real benefit from our tax policies, one that is not captured in the static analysis used on the other side, but one which is important and is a real measure of wealth and is a real measure of their satisfaction.

I was intrigued by some of the rhetoric on the other side in which, on one hand, a speaker called for us to use civility and then accused us of siding with millionaires. That is an unusual approach to civility, but I would suggest to the speaker that by supporting the current tax policies and supporting the growth that so clearly is their result, we are siding with entrepreneurs. We are siding with workers who depend on small businesses and the people who run them to create the jobs that they need. We are siding with the capitalist economy that has created more wealth and more opportunity in this country than anywhere else in the world. We are siding with the dynamic side of our economy and that part of our economy that we think offers the promise of new opportunities throughout America.

I believe that we have a great opportunity in this tax conference to move forward and to continue this House's policy of supporting pro- growth tax policies. I certainly hope that the House tonight makes very clear that we continue to support those policies; and on the eve of this tax conference, I hope that we come together to send a clear message by rejecting this instruction.

I think there is a clear philosophical difference here. We believe in growth. We believe in expanding opportunity. We believe that the capitalist economy can create those opportunities. We believe that American workers and American companies, where given the opportunity and where the Tax Code and the taxman does not get in their way, can compete anywhere in the world.

Mr. Speaker, with that I call on my colleagues to reject this instruction, perhaps well-meaning, but poorly conceived and clearly a tax increase at the wrong time and at the wrong place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Vanadium Technology Partnership, a program of great importance to both my constituents in Northwest Pennsylvania and the men and women serving in the United States military at home and overseas. The Vanadium Technology Partnership, or VTP, is a cooperative relationship between the vanadium microalloyed steel industry and the U.S. Army. The partnership is working to apply high-performance steels in military applications.

The military uses some quantity of vanadium in virtually every application where steel products are employed. As the chairman of the Congressional Steel Caucus, I recognize the crucial benefits that VTP offers to domestic steel industry as well as the U.S. armed services. I have worked extensively on behalf of VTP, including Bear Metallurgical Company, a key vanadium producer in my district and member of the partnership. Since VTP's inception in 2003, the steel industry and the military have employed vanadium in their daily operations to a much larger degree. Vanadium is currently being used to increase armor strength and reduce the weight of current combat vehicles, tactical vehicles, tactical bridges, material handling equipment, aircraft, watercraft and rail. Further, case studies looking at ways to expand vanadium's uses have been completed and are now in the process of deployment, including a vanadium steel rebar program, long span structures, trailer weight reduction, and vanadium spiral-welded pipe.

I would also like to offer my sincere gratitude to Dr. John Beatty with the Army Research Lab for his support and oversight of VTP since its inception. I was particularly pleased to learn that the Army has agreed to support the use of VTP funding to undertake critical health and safety research. This research will help ensure the safe and continued use of vanadium for industry and the military.

In closing, I am grateful to both my colleagues and the military for recognizing the crucial benefits of the Vanadium Technology Partnership. I have made the advancement of this technology a top priority and encourage its continuation. With the Army's commitment to the VTP, the many uses of vanadium will continue to benefit our servicemen and women serving at home and overseas.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues the immense contributions by the American Burn Association, ABA, to the fields of burn treatment, education and prevention.

Whether caused by accidents, natural disasters or potential terrorist attacks, the ABA has been integral in shaping the discussion on how this nation's burn centers should manage burn injuries. In all cases, the American Burn Association stands ready as the critical initial line of first responders. They need our support.

The ABA has more than 3,500 members in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Asia and Latin America. All of the members of the association are burn care specialists. They include physicians, surgeons, nurses, occupation and physical therapists, researchers, social workers, firefighters, emergency response personnel, and the underpinning of burn research and care--hospitals with highly specialized burn centers.

As an organization, the ABA sets the industry standards for quality care for both civilian and military treatment of burn injuries. Its research into advanced treatment for burn injuries is the foundation for the high quality of care available to our wounded soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Furthermore, many of the

professionals with the medical teams currently deployed overseas are ABA members, and many more work stateside, treating the severe burn injuries that result from military conflicts.

In addition to research and treatment, the American Burn Association continually promotes educational campaigns to prevent burn injuries. Past campaigns include home safety, senior burn safety, prevention of gasoline burns, scald prevention and electrical burn prevention. They have also highlighted the value of home sprinkler systems, which are no more expensive per foot than home carpeting, and serve as a valuable preventative measure.

The ABA represents a vital national resource in the select medical community of burn care. These professionals are in every State of the Union and almost every congressional district. I have met with representatives from my region of Pennsylvania. I hope that you will meet with yours and take an opportunity to learn more about the ABA and the outstanding work they do in your own State and district.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and honor the 30th Anniversary of Family-Life TV. Throughout its existence, Family-Life TV has offered quality religious, entertainment, and informational programming and it is my hope that it will continue to provide these services long into the future.

Founded on March 7, 1976, Family-Life TV was the brainchild of David J. Croyle. Too young to legally run the station himself, David's father, Reverend Robert F. Croyle, served as the station's first President. This role passed to David upon his father's death in 2001.

The station initially broadcasted three hours each day and only reached cable subscribers in central Armstrong County. Since that time, Family-Life TV has grown rapidly. It now offers 24 hour programming and reaches cable subscribers well beyond its initial range. Additionally, Family-Life TV has ventured into the realm of the internet, touching the lives of individuals from over 30 different nations worldwide.

Family-Life TV has become the thread that binds the Armstrong community together and ties it to the world. For this, its record of impeccable quality programming, and its 30 years of broadcasting, Family-Life TV deserves thanks and congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my fellow members will join me at this time, and once again congratulate Family-Life TV on its 30th Anniversary and wish it a long and successful future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and particularly to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), who is its primary sponsor and who has carefully shepherded it forward at a very sensitive time in U.S.-Ukrainian relations.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill especially when taken in tandem with economic and political reforms made by the Ukraine, as well as the efforts of our negotiators to put together a solid WTO market access agreement.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of passage of this bill on the heels of the other body passing a similar measure under unanimous consent. Just 2 days ago an agreement on market access was signed between the U.S. and the Ukraine. This agreement is an excellent start to fostering a continued growth between our two countries.

We recognize that some frictions remain, but this agreement, along with the Ukraine's accession to the WTO, will better enable us to resolve these frictions expeditiously, and in a mutually beneficial manner. Granting permanent normal trade relations, along with steps already taken to make government loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank available to U.S. exporters to the Ukraine, will significantly increase U.S. investment in the Ukraine.

Granting the Ukraine permanent normal trade relations status will not only complement the difficult economic reforms that have been made. It will also support and reinforce the democratic reforms being made by President Yushchenko.

It is vital that Congress move forward and reaffirm our commitment to the Ukraine, to its reforms, both democratic and economic. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.