Bureau of Engraving and Printing Security Printing Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 574 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), ranking minority member of the committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 574 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2005. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution which may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment.

The rule further provides, upon the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, for a final period of general debate not to exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. Finally, the rule permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical consistency and provides that the concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, the Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2005, H. Con. Res. 393, provides for $2.4 trillion in total Federal spending for the next fiscal year and sets us on course to cut the deficit in half in 4 years. The resolution provides for total discretionary spending of $818.736 billion in fiscal year 2005. Discretionary defense spending is at the President's requested level of $402 billion. The resolution also accommodates the President's requested increase in homeland security, minus a 0.5 percent efficiency savings. Non-defense, non-homeland security spending is held level for fiscal year 2005. The resolution also responsibly provides for up to $50 billion in fiscal year 2005 for additional costs related to operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Total veterans spending is increased by $1.2 billion for the next fiscal year, and the resolution does not include any of the fees proposed in the administration's budget.

It should be noted, also, Mr. Speaker, that no new mandatory spending is provided for in this resolution. Reconciliation instructions are included directing the Committee on Ways and Means to report a bill by October 1 that prevents a tax increase over the next 5 years. Without a change in the law, expiring provisions in the 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills would result in a tax increase on Americans beginning next year. The resolution also accommodates changes needed to write permanently into law the $1,000 child tax credit, the marriage penalty relief, and setting the lowest income tax bracket at 10 percent. Additional reconciliation instructions direct five House committees to report bills by July 15 of this year to eliminate $13.2 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse from government programs over the 5 years of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the Rules and Budget Committees, I would like to congratulate Chairman Dreier on a fair rule allowing for open debate and Chairman Nussle for producing a budget that is focused on defense, economic growth, and our Nation's long history as a land of opportunity. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this budget is about securing America, creating jobs, and responsible planning. American families do not have unlimited bank accounts.

They have budgets, and they prioritize how they spend and save their money. The Federal Government must set budgets and prioritize spending as well.

This budget continues our commitment to defense and homeland security as the Federal Government's number one responsibility, just as our Founding Fathers intended. It provides for increased funding to help secure America's borders, defend against biological attacks, protect our critical infrastructure, and train and equip our first responders. And it takes a comprehensive, responsible approach to protecting our Nation, winning the war on terror and preparing our military for future security threats and challenges.

Mr. Speaker, by avoiding tax increases and protecting the child tax credit and relief from the marriage tax penalty and relief for lower- income workers, our budget continues the policies that are helping our economy to recover.

Our economy is growing, not as fast as I would like, but it is headed in the right direction, and we need to keep it on track that way. Raising taxes would stop this growth dead in its tracks.

I believe in balanced budgets, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to have served in the House when Republicans produced the first balanced budget in 40 years. But I do not believe in balancing the budget by simply shifting the burden to American workers, families, and business owners in the form of tax increases. Our budget is focused on allowing the Committee on Appropriations to make the responsible spending choices and fund the highest priorities within the overall framework established by this resolution.

We provide for full funding of the Medicare law to provide seniors help in paying for their prescription drugs for the first time ever. We continue the yearly increases in education spending and fund the No Child Left Behind Act so that our children are better prepared for the future, and we provide an additional $1.2 billion for veterans' health care.

Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from Iraq, and that trip served as a close-up reminder of the hard work and sacrifices made by those who serve in the Armed Forces. We made our promises to veterans, and those promises must be kept. Our budget provides for these priorities, strengthens our defense, and puts us on track to cut the deficit in half in the next 4 years, with declining deficits in the future, and is accomplished without raising taxes on the American people.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time

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

Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from Texas that I have no further requests for time, and if he is prepared to yield back his time, I am certainly prepared to yield back my time. Perhaps the 6 hours of debate took all the steam out of what we have been talking about here.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Budget had a very extensive markup

session; I think we had roll call votes on something like 25 particular items to add to the budget in particular areas. So we had a vigorous debate on that. Yesterday, in the Committee on Rules, there was again vigorous debate on the amendments that were offered.

It has always been the tradition when we deal with the budget document, which I might add is the broad blueprint for our appropriation process that is coming up later on, but it has always been the tradition when we do the budget document that the amendments that we make in order are full substitutes.

The gentleman spoke about his concern of the pay-go issue, and one of the substitutes that we made in order, the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget substitute, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), has precisely that issue within the substitute. So we will have a vigorous debate on that. The Committee on Rules made in order 40 minutes for each of those substitutes. I might add that three of the substitutes that we made in order come from the other side of the aisle, and one of those substitutes comes from our side of the aisle.

So we will, I think, have a vigorous debate on the issue that the previous speaker just brought up, and I think it will be a healthy debate; and then we will let the will of the House make that determination.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just remind Members that the Committee on Rules made in order three substitutes, and I erred when I said the Spratt amendment was only for 40 minutes; it is actually for 60 minutes. The other ones are for 40 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Economics 101 tells us that if we spend more than we make, we quickly find ourselves in a hole. And as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) often says when asked about the Federal deficit, the first thing we have to do when we find ourselves in a hole is stop digging. Well, Mr. Speaker this country has been digging for 3 straight years, and the result is a very, very deep hole.

Three years ago we projected a surplus of $432 billion for fiscal year 2005. But the Republican budgets of the past 3 years have changed a few things. We now face a deficit of $521 billion this year; a debt accumulation of $1.2 trillion over the last year, this year, and the next; and deficits will continue as far as our forecasts go. That is a dangerous trend, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell the Members why.

Budget deficits and the ensuing debt are bad for the economy. That is a view that almost all economists share. The current chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, Harvard Professor Gregory Mankiw, even agrees. As a matter of fact, I have right here his well-known and respected 1998 economics textbook, ``Principles of Economics.'' In it, Professor Mankiw wrote about what he called `` . . . the most basic lesson about budget deficits,'' that when a government runs a budget deficit, investment falls and the economy's growth rate is reduced.

This is a very important point to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the budget deficit can really harm the economy, especially since the jobs outlook for the 8.2 million unemployed is getting worse, not better. The latest Labor Department numbers show the average length of unemployment is now up to 20.3 weeks, the longest duration of unemployment in 20 years. Coupled with the administration's refusal to extend unemployment benefits, the situation for the jobless looks bleak and unlikely to improve.

It did not have to be that way, Mr. Speaker. Our Nation's surpluses were meant to shore up Social Security for the retiring baby boom generation and pay down the national debt. This may sound familiar to anyone who may be listening to the debate today, and it should. Mr. Speaker, for the third year in a row, this House is considering a budget that makes deep funding cuts to our national priorities while at the same time it drives America deeper and deeper into debt.

There is only one way to dig ourselves out of this hole now, Mr. Speaker: by working together, as a national family, to restore fiscal responsibility. That is how families across the country operate. They take an honest look at their expenses, their debts, and their income, and then they sit down at the kitchen table and work it out.

That is what Democrats have tried to do repeatedly with the Federal budget. We have repeatedly urged Republicans to forget politics as usual and join us in a bipartisan budget plan that does not bankrupt our grandchildren.

Last year, Democrats offered a budget that would have saved our Nation and our grandchildren almost $1 trillion in debt over 10 years. I need to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The budget Democrats proposed last year cost almost $1 trillion less over 10 years than the Republican budget. That is a phenomenal number, but not one Republican Member of this House voted for that bill, not one.

Mr. Speaker, despite their rhetoric, Republicans do not want to deal with the problem of the deficit. They would rather hide behind budget gimmicks and accounting tricks to hide the true cost of their agenda.

The budget that is before us today does not reflect the fiscal reality of our Nation today, Mr. Speaker. That is because it omits a number of large expenditures that are sure to exist, including funding for the war in Iraq after fiscal year 2005 and the cost of making the President's tax cuts permanent, a goal that Republicans have repeatedly advocated, but which is conspicuously missing from their budget. Republicans also assume billions of dollars in unspecified cuts that will never be enacted.

At best, the Republican budget will dig our Nation deeper into debt, leaving us with a $377 billion deficit in 2005, spending the entire $1 trillion Social Security surplus from 2005 to 2009, and leaving America with deeper deficits far into the future. It is an irresponsible proposal brought to us by the leadership of the Republican Party.

Mr. Speaker, I am getting sick and tired of this. The American people deserve better, and they expect that Congress will act in their best interest, not spend the Social Security surplus and burden their grandchildren with debt. I believe that America deserves better than this partisan misleading and divisive resolution. That is why today, Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favor of the Democratic budget alternative.

The Democratic budget resolution will provide real fiscal discipline, with a balanced budget over 10 years, by extending pay-as-you-go rules to both spending and tax cuts and by offsetting the cost of tax cuts through reform measures such as closing costly loopholes and eliminating abusive tax shelters. There are no tricks, no gimmicks, and no hidden costs.

The Republican budgets of the past 3 years have clearly led America in the wrong direction. And what do we have to show for 3 years of fiscal mismanagement, 2.9 million fewer jobs, paltry funding for education, health care, and other national priorities, and a $1.2 trillion debt for our grandchildren to pay. The budget resolution before us today will only compound these problems.

If Members of Congress are really serious about reducing the debt, they would vote today for the Democratic budget alternative. Democrats have put together an honest proposal to reduce the deficit, invest in our Nation, and restore fiscal responsibility in the budget process. It is the right and responsible vote to make for this country, its economy and its people. And that is why I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Democratic budget alternative.

The American people deserve no less.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman that we do have some speakers and one is here currently.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on the Thompson-Moore pay-as-you-go amendment. This amendment would require that any new mandatory spending or tax cuts must be paid for. Mr. Speaker, the amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules last night, but was defeated on a straight party-line vote.

For some reason, the Republican leadership is afraid to allow Members the opportunity to vote on this responsible and reasonable proposal. Three years ago the budget deficit was shrinking and the economy was robust and growing; but, as Members have stated today, the leadership of the Republican Party has turned a balanced budget into record deficit spending. And here they go again, pushing a dangerous budget that will spiral the deficit out of control.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I just do not see how we can continue this reckless, unchecked growth in our national debt. I believe deficit spending is a serious threat to our economy. The numbers are so high and out of control, they have almost lost their full impact. Republicans are throwing trillions of dollars around like it is pocket change. But it is not pocket change, Mr. Speaker; it is a staggering number, and it can crush any chance our Nation has of an economic recovery.

We must put something in place to halt the out-of-control deficit, and I think the Thompson-Moore pay-as-you-go amendment is a step in the right direction. A ``no'' vote on the previous question will let the American people know once and for all which Members stand in favor of reduced deficits, responsible spending, and fiscal restraint.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials at this point in the Record, and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3786) to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to produce currency, postage stamps, and other security documents at the request of foreign governments on a reimbursable basis.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation, and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 3786, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing Security Printing Act of 2004, introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. King). The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to print, under certain conditions, currency and security documents for foreign governments if it is consistent with our foreign policy objectives.

Mr. Speaker, while the United States Mint is allowed in law to produce coins for other countries, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, or BEP, as we know it, is not. This prohibition has prevented the BEP from responding to a number of requests or opportunities to help smaller countries strengthen their economies by producing currency or security documents such as stamps or deeds or passports that are difficult

to counterfeit. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, if the opportunity is there to impede counterfeiting of this sort and the BEP is prevented by law from taking it, we are all the losers.

The bill is essentially in the same language as that which has passed the House by both voice and recorded vote in the past several Congresses after being introduced at the request of both this and the prior administration, Mr. Speaker.

Because of the current prohibition in law, we have turned away currency-printing requests from friends such as Kuwait after the first Gulf War and Mexico a couple of years ago when they were redesigning their currency, and we were unable to bid on reprinting the currency of Iraq to remove the image of Saddam after last year's war.

Mr. Speaker, many countries lack the resources to produce secure currency or secure passports. Nothing in this legislation prevents a country from choosing a U.S.-based private sector printer; but the history of this sort of printing is that while a private sector printer is bound to be less expensive, the business is not price-sensitive. Typically, when countries turn to a printer outside their own borders, it is to another government printer: the bank of Australia, the Bank of England, or the European Central Bank printers. In my view, the United States Treasury should be on that list as well.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation specifies that the BEP could not bid on any printing contract for another government unless it could do the work without interrupting the printing and delivery of U.S. currency and security documents, and unless the Secretary of State certified that the work would be consistent with U.S. foreign policy.

Additionally, the BEP must be reimbursed by the client country, so that the work does not cost the U.S. taxpayer and it is not just another form of foreign aid. All costs, including administrative costs, will be passed to the foreign governments and no rogue state or unfriendly nation will receive the benefit of our knowledge and expertise.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this long overdue legislation and permit BEP to print currency, postage, and other security documents for foreign governments.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2993, the ``District of Columbia and United States Territories Circulating Quarter Dollar Program Act,'' introduced February 10 by the gentleman from New York, Mr. King.

This legislation will enhance the popular 50-State Quarter program I am proud to have authored, with the addition of a one-year program that will include designs reminiscent of the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands on the reverse of our circulating quarters in the year following the end of the State quarter program in 2008. With passage of this legislation, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories will rightly be included in the historical depictions on the quarter. I support these inclusions for both the historical importance and financial benefit for the United States Treasury.

Mr. Speaker, the State quarter program--which reached the halfway mark at the end of December--has dramatically increased general knowledge of the historical contributions of our fifty States. I believe the legislation under consideration today would do the same for the District and the territories. These areas have some of the highest enlistment rates in our armed forces--their commitment continues through today's conflicts and includes the tragic sacrifice of the lives of among others Lance Cpl. Gregory E. MacDonald of the District of Columbia, and Army Pvt. Jonathan I. Falaniko, of Pago Pago, American Samoa.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the District and the territories have made many historical, cultural and athletic contributions to our Nation, and this bill we consider today is a great opportunity to recognize them, in artwork on the reverse of the quarters.

The one-year program provides more than intangible benefits to the United States. It provides an economic boon to our Nation's Treasury. The success of the State quarter program has been overwhelming. The quarters have become one of the most popular collector's items in the United States and abroad. As of December, the halfway point of the program, Federal revenues had grown by over four billion dollars, representing coins that have been taken out of circulation by collectors. As a result, it is estimated that if the popularity of quarters produced under this legislation follow similar trends, as much as one billion dollars worth of the quarters may be taken out of circulation.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from New York, Mr. King, for introducing this bill, and the gentlewomen from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for her tireless campaign towards its passage. I also commend many others who have urged passage over the past, including the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus, who sponsored a previous version of the legislation, and the gentlewomen from California, Ms. Waters. Of course, I would also like to thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee, the gentlewomen from New York, Mrs. Maloney and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr. Oxley and Mr. Frank, for their assistance in making this legislation possible.

Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of H.R. 2993 to recognize the invaluable contributions of the District and the territories.

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

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

I am very pleased that this bill at least addresses in some very small part some of the concerns which the gentleman from Massachusetts holds, and I understand all that. But I think he is correct about this bill. I do not think there is any argument that what we are doing is essentially positive for the environment and for a government agency which can provide these services.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, budgets are about priorities, and I believe that the priorities outlined in the Republican budget plan are not the priorities of the people of this country.

This Republican budget is a blueprint to protect tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of everything else. I disagree very strongly with the approach being taken by the Republican leadership. This budget plan is bad for America. It is bad for our most vulnerable citizens. It is bad for our economy. It is bad for our war on terrorism, and it is bad for our future. The Republican budget resolution will inflict terrible damage on American families.

This budget cuts $358 million from health programs in the year 2005. It cuts environmental protection programs by $6.4 billion over 5 years. It fails to provide needed funding for veterans' health care. It underfunds homeland security programs. It fails to include the promised funding for No Child Left Behind. It makes college more expensive for our families by freezing the maximum Pell grant and cutting funding for Perkins loans.

I am also dismayed that this budget fails to provide adequate funding for our food aid programs around the world. Winning the war on terrorism will take more than dropping bombs on people. Food aid is one of the best things we can do to boost the image of the United States in other countries. It is a way to win friends and to demonstrate to the world what we are for. This budget goes in exactly the opposite direction, and it is wrong.

And it is outrageous that the Republican leadership refuses to talk straight with the American people about the issue of the budget deficit. For better or worse, the budget resolutions presented in this House have become partisan documents. As I said, perhaps better than anything else, these budgets reflect the priorities of the two parties.

I understand that, for the most part, the Republican leadership believes that every problem can be solved by throwing bigger and bigger tax cuts at the wealthiest Americans and corporations. But it used to be that the Republican Party also stood for fiscal responsibility.

I am a liberal Democrat, but I must say that I learned a lot during the debates of the 1980s and early 1990s. I learned that controlling the deficit is not only important to a strong economy, it is essential. And I give a lot of credit to some of the people on the other side of the aisle and especially to the Blue Dog Democrats, who were among the first to bang the drum of deficit reduction.

What happened to the Republican Party? Where have all those people gone who used to care about the deficit? This Republican budget resolution will increase the deficit by $247 billion over the next 5 years. I have to believe that whether one is a liberal or a moderate or a conservative, they will find this budget fiscally irresponsible.

And it has huge consequences, not only for future generations, but also for the most important task of this generation: winning the global war on terrorism. It becomes harder and harder to take the offensive against terrorism when we are mired in debt, and the Committee on the Budget refuses to include any budget process reform like the so-called pay-as-you-go rules to deal with the problem.

Now we are told that how we pay for things is a separate discussion, and we will have a debate on pay-as-you-go mechanisms next week or the week after or a month later or whenever. Well, that makes no sense. Imagine if you said, I want to buy a $1 million house today, but I will figure out how to pay for it next month; the bank would throw you out on the street. But that is the way the Republican leadership has chosen to operate.

By contrast, the Democratic budget proposal offers real budget enforcement rules. In fact, all of the alternative proposals do so: restoring pay-as-you-go rules to both spending and tax cuts. We provide for a strong defense in homeland security, including putting our troops first. We keep our commitment on No Child Left Behind, fund veterans health programs, health care, environmental protection, and housing; and Democrats target our tax relief to people who need it the most, those in the middle, including extending the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, budgets are about priorities, and the Republican budget proposal before us has the wrong priorities for America. It is that simple. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Republican budget and to support a more thoughtful and realistic approach, and I would also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.

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

This is a perfectly reasonable bill, and I support it. However, I do want to comment on what seems to me the poignancy that this great House of Representatives, this Chamber that represents the American people, in the middle of the week, in the middle of what will be a short session because it is an election year, cannot find anything more important to do with its time.

Actually, there is one interesting thing about this law. We will get to see some foreign money. We will get to see it only when we print it for them, and then we will send it right back. Unfortunately, our economic policies and our approach to trade and globalization mean that we do not see much other foreign money. We have not been very diligent about trying to promote other ways in which we could get something from globalization for the people here, but at least we will get to wave at the money as we send it overseas.

I did want to, though, particularly join in one sentiment expressed by the gentleman from Delaware. I very much agree with him: This is an example of where the public sector can do the job better than the private sector. Now, that is not usually the case. We have a private sector economy and we depend, for the creation of wealth, of goods, and services, primarily on the private sector. But it ought to be underlined that there are some things important to our society that can only be done by the public sector. This is an example.

When another country is asking us to print their money for them, the question of security becomes very important; and this is something, security, which is particularly appropriate for the public sector to do. This will mean some work for the public sector, but not enough, because we are in an unusual situation now with our economy.

Because of a set of technological factors, public policy choices, the nature of globalization, we have the odd situation in which something which is a very good thing in the abstract, increased productivity, has sadly some negative consequences in reality. We are in a situation in which we are able, through productivity, significantly to increase wealth. An example here today is America's superiority in the printing of money over many others. We do that in a very productive way. But because of retrograde public policies, as well as the inherent nature of much of what happens, that wealth is not nearly as well-shared as it should be. We are in an odd situation in which, as wealth is created, too little goes to the people who work for others and are compensated for that work through a living. We have unemployment not dropping; we have real wages dropping. We have health care being eroded because employers no longer want to pay for it. And while public policy has not been the major cause of these trends, we have had public policies recently, the weakening of labor unions, unfair tax policies, one-sided trade policy, which asks nothing of those with whom we trade so that this redounds the disadvantage of workers here when we try to maintain standards. We have exacerbated that situation, and that we ought to change.

So I am pleased to join in reaffirming the importance of the American Government as the superior way for foreign countries to get their currency printed. I am glad to affirm that. I regret only, Mr. Speaker, the narrowness with which that principle is now being affirmed and the fact that on a prime

day in the middle of the legislative week, in the middle of the legislative session, this is all the leadership of this House can find to ask us to do. There are issues involving the extension of unemployment benefits, and there are other important questions that we should be dealing with. Unfortunately, we do not.

So I do not mean to blame this nice little bill for not being what it is not. This bill deserves to be passed. But this country deserves a chance for this House of Representatives to deal with much more substantive legislation addressing the economic distress that so many of our fellow citizens now encounter.

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