Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is pro-environment, it's business friendly, and it's paid for.

I don't know how anybody on the other side can mention the words ``alternative minimum tax'' with a straight face. They had sufficient opportunity in the last session of the Congress to vote for a responsible alternative minimum tax repeal. I know. I authored the legislation. They all voted against it.

I want to thank Charlie Rangel today for his hard work. There are a number of business and individual tax incentives that lapsed in January of this year. There was urgency to getting it done, and we did precisely that. In my home State of Massachusetts this means that 94,000 teachers will get a deduction for out-of-pocket expenses for classroom supplies. It means that a thousand businesses in Massachusetts will get some credit for the millions they spend on research here in the United States. Without this bill 121,000 families in Massachusetts cannot take deduction for college tuition expenses.

This bill provides significant and real tax relief to millions of families nationwide and for some very low income families it will provide a new benefit. There are 111,000 children in Massachusetts whose families will get a higher tax credit because of this bill.

There are an additional 32,000 children and families in Massachusetts who are currently shut out of the child tax credit because of the threshold for earnings that must exceed rises each year for inflation. They're simply too poor for the tax credit. This bill lowers the threshold so that these working families can benefit from the child tax credit just like other families.

These are well-crafted positions, and we don't have time to mention them all. But I want to tell you in the 20 years I have been in this House, this is one of the best pieces of legislation that I have been associated with. It provides tax relief, but at the same time it's pro- environment.

I hope that Members of this House on both sides will support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Mr. Frank. In the 30 years that I've known him, I've yet to meet anybody who has done a better job of mastering the most arcane detail of complicated housing policy. In fact, in some measure, we're here today because of the energy that he's brought to the task at hand.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in support of this housing assistance tax package which has been reported by the Ways and Means Committee. I want to thank Chairman Rangel for his leadership on this very important national issue.

There is little doubt that the sagging housing industry, now at historic lows, has been a drag on our national economy. This legislation would stimulate that industry and help families who have been caught up in this struggling economy.

This legislation provides tax credits for first-time homebuyers, and it boosts credits for construction of affordable housing. It allows families to deduct property taxes who couldn't do so before.

It increases mortgage revenue bonds and it allows the States to refinance troubled subprime loans.

This assistance is targeted to those who need it most. It will also help bring economic stability to our communities. And these provisions are revenue neutral, I emphasize ``revenue neutral,'' using a provision from the President's own budget to pay for much of the cost.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been endorsed by the Home Builders, the Realtors and State Housing Administrators. It passed with the support of 12 Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee, including my friend and the distinguished ranking member, Mr. McCrery. It is broadly supported, it's bipartisan in nature, and I am proud to bring it to this House today.

There are but two changes to our amendment. One is a package of technical improvements from the Financial Services Committee to better coordinate the various housing tax and HUD programs. The other is--and I hope that everybody will listen to this suggestion--a provision approved by the Veterans Affairs Committee to extend from 90 days to 1 year the protection against foreclosure for servicemembers returning from active duty. I can't imagine that there is a voice in this body who would not be supportive of that initiative, the idea that in Afghanistan and/or in Iraq, that a servicemember who is doing all that's asked of him or her every day would find themselves facing mortgage foreclosure because of their military service.

As chairman of the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, again I stand in strong support of the legislation that's before us today. It includes a number of improvements to the affordable housing program.

Our subcommittee considered these provisions last summer. And at the urging of housing officials, developers, and advocates for low-income families, they have all been included in the Ways and Means amendment that we consider today. I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do offer some acknowledgement of the constraints that we find ourselves within today on the House floor, and I think there's some accuracy as to what Mr. McCrery had to say. However, there is another very important point, and that is, that the issues were vetted at the committee level and there was ample opportunity and a full and vigorous debate ensued in the Ways and Means Committee in which every opinion was welcomed.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the audience, including the Members that are on the floor, that this procedure was fully vetted in the Ways and Means Committee. It passed 35-5. That means we picked up 12 members of the minority who supported this legislation.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, just briefly in reference to my friend Mr. Reynolds' comments, the constraints that we are operating on today, as he criticizes them, are entirely legitimate; but they are institutional problems, as opposed to just the will of the majority.

I was asking a Member of the minority last evening, ``Is it possible to be an aggrieved Member of the majority?'' In these instances I think you can be an aggrieved Member of the majority.

But I want to emphasize a very important point: This legislation received overwhelming support from the minority in the committee, and I think based upon news accounts this morning that there was some conflict in two major dailies as to whether or not the administration would, in fact, veto this legislation, but I can't overstate enough this simple point: There was ample opportunity for the minority to participate in the debate at the Ways and Means Committee; and, in fact, they succeeded in amending the legislation that has come to the floor today, and every voice was heard.

Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to yield to the gentleman from Vermont via Springfield, Massachusetts, one of the most distinguished families in Springfield, my friend, Mr. Welch, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I must tell you I swore to myself I was going to resist what I'm about to say until I heard the term ``bailout.'' The minute I heard the term ``bailout,'' I thought to myself the speed with which the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury came to the aid of Bear Stearns in a 48-hour period. And to use that same example of making it an analogy here is striking.

With that, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me see what I can do to lift the spirits of the gentleman from New York, my friend, Mr. Reynolds.

In fact, I think what is sad is that you are leaving us, that you're retiring. And I was searching hard to figure out the meaning of that acronym, based upon the fact that the Ways and Means Committee took this legislation up, and I want to reiterate, for the fourth time today, 12 of the 17 Republicans on the committee voted for the very bill that they are now all saying they are going to oppose. Forgive me. That is sad. How can you come to the floor and argue against the proposal that you voted for in the committee when you agree with just about every part of the bill?

That's what's before us here. We have heard these arguments, and they have all said, we support most of what's in the bill, but they are prepared because of an institutional constraint with the Senate to vote against the legislation that they favor.

In my home State of Massachusetts, it's sixth in the Nation in foreclosure activity. In Springfield, the largest community in my district, 300 homes have been foreclosed this year and over 2,000 mortgages will reset to higher interest rates by the end of next year.

In response to the worsening housing crisis, Massachusetts this month initiated a new law that extends the foreclosure moratorium from 30 to 90 days. Other States are taking similar action, but, like Massachusetts, they need help from Congress.

Reports seem to suggest that the housing slide won't turn around until 2010. These tax provisions we are considering today for families and communities will help turn it around, I hope, much sooner. It certainly will help our economy and markets in general.

The President's housing proposals really haven't worked. It's time for the Congress to act. We are often accused of having a short memory, but I think all Members in this chamber remember the recent government- backed bailout of Bear Stearns, yes, the bailout of that mom-and-pop operation called Bear Stearns. If we can, with great urgency and enthusiasm, come to the aid of Wall Street, we have no excuse not to help the people who reside on Main Street.

I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Leader, most of us are institutionalists here, and we have great regard for this body, and I think we're all a bit discouraged when the regular order does not proceed, and my friend, the minority leader, spoke eloquently of what he feels to be a process that's been limited.

But the concern that many of us have is that for 6 years at the Ways and Means Committee, the minority could not pass one amendment. Not one amendment passed in what should be the most deliberative committee in this House, and there were no protestations from the other side that were ever raised.

In this instance here on the housing bill, there were two Republican amendments that were accepted. The vote was 30-5, I believe, or 35-5. So there was a process. Actually, people got to talk at the Ways and Means Committee who disagreed with the outcome of the bill, and I understand how the minority feels in this instance.

But I wish that there had been some voices raised during those years about what was happening to shut down the process in the Ways and Means Committee, and Mr. McCrery has moved vigorously to change the tone, as Mr. Rangel has included him in everything at the committee level.

Madam Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity today to pay tribute to a great American who just recently and unexpectedly passed away.

Donald Robinson worked in the Office of Naval Intelligence and as a Chief of Staff and Staff Director on Capitol Hill in his younger years, but he is perhaps remembered best as a mentor to the hundreds of young people who came to Washington, DC to pursue an internship on Capitol Hill or with the Federal Government.

For 25 years, Donald L. Robinson worked with his wife, Sara Robinson, as a Director of the Boston University Washington Internship Program.

Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to the contribution he and his wife Sara made to enrich the lives of young people in who came to Washington to try out public service. He will be missed greatly. I would like to take the opportunity to submit his obituary in the Congressional Record today and to thank him for

assisting in launching many successful, meaningful careers.

[May 2, 2008.]

Donald L. ``Robbie'' Robinson, Ph.D., 71, Congressional Staffer; B.U.

Political Science Professor

Wellfleet.--Donald Louis ``Robbie'' Robinson, Ph.D., 71, a

retired congressional staffer and political science professor

at Boston University, died in his sleep at his home in

Wellfleet, on Tuesday, April 29, 2008.

Robbie is survived by his wife of 45 years, Sara Moore

Robinson. He is also survived by his daughter, Moore, his

son, Marshall, his daughter-in-law, Jennifer, and his

granddaughter, Aila.

Robbie was born in Ottawa, Ill., in 1936. In his youth, he

was a talented trumpet player and tap dancer, who won

numerous prizes. He received an academic scholarship to

Northwestern University, from which he earned a Bachelor of

Arts degree in 1958, and a Master of Arts degree in 1959.

While at Northwestern, he earned spending money playing

trumpet in a dance band, and was a member of the Alpha Tau

Omega fraternity.

Robbie joined the Navy in the Officer Training Program, and

moved to Washington, D.C., where he served in the Office of

Naval Intelligence for 3\1/2\ years. During his tenure in the

Navy, he began a doctoral program in International Relations

at American University in Washington, D.C. He left the Navy

in 1962 and received his Ph.D. in 1963.

It was at a friend's Sunday brunch, over bagels, where he

met his future wife, Sara Moore, a congressional staffer. The

two fell in love and were married in 1962. They had two

children, a son, Marshall, in 1969, and a daughter, Margaret

``Moore,'' born in 1971.

Dr. Robinson worked as a congressional staffer for 13

years, before retiring on disability in 1976 after being

diagnosed with Crohn's disease. He was then hired by Boston

University to develop a Washington, D.C., Internship Program,

which he ran for 25 years. In addition, he developed

internship programs for Case Western Reserve and the

University of Houston. He was appointed by President Bill

Clinton to be a member of the National Commission on

Libraries and Information Science. Dr. Robinson and his wife,

an attorney, retired together and moved from Washington,

D.C., to Wellfleet in 2001.

Robbie was deeply involved with the Episcopal Church in

Washington, D.C., first at St. Stephen and the Incarnation,

and then at St. Columba's Church, where he was a lay

minister. After retirement, he was a lector, lay minister and

administrator of the healing rite at St. Mary of the Harbor,

Provincetown.

At the time of his death, he was president of the Wellfleet

Historical Society, treasurer of the Cape Cod Opera, the only

nonsinging member of the board of the Outer Cape Chorale, a

Freemason and a Shriner. Last year, he and his wife joined

dear friends on a guided tour through the Baltic States and

Russia.

Robbie loved his family very much, and was delighted to

meet his adored first grandchild, Aila, in January. Despite

his history of chronic illness, his death came suddenly and

unexpectedly, and is a great loss for all who knew him for

his indomitable good cheer, his delight of conversation and

his sheer enjoyment of life. He will be missed tremendously.

A memorial celebration will be held on Saturday, May 17,

2008, at 3 p.m., at St. Mary of the Harbor in Provincetown.

In lieu of flowers, donations may be sent to Wellfleet

Historical Society (Please note: Attention Robbie Robinson

Fund) at 266 Main St., Welifleet, MA 02667.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to enter into the Congressional Record today an article that was written by a constituent of mine, Thomas J. Carty, PhD, Associate Professor of History and American Studies at Springfield College in Springfield, MA. His article is entitled, The Risks and Rewards of the Pope's Visit to the U.S., and it outlines the history of the interaction of politics and religion as it related to papal visits in the past. I thought it was a pertinent piece in light of Pope Benedict's recent visit to Washington, DC and New York City.

The Risks and Rewards of the Pope's Visit to the U.S.

(By Thomas J. Carty)

Pope Benedict XVI's meeting this week with a U.S. president

during an election year demonstrates how Americans

increasingly tolerate the confluence of religion and

politics. While George Bush does not face the prospect of

election this year, his meeting with Pope Benedict may affect

the presidential campaign. Bush's policies have both

delighted and disappointed the Pope. The president's

opposition to legalized abortion and embryonic stem-cell

research earned him praise by John Paul II, but this pope

also critiqued Bush and his father for resorting excessively

to war in Panama, the Persian Gulf, and Iraq. For Bush, this

meeting offers an opportunity to burnish his legacy as a

defender of traditional values.

Bush can maximize benefit from this meeting by studying the

successes and failures of Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, and

Bill Clinton. Johnson's 1965 decision to greet Pope Paul VI

strained traditional diplomatic protocol because no pope had

previously set foot in the United States. Prior to the pope's

landing in New York in order to deliver a speech at the

United Nations, therefore, Johnson arranged elaborate plans

to avoid appearing biased in favor of the Catholic Church.

The president agreed to wait in New York's Waldorf-Astoria

hotel for Pope Paul VI to visit Johnson's suite so that the

president could deny having initiated the unofficial summit.

Johnson certainly hoped such appeals to the pope might have

helped his standing among Catholics in an eventual run for

reelection. Yet the pope's public criticisms of U.S. bombing

in Southeast Asia contributed to Johnson's later decision to

withdraw from the 1968 presidential campaign.

By contrast, Pope John Paul II boosted Ronald Reagan's

political popularity among

Catholics and conservative non-Catholics in the 1980s.

Although the U.S. Catholic bishops opposed the construction

of nuclear weapons and criticized Reagan's movement to expand

U.S. armaments, John Paul and Reagan shared an uncompromising

anticommunism. Meeting with the pope allowed the president

to deflect attention from the American Catholic

hierarchy's opposition to his arms buildup. When Reagan

appointed an official, full-time ambassador to the Vatican

in 1984, the president had established a direct diplomatic

line of communication with the pope, and subverted the

American bishops. Reagan showed none of Johnson's protocol

concerns when deciding to stay an extra night in Alaska to

coordinate an informal meeting with the pope, whose plane

arrived the next day, in May 1984, a year in which a

majority of Catholics voted to help him win reelection.

In the most analogous case with George Bush's position this

year, Bill Clinton met with John Paul II in 1999 as a second

term president unable to run again for reelection. Absent the

Cold War, Clinton aggressively pursued common cause with Pope

John Paul II in other areas. Due to Clinton's unapologetic

support of legalized abortion and artificial contraception,

the policies of this president clashed with the pope's

absolute opposition to late-term, or ``partial birth''

abortions. Yet Clinton sought closer connections between U.S.

and Vatican economic assistance programs while the Republican

congress planned to curtail funding for foreign aid. The

Catholic Church also endorsed Clinton's ambitions to provide

government assistance to the poor and immigrants. These

efforts may have helped Clinton obtain the meeting and photo

opportunity with John Paul II at the same time as two Papal

Knights in Congress (House Judiciary Committee Chairperson

Henry J. Hyde and his legal counsel David P. Shippers)

prepared the case for the president's eventual impeachment.

Since George W. Bush cannot legally compete in the 2008

presidential election, Pope Benedict may have more to gain or

lose than the president in this year's papal-presidential

meeting. Some reports indicate that the pope will court

controversy by highlighting abortion in this presidential

election year visit to the United States. If so, many

Americans will charge the pope with a partisan appeal which

threatens America's recent tolerance for Catholicism and

church-state cooperation. If Benedict addresses respect for

immigrants and the poor, as well as the unborn, however, he

can avoid the appearance of favoring one political party

platform over another.

Madam Speaker, I wish to celebrate the accomplishments of Mr. Leroy R. Clink, Sr. for his 30 years of service. Below is a brief description of his accomplishments.

Leroy Clink comes from humble origins, attending a two room schoolhouse in West Granville, MA. After graduating from Westfield High School, he went on to New England College to receive his Bachelors of Science in Civil Engineering. He also obtained a Master of Science in Engineering Management from Western New England College.

Mr. Clink was an impressively well-rounded college student. During his time at New England College, Mr. Clink ascended to the presidency of the Sigma Alpha Beta Fraternity, in addition to becoming Chairman of the Inter-Fraternity Council, Mr. Clink displayed his leadership skills in the Student Senate. He was also the First New England college student to be a voting member of the College Admissions Committee. Mr. Clink was able to find time in his busy schedule to become a student guide, dormitory proctor, and a student member of ASCE.

Mr. Clink began his professional career in 1978 at Westover Air Reserve Base as a Pavements Engineer. From there he became the Project Engineer in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He served as a Base Civil Engineer at the Westover ARB, where he coordinated construction projects. Mr. Clink has played an imperative role in runway overlays, east ramp improvements, water distribution, and base operations. He also played an active role as a security police officer. In addition, he was involved in control tower, base civil engineering, and Marines site support element.

Before his retirement, he was working on the New BRAC projects Armed Forces Reserve Center and the Navy Sea Bee Battalion Facility. On this occasion, I am proud to mark 30 years of Mr. Clink's service and to congratulate him on his well-deserved retirement.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor and privilege for me to celebrate the success of Pastor Howard-John Wesley. Pastor Wesley has accomplished a great deal in his 10 years at St. John's Congregational Church. Increasing the membership from 40 to over 3,000 is a very impressive feat. It may be his impressive sermons that continue to bring people from all walks of life to this church. Or perhaps it is his willingness and ability to help people who need his guidance. Either way, he consistently gathers thousands of people every week to celebrate together and follow in Gods path.

Pastor Wesley has brought Baptist influences to one of the oldest African American churches in the State, which tended to be very traditional and affluent. This uneasy path certainly came with a great deal of opposition. Nevertheless, he continued to encourage all citizens of the community to join his congregation as he stressed the need to closely follow the teachings of the bible.

While thousands gather at St. Johns to hear Pastor Wesley, he has also brought his powerful influence and Gods word into the community. He is on several boards in Springfield and has established several ministries within the church to deal with specific needs in education, youth, and the elderly. He welcomes many students from local colleges who consistently attend his services. He also influenced former residents of the York Street and Ludlow jail systems to become ``Ministers In Training''. These accomplishments truly highlight his desire to give back and help those throughout the community.

I would like to close by thanking you for allowing me to speak on this wonderful occasion. I am so grateful to be able to honor this tremendous man, who has given almost 20 years proclaiming Gods word. His service to the church and the community has not gone unnoticed. Although today marks the end of his time here in Springfield, he will continue to touch others through his eloquent sermons and teachings at Alfred Street Baptist Church in Alexandria, VA. Congratulations, good luck, and thank you for all you have done for this community.

Madam Speaker, I would like to commemorate the First Church of Christ, Congregational, located in Springfield, MA, commonly known as ``Old First Church.'' The congregation first established on the banks of the Connecticut River in 1637, conducted its last service on Sunday, December 31, 2007. Its steeple bells tolled for the last time after the service was concluded and rang out over Court Square and downtown Springfield in its entirety. Its closing should not go unreported.

Old First Church was founded by settlers, including William Pynchon, who came to the banks of the Connecticut River from Roxbury, MA, in 1636. The settlers began worshiping in settlers' homes in 1637 with the Reverend George Moon. The First Meeting House was built in 1637, the second in 1677, the third in 1752 (during the ministry of the Reverend Robert Breck), and the fourth, and current, Meeting House was built in 1819. The dedication of the building took place on August 19, 1819. Three thousand people, essentially the entire population of Springfield and the surrounding area were in attendance.

Old First Church is the ``mother church'' for 15 ongregations throughout the Connecticut River valley and over 30 churches can trace their roots to Old First Church. Several of the churches were established for reasons of theological difference and sometimes because of differences relative to a particular pastor's style and perspective. Among the active ``daughter'' churches are: First Church of Christ, Congregational, Suffield, CT; Enfield Congregational Church, Enfield, CT; First Congregational Church UCC, West Springfield, MA; Wilbraham United Church, Wilbraham, MA; First Congregational Church, Brimfield, MA; First Congregational Church UCC, Chicopee, MA, First Church in Ludlow UCC, Ludlow, MA; The Thirds Congregational Society; South Congregational Church UCC in Springfield, MA; and First Church in Longmeadow, MA. The members of Old First Church hope that their legacy, which includes a commitment to social justice and to serving the people of Greater Springfield in countless ways, will continue through the members of those ``daughter'' congregations.

The current Meeting House was designed and built by Captain Isaac Damon, with a steeple alter the manner of Christopher Wren. Captain Damon originally traveled to Western Massachusetts from Weymouth, MA, to work on the First Church of Christ in Northampton. Subsequently he worked on additional projects in the Northampton area and it was his work in that area that caused the members of Old First Church to seek him out.

From its position atop the steeple of Old First Church, the Rooster weathervane (which was first placed on the third Meeting House in 1768 and on the current Meeting House when fully constructed in 1819) has been a witness to Springfield's rich and important New England history including: George Washington passing by on June 30, 1775, to take charge of the defense in Boston; the travel of Henry Knox and his train of artillery on January 26, 1776; the selection of Springfield as the site for the first United States Arsenal; General Burgoyne's army after its defeat in Saratoga, New York in 1777; and the defense of the Springfield Armory from rebel forces lead by Daniel Shays in 1787. In more current times, it has gone on to witness community celebrations and commemorations, demonstrations and festivals. It has remained steady and devoted to the City of Springfield and its citizens, just as the members of the Congregation of Old First Church have for hundreds of years.

There are many events and activities of note which have taken place at Old First Church over the centuries, which include the

body of President John Quincy Adams laying in state, and the famed Swedish soprano, Jenny Lind, performing at the Church in July 1851. Samuel Chapin, the subject of the St. Gaudans ``the Puritan'' statue, was an early deacon of the Church. Old First Church played a role in the Underground Railroad. In fact, Reverend Osgood brought in leading abolitionists from England to give speeches advocating against slavery. Daniel Webster attended Old First Church on more than one occasion.

The church also organized and annually hosted a series of musical presentations called ``Music at First'' which featured individual artists, chambers music, ensembles and choral groups. The New England Academy of Academic Artists was also annually provided with a venue for its Juried Show.

Old First Church, until its closing, hosted the largest and longest established Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in Western Massachusetts.

Beginning in 1977, Old First Church began to house ``Open Pantry'' the largest food distribution service for the needy in the Greater Springfield area. It also hosted and regularly staffed ``Loaves and Fishes'' providing two meals for the homeless each Saturday and Sunday. In recent years, during the winter months, the Church opened its door to ``The Warming Place'' supplying emergency shelter to the area's homeless.

Public Vigils to raise consciousness surrounding the issues of AIDS, domestic violence and other social issues have regularly been held at Old First Church as well as memorial services for the New England Association of Fire Chiefs.

The members of the congregation embraced and actively participated in ``Walking United'' a program designed to gather and distribute unused prosthetic devices in the United States to a clinic it established to aid the people of Nicaragua who suffered as a result of land mine and other catastrophic injuries.

Despite its conservative New England roots, Old First Church has been among the most socially progressive churches in Massachusetts. It has been a church which has paved the way for other congregations to follow and one that has always provided unconditional resources and support to those in need within and beyond the City of Springfield.

At the ``Celebrations of the Life of Old First Church 1637 to 2007'' those in attendance were invited by the Reverend Dr. J. Thomas Gough, the 23rd settled pastor of Old First Church, to come forward and accept ``packets of seed'' while offering this prayer:

``Gracious God, Creator of earth and sky, author of all

living things, spirit of hope and grace and promise, be part

of us now as your people here at Old First Church prepare to

offer themselves as seeds of your love. Bless these packets

of seed as symbols of your intention for us that we might

venture forth into the world bearing what is necessary to

grow in other soil.

``May it be your breath that blows us to other places. May

it be your call that leads us to go forth from this place to

be your people scattered in the world. May we follow in the

paths you set before us and take root where next you plant

us. Help us, above all, to flourish in new places and to

bring the fruit of Old First Church to ripeness in other

communities of faith. Let what we have learned in this place,

what has given us life and meaning and purpose, create new

and holy spaces wherever we are taken in your name.''

Madam Speaker, it is my hope that Old First Church will continue to remain a historic landmark and preserved, as it is truly one of the most significant buildings in the city. The parish house has potential valuable uses for the city and it would be a tragedy if we did not do everything in our power to preserve this building. The memories made at the church will continue to live on in the hearts and spirits of the members.

Let me commend Mr. Rangel again for his continued leadership on a very important national issue.

Mr. Speaker, this morning's New York Times headlines tell part of the story: ``Gas Prices Soar, Posing a Threat to the Family Budget.'' Gas prices have been soaring for the last 2 years. Last evening's newscast led with, ``What's Happened to Gasoline Prices?''

If you live in the Northeast, Mr. Speaker, you know what's happened to low-income and middle-class families during this winter heating season. They are struggling to pay energy costs that have skyrocketed in the middle of a harsh winter.

The elderly are particularly vulnerable at a time when they are trying to secure medicine, food and other daily necessities. Circumstances similar to this were evident last week when HHS belatedly released $40 million in emergency contingency funds from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP.

By the way, for our Republican friends who might have forgotten, it was Congressman Silvio Conte, a Republican, who helped to inaugurate the LIHEAP program here in Congress that has done so much good for all Americans.

We can and should do more so that struggling people don't have to fear the possibility of going to bed in a cold house. In a Nation that has been blessed with so much, we ought to be able to agree on the necessities of food and medicine and shelter, and, yes, to make sure people don't go to bed in a cold house.

This bill offers important incentives for renewable and efficient energy programs, as well as energy conservation.

We held hearings last year on all of these initiatives. They were met with standing-room-only audiences. People are anxious to explore the advantages of alternative energy resources.

This legislation in front of us today helps to invite a debate and a discussion about where we need to go as a Nation. This important legislation calls attention to the opportunity to promote progressive energy and cost savings for the American family.

Whether it's clean, renewable energy bonds for municipalities, something I am particularly excited about, and my guess is even those who don't like this bill today on the Republican side, they will encourage their municipalities to take advantage of these opportunities should they arise.

It also offers a residential energy-efficient property credit. It offers improved incentives for businesses to deploy wind, solar, geothermal and other promising technologies.

I would think if you were a Member of Congress from Texas, you certainly would like the incentives that are offered here on the basis of wind power.

This legislation will put us on a path to cleaner, greener and stronger families and a stronger America.

Madam Speaker, I want to first congratulate the Speaker and Chairman Rangel and Chairman Frank for negotiating this economic stimulus bill which will provide relief to working families and businesses in these difficult times.

The bill provides $100 billion in tax relief to working families, targeting this relief to families that really need it. A family earning between 10 and $20,000 will see their taxes cut by 50 percent. For New England families facing rising energy bills, this is well-timed relief and cash in the hands of those most likely to use it to spur on economic growth.

Like others, I believe we can and will do more. But I'm a strong supporter of the legislation that's in front of us and urge its adoption.

Some have quibbled with the impact of this stimulus, but I believe this is how the Congress should respond in a troubled economy. Abe Lincoln noted that ``The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all in their separate and individual capacities.''

Working families, businesses, homeowners, and investors are hurting. This quick infusion of cash to low- and middle-income families, to small businesses and large businesses where necessary, making capital purchases, will jump-start our economy in a quick and efficient way.

Is it perfect? No.

Is it possible? Yes.

Is there more work to be done? Certainly. We will come to that as well in late winter and early spring.

This is good work and the leadership should be commended. Mr. Rangel, Mr. Frank, and Speaker Pelosi all should be acknowledged for the work.

I thank our friend from Hartford, Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for giving me time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation addressing the taxation of prepaid derivative contracts. The appropriate tax treatment of financial products is ever evolving, just as the market for these products is. Occasionally, Congress or the Treasury must step in and clarify how these new offerings should be treated under the tax code. And my bill today will do that.

Recently, a new product called Exchange Traded Notes, has caught the attention of regulators and investors. The main benefit of these notes is their tax treatment. Issuers have advised buyers that these interests receive almost unlimited tax deferral on any gain earned. And, they advise that even when the gain is recognized at the point that the note is sold or redeemed, it is taxed as long-term capital gain and not ordinary income. These notes can run as long as 30 years and track an exchange rate, index, or commodity.

So, with almost unlimited tax deferral, it seems that many other investments would pale in comparison. Already, many investors have caught on. These exchange-traded notes have garnered $4 billion of investment in a very short period of time. Some argue that this tax treatment is justified, as holders of these notes have some credit risk. If the issuer goes under, the holder may not get paid.

But this favorable tax treatment has not gone without notice. In a Tax Notes magazine article aptly titled, ``Too Good To Be True?'' one practitioner called this tax treatment, ``The Wild West of the tax law.'' And one columnist in the Washington Post likened this new tax sheltering opportunity as opening ``Pandora's Tax Box.'' It is important to note that this favorable tax treatment is premised on the opinion of one law firm.

More recently, Treasury has stepped in to clarify that Exchange Traded Notes tied to foreign currencies are debt and do generate taxable income to investors. In a companion notice, Treasury asked for comments on whether holders of other prepaid forward contracts should be required to accrue income during the term of the contract. It is possible that Treasury will produce guidance providing appropriate clarity in this market, but in the interim, I believe legislative action is warranted.

The legislation that I am filing today provides rules for the tax treatment of prepaid derivative contracts, which includes Exchange Traded Notes. Holders of such instruments will be required to include as interest income each year an amount determined by reference to a short-term interest rate. The basis in such contract would be adjusted by any income inclusion so that at disposition, any gain or loss would be properly accounted for just as it would be with any other investment receiving annual payments.

In past Congresses, I have pursued legislation to curb vehicles providing unlimited tax deferral to investors, such as swap funds. I believe it is important that our tax laws reach instances where interest is earned or gain recognized, especially where the products are complex or lack transparency. The legislation that I am filing today takes another step in that direction. But I welcome constructive comments from practitioners on both sides of this issue. Above all, if we amend the tax code, we want to get it right the first time.

I look forward to discussing this complex issue with my colleagues in the New Year and seeking their support for this bill.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

I yield myself 1 minute, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from New York, said the Republicans are blamed for this and the Republicans are blamed for that, and the Republicans are blamed for this. Let's make it clear. They ought to be blamed for this. It is the Republicans in the Senate, it's the Republicans in the House, and it's the Republican at the White House that have caused this moment. They want to borrow the money. They talk about finding common ground. The easiest loophole to close that I have been part of in the last 19 years is the one that we've offered on this floor for wealthy hedge fund managers who hide money on the island nations to avoid taxes. We're asking them to pay for a middle-class tax cut for 23 million people.

Let me repeat: The Republicans in the House, the Republicans in the Senate, and the Republican at the White House, they have all opposed that measure. That's why we're here today at this moment to get this done.

It has been their intransigence and their unyielding position on insisting that this money be borrowed when the minority has had its day in this House of Representatives. That's why we're here, and that ought to be eminently clear to the people that are watching today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we're debating theology here today, as opposed to reality.

With that, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin, for 1 minute.

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

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to my classmate, my friend and a champion of the taxpayer, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Tanner from Tennessee.

Madam Speaker, I'd like at this time to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, with that, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), a valued

member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, let me clear up what the gentleman said as the Democrat he quoted previously. They have decided to borrow the money for Iraq, almost all $800 billion of it on the Republican side, $800 billion.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to a leader in the Blue Dog Coalition, a friend, and on this issue in particular I think a voice of great reason, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

(Mr. BOYD of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, there isn't an economist in this town who would argue that the reason that the Federal deficit and debt has exploded is because of earmarks.

With that, I'd like to introduce the gentleman from Arkansas, a leader in the Blue Dog Coalition and a champion on the AMT issue, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I would like to at this time yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from South Dakota, a leader in the Blue Dog Coalition (Ms. Herseth Sandlin).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who has been a leader on this issue from day one, and his leadership on AMT, I think, has brought about a reformed opinion here on how it ought to be handled, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I might inquire at this time as to how the minority intends to proceed.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'm here in reluctant support of this legislation. In this process of governing, you oftentimes reach a difficult intersection. Sometimes you do not have the luxury of either supporting a bill you like or opposing a bill that you don't like. Sometimes you have to support a bill that you do not like simply because it has to be done. And that is the crossroads at which we find ourselves today.

We have sent to the Senate what was possibly the easiest of offsets: closing a loophole so that wealthy hedge fund managers cannot hide money in offshore accounts. But the Senate minority joined by the President and a group

here in the House of Representatives have rejected on theological grounds any provision that raises revenue.

Some 160,000 troops are in Iraq, 26,000 in Afghanistan, and at some point we're going to have to pay for these wars. We are borrowing $2 billion every 7 days to fund the war in Iraq, and that's a bill our children and grandchildren will have to pay. And yet, and yet, we cannot ask the hedge fund managers to stop hiding money in offshore accounts. That's what this debate is about and has been. They are hiding money, scheming to avoid taxes in offshore accounts.

I support this bill in front of us today. We need to protect 23 million working families from being hit by higher taxes via the alternative minimum tax. But without fiscal responsibility here, and we've abandoned it when it comes to the alternative minimum tax and closing down an offshore tax haven, we have little choice.

Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution.

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

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

I rise in support of the AMT Relief Act of 2007. We are here again in an effort to protect 23 million American taxpayers from higher taxes on April 15. Almost 19 million of those taxpayers have never paid AMT before, and some indeed have not even heard of AMT. With this bill, we can ensure that it stays that way.

My district alone will see an increase from 7,300 families hit by AMT to 67,000 people hit by AMT. We have individuals across this country, including Maggie Rauh from my district who is a CPA and who testified that her family income is at $75,000. She takes the standard deduction. They have three children. She is going to pay AMT. That family trip to Disneyland next year is on hold.

Joel Campbell of Loudoun County, Virginia told the committee that his family had to choose between saving more for retirement or paying for college. Higher taxes because of AMT are forcing middle- and upper middle-income families to make these difficult choices.

So we all agree that AMT should not be affecting these working families, but we cannot agree on how to do it. And that is the point: Everybody agrees that it has got to be fixed. The Republicans propose to borrow $50 billion; we intend to proceed with paying for this issue. When I hear the argument that we should forget about it because it was never intended to hit middle-income people, as Mr. Rangel noted, I would like to try that on my creditors.

The Republicans believe that we should not offset this tax increase for middle-income people. Indeed, the President's budgets for the last few years have all counted on this revenue, and he projects next year precisely the same thing.

We made a pledge earlier this year to the American taxpayer that we would do no harm to the Federal budget. So if we lower tax revenues, we have to make up for that loss and not add to the deficit. That PAYGO pledge is difficult and painful, but most sensible.

The bill that we bring before the House today is a smaller package than before. The expiring provisions and the carried interest revenue raisers are gone. In the face of opposition to our offsets, we cannot retain this package because of the expiring tax provisions. It is my hope that we can turn to these provisions again in the near future and perhaps, if necessary, make them retroactive, indeed.

This bill provides that offshore hedge fund managers not enjoy unlimited deferral from any taxation on their compensation. We have all seen the news reports of these hedge fund people deferring hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation offshore because of a tax loophole. This bill closes that loophole, and it gives tax relief to 23 million families.

The bill also provides that a corporate tax shelter abuser be subject to new rules requiring economic substance in transactions. Let me interpret. It has to be for real. By cracking down on tax shelter abusers, we are able to provide tax relief to the families of 13 million children in minimum wage households who get little or no refundable child tax credits.

The bill is simple. The bill is straightforward. Despite some opposition, we are going to persevere in our path to responsible tax cuts. Ecclesiastes teaches us that the race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong. That does not affect our conviction here that we intend to persevere on the right path. We stand by our pledge to the American taxpayer and hope to convince others to join our battle today.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify what the gentleman just said. He came the same day that I did. He is one of the better Members to serve here, and I personally and professionally am going to miss him.

Let me clear up what he just said. He said let's borrow the money to pay for this issue. We are saying let's pay the bill now.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to introduce the Speaker of the House of Representatives for a long 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, there are only two ways to respond: Either you borrow the money or you ask people who are hiding money in offshore accounts to pay for it, and that is what we are doing. People who are hiding money in island communities are being asked to give tax relief to 23 million people.

And with that, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, we cannot predicate our actions in the House of Representatives on the basis of what the President might or might not do. Article I of the Constitution mentions Congress as the first branch of government for good reason, to keep a check on the executive, not vice versa.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, what my friend, Mr. Ryan, just said, he's really a good guy here. He simply said that our priority was a bit confused. Our priority is clear. Cut taxes for 23 million Americans and close an offshore account.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I need to quickly correct the record. In 1969 when the alternative minimum tax was put in place, it was not a Democratic scheme. The vote was 389-2 in this House of Representatives.

With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, without this bill passing, there are 74,000 people in Mr. Cantor's district that will pay alternative minimum tax next year.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I like Mr. McCrery is because I think he's one of the smartest guys that serves here in this institution, and let me just say this.

I agree with what he said. If you stop 23 million people from getting a tax increase, that is tax relief. There are 33,000 people tonight in Mr. Hensarling's district that are going to pay alternative minimum tax if we don't pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for clarifying the issue of why we should borrow the money. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, who has been a longtime advocate of repealing the AMT, Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I would like to call upon at this time the majority leader of the House of Representatives, my friend, Mr. Hoyer, to close the debate on our side.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the motion to recommit violates clause 10 of rule XXI because the provisions of the measure have the net effect of increasing the deficit over the requisite time period. The cost of 1 year of AMT relief is $50 billion, and the motion contains no provisions to pay for that relief.

Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to appeal.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I'm going to do today after listening to my friend, Mr. McCrery, is to go back to my office and call Citigroup, that holds my mortgage, and I'm going to apply that logic when I tell them that I'm no longer going to bother paying the principal, because I just want to forget about the bill; that the bill is just gone. And I expect them to say to me, we're going to use the logic that Congress uses when it comes to paying the Nation's bills.

I'm in full support of this legislation, and I think we need to stand up to theology today and address it with fact. Without the extension of these important tax provisions, there's going to be a real impact back home. Ninety-four thousand Massachusetts teachers who took the deduction for out-of-pocket classroom supplies totaling $23 million in expenditures, they're going to lose that deduction.

Without this bill, 121,000 Massachusetts families who took the tuition deduction for higher education costs, totaling $317 million in expenditures, they're going to lose their incentive for higher learning.

If we don't pass this bill, 1,000 businesses in Massachusetts that took the research and development tax credit totaling $10 million, they're going to lose this credit.

We have to pass that bill so that 192 low-income military families in Massachusetts who claimed the earned income tax credit while in the combat zone, totaling $2 million in earnings, are going to keep that credit.

And further, Massachusetts school districts which receive $6.5 million in bond authority for school construction, they're going to lose their assistance without this bill.

And let me speak briefly to the issue of AMT. For a decade and more, I've been at this issue. The Republicans have said to me time and again, you're absolutely right in what you're trying to do. We're quibbling over the solution today. But there's a reality, and the reality is that if we don't do this, 125,684 taxpayers subject to AMT in Massachusetts will increase to, listen to this number, 770,336 people for the 2007 tax year. This means in my district alone 7,000 families to 67,612 will begin to pay AMT if we don't undertake this action today. And half of those 60,000 paying AMT this year will earn between 100 and $200,000. And another third will earn between 75 and $100,000.

This legislation is middle-class tax relief. These are the people that need our help.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who has done a terrific job in that short tenure (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration has been there for 7 years, and they have not proposed once the elimination of the alternative minimum tax. In including next year's budget projections, they include the numbers from the alternative minimum tax for revenue.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record a colloquy between myself and Mr. Watt.

Then I will ask the gentleman from North Carolina to remain here and perhaps we can do it face to face.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. Speaker, I was with the ranking member of the Rules Committee yesterday, and he said that everything was fine, the economy was doing great.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3996.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) for 1 minute.

Let me quickly decipher what my friend the gentleman from New York said. He said, ``Let's borrow the money.''

I yield 1 minute to Mrs. Tubbs Jones, the gentlewoman from Ohio, former District Attorney.

There shouldn't be any confusion, Mr. Speaker, this bill cuts taxes for tens of millions of people.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate that epiphany, that after 6 years of a Republican Congress and a Republican President, they are blaming spending on the Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, 94,000 teachers in Virginia are going to benefit from this proposal today and 133,000 families are going to take advantage of the college tuition deduction in the State of Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, 284,000 teachers in the State of Texas will benefit from the proposal that is before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), another member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, 619 businesses in the State of New Jersey will take advantage of the research and development tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Once again, what the gentleman said is we should borrow the money.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, there are 1,462 businesses in the State of New York who will take advantage of the research and development tax credit that we extend today.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, we are not surprised that the Wall Street Journal reported 3 weeks ago that the American people, with a two-thirds majority, give Bill Clinton high marks for his Presidency.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, we hold the same regard for the distinguished minority leader on this side that they hold for Chairman Rangel, as well. But the difference is essentially this: the Republican Party once again proposes to borrow the money to pay for tax relief. We intend to pay for tax relief.

With that, it is an honor for me to recognize the gentlewoman from California, the distinguished Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, for the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today we're voting on a historic trade agreement with Peru. Let me thank Charlie Rangel and Sandy Levin for the diligence they demonstrated in negotiating with the administration.

This trade deal is about exports. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, the labor and environmental provisions in the Peru FTA are big steps towards a more progressive trade policy where trade benefits are spread more broadly in a global economy.

Regarding labor, the FTA includes a fully enforceable commitment that Peru adopt and maintain the five basic international labor standards. Peruvian President Garcia has already implemented changes to Peru's legal framework to allow compliance with international labor standards. A key provision allows the United States to challenge any violation of Peru's commitments to labor standards. Like the labor provision, the environmental provisions in the Peru FTA are also unprecedented. This legislation before us not only makes significant steps in the right direction, but it also moves aggressively in stopping illegal logging.

In addition to the significant reductions in tariff and nontariff barriers to U.S. exports, again, it's about exports, the agreement also includes important provisions relating to generic medicines, government procurement, and investment protections.

Mr. Speaker, the importance in progress associated with the Peru FTA will allow a lot of Democrats tonight for the first time to vote for an FTA. I know the decision is not easy, but it's a testament to the new and improved course that American trade policy has undertaken, which reflects the best of American values.

Mr. Speaker, the legally binding labor and environmental standards in the Peru FTA is a universe apart from CAFTA. This is not CAFTA. This is not NAFTA, which only received a handful of Democratic votes. Implementation of the FTA will give momentum to other efforts to secure forward-thinking FTAs.

This is the result of Charlie Rangel and Sandy Levin's hard work and dedication, and I urge support of this legislation.