H.Res. 1674

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

You know, I have heard some people describe this bill as an entitlement bill, as if people are lining up to get this benefit. Like someone would really want to be on the list of people eligible to get the money that's eligible under this bill to get the health care. The idea that someone would volunteer or be eager to get the benefits that, in order to get them, you have to have a stew of toxic dust in your lungs, so much that you can't breathe normally,

and you cough. And when you hear that 9/11 cough in New York, everyone knows it.

The idea that it's open-ended--no, it's actually a pretty close-ended program in the most final sense of the word, in that many people who have the illnesses that we are trying to treat with this legislation are dying. There are people in this Chamber who are watching these proceedings and those that are home who once upon a time were the most vigorous, fit people imaginable. And it was because of that vigor and that fitness that they went down to Ground Zero on September 11. They didn't ask to be chosen. They didn't fill out a form. They didn't even wear protective gear. They went down because they felt it was their obligation. They didn't just come from Lower Manhattan. They didn't just come from New York.

As I've said many times, if you were in New York the days after September 11, the streets were clogged with parked ambulances and firetrucks and cars, every license plate imaginable. Those people aren't asking for anything beyond just being able to cure the diseases that they got because they served. That's what this is about.

To my colleagues who oppose this, yeah, I imagine there are 100 different ways you can describe it and you can look at line 7 and page 6 and come up with some reason to be against it. But I would ask my colleagues to take a step back. And every single one of us on September 11 stood up in our districts and said, We are not going to forget the commitment that we made that day. Well, this is the moment. You can't stand up in your district on September 11 and say you won't forget, and have a red light next to your name today. It just doesn't wash. This is the day we repay our debts.

You want to call it an entitlement bill? Okay, they are entitled. They are entitled to our care. They are entitled to our respect. They are entitled to the health care that they need, and they're entitled to a ``yes'' vote today. Let's give it to them.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

You know, here in Washington, there are a couple of different ways you can kill a bill. One is the honest way--you vote ``no.'' Put your card in, you press the ``no'' vote. It shows ``no'' up on the board. Another way you can kill legislation in this town is by offering up amendments or offering up procedures and offering up confusion about the bill, that it goes down for that reason and you don't quite have your fingerprints on it.

Mr. Lee's an honorable man, he's a good man. But I have to tell you it as simply as I can. If you vote for his motion to recommit, the bill dies. If you vote for this motion that says, essentially, we're going to take out the money for the care, it doesn't matter how many 9/11 events you go to, doesn't matter how many times you send out press releases that say you care, if you vote for this motion, you vote to kill the bill, period.

And there's a lot of talk about what's in it. You want to relitigate the health care bill? Okay. We're going to get to do that the first Tuesday in November. People are going to be talking, oh, the health care bill is a good bill or bad bill. Let's do that later. Let's do the politics later. Let's do the right thing now. Let's try to take care of the people in this bill with money to do it.

I understand this is a political town and we're in the midst of a political season, but can't we look around? Can't we, at this moment, look around and say this isn't the time for a parliamentary move or a clever motion to recommit?

My colleagues, when you come down here, the only way you can go home and say that you care for the victims of September 11 is if you vote a ``no'' on this motion and a ``yes'' on final passage. That's it.

The people in this room and back home are too smart to be fooled by anything else. ``I want it paid for this way.'' ``I want it paid for that way.''

As Mr. Waxman just said, if you pass this amendment, it essentially says, We are going to go back and argue about the health care bill again. What is next? Are we going to go argue abortion or immigration? No, let's not do

that anymore. Well, if we are going to do it, let's do it in November on elections. We are going to have TV commercials and ads. Now let's just do the right thing. I want to see every Republican and every Democrat say, You know what, if there is one thing we agree upon, it's that the people who gave up their health on September 11 and the days after deserve our care and our respect. We need a ``no'' vote, my colleagues.

I have to tell you something, I have worked with the people who were advocating for 9/11 health for 9 years, and some of them are here. They are too smart. They are going to know that if you vote in favor of this motion to recommit, plain and simple, you are voting to kill this bill. We are not going to let it happen. Nine years is too long.

But I'll tell you something about time, it's also pretty darn close to election day. In 434 districts in this country are people who have a 9/11 cough. I hope they are watching this debate, and I hope they watch not just final passage, which hopefully we get to, because if this Lee amendment passes, this bill is going down. We can't let that happen.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit and a ``yes'' vote on passage.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 847, and at the outset, let me commend my colleagues, Carolyn Maloney and Jerry Nadler, for the truly outstanding job they've done for all these years and for their directness and for their candor and for always being there when the tough decisions had to be made.

Let me also thank former Congressman Vito Fossella for the work that he did for a number of years when he was here in the Congress on this bill as well.

Let me commend the leadership in both parties. I commend the Democratic leadership for bringing this back up for a majority vote. I commend them for it. I know it's been tough. Some tough decisions had to be made, and they've made them. I thank them for that. I also thank the leadership for the Republican Party for working with a number of us to make sure that it would be a fair and open vote and debate here today. So I thank them for that.

Let me also say that all of us know this has been a long and tortuous route to get this bill to the House floor today. During that time, there's been frustration, tempers have flared, but also, probably most importantly, people have died, and that's what we have to keep in mind. This is a real human issue. We have people sitting here in the gallery today. Many of them have breathing problems. Many of them have pulverized glass in their lungs. Many have poisonous toxins in their bloodstream. So this is real. This is a real human issue.

And I share some of the concerns that Republicans have regarding, for instance, the funding stream, how this is going to be paid for. But the fact is, this is a good bill. We cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. It's more important to me, I believe, that we take care of those who are truly in need and we look at the bill in full perspective and in full view and keep that in mind. Keep in mind the victims, the men and women who went to Ground Zero on September 11 and stayed there for the days, weeks, and months afterward, and they were on that pile, and they're now suffering the most horrible diseases, diseases and illnesses which we see in our districts when we meet these people. We see them in the stores. We see them at ball games. We see them in church. So this, again, is for real.

So let's, today, try to have the debate as we are, I think, in a very civil way. Let's realize there are honest differences of opinions on both sides, but the reality is, the people in galleries, those who couldn't make it to the gallery today, they don't have the luxury of waiting another 1 year or 2 years or 3 years or 4 years.

I know that people on the Republican side have spoken about various programs that are available. The fact is this is such a unique type of disaster. The illnesses that have come from Ground Zero are very unique to Ground Zero, unfortunately. These are 9/11-type illnesses--the rarest types of cancer, the rarest types of blood disorders. It's essential we have a permanent registry so we will know exactly how these illnesses be treated, so that those in the other 430 districts around the country who could be suffering, for instance, from a cough, which a doctor may think is an innocent cough, will not realize it is a 9/11 cough; those who have symptoms which may otherwise be undetected, they will not realize how significant they are and how they could be directly related to 9/11.

And also, as far as whether or not this is an entitlement, or whatever term we want to use, the fact is, when it came to nuclear workers, Federal nuclear workers, we set up the exact same type of program. Call it entitlement, if you will. That program was set up to take care and compensate those who suffered serious illnesses resulting from their work in nuclear plants on nuclear projects.

As far as the issue of the Victims Compensation Fund and all those who were compensated, the fact is the people we are talking about today, the victims we are talking about today, were people who didn't realize their illness until after the deadline had expired, people who are today just finding out

about their illness. It's latent. It's in their bloodstreams. It's in their lungs. And back in 2003 when this program closed, virtually no one knew the extent of the illnesses and diseases that would stem from September 11.

The fact is they are there and they are getting worse and worse, and, as you know, Congressman Weiner just walked in, and he and I always haven't had the highest things to say about each other on the House floor. We're standing here together on this bill today. As he pointed out in the Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, the one thing we can be certain of is that the number of those who are entitled to take part in this program, that number is going to diminish. It is going to diminish because they're dying one by one. So let's keep that in mind.

Again, it goes to the heart of what we should be as a Congress, what we should be as Republicans and Democrats, what we should be as Americans. And those of us, we all stood together on September 11, and 9 years have gone by. And to many people it's something that happened a long time ago, but for those who are suffering today, it's something they live with every moment.

So, with that, I urge everyone to make this as much of a bipartisan vote as possible. Send a message to the country, send a message to the world, and send a message to the victims that they are not forgotten. And not only that, we're not giving them any charity. We're not giving them anything. We're just rewarding them what they're entitled to receive for them putting their lives on the line for us.

With that, I urge adoption of H.R. 847.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman, but I, in turn, want to salute Congressman Peter King, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Congressman Jerry Nadler, and the entire bipartisan New York delegation for giving us this opportunity today to do what is right and fair and just.

Mr. Speaker, in observance of 9/11 earlier this month, we stood on the steps of the Capitol, Democrats and Republicans alike, to honor the memory that we lost that day. As we were standing there, I was thinking back to my first visit to Ground Zero. When you went there at that time following the tragedy, you knew that when you stepped there you were walking on sacred ground. There was an incredible silence as the workers feverishly, feverishly tried to retrieve the remains of those who were lost, and just repair the damage that was done to clear the wreckage.

No pictures were allowed in recognition that we were on sacred ground. No photographs were allowed, and of course, silence was generally observed so that those who were working could hear each other as they quietly went about their very, very sad assignment.

They, and those who rushed to the scene in real time when it happened, risked their lives and their health to do so. They didn't ask any questions: Is anybody going to take care of me? They were there to help.

Again, back to the steps of the Capitol. When we were standing there earlier this month, I am sure Congresswoman Maloney, Congressman Nadler, Congressman King and others recall that many signs went up in the crowd that was gathered there. It said: ``Remember us next week.'' That was in anticipation that the bill might

come up the following week. Well, it is another week later. And we are here today to say that we do remember you this week. We remember what you did at the time. And it isn't only your sacrifice. It is the sacrifice of your families, of your health and the impact that that has on your family. You are community to New York, so there is the impact that it has on the community, and also the impact on our conscience to do what is right by those who we call heroes and we want to treat as such.

Today we remember all the heroes of 9/11. We praise the strength of thousands of firefighters, rescue workers, first responders and medical personnel who turned tragedy into inspiration and gave of themselves to help a city and our Nation rebuild.

We promised to help those who spent days, weeks and months doing the hard work our government and the American people expected them to do in the recovery effort. They went above and beyond the call of duty. We all know that. We all looked in frustration to think, if only we could help. But they were there. It was emotional, but it was professional. And we pledged to do everything in our power to ensure that their health and well-being would be taken care of. We did not want them to be unsung heroes. We wanted them to be recognized heroes.

Today we are here to honor that pledge. It is long overdue, but nonetheless we are here to do right by these workers and vote for the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

Words are, of course, inadequate to recognize and honor the bravery and courage of these brave Americans. But by this act of Congress, more than words, but by this act of Congress, we can truly express our gratitude to the ordinary men and women. Ordinary? No. Extraordinary men and women who took extraordinary action at that time.

Named for Officer James Zadroga, a hero of the New York Police Department who died from respiratory disease contracted during the Ground Zero recovery effort, this legislation will help those who jeopardized their health to rescue others secure necessary medical treatment, especially for the unique exposures suffered at Ground Zero which are real; and ensure survivors and victims' families can obtain compensation for their losses through a reopened 9/11 victims compensation fund.

It is fully paid for. This legislation does not increase the deficit. It is the least we can do for those who answered the call of duty and continue to suffer the ill health effects of their service. On September 11, 2001, all Americans were shocked by the horrifying images of terror and destruction. Yet, in the aftermath of that dark day, we responded in the best possible way, the best way Americans can: with resolve, with courage, with unity and with hope for a better future.

So many of us couldn't be at the scene ourselves. We all were willing to help. People from all over were trying to send assistance. Those who did, though, did not do so for recognition or accolades or awards or medals. They did it because their fellow Americans were in need. In those acts they became heroes.

The American people are looking to us to cast a vote that will allow these heroes to live out their lives with health and happiness.

Again, I want to commend Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Congressman Jerry Nadler, Congressman Peter King--thank you, Peter--for their efforts to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor.

We are all inspired by the firefighters and first responders who have advocated so hard and so long on behalf of their fellow heroes. And I am so pleased that so many of them are with us today to help us make this historic decision.

We must now join together to provide this critical assistance. We must vote ``aye'' for the Health and Compensation Act. We must do so in a strong, bipartisan manner.

I thank our colleagues for the personal involvement that they have taken in this. At times it has been emotional. There is a lot of passion in this issue, but this bill is a very dispassionate response to the needs of our heroes. Let's get a great big vote for it today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010. This important legislation was reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee with bipartisan support on May 25 by a vote of 33-12.

I would like to take a moment to thank the bill's sponsors, Representative Carolyn Maloney and Jerry Nadler; as well as my colleagues from New York on the committee, Eliot Engel and Anthony Weiner, for their tireless work on behalf of this legislation.

Now, beyond the immediate loss of life on September 11, today, thousands of people are suffering debilitating illnesses from its aftermath. H.R. 847 would establish the World Trade Center Health Program, a program to screen, monitor and treat eligible responders and survivors who are suffering from World Trade Center-related diseases, most commonly from the massive toxic dust cloud that enveloped lower Manhattan. The bill also funds research to improve our understanding of the health effects of the exposures over time.

Federal spending for the WTC Health Program is capped at $3.2 billion and is fully paid for. The version before the House today is more than $1 billion less expensive than that reported with bipartisan support from the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, Congress must ensure that the appropriate resources are available to take care of those who risked their own lives to save others on September 11, so I urge my colleagues to pass the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who has been a champion on this legislation and who also managed it through the Rules Committee yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, can I just ask the gentleman from Illinois if he has any additional speakers?

I yield to the gentleman.

Thank you.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to another champion of this bill from our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

At this point, I would just close myself, unless someone else comes down. So if you would like to close on our Energy and Commerce time, then I will follow you.

At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House and point out that if it wasn't for her efforts, we would not be here today moving this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time remains?

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

I have heard Members on the other side of the aisle talk about this as an entitlement program. I want to stress it is not an entitlement program. It is not a budget gimmick. The program sunsets in 10 years. The funding is capped. Enrollment is capped. The population can't grow beyond the enrollment cap in the bill.

I hear from the opponents all about money, how much money is going to New York hospitals. I want to stress that this isn't really about who is going to pay for somebody's health insurance.

One of the centers where people go for treatment is in my home State of New Jersey, in my district, at Rutgers, and my understanding is many, if not most of the people who go there, actually have health insurance. The problem is that we are creating these centers, and we want to make sure that they are there for a long time because they serve a very important purpose. People go there because they have particular diseases that come from the World Trade Center attack that can't be treated at other locations. And even if they go to their doctor, they end up coming here because they know how to treat and get the specialty care that they need.

They also provide research. Many of these people don't contract the diseases until later in life; and I think, as time goes on, we are going to see, unfortunately, even more problems. At these centers they do the research to look and see what kind of treatment might be necessary as more and more people, unfortunately, come down with the diseases that resulted from the World Trade Center attack.

So I know there is a lot of talk about money from the other side. And I don't mean to say that money isn't important, but I want people to understand, I want everyone to understand, this is not really about money. This is really about having a specialized program where people can be treated who sacrificed everything for America, and these centers need to be here. They need to be here a long time from now, even when there aren't people that are going to be down here and asking that this program continue. That is why this program has to be set up in this fashion today. It has to be properly funded. It has to be available for anyone who suffered any kind of disorder from this World Trade Center attack.

Do I have any additional time, Mr. Speaker?

I would yield that to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I traveled this journey with all of you. And Congresswoman Maloney, I wanted to come and thank you, along with the chairpersons of the Energy and Commerce and the Judiciary Committees, for never giving up.

I think it is important to note that this bill will cover Pennsylvania, the Pentagon, and New York. And for those of us who listened to the families and the witnesses or the first responders themselves who saw the pain, and particularly those who already lost their lives, I think that this is a major step of balance, putting this in a system and a structure that has oversight, that provides ongoing care and provides for the coverage of those who, to this date, have suffered without coverage and comfort.

So I rise to support this legislation, and I am very glad that the Judiciary Committee and Energy and Commerce continued to work, even when we were thwarted and rejected. We are now back with, I hope, the right approach, bipartisan approach. And I would ask all of my colleagues to ask the question what would they want to do for 9/11 responders, and that is, vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. As this Nation remembers, September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. An airplane was also crashed by terrorists in

Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The first responders including firefighters and emergency personnel, who assisted to the heinous attacks on the World Trade Center, were exposed to extremely toxic dust resulting from the collapse of the Twin Towers.

This exposure has resulted in serious respiratory, related illnesses and serious medical conditions. I concur with my colleagues, enacting this offset into law has far reaching ramifications nationwide. This critical health program would monitor and provide specialized treatment through Centers of Excellence for responders including emergency personnel, rescue, and clean-up workers who responded to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, as well as residents, workers, and students who returned to the World Trade Center area shortly after the attacks.

Seventy-one thousand individuals are enrolled in the World Trade Center Health Registry, indicating they were exposed to the toxins. 36,000 Americans have received treatment for 9/11 related illnesses or injuries and over 53,000 responders are enrolled in medical monitoring. Additionally, over 10,000 people from across the country were on hand to assist in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. These responders came from nearly every congressional district and all 50 States. Funding for this health program to monitor and treat these responders and residents for resulting health conditions stemming from the terrorist attacks.

Due diligence has been taken to assure that this offset will not adversely affect most foreign multinationals corporations by this offset. Most foreign multinationals will not be affected; given that these companies are organized in countries the U.S. has income tax treaties.

It is imperative that we represent the tax payers of this Nation and close a loophole that has provided those multinational corporations, unfair competitive advantage over U.S. firms--allowing them to hide or shield their taxable income. This offset that must be enacted into law, would provide greater U.S. competition over rival foreign companies and illegal tax structures. Under the previous administration, the Under Secretary for Tax Policy clearly indicated some countries the U.S. has tax treaties negotiated decades ago, have adjusted their tax laws to become more like tax shelters.

Must we allow this to continue and unfairly allow the shifting of income out of the U.S. tax jurisdiction and further erode our U.S. corporate tax base. This offset will aid U.S. based companies and eliminate their unfair competitive advantage afforded them through the U.S. tax code to these companies that have become tax shelters. Let us be clear, this offset seeks only those companies that have intentionally attempted to avoid U.S. taxes and disadvantage their U.S. competitors.

As we enact fiscally sound and responsible legislation, it is important to note, this critical change is estimated to increase revenues by an estimated $7.4 billion over 2011 through 2020.

We must live up to our obligation and not let the tragedy of 9/11 persist and continue to deeply scar those who we should laud as this Nation's heroes. We must applaud our responders and show them that assistance is clearly at hand. I was pleased to work long years on the Judiciary Committee with Chairman Conyers to come to this day.

I thank Representative Carolyn Maloney and my colleagues in advance who will rise in support of this important Act and reconfirm our commitment to this nation, and our first responders.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 847 and ask for its immediate adoption.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying it is truly disappointing that this is the only trade bill in the past 2 years that has been marked up by the Ways and Means Committee. I find it unacceptable that this is the sum total of our trade agenda. While this legislation addresses an important issue, it will not address many more pressing trade concerns with China, and it will not advance the goal of doubling exports in 5 years.

To achieve those goals, we must move expeditiously on the pending free trade agreements, work harder to open new markets to our exports, and address broader economic issues all over the world and with China.

We have held four separate hearings on China this year alone. At each, we heard from witnesses, including Treasury Secretary Geithner, who stressed that China's currency policy is only one element in our highly complicated trading relationship.

It's not that China's currency problem is not a problem or priority; it's just that there are far larger issues with regard to China and our trade imbalance. Issues like intellectual property rights, indigenous innovation, export restraints on rare earth minerals and other items, and a host of nontariff barriers are wreaking havoc on American employers, their workers, and our economy.

Despite my disappointment about the lack of a broader trade agenda and the lack of action on these other concerns with respect to China, it would be an enormous mistake to give up completely on addressing China's currency policy. We all agree that China's currency is fundamentally misaligned and that China must take prompt action to allow market forces to determine the value of its currency.

At the same time, it is important that any legislation be consistent with our international obligation and be effective. Any legislation that could potentially expose the United States to WTO-sanctioned retaliation would undoubtedly do more harm than good and would undermine our efforts to get China to comply with its own obligations.

At our hearings over the past few weeks, a number of witnesses and Republican Members raised serious concerns about the WTO consistency of the original version of H.R. 2378. As a result of these concerns, Chairman Levin completely rewrote the bill. The version before us today has little in common with the original, which, on its face, violated our WTO obligation. It addresses many of the criticisms raised by witnesses and by Republican Members, and I appreciate that the chairman has taken these concerns into account.

Unlike the original version, this bill does not mandate that the Commerce Department automatically adjust antidumping and countervailing duty calculations to account for China's currency policy. This version allows Commerce to consider many factors in determining whether or not China's currency policy satisfies the technical definition of an export subsidy, as it does today, and does not prejudge an outcome.

While I remain deeply concerned about using countervailing duty law to address China's currency policy, I believe the bill before us today does not, on its face, violate our WTO obligations.

I will vote for this bill because it sends a clear signal to China that Congress' patience is running out but does not give China an excuse to retaliate against U.S. companies and their workers. While we cannot pass legislation that likely violates our WTO commitments and would result in WTO-sanctioned retaliation, we cannot, at the same time, allow ourselves to be afraid of China's reaction to a WTO- consistent measure.

If China retaliates against this bill at this stage, I fully expect that USTR, and the administration as a whole, will act swiftly and aggressively to pursue every option available, including through action at the WTO. China's posturing and bad behavior cannot dictate our trade policy.

This legislation also sends an important signal to the administration: It is time to produce results. The administration must step up its bilateral and multilateral efforts and set a clear timeline for action. The administration should work to ensure that the issue of global imbalances, which naturally includes China's currency policy, is prominently on the agenda at the November G20 meetings in Seoul. We should also reengage in bilateral investment treaty negotiations.

As I noted at our markup, the fact that the administration has not moved aggressively on a multilateral basis has forced us to this point. The legislation we are considering today is better than the original but still won't resolve our trade imbalances with China.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1674, I call up the bill (H.R. 2378) to amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify that fundamental exchange-rate misalignment by any foreign nation is actionable under United States countervailing and antidumping duty laws, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Colleagues, this is an important moment for this House and for the people of our Nation. There is a real problem--China's persistent manipulation of its currency. That requires real action, and under our leadership, real action is now being taken in this House.

China's practices represent, as the Secretary of the Treasury indicated in his testimony before us, ``a major distortion in the global economy.''

For our country, it is impacted on our trade deficit with China--in 2009, $226 billion--and it is impacted on our jobs. Their goods come to us, as a result of their manipulation, cheaper, and our goods to them, more expensive. There is a 15-35 or 40 percent imbalance, a tilted field of competition. The estimates mean 500,000 to 1.5 million jobs. This manipulation is one of the causes of the outsourcing of our jobs-- of manufacturing and other good jobs.

Talk hasn't worked. Less than 2 percent appreciation has occurred since just before the last G-20 meeting when the Chinese said that they would make their currency more flexible.

Additional steps are needed, and this bill is just such a step. So, after 2 days of hearings before our committee, I worked over the weekend with our majority staff to modify, to make sure this bill was fully compliant with our international WTO obligations. It is compliant.

China has an economic strategy. For our businesses and workers, it is vital that our Nation has an active economic strategy, and this is one important piece of that strategy.

I strongly urge support of this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

That statement really rewrites the history of this legislation. I suggest to everybody, go back and look at the opening statement of the ranking member. Also, we have urged support of the green 301 petition. Only three Republicans supported it. I regret the partisan inflection here. I won't engage in it. I hope we get bipartisan support.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a gentleman who is so actively engaged on these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), another active member of our committee.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), another very distinguished member of our committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), another member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another very, very distinguished member of our Ways and Means Committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), another distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the very distinguished chair of the Rules Committee.

I yield myself 10 seconds.

To the gentleman who just spoke, without a job, one can't buy goods at any price. This bill is about jobs.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a member of our Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my special pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who is an original cosponsor of this important legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, how much is there on both sides?

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), an active participant in discussions of trade issues.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege, a deep privilege, to yield

1 minute to our distinguished Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

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

I continue to reserve my time.

I don't think we do. I mean, I'm not trying to game you here on this process. I just don't think there are any more, and I would like to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I ask for how much time is remaining and how many speakers my colleague from New Jersey has.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Our great friends from both sides of the aisle, our great friends from New York, it has been an interesting battle, one that is very tough to be engaged in. They are right. You know, the folks who responded need care. They need to be supported, and that's what we think we have been doing.

When we started marking up this bill, there was $130 million in the fund. That was still there, cash on hand. The President, in his budget, said, We can do better than that. We need $150 million. So that started the process of us deciding what did we need to do and how did we need to do it, especially from the funding perspective.

Now the entitlement debate is an interesting one to get involved in. I am a military veteran. I served actively for 5\1/2\ years. I served another 23 in the Reserves. The first line responders are heroes. But our men and women in uniform in Afghanistan, our men and women in Iraq, and our men and women around the world, they are heroes too. They don't have an entitlement program. They go through the regular authorization process. They go through the appropriation process. And you know what? When we go into the political battle, which we are coming upon, people attack folks about whether they are authorizing enough money or whether they are spending enough money. This is what happens here.

We can spin it any way we want, but that's part of our debate. Do you use the same process to authorize funding to fight for the money and spend the money? And we would say, We should use the same categories we do with our military veterans, that we should use the same process we use for our active military forces. Again, the President wanted $150 million. That's what we agreed upon. That's the amendment that we authorized in the marked-up bill. And some would argue and say, Gosh, there must be nothing being done. Nothing is being done. Well, we know that's not true. CDC has been before the committee twice, saying they have a list. They do have a registry. They are following up. In fact, as of September 30, the World Trade Center Program has enrolled 55,331 responders. There are 55,331 responders in the program now. It's not like we're not doing anything.

There are other issues with the bill. One of the concerns is, when the new health care law cuts money to hospitals under part A, about $150 billion in payments, the CMS actuary says, Guess what? Ten percent of all hospitals are going to close.

That is under the new health care bill. And it is rural hospitals that are the targets under the new health care law.

Well, this provides more money under Medicare to New York City hospitals, at 140 percent of Medicare payments. We only pay 70 percent of Medicare payments in this country as a whole. But under this law, we are going to provide New York hospitals 140 percent of Medicare costs. So there are real issues of concern here, and it is unfortunate because it didn't have to be this way.

All we asked for was the number that President Obama thought was good. He said $150 million. We said, fine, 20 million more than what the money was still in the fund at the time.

And we are also saying they are all heroes. The 9/11 responders are heroes. Let's treat them like our veterans. Let's treat them like our active military. Why should we have a double standard? Can't we fight for their authorizations on an annual basis like we do for our active military and for our veterans? Of course we can.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, it is, again, unfortunate that we are in this position. We could have had a strong bipartisan bill. We don't have that. People will cast their votes, and they will be held accountable.

I yield back the balance of my time.