Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise to express concern about the legislation we are considering.

I heard the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) talk about the fact that we would like to do better. But let me just point out that we have $25 billion in a Federal unemployment trust account today. Those funds should be used for emergency circumstances. If there was ever an emergency, what happened to the workers of those three States as a result of Katrina is clearly an emergency. This is the time that we should be releasing unemployment moneys so that we can extend benefits beyond the statutory period that is currently in law.

Through no fault of their own, the victims of Katrina are unable to find employment, and we should be able to provide extended benefits. And the funds are there in the Federal unemployment trust account. So quite frankly, I do not understand what the delay is. The people are hurting. We should be doing everything we can to help, and I would expect that we would have had a stronger bill come out that would protect the workers who cannot find employment.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we have a bill before us that obviously is an important bill to move forward because it provides relief by extension of several programs that are important to the people that are affected by this, but I really do believe that we should be looking at a comprehensive approach to deal with people who have been victimized. Unfortunately, this bill does not really do it for those people who are unemployed, have exhausted their benefits and are looking to the Federal Government for help.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Elaine K. Freeman, Vice President of Corporate Communications for Johns Hopkins Medicine upon her retirement after 23 years. Elaine epitomizes what is best in corporate communications--she fully understands Johns Hopkins Medicine and she has the skills and ability to communicate the success of Hopkins to the public.

During her tenure, Elaine has seen Hopkins become nationally ranked as the number one medical facility in the nation, according to the U.S. News and World Report. In 1989, she also helped Hopkins celebrate its centennial as one of the Nation's most outstanding medical institutions.

Elaine is a gifted professional who understands that the strengths of Hopkins rest with its staff and faculty. Over the years, she has helped the public understand and relate to the important medical advances that come out of Hopkins, enabling people to understand the relationship between research and the impact on patients.

Elaine is unique in that she truly understands the medical community, and the importance of scientific research. She is married to Dr. John Freeman, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics. In 1969, John joined Hopkins to create and direct the Johns Hopkins Child Neurology program.

In 1958, Elaine graduated from Goucher College as a Phi Beta Kappa. She also earned a masters degree from George Washington University. In 2001, she received the Excellence in Medical Education Public Affairs award from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in wishing Elaine Freeman a happy and healthy retirement. Her skill and dedication to communicating medical developments has helped the public gain a greater understanding of medical issues.

Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) for his leadership in focusing what we can do to help the victims of Katrina. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) for his leadership on the committee.

This is exactly what we need to do. Obviously, all of us were devastated by what happened with Katrina and the failure of our government to respond in a timely and effective way, and people who were vulnerable paid a very heavy price.

What this bill does is try to deal with the problems of the victims of Katrina by looking at our Tax Code. Our first priority today must be to help those who were devastated by Katrina, and this bill looks at the Tax Code to find ways in which we can be helpful. I applaud the specific provisions that are in it because I think it will help.

To deal with the practical problems such as residency, people who now live in different parts of the country would not comply with the technical requirements in our Tax Code on residency, which is required to take advantage of some of the tax provisions. This bill provides the needed relief.

Our colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), talked about the Earned Income Tax Credit, a very important tool to help low- wage families in this Nation. This bill will make sure that those who are entitled to that relief, who were affected by Katrina, will continue to be able to receive that help.

Along with the forgiveness of loans which is taking place, if we do not pass this bill, there could be tax consequences to that.

We provide incentives in this bill for individuals who have opened up their homes to take in those who are now without a home, and we provide full deductibility for personal casualty losses, as we should.

For job opportunity, we expand the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, as we should do, and we now make it easier for individuals to be able to give cash donations to the victims of Katrina.

Bottom line, Madam Speaker, is this bill takes care of some of the practical problems that our Tax Code could not anticipate as a result of Katrina, and I want to thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for expediting the process to bring this bill forward so that we can try, in a constructive way, to make it easier for those who were victimized by this horrible hurricane.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, when you have underfunded programs that have too many mandates on the States to use the funds with too many restrictions, what ends up is that people who are vulnerable, who are at risk are the most likely to get hurt by these underfunded programs. Hurricane Katrina showed us in graphic detail the people who were victimized because we did not adequately fund programs and government.

I support this legislation, but much of what is in here should have been done prior to now. For example, this will be the 11th temporary extension of the TANF program. We should have reauthorized the TANF program well before this day. We talked about a 20 percent increase in funding in certain States. Well, just the cost-of-living changes since when this bill was first enacted in 1996 would have eaten up that amount. We should have adjusted the amounts well before this, not just for the affected States but for all the States in this Nation.

I am pleased to hear the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means indicate that there will be other legislation, because I agree with the gentleman that the unemployment insurance issues, with 11,000 people running close to the exhaustion of benefits, need to be addressed; and I look forward to working with the chairman so we can deal with the unemployment insurance, which was not necessarily anticipated except by this storm.

Let me say in regards to the foster care children, which are also under the jurisdiction of our committee, foster children are our responsibility. They are now being scattered to many States around the Nation. We have a responsibility to make it easier for these foster children to be cared for during this period. I say to the chairman, I hope we will be able to work on a bill related to foster care.

Let me lastly mention child care, because there are not going to be enough funds available to our States to take care of the increased needs for child care in our communities. I hope our committee will also deal with that issue.

Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of September 11, 2001 has been seared in our Nation's consciousness forever. On this fourth anniversary of the attack on our Nation, I want to take this opportunity to remember the brave men and women who lost their lives at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in a deserted field in the Pennsylvania countryside. That day, 3,000 Americans died at the hands of terrorists who would see our country destroyed. These fellow citizens were casualties in our Nation's continuing effort to maintain liberty, safety, and freedom for all Americans.

While we suffered a grievous loss that day, we must remember that we are a strong and determined Nation that will defeat those who would harm us. We join together to make it clear to the world that our Nation is united and resolved to defend our freedom against any enemy.

Today, we stop to remember those who perished on 9/11 and to remember their families with a special prayer. We also pause to reflect on the heroism of the firefighters, police officers and city officials who died in the line of duty trying to save others. Each of us is personally affected by September 11. While we might not know anyone personally who died, we still grieve for them. And we hold the members of their families close to our hearts.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of the comments made during the colloquy between the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. English, and the gentlemen from Utah, Mr. Bishop, regarding H.R. 3283. In particular, I would like to respond to my colleagues' assertions concerning the application of section 3(b )(2) of the Act, which states that when applying the U.S. countervailing duty law to nonmarket economies, the Department of Commerce ``shall ensure that . . . the application [of the law] is consistent with the international obligations of the United States.'' Mr. Speaker, despite my colleagues' efforts to provide reassurance about this provision, I remain deeply concerned following their exchange--and in some ways, even more so.

First, the exchange between Mr. Bishop and Mr. English provides no comfort to those like me that have raised concerns that section 3(b)(2) of the Act will have a chilling effect on the application of U.S. countervailing duty law. The provision clearly creates a special burden on the U.S. Department of Commerce in

cases involving subsidies in nonmarket economy countries like China by requiring Commerce to make a determination about the WTO consistency of the law prior to applying it.

In every other trade remedy case, the Department of Commerce must apply U.S. law as enacted by Congress. The law is presumed to be consistent with WTO obligations unless the WTO finds otherwise.

Under Mr. English's bill, Commerce could not apply countervailing duty laws to China and other nonmarket economies to the fullest extent authorized by Congress, but rather could apply the law only to the extent to which Commerce makes a separate determination that the law would pass muster in the WTO. As a result, it is likely that Commerce would not apply the law as intended by Congress, thereby denying American workers and businesses a remedy authorized by both WTO rules and U.S. law.

Second, and even more importantly, section 3(b)(2) of the English bill raises Constitutional issues. After the provision has been applied in a CVD investigation and were a WTO panel to rule against some aspect of the provision, the English bill would create the first directive under U.S. law that WTO decisions are to be self-implementing.

The English bill creates this self-implementing provision by directing Commerce to ``ensure that the application [of the provision] is consistent'' with WTO rules. In all other cases under U.S. AD/CVD law, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (section 129) creates a procedure for congressional consultation prior to Commerce or USTR taking any action to alter U.S. law, regulation or practice. While Congress technically would not have to approve a change to regulation or practice, in practice, neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations has ever even suggested that it would make such a change absent (bicameral and bipartisan) congressional approval.

The inclusion language in the English bill authorizing, if not directing, Commerce to change regulation or practice even absent Congressional approval undermines the broader statutory scheme carefully established in 1994, shifts the balance of action for implementing WTO decisions that affect one provision of the AD/CVD laws toward the Administration, and erodes further congressional authority over the unfair trade laws.

In simple terms, section 3(b)(2) of the English bill authorizes Commerce to take action to align U.S. law with the decisions of a WTO panel or Appellate Body--without the assent of Congress as provided under existing U.S. law (in the case of Commerce, changes to regulation or practice).

Mr. Speaker, section 3(b)(2) of H.R. 3283 is bad policy and may be unconstitutional as a matter of law. By requiring the Department of Commerce to ensure WTO compliance before acting on Chinese subsidies, the bill would prevent the Administration from vigorously enforcing our trade laws. In addition, the provision violates traditional notions of separation of powers by specifically directing the Department of Commerce to take steps to alter the application of U.S. law without an act of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Charles ``Ted'' Herget, Jr., a Baltimore businessman and philanthropist who has served on the Villa Julie College Board of Trustees since 1975, and has chaired the Board since 2002. In his 30 years of service to Villa Julie, Ted Herget has been instrumental in helping build the college into a highly regarded institution of higher learning in the Baltimore area.

In those first years, Villa Julie was a young institution that awarded only associate degrees. Since then, its 400 students have grown to approximately 2,500 students, and Villa Julie now confers four-year degrees, specializing in career-focused and adult-accelerated programs.

As co-founder and principal of Asset Strategy Consultants, Ted Herget has used his financial acumen to benefit Villa Julie College. He was the first chairman of the finance committee and in that role stressed the need to invest the college's money for the future. He also helped to develop the benefit structure and retirement plans that are still in place.

In addition to his work with Villa Julie, Ted Herget has a long history of civic leadership. He has served on numerous boards in the Baltimore metropolitan area and is recognized as a committed and dedicated community leader.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding the enormous impact that Ted Herget has had on the success and growth of Villa Julie College. Many people are responsible for Villa Julie's achievements, but Ted Herget certainly tops the list.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 19, which recognizes the 30th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act. The President issued a proclamation on August 1, 2005 which celebrated this important anniversary.

I am privileged to serve as the Ranking Member of the Helsinki Commission, formally known as the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Commission encourages compliance with the Helsinki Final Act by the 55 nations of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which is the largest regional security organization in the world.

The United States has actively participated in the Helsinki process since its inception 30 years ago. Today we acknowledge and celebrate that participation. This resolution recalls the importance of the Helsinki process in promoting human rights, democracy, and the rule of law within the OSCE. The Helsinki process consists of three ``baskets'' of rights which are essential to security: political, economic, and human rights.

Our Commission is unusual in that it is an independent Federal agency which has both the legislative and executive branches working together side by side. I have greatly appreciated this opportunity to work as equal partners in the Helsinki process, which I think has frankly increased our effectiveness on a number of issues within the OSCE region.

I have enjoyed working with our colleagues on the International Relations Committee, Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos, as well as with my Helsinki Commission Co-Chairman Chris Smith and Chairman Sam Brownback from the Senate.

Our work on the Helsinki Commission is bipartisan, and I do not think I can ever recall a moment in my entire service on this Commission where we have had a partisan difference. Our bipartisan record has led to numerous accomplishments on critical issues in the OSCE. The OSCE is perhaps best known for leading election monitoring missions to insure free and fair elections in emerging democracies in Europe and Eurasia.

The Helsinki process allowed many Jews to leave the former Soviet Union. Today the Helsinki process has taken the lead in fighting the growing scourge of anti-Semitism in Europe, culminating in an unprecedented conference on anti-Semitism and the issuance of the Berlin Declaration, which adopts a number of concrete commitments for States to fight anti-Semitism.

I am also privileged to serve as the Chairman of the economic committee of the Parliamentary Assembly (PA) of the OSCE, which has focused on anti-corruption measures and the promotion of small businesses, particularly those owned by women and minorities. I commend the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Hastings, for his excellent leadership of the OSCE PA as the first American to serve as President of this organization.

Earlier this year Chairman Smith and I visited Ukraine to meet with the new democratic government. Many of the former Soviet republics are still struggling today with their transition to a democratic form of government, and the OSCE plays an integral role in assisting these governments in establishing the rule of law.

Many challenges remain for the Helsinki process, but today we celebrate its rich legacy and record of accomplishments. I look forward to using the Helsinki process as we confront the new political, economic, and human rights challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that our thoughts and prayers go out to all those who have suffered through the catastrophic event of Hurricane Katrina. I also rise today in support of the $10 billion supplemental spending bill to help deal with the ravages left in its wake. This category 4 Hurricane has laid waste to our Gulf Coast region, including the city of New Orleans. Today, I am outraged, outraged at the failure of our Federal Government to have planned for and adequately responded to a disaster we all knew could happen.

I join millions of Americans who have been stunned by the television coverage showing the desperation of thousands and thousands of our citizens and the failure of our Government to provide them with essential services--food, water, medical care, and sanitary conditions.

Today, I want to talk about the situation in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and the immense suffering and desperation that the people there are experiencing. It has been 5 days since Hurricane Katrina slammed into the region and yet tens of thousands of Americans are without food and water. Lawlessness has settled in New Orleans and we have not provided the support necessary to secure the region. Tens of thousands of citizens are still stranded in shelters and we have not been able to evacuate them to safer areas; and thousands of residents of New Orleans are in need of rescue from their flood-filled homes and we have not mobilized the personnel necessary to search for them and bring them to safety.

Today, as thousands of residents of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region face the possibility of death, I am outraged that the Federal Government failed to adequately plan for the hurricane as it approached this very vulnerable region. Last Friday, the hurricane's potential danger was clear, yet we did a poor job of getting resources in place.

After the hurricane struck, we did not activate the full resources of the Federal Government to assist the region. Instead, we relied on local and State governments, entities that were clearly overwhelmed and did not have the resources necessary to deal with a catastrophe of this magnitude.

Today, I am outraged at the failure of government to protect our citizens. Last year, James Lee Witt, former head of FEMA, testified before a congressional hearing, saying: ``I am extremely concerned that the ability of our Nation to prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded. I hear from the emergency managers, local and State leaders and first responders nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and worked well with has now disappeared.''

Today, we must bring the full weight of the Federal Government to bear in this crisis. I call on the Federal Government to send in the necessary personnel to rescue those in need and to restore order to the region. I also call on the Federal Government to open its facilities in order to share the burden of providing temporary housing for those who have been displaced.

Once we deal with the human tragedy that is now taking place, I call for congressional hearings that will examine what went wrong. Why our most vulnerable citizens were left to fend for themselves and why an entire region was not prepared for such a catastrophic event. I also call for congressional hearings to investigate the gas gouging that has spread across the Nation--taking advantage of human tragedy to make a profit. Hurricane Katrina has inflicted grievous pain on our country. I want to be sure that in the future we are prepared to deal effectively and competently with any catastrophic event that should occur.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to Samuel Shapiro & Company on its 90th anniversary. Based in Baltimore, Maryland, Samuel Shapiro & Company is one of the leading customs brokers in the United States.

Samuel Shapiro & Company was founded in August 1915 by Sam Shapiro-- the hardworking son of Russian immigrants. In its first year of business, Samuel Shapiro & Company's books showed a net cash position of only $46.50. Undeterred, Sam Shapiro kept on working, building up his company through two World Wars and the Great Depression.

After the end of World War II, Samuel Shapiro & Company began to expand, opening up offices in Norfolk, Dulles and Baltimore-Washington (then Friendship) Airport. The company was passed on to Sam Shapiro's son Sigmund who guided it through the many technological transformations of the second half of the 20th century.

The new millennium has brought a new generation of Shapiro family members to manage the expanding company, which now has eight offices from New York to Savannah. Sig Shapiro's son Robert is now the company's lawyer and his daughter Majorie has taken his place as President & CEO. Under Majorie Shapiro, Samuel Shapiro & Company has maintained its reputation for delivering the highest quality of personalized customer service while using the most modern techniques available to provide that service.

I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting this third generation family business that has provided 90 years of the highest quality service to customers while maintaining a reputation as a model corporate citizen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I support reform of our nation's medical liability system. I also believe that doctors and medical institutions who are experiencing unsustainable increases in their malpractice premiums deserve relief. Before coming to Congress, as Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, I worked to craft legislation that brought significant changes at the state level, including reasonable caps on non-economic damages. It worked well to hold down the cost of premiums and make our State's malpractice system a much fairer one.

The problems in our Nation's medical liability system require a multi-faceted approach that includes addressing the causes of premium increases, reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits, and limiting the number of medical errors. I support enacting fair reforms that will continue to permit injured patients to hold wrongdoers accountable, and I am willing to support legislation that provides for reasonable caps on non-economic and punitive damages.

In recent years, I have seen so-called malpractice ``reform'' bills come to the floor of this House. Those bills provided an inequitable approach--limiting patients' access to the courts and imposing strict limits on compensation for their injuries, no matter how serious the injury or how egregious the malpractice, while doing nothing to lower malpractice premiums. Fortunately, they were not enacted into law.

I had hoped that this year's legislation would be the product of careful deliberation at the committee level. I had hoped that the authors would take into consideration the rights of patients and balance them carefully with the need to alleviate the burden of escalating malpractice insurance costs. Unfortunately, once again this year, the bill before us does neither. In fact, the leadership has simply rolled out a bill that is nearly identical to the one we considered in the last Congress. There were no hearings, no markups, and today, there are no opportunities to amend the bill. The same bill, the same bill number, the same disregard for the rights of patients, the same ineffectual approach to helping physicians.

Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to a few aspects of this bill. First, this bill contains an arbitrary cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages. Non-economic awards compensate patients and their families for real injuries, and sharply capping them will disproportionately hurt families, children, seniors, and others who have lower or fixed incomes.

Second, H.R. 5 provides a shield against punitive damages for manufacturers of prescription drugs and medical devices as long as they have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. At one time, the FDA shield might have been less controversial. After all, the FDA has long been considered the gold standard for prescription drug quality and safety, and for years its seal of approval was viewed by the American public as a guarantee that drugs were safe. But in light of developments related to several other pharmaceuticals approved by the FDA, this provision is truly baffling. Cases involving life- threatening complications from these drugs have raised fundamental questions about the safety determinations made by the FDA.

In 2004, the Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings to examine safety Issues

surrounding the prescribing of antidepressants to children. At that time, several members of the Committee criticized the FDA for failing to take prompt action to address these concerns. Last September, Vioxx was withdrawn from the market after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes in patients taking the drug for more than 18 months. Since then, it has been reported that more than 130,000 persons have suffered heart attacks as a result of taking Vioxx. Richard Matthews of Thurmont, Maryland, was one of the first reported fatalities from Vioxx. According to an Associated Press account, Richard's wife, Lisa, said her husband had no previous heart problems and died in 2002 at age 42 of a heart arrhythmia only a few days after he began taking Vioxx. Several Congressional committees have responded to these events by initiating investigations of drug safety issues, including the FDA's procedures for evaluating the safety of prescription drugs.

Given the questions that have arisen about FDA's effectiveness, it is truly astonishing that the leadership is here promoting a bill that prohibits the awarding of any punitive damages and limits non-economic damages for drugs and devices approved by the FDA. This bill, H.R. 5, was referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee, the same committee that acknowledged problems at the FDA. Did the committee's members try to amend this bill to strike or tone down the FDA provision? There was no opportunity. H.R. 5 was introduced one week ago, July 21, referred to the Judiciary and Energy and Commerce Committees, which did not hold a hearing or mark-up, and then brought to the floor today. The FDA shield is an irresponsible provision that should have been stricken from this bill. We have no opportunity to strike it today, because an amendment that would have done so was not made in order by the Rules Committee. It may endanger the health and lives of thousands of Americans. It will certainly deny them the opportunity to receive fair compensation when they are injured.

Third, I firmly believe that we must reduce medical errors in our health care system if we are to reduce the number of malpractice cases. It has been nearly six years since the 1999 report of the Institute of Medicine, IOM, entitled ``To Err Is Human: Building A Safer Health System.'' That report focused a great deal of attention on the issue of medical errors and patient safety. IOM estimated that between 44,000 and 98,000 people die in hospitals each year as the result of medical errors.

Even using the lower estimate, this would make medical errors the eighth leading cause of death in this country, higher than motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS. This House has just passed S. 544, legislation intended to reduce medical errors and improve patient safety. But its passage by a nearly unanimous vote of 428 to 3 is a clear indication that Congress knows there are valid cases whose victims deserve their day in court. The patient safety bill has not yet been signed into law. I hope it will be law soon, and that it will help improve patient safety. But each case is an individual case, and those who are harmed by medical errors deserve just compensation for their injuries.

Finally, I must question why the authors of this bill are not addressing malpractice insurance premium increases in this bill. The provisions of H.R. 5 would not reduce the rates that insurance companies charge providers. We have an alternative that would directly address the problems of frivolous lawsuits and insurance industry abuses. But once again this year, the base bill, H.R. 5, contains no provisions that will lower malpractice premiums.

Mr. Speaker, I must tell you, malpractice premium costs are the reason that providers ask me to support medical malpractice reform. These are practitioners who truly love their professions, and they are troubled by dramatic increases in their malpractice rates, increases that they must pay whether or not there have been any malpractice claims filed against them in the past year. They say that they want to continue practicing medicine next year, but they may not be able to afford to. When I ask if they would like to see provisions in the bill that limit their premium increases, they emphatically reply yes. So it is puzzling that this bill, which the authors say was written to help physicians stay in business, fails to address their central concern by even monitoring insurance companies' rate hikes. In fact, there are no provisions anywhere in the bill that affect malpractice insurers.

In sum, H.R. 5 represents a missed opportunity for this House. We could have produced a bill that would truly make a difference, in lowering malpractice premiums, in placing reasonable caps on non- economic damages. I am disappointed that we don't have a better bill, a more responsible bill that we can vote on today. I urge my colleagues to reject this approach, which will do nothing to improve access to care, nothing to hold insurance companies accountable for premium increases, and nothing to make our nation's medical liability system more fair.

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the 15th anniversary of the signing of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA extended landmark civil rights protections to an estimated 43 million disabled Americans, which is roughly 1 out of every 7 Americans. It established a comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability in the areas of employment, public services, transportation, and telecommunications.

The ADA seeks to guarantee that every American should have the right to live independently and fully participate in all aspects of our society. The ADA has had its greatest successes in improving physical accessibility, transportation and communications. The ADA has also begun to change society's attitudes toward people with disabilities.

Despite this impressive progress, the promise of the ADA unfortunately remains unfilled for too many disabled Americans. In the area of employment, for example, today only 35 percent of people of working age who have a disability are employed, compared to 78 percent of people without disabilities. Federal courts have also issued rulings interpreting the ADA whereby individuals may be considered too disabled by an employer to get a job, but not disabled enough by the courts to be protected by the ADA. This violates the spirit and intent of the ADA, which was designed to protect employees from discrimination based on real or perceived impairment. Congress should take action to correct these court decisions and strengthen the ADA.

As a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, I was pleased that in 1999 Congress enacted the Ticket to Work Act, which provides Americans receiving disability benefits with greater access to vocational rehabilitation services. This initiative provides tickets to recipients of both Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) that can be used to purchase rehabilitation, employment and other supportive services designed to help them secure and maintain a job. Payments to providers of these services are based on the success individuals using the tickets have in overcoming barriers and ultimately in becoming employed.

The Ticket to Work Act also created state options to eliminate the dilemma faced by many individuals receiving disability benefits-- choosing between work and health insurance coverage. The Ticket to Work Act allows States to adopt a Medicaid ``buy-in'' program to permit individuals to maintain Medicaid coverage while still working. Finally, the measure extended Medicare Part A coverage to working SSDI beneficiaries for a total of 8\1/2\ years--4 years beyond the coverage previously provided by Medicare.

As our Nation celebrates the 15th anniversary of the ADA, let us rededicate ourselves to carry out the commitment of that historic legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my Republican colleagues talk about this rule, I understand why the Republican leadership is bringing forward a closed rule, because if we had an open rule, we would end up with a very good bill that would do something about enforcing our laws against China.

I listened to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) talk about this being the key trade vote of the year, and I think we should understand that the Committee on Rules is responsible to make sure that we have a fair and open debate by the manner in which they propose rules. There has never been an opportunity to offer a single amendment to this bill anywhere along the process, whether in the subcommittee, the full committee, or here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Trade Promotional Authority gives the right of the administration to submit a trade-negotiated bill to the Congress after consultation and after a mock markup on an up-or-down vote. I just did not know that we had given the Republican leadership the right to bring out any bill they wanted to with an up-or-down vote without having democracy work. That is what this rule represents, and it is shameful.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) talks about the tradition. The minority normally gets an opportunity to offer a substitute on a major bill. They do not even give us the right to offer a substitute. That is just wrong, and that is not a democratic process.

Let me just talk for a moment or two about substance. I heard my colleagues talk about the manipulation of currency by China. No action is taken in this legislation in that regard. China undervalues its currency between 15 to 40 percent. We know that. Nothing is done in this bill to bring action against China for currency manipulation. Another study by Treasury? Excuse me, they just came back and told us there is no manipulation. What do we expect to get from that?

My friends talk about intellectual property. They are absolutely correct. China does not adhere to international standards on protecting intellectual property. No action is provided in this bill against China in regards to their infringement of intellectual property. My friends talk about the textile issues and the flooding of the market after the quotas were finished. We have certain safeguards. Nothing is done in this legislation for action against China in regards to the flooding of markets.

So what does this bill do? Does it deal with countervailing duties? Yes, it does. That is where we have illegally subsidized products coming into the U.S. market. But what does it do? It provides some relief on one hand, but makes it more difficult on the other. It is hard to figure out whether it is a plus or a minus.

Then my friends talk about more money. It does not provide any more money. We have already done that through the appropriation bills. We do not need this bill to do it. There is nothing new in this bill.

Then my friends talked about other issues that are not in this bill. Read the bill. We have missed an opportunity to deal with China by this rule.

I hope we will listen to what the gentleman from the Committee on Rules is saying on the Democratic side. Give us a chance to have a full debate on China. That is the tradition of this body.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I just want to clarify the record. The provision that we have in our legislation on China currency is to direct that a claim be brought within the WTO, not inconsistent with the WTO, so that we would use the dispute settlement resolution process within the WTO, which is certainly within the rights that we have.

I just really wanted to clarify the record on currency manipulation.

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

Madam Speaker, I normally am in agreement with my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, when it comes to antidumping and countervailing duty laws. We have worked together to try to improve those laws. But I disagree with him in regards to this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the gentleman's assessment of this legislation. I think it is an inconsequential bill. I do not believe it will do very much one way or the other. It will certainly not hold China accountable. There is nothing in this bill that would hold China accountable for its violations of its international trade obligations.

So, Madam Speaker, let me try to get the Members to focus on what is in this bill and not what people who may be coming to this well say is in this bill. I would urge my colleagues to please read the legislation that is before us. It is not the original bill that was filed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a bill that was supported by the industry, that would have extended countervailing duty laws to China and nonmarket economies. Instead, what this bill does in section 2 is a ``sense of Congress.'' Now, a sense of Congress resolution is exactly that. It expresses our concerns, but takes no action.

The first section that takes any action at all in changing law is section 3, and section 3 does deal with the countervailing duty provisions. It extends countervailing duties to nonmarket economies. That is good. Countervailing duties are imposed when a country inappropriately subsidizes its products that go into international trade. And China and nonmarket economies should be held to our countervailing duty laws. Unfortunately, they are not today.

The problem is that the amended bill then puts 2 hurdles in being able to apply those countervailing duty provisions. It first does what is known as double-counting and prevents from using on the countervailing duties the import and export subsidies by the country involved. Now, that is a different standard than we have for market economies, where you only have to double-count export subsidies. The change here is dramatic, and that is why the industries that are affected by the countervailing duty statute that we would hope would help in regards to China oppose this provision.

Nu Car, which is one of the companies that asked us to apply the countervailing duty law to China, has written us in opposition to this section, because it will not help them remedy the situation of subsidized product coming from China into the United States. That is why the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, the committee of business groups that have joined together in order to strengthen our antidumping and countervailing duty laws, oppose this section. It will not help companies that are hurt by subsidized, manufactured product coming into the United States. That is section 3. That is why I say, you try to help in one respect, but you take it away by putting obstacles in the way.

You also put a second test that is not currently required, a certification of compliance of international law. That is not required today for a market economy violation for us to file a countervailing duty claim. That is section 3.

Let us go to section 4. Section 4 deals with the new shipper review amendment. Well, here we have a problem with Chinese exporters who are not getting an adequate security when they come into our market. You provided a temporary fix for 3 years. We should do it permanently. It should be done permanently.

Going to section 5, section 5 talks about monitoring compliance with the People's Republic of China with international trade obligations. Read what is here. There is no action. There is review, but no action. We should not be doing this now, the review. The administration does this already. There is nothing new that is added to the requirements that we are going to be able to take action against China for violating intellectual property rights or access to market for services, or access to market for goods. We should be taking action under our safeguards in that regard. But no, there is no action at all taken in section 5. If I am wrong, please correct me on this point.

Then we move to section 6. Section 6 is probably the most egregious section in the bill: report on currency manipulation by foreign countries. Read it. It is only a couple lines. You are asking Treasury to define currency manipulation. We have already had Treasury report to us and fail to take action against China. China is manipulating its currency. We all know that. So why do we not take action against China?

No. This bill does, again, nothing in regards to China currency.

Then, in section 7, you talk about providing more money for the USTR. You are not providing more money for the USTR. The amount that you have here in authorized levels has already been provided in the appropriations bill. There is no new money here.

Then, in section 8, you talk about more money for the U.S. International Trade Commission. Again, it is equal to the amount that we have already provided through the appropriation process. There is no new money here in either section 7 or section 8.

I want to give you credit in section 9, talking about sense of Congress regarding the expansion of membership in the agreement on government procurement of the WTO. I support that section. I think we should be asking for broader participation in government procurement under the WTO. No action here again, strictly a sense of Congress.

So, Madam Speaker, I take this time to go through section by section because I challenge Members who come and speak on this bill to please speak about the facts of what is in this bill. There are only two sections that actually provide any change in law or action. One deals with countervailing duty, and I have already pointed out how there is negative along with the positive, and the other deals with a temporary fix of the exporter license issue, which is certainly not the major problem that we are having with China today.

As I said earlier, this bill is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity because the overwhelming majority of the Members of this body would like to vote on a bill that would provide real relief to the problems that we have in China living up to its international trade responsibilities. That legislation just happens to be H.R. 3306, which has been introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I regret that we do not have an opportunity to debate that bill and do what is right for the people of this country in enforcing our trade rules against the People's Republic of China.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

I think the gentleman pointed out that there are no sections other than the two I mentioned that are action sections in your bill. And I point out again that the double-counting provision will make the application of countervailing duties much more difficult, if not impossible, in a nonmarket economy; and that is not helpful to companies that have been hurt by subsidized products coming from China.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond to gentlewoman's comments.

Madam Speaker, there is nothing in this bill that deals with dumping and enforcement in China. There is nothing in this bill that takes action against China for currency manipulation. And there is nothing in this bill that takes action against China for intellectual property failures. On the countervailing duties, I have already commented on that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the former ranking Democrat on trade, the senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, in response to my friend from Florida's (Mr. Shaw) comments on the intellectual property problems that we are having with China, and they are substantial, China is violating intellectual property rights every day not only with videos and tapes, but also with industrial products. Listen to what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said. Listen to the action required by the President if China violates intellectual property to gather information.

We already have that, Madam Speaker. Action is filing a claim under the WTO. That is following the requirements of the WTO dispute settlement resolution process. There is no action whatsoever in this bill. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) got it right. This is a bill about saying things about China that people might feel good about. And if you are so inclined to feel good about it and want to vote for it, fine. But to say that this is taking action against China is just wrong. It does not take action against China.

The administration tomorrow could file a claim against China on intellectual property against China if it wanted to, and it should have. The administration yesterday should have filed claims against China for currency manipulation, and it has not, and then allow the WTO process to proceed. But for us to say that we are requiring the administration to make a finding and then collect information which they already have is being tough on China, come on now. Let us be straightforward on this bill.

It is a bill that says things about China that many Members might feel good about, but as far as taking action against China, this bill comes out short.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. In response on the currency issue, section 6 in this legislation deals with currency manipulation. It does not deal with China specifically. And it requires the Secretary of the Treasury to define currency manipulation and describe actions of foreign countries that will be considered to be currency manipulation.

The problem is Treasury has already done this and found that China was not manipulating its currency despite the fact that we know it undervalues its currency between 15 percent and 40 percent. So I appreciate the gentleman's concern about the competitive problems that we have with American manufacturers and producers trying to compete with an undervalued Chinese currency, but this bill comes up very short.

But I very much appreciate what the gentleman said because we will be come back in a little bit and offer him an opportunity to really do something about the manipulation of China's currency.

Madam Speaker, let me also point out while I am on the floor that legislation filed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), H.R. 3306, would take action in this area by requiring the administration to initiate a WTO action to address China's currency manipulation.

Now, that would bring action consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization because we would act under the World Trade Organization. That is what we should be doing.

Let me suggest that when you file an action under the WTO, it is not the end of issues, it is the beginning of a process. To ask the Secretary of the Treasury to do another study or come up with another definition, all we do is delay for another year any action against China. And to suggest that there are minor adjustments that they made is in any way dealing with the underlying problems of currency manipulation is just unreal. China announced today that they do not intend to do more. So we need to take action against China.

American jobs are at stake. We can compete if it is on a fair, level playing field. It is not. This bill does not deal with the China currency issue.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the textile issue that was recently mentioned on the other side.

When we negotiated our WTO accession agreement with China, we provided certain safeguards against the flooding of a market on textiles, knowing that the textile quota would be expiring. The concern many of us have had with China is that our government has not exercised the safeguards that are currently available to us under the agreement negotiated with China. We would like to see the administration be more aggressive in making sure that we do not get a flooded market either here or with trading partners that would have an adverse impact on the textile industry.

That is a major concern in our relationship with the People's Republic of China. The concern is that this legislation does absolutely nothing about that. So I appreciate the comments of my colleague on the other side of the aisle that there is no provision in this bill that would require action against China consistent with the provisions of the WTO accession agreement.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the discussion that we have had. One of the advantages of the consideration of this bill under a rule as restrictive and repressive as the rule was, is that we do have a chance to have a more open and full debate, and I appreciate that.

I appreciate also the fact that we have been able to go through many of the provisions, including the colloquy that was just recently put on the record. I found that colloquy helpful, because I must tell you I shared the same concerns as to whether we were turning over to dispute settlement panels a decision as to whether we would bring future cases using counterveiling duties. And if I understand my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), that would be a determination made solely by our Commerce Department consistent with U.S. interests, and I certainly agree with that interpretation.

I regret that we have not had the chance to consider amendments or consider a substitute, because I do think that there is general sentiment among the overwhelming majority of the Members of this body to take action against China for its failure to comply with international trading rules. China has violated currency manipulation, which has worked to the disadvantage of American manufacturers, farmers, and producers. China has not enforced intellectual property issues, which has worked to the disadvantage of our entertainment industry, and to our engineering and manufacturing industries.

China has flooded the markets, contrary to its trade agreements on textiles, which has worked to the disadvantage of the U.S. markets. China over and over again has denied access on services and many other areas that require action. So it is appropriate that we should be considering legislation to address the shortcomings of China's compliance with international trade rules.

Now, I think we could have come up with a much stronger bill. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), as I pointed out earlier, introduced H.R. 3306. And when you compare H.R. 3306 with the bill that is before us, you cannot help but feel that we should have done a much better job.

H.R. 3306 would have applied U.S. countervailing duty laws to China and other nonmarket economies without the additional burdens imposed by the underlying bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) quoted from some sources that support that provision. Let me just tell you that Nucor, which is, as you know, a steel company that has to live with subsidized steel from China coming into the U.S. market, opposes the provision. Nucor believes that the extra burden of trying to establish the amount of subsidy when you have to factor additionally for nonmarket economies domestic subsidies, it is a burden that will make the new countervailing duty application meaningless as it relates to China. That is a specific company telling us, who supported the original English bill, they oppose this provision because of the problems.

I could cite other examples, Madam Speaker, but on one hand the bill gives some relief for countervailing duties to nonmarket economies; but on the other, the bill imposes new restrictions that really make it very difficult if it provides any help at all.

The Rangel bill would require the administration to initiate WTO action to address China's currency manipulation. Instead, the underlying bill provides for another study generally by Treasury which will delay action taken against China by another period of time. H.R. 3306, the Rangel bill, would strengthen special China safeguard laws. The underlying bill does nothing on that at all.

So, Madam Speaker, we have a bill that contains the sense of Congress and provisions that I think most of the Members of this body would agree with. It contains some other provisions that are well intended, and I think the majority of the Members of this body would agree with. But I want to make it clear that for those who are claiming this bill is tough on China or tough on enforcing our trade rules with China, it does not do that.

It does say certain things about China that most Members of this body would agree with. The main purpose of this bill was to deal with countervailing duties to nonmarket economies, and it does that in a way that probably will provide no relief. It provides authorizations for additional funds for two agencies that deal with trade, but we have already taken care of that in the appropriation bill.

So I come back to the point of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). If you want to feel good and vote for this bill, go ahead and do it. But if you think you are taking action against China, if you believe that this bill will speak to the trade imbalance we currently have with China because of China's failure to adhere to their international responsibilities under the WTO or under the accession agreement with the United States, if you believe that, this bill does not do that. This bill is a missed opportunity because we were not able to have a free and open rule.

So I regret, Madam Speaker, that we are sort of in a dilemma with this bill as to what advice we should give Members. If you look at it as a resolution expressing the sense of Congress, there is nothing wrong with this bill. But if you look at it as a bill to provide action against China, there is really nothing in it to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am at this time

Mr. Speaker, the only opportunity we have is on a motion to recommit, and this motion to recommit will deal with the currency manipulation issue with China, and will take real action on China's currency manipulation.

Since 1994, China has pegged its currency to the U.S. dollar. This policy has caused China's currency to become undervalued by as much as 40 percent. What this means in practice is that Chinese manufacturers have a significant unfair advantage over U.S. manufacturers because China's currency manipulation makes Chinese exports to the United States cheaper and U.S. exports to China more expensive.

It is simply unacceptable that this administration has allowed China to continue this policy, and the Chinese Government appears to realize that this administration is not serious about stopping China's currency manipulation. Just last year when the vice governor of the People's Bank of China was asked when China would change its currency policy, he stated, ``China has 8,000 years of history. One year, three years, five years, or ten years, for Chinese, that is just a twinkling of an eye.''

Now I know that the administration and many of those on the opposite side of the aisle will point to the fact that China reevaluated its currency by about 2 percent last week. However, I would urge them to read the report in today's Washington Post and New York Times indicating that China's Central Bank issued a statement yesterday to clarify that last week's change was a one-time event, and that we should not expect more changes any time soon.

China's continuing refusal to end its currency manipulation demands action by this body. However, the bill before us today, H.R. 3283, calls on one more report and another delay. The Treasury Department has already issued reports on Chinese currency and has not taken any action.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard my colleagues talk about taking action against China during this debate. Here is an opportunity to do that. What this motion to recommit would do would be to bring the bill immediately back with an amendment that would have the administration file a WTO claim. That is consistent with the WTO. It starts the process. It tells China we are serious. It does not do anything in violation of the WTO. It starts the process, but it tells China that this body is serious about their dealing with their currency issue. That is what China understands. We cannot justify tying a currency to another currency. That is manipulation. That is working to the disadvantage of American manufacturers.

I would hope that we could join together. I have heard many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues tell me it is time to take action against China. This does it in a responsible way. It does not require any tariff; it does not do anything inconsistent with the WTO obligations. It exercises the constitutional responsibility that we have on trade. It is the legislative branch that is responsible for trade. We delegate to the executive branch. We should be willing to assume our responsibility.

If Members believe it is wrong for China to continue to manipulate its currency to the disadvantage of U.S. manufacturers and producers and employment here in this Nation, vote for the motion to recommit so we can finally start action against China on currency manipulation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I, along with many Democrats, have supported every trade agreement that has been presented. We do that because we believe trade has the potential to generate economic growth and raise the standard of living. The trick though is to make sure that we realize that potential.

During the last several decades we have really changed our focus in opening up markets for American manufacturers and producers. We have initially worked on removing tariff barriers. Now we are concerned about nontariff barriers. It does not mean we have done all we need to on tariff barriers, but the priority in our country has been to open up markets by removing nontariff barriers. That is why we spend a lot of time on intellectual property protection, on opening up opportunity for services, and, yes, Mr. Speaker, working on basic international labor standards.

I believe everybody in this body would agree with me that we do not

want products coming into this country that violate child labor standards. Well, the same is true with other basic internationally recognized labor rights. We have made progress. The Caribbean Basin Initiative, the CBTPA, AGOA and GSP all have improved labor standards around the globe because we have raised the issue and raised the bar.

In the Central American countries today, we have the Caribbean Basin Initiative. It has worked. It gives trade preferences to the Central American countries provided that they recognize international labor standards. The failure to do so allows us to impose trade sanctions. The threat has made progress in raising international labor standards and workers' rights in the Central American countries.

Mr. Speaker, I do not expect the administration to perform miracles when they negotiate free trade agreements, but I do expect them to represent the priorities of our Nation. In the CAFTA agreement, they repeal the rights we currently have under CBI, under the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Therefore, CAFTA is left with a weaker standard than current law in regards to workers' rights.

All CAFTA provides is for a country to enforce their own laws, regardless of how they may be; and then the sanction for failure to enforce their own laws that we have under the dispute settlement resolution are weaker standards. We cannot impose trade sanctions. All we can do is impose a fine, and that fine goes back to their own country. We cannot even enforce these weak standards.

You have to draw a line somewhere, Mr. Speaker. We have the constitutional responsibility on trade. We have to make that judgment. This agreement fails in that regard.

I had hoped that we would be able to renegotiate so that we could have a strong bipartisan vote on CAFTA. After all, we did that with textiles, and we could have done that with workers' rights. But this administration chose not to do it. In a way, Mr. Speaker, it is more important for a CAFTA agreement than some of the other agreements that have passed, for Chile and Singapore, Morocco and Australia, because of the standard of living in the Central American countries. For people living in poverty, trade, if properly structured, holds out the promise of more meaningful economic opportunities and a better way of life. But trade without basic labor standards will not do that.

I think this agreement is not a good agreement for the Central American countries, and it is not a good agreement for the United States.