Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, there is broad bipartisan support for assisting adoptive families in meeting their expenses. Helping families afford the cost of adopting children in loving homes is clearly a worthy policy, and targeted tax relief can help promote that goal. I, therefore, support this effort to eliminate the sunset provision in the current adoption tax credit, and I want to compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), for his work and leadership on this issue.

This extension is particularly worthwhile given the change in the adoption tax credit that took effect last year. Let me just point that out, Mr. Speaker, the adoption tax credit now provides a guaranteed $10,000 tax credit for the adoption of special-needs children who are classified as being more difficult to place for adoption because of certain factors, including physical, mental or emotional impairment. Prior to that change, it was very difficult for people adopting special-needs children to qualify for the tax credit. In fact, less than 15 percent did, because many of their expenses included in the adoption credit were already paid for.

We know that people who adopt children with special needs incur additional costs, including modifying their home to take care of the physical impairments of the child and other types of expenses. Now that we have modified the tax credit, those families can take advantage of this $10,000 credit, and therefore, it is really helping deal with the placement of special-needs children, one additional reason why it is important for this tax credit program to continue without interruption, one additional reason why this legislation should pass.

My only regret about this legislation is that there was no effort to offset its cost. Relative to the other tax extensions, the cost of the adoption tax credit is relatively modest. Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that the sunset provision is now in the year 2010. There are many other tax provisions that have much sooner sunset dates that we have not acted on yet and we need to deal with.

I support this change, and it has a modest cost, but I am sorry that we did not take advantage of this opportunity to close some tax loopholes, including those available to companies who ship jobs overseas, that could have offset easily the cost of this bill so we do not continue to add to the growing deficit.

The current budget deficit is $422 billion in this fiscal year, and it is projected to grow to over $1.6 trillion over the next 5 years. This amount will be added to a current overall of $7.3 trillion. It should, therefore, be no surprise that we are about to raise our government debt limit for the third time in just the last 3 years. At some point, we are going to have to own up to the fact that we are simply passing on our obligations to our children rather than living within our means.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we will find a way to pay for this and other tax extenders through commonsense changes in the tax code. In the meantime, I support this extension of the adoption tax credit, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation but to continue to work for more responsible fiscal policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, this discussion is becoming a little bit more interesting than we thought.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, I support this bill. It is good policy, the adoption tax credit. It should be made permanent. This bill will make it permanent. It helps families who need help in adopting children, particularly those with special needs.

But I want to point out that this bill removes the sunset that would take effect in the year 2010. So if this bill were not to be enacted into law this year, I want people to understand that we are not endangering the ability of families to take advantage of the tax credit. There is no urgency as far as the expiration of the tax credit itself is concerned.

I do want to correct statements that I think were made by two of my colleagues, because I think they were misleading when it was said that the passage of this tax credit is consistent with the budget. We have not passed a budget. We have not reconciled the difference between the House and the other body.

Now, I know my colleagues will say, well, we passed one here and we are consistent with what we did. But there is no budget that puts us on a glide path towards responsible budgeting.

That is my concern, Mr. Speaker, and that is one of the reasons I raised the issue. The deficit this year is $422 billion. I do not believe any one of my colleagues is happy with that result.

What will this bill do? It will add a little bit more to the deficit. It will add a little bit more to the red ink of our Nation. I find that regrettable. I think we need to institute budget discipline. We need to offset our expenditures, whether they are in the Tax Code or in the operating budget, so that we do not add to the red ink of the Nation.

Unfortunately, this bill will not do that. And it would be easy for us to agree in a bipartisan manner to the necessary offsets so this bill does not add further to the deficit.

That is the offer that I make on behalf of this side of the aisle. Yes, we support this legislation. Yes, we will work with you to make sure it gets to the President for his signature. But work with us so we do not continue to add red ink and debt to our Nation.

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

Mr. Chairman, each year the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill is one of the most difficult measures for this body to complete. One reason is that it is often the costliest of our spending bills. Another is that the programs it funds are the most critical to the well-being of our citizens.

I want to thank the members of the Appropriations Committee, particularly Chairman Young, Ranking Member Obey, and Subcommittee Chairman Regula for their hard work on this measure, particularly in light of the budgetary limitations on what we can accomplish for many vital domestic programs.

I am pleased that the House has increased by $22 million the bill's funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), and I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, for his leadership and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of his amendment.

I also want to thank Mr. Obey for his leadership on the key issue of overtime pay. American workers deserve to be paid fairly for the work they perform, and I am proud that the House has voted to eliminate damaging aspects of the Labor Department's rule.

This is a bill that in many ways improves upon the President's budget proposals, and I intend to support it. However, I am concerned about the low funding levels in several areas that I hope can be improved upon in conference.

In the area of education, this bill does not do enough for our Nation's elementary and secondary school students. In my home state of Maryland, more than 100 schools do not

meet state standards required by the No Child Left Behind Law. Even though many school districts find themselves unable to meet the goals of the law, the bill before us today provides $9.5 billion less than the funding promised. Today's bill also falls $2.5 billion short of the $13.6 billion promised last year for special education when IDEA was reauthorized last year. I would also hope that we can improve upon the higher education funding, particularly in the areas of Pell Grants and Perkins Loans, so that lower and middle-income students can continue to enroll in public and private colleges across the Nation.

This bill also shortchanges Americans already in the labor market. Eight million Americans who want to work cannot find jobs, but the job training funds do not keep pace with inflation. In fact, compared FY 2001, it cuts job training funding in real terms by over $700 million. I would hope that we can improve upon these levels in conference.

Finally, we must increase funding for several programs in the Department of Health and Human Services. Last month, we learned that the number of uninsured Americans reached 45 million, yet this bill reduces Maternal and Child Health Block Grants that fund care for uninsured women and children, and it eliminates the Community Access Program, which has funded grants across the Nation for preventive and primary care. This bill also cuts vital Ryan White AIDS Care programs, and it does not adequately fund the lifesaving NIH research that Americans diagnosed with Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes, and other debilitating diseases are depending upon. Unfortunately, this bill contains an increase of only 2.6% in NIH funding--less than medical research inflation.

I hope, as this House bill moves forward in conference, that the funding levels for these critical needs can be increased to a more realistic level.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the town of Crofton, Maryland, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary. Located near Annapolis, Baltimore, and Washington, Crofton has contributed to Maryland's cultural and economic life since 1964.

This celebration is designed to commemorate Crofton's growth from its beginnings as a small farm town to the large suburban community it is today. Crofton was established when Hamilton Crawford, a Louisiana developer, designed a community convenient to Washington and Baltimore that appealed to both residents and businesses.

In 1965, one year after its establishment, the town experienced major growth and development, becoming home to more than 500 residents in its first year. A civic center, recreational facilities, schools, stores, and restaurants quickly followed. This expansion continued during subsequent decades, and today Crofton is a thriving community with more than 30,000 residents.

Crofton prides itself on the fact that it has experienced economic growth while retaining its safe, family-oriented, and close-knit roots. Residents today still enjoy the amenities that originally attracted them--tree-lined streets, suburban environment and convenience to two major cities.

Crofton's 40th anniversary celebration features children's activities, concerts, athletic events, banquets, and parades. The events began in April and will continue through the end of November. Local businesses, sports teams, armed forces, and firemen are all participating in these events.

I hope my colleagues in the House of Representatives will join me in commemorating this milestone in Crofton history, as we celebrate 40 years of this dynamic Maryland community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Michael Phelps for his performance representing the United States in Athens at the Games of the XXVIIIth Olympiad.

Michael Phelps, who was born in Baltimore and now lives in Towson, is a lifelong resident of Maryland's Third Congressional District.

So, we Marylanders have been following Michael's career long before these Olympic games. At age seven, he joined the North Baltimore aquatic club, and at age sixteen, he won his first world title at the 2001 world championships in Japan. This was only the beginning of many recordsetting victories.

This August, joined by the rest of the world, we watched with extraordinary pride as Michael earned eight medals.

Through seventeen races in eight days, Michael did much more than beat his competitors--he exemplified true sportsmanship.

After winning his fourth individual gold medal, Michael stunned the athletic world by giving up his spot in the men's 400 meter medley relay on July to team mate Ian Crocker. The relay team won a gold medal, setting a world record. Michael's words say it best, and show why for him ``world-class champion'' is an understatement.

When asked about his decision, Phelps responded, ``Ian is one of the best relay swimmers in U.S. history . . . when we want to put the four fastest guys up there, we look at everything, all the past swims, and we make the best decision . . . we came into this meet as a team and we're going to leave as a team.''

Those words demonstrate why Michael Phelps is recognized as an outstanding role model, not just for athletes, but for all of us, no matter what our life's work.

As Michael leaves our state this fall to pursue his studies at the University of Michigan, we offer him our hearty congratulations and best wishes for the future.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me today in thanking Michael Phelps for representing our country with such honor and grace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my constituent, Nancy Haberland, for her participation in the Games of the XXVIIIth Olympiad.

In her Olympic debut this August, Nancy Haberland was forward in the Yngling boat. Ms. Haberland, along with skipper Carol Cronin and middle Liz Filter made up Team Atkins. The yngling class was one of the most closely contested races at the U.S. Olympic trials. In a remarkable achievement, Team Atkins beat out a field that included a previous Yngling world champion, Betsy Alison, and past Olympians Jody Swanson and Cory Sertl. Ms. Haberland has also won numerous national titles in several classes.

Nancy Haberland grew up in Northbrook, Illinois and started sailing at the age of 13. In 1984, she graduated from Miami University in Ohio with a degree in dietetics and management, and she is a registered dietitian. She serves our country now as a sailing coach at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, and I am privileged to represent her in Congress.

It has been said that the trademarks of a champion are, ``The will to prepare, the guts to risk, and the desire to be the best.'' Ms. Haberland certainly possesses all three, and I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating her.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Rhadi Ferguson, a Maryland resident who proudly represented the United States as a member of its Judo Team in the games of the XXVIIIth Olympiad.

A three-time national Judo champion, Rhadi was born in Portland Oregon, and earned a football scholarship to Howard University where he also wrestled and ran track. Rhadi won the 2004 U.S. Judo Trials in June and a bronze medal at the 2004 Pan American Games.

Rhadi Ferguson is an academic champion as well, having earned a master's degree in teaching at Howard University with a perfect 4.0 grade-point average, and he is now pursuing his doctorate in education.

Although many consider judo to be very similar to wrestling, the sport has as its origins in the ancient Japanese art of jujutsu, a system of hand-to-hand combat that is more than 2,000 years old.

Dr. Jigoro Kano, the founder of modern Judo, introduced many of the current techniques used today, and he is largely credited with Judo's inclusion in the 1964 Olympic Games. Kano described the sport as ``the way to the most effective use of both physical and spiritual strength. By training you in attacks and defenses, it refines your body and your soul and helps you make the spiritual essence of Judo a part of your very being. In this way you are able to perfect yourself and contribute something of value to the world. This is the final goal of Judo discipline.''

I am proud that one of my constituents, Rhadi Ferguson, has achieved the status of national champion, and I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating him on his participation in the 2004 Olympic Games.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice a significant concern with regard to the proposed Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Morocco. While this is a concern specific to Morocco, it highlights a broader issue that I and many of my colleagues share in regard to the pace and ``individuality'' of the many bilateral FTAs being negotiated by the USTR.

Reviewing the February 25, 2004 State Department Country Report on Human Rights for Morocco, I came across several issues. The report highlights a series of human rights abuses in Morocco and I believe these unacceptable practices need to be a priority of the United States as it builds and strengthens its long-standing ties with Morocco.

I was greatly concerned with an issue that comes up several times in the report. To quote one sentence: ``The judiciary lacked independence and was subject to government influence and corruption.'' As I assume we can all agree, the lack of an independent judiciary and corruption are significant, fundamental barriers to the development of a sound, growing trade relationship.

As the Ways and Means Committee considered this agreement I asked representatives of the USTR about this fundamental issue. They had no comment and promised to follow-up with me. I want to thank Chairman Thomas for for seconding my concerns at the markup and also seeking a response. The USTR has made available to me the American Bar Association report on the state of Morocco's judicial system, citing some hope for reform.

My impression is that the state of the judiciary in the Kingdom of Morocco and corruption in commerce are issues that received little attention as the USTR negotiated this agreement. That should not be the case. Bilateral FTAs are a means to address issues such as these with key trade partners and strengthen the basis for trade relations. An independent judiciary is essential to sound, long-term trade relations. As well, corruption in many foreign nations has long been a concern of the United States; one where we have long set a high standard and required our businesspeople to operate on an ethical basis.

I understand the USTR's current interest in pursuing a large number of bilateral agreements to advance trade around the world--particularly as our more broad based talks and negotiations on global agreements have stalled. That being said, quantity should not supplant quality in agreements. Our goals in each of our trade agreements should remain high and be targeted to the situation in each nation. I am concerned in this agreement we have not met our highest goals and lost an opportunity.

Reluctantly, I intend to support this FTA because I believe the government of Morocco has demonstrated its commitment to working with us and raising its own standards; the new labor rights laws enacted last year are a good example. But I want to strongly urge the USTR to show more care and attention to the individuality of nations as we move forward, particularly as it relates to institutional reforms and the protection of human rights.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, first I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) for bringing forward this unanimous consent request.

Under my reservation, I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman to explain the resolution.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I first, again, thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for moving this resolution.

I filed it on behalf of the entire Maryland congressional delegation. Mattie was a resident of our State. Jimmy Carter said that he was the most extraordinary person that he had ever met. Although only 13 years of age when he died, he had the courage that really led all of us. He captured love in the entire Nation when on Oprah's show, Oprah asked, what can I do for you, and he said just pray for me.

As the gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out, Mattie published five books of poetry, an extraordinary accomplishment for a person his age. Of course, he is best known as a national poster child for muscular dystrophy and along with Jerry Lewis appeared on national television on behalf of raising money to cure that disease.

He was a national figure, a person who touched all of our lives, any person who met him.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard my distinguished chairman make his argument

many times about the fact that we did this problem as Democrats when we were in the majority. I would think that after 10 years, the statute of limitations should have run on that argument. The Republicans have had 10 years in which to act.

I guess one of the problems that I have, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill did not go through a markup in the Committee on Ways and Means. We did not have an opportunity to offer amendments.

The chairman complains about the fact that we do not like the title of this bill, Tax Simplification for Americans Act. If we had had it in committee, maybe I would have had a chance to offer an amendment to clarify exactly what this bill does, which is very little. It does not carry out a commitment that was made by the Republicans to simplify our Tax Code.

We bring that up because, as my colleagues have already pointed out, there were statements made 10 years ago when the Republicans took control of this body that tax simplification was going to be their top priority, and they simply have not delivered on that. We have not had any bold proposals. Instead, what does the record show?

Well, we have seen that the number of pages of the Internal Revenue Code and Regulation now equals 54,846 pages. That is a 35 percent increase from what it was in 1995. That is hardly tax simplification.

We have talked about the alternative minimum tax, and why do we mention this? My good friend from Ohio indicates that we are making progress in dealing with the alternative minimum tax. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues that we are not making progress in dealing with the alternative minimum tax because, under current tax law, the number of taxpayers who are going to be subject to the alternative minimum tax by the year 2010 will be 33 million taxpayers, up from 1 million taxpayers in 1999. That is not making progress. One out of every three taxpayers will be subject to the alternative minimum tax. Six million taxpayers will face the alternative minimum tax in 2010 just because they have children, and we talk about marriage penalties here. A person is 20 times more likely to be subject to the alternative minimum tax if they are married.

These are issues that we would like to address in the committee that I have the honor of serving on; but instead, we get bills that are brought directly to the floor; that we do not have a chance to offer amendments on; that are brought up under suspension where all we can do is vote the bill up or down. Obviously, it might make some progress but very little, and it does not deal with the underlying issue of complexity in our Tax Code and, therefore, should not be called the Tax Simplification for Americans Act.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say in conclusion, we are doing all this and still adding billions and billions of dollars to the national debt in the tax policies that we are bringing forward. That is hardly serving the interests of the people we represent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague, the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), in support of this legislation. It is important legislation that will save our States money and help the employers in our State that are playing according to the rules. This bipartisan bill will help ensure all employers pay their fair share into our Nation's unemployment compensation system, which provides benefits to laid-off workers.

I am pleased to have worked with the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) in developing this legislation, as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who serves also on our Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has the support from organizations representing both workers and business.

Unemployment tax payments are determined in part by a company's experience rating, meaning their experience with laying off workers. Companies whose employees receive fewer unemployment benefits have lower tax rates, while those employers whose workers receive benefits more frequently have higher tax rates. To artificially reduce their unemployment taxes, some companies engage in a practice known as State Unemployment Tax Assessment dumping, or SUTA dumping, which allows them to lower their experience rating.

Examples of this practice include the transfer of a company's employees to a fake shell company which has a new and lower tax rate. As a result of this practice, the State loses millions of dollars in proper tax payments and, therefore, has to increase the tax rates on the vast majority of employers who are playing according to the rules.

In fact, the Department of Labor has said SUTA dumping eliminates the incentive for employers to keep employees working and returning claimants to work as soon as possible, and it unfairly shifts costs to other employers.

Mr. Speaker, according to a General Accounting Office survey, three- fifths of the States believe their laws are insufficient to prevent SUTA dumping. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, we need to act. Fourteen States have reported they have identified specific SUTA dumping cases within the last 3 years, with losses from these cases exceeding $120 million.

H.R. 3463 would require States to impose meaningful penalties on employers that engage in SUTA dumping by shifting employees from one shell company to another. More specifically, the bill would require that a company's experience ratings for unemployment taxes follow that portion of the business that is transferred to another company if both corporate entities are ``under substantially common ownership, management or control.''

Additionally, the bill would require penalties be imposed on financial consultants who market SUTA dumping as a tax shelter.

Finally, the bill includes a provision allowing State unemployment agencies access to the National Directory of New Hires, which is used to track employment for the purposes of collecting child support. State agencies would use this information to prevent fraud, such as individuals both working and claiming unemployment benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation designed to ensure fair and accurate payment to our Nation's unemployment compensation system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources and one who has worked very hard on this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, this is an important bill. This is a bill that will save millions of dollars for our unemployment trust accounts at the State level and will work to the advantage of workers and businesses that are playing according to the rules so that they pay their fair rates into the unemployment trust accounts. This is important legislation, it is bipartisan legislation, and it is legislation I hope my colleagues will all support.

I do, though, want to underscore the point that the gentleman from Michigan made, and that is there are other issues in regard to the unemployment insurance funds that we should be dealing with. I would hope that we could use this model of working together to deal with the extension of unemployment benefits. Let me just remind my colleagues that we have record amounts of people who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits without finding employment, the highest in the history of keeping these records. Yet, in this downturn in our economy, we provided Federal unemployment benefits for one of the shortest times and for the number of shortest weeks in recent times when we have had problems with our economy. That is wrong. We should have done better. I hope that we will do better.

Secondly, let me point out there are other issues in regard to the unemployment accounts that we need to take a look at. The Department of Labor 3 years ago suggested that 80,000 workers may be denied unemployment benefits every year because they are misclassified as independent contractors. That is another issue that I would hope that we could look at in order to properly preserve these funds. And then let me also suggest that several years ago the stakeholders in our unemployment compensation system came together with certain recommendations that dealt with the tax, that dealt with part-time workers, that dealt with using the most recent earnings quarters. We have not yet acted on those recommendations which could again provide meaningful benefits to people who are entitled to it, who pay into the trust accounts and are being denied benefits today because of the Federal rules.

I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation, but to understand we have a lot more work that needs to be done in regard to our unemployment compensation system, including the fact that we inappropriately failed to extend benefits to unemployed workers during this economic downturn.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and join our chairman in support of this legislation.

I do want to point out that it also provides for the authorization of our United States Trade Representative and gives our USTR some additional resources, $2 million of additional funding, in order to be able to more aggressively represent our interests, particularly in the World Trade Organization.

We have been involved in numerous litigations within the WTO, and we have found in the last couple of years that we have been on the losing side of some very important cases. I think the importance of this legislation to provide the additional resources is so that the USTR can more aggressively represent U.S. interests in the World Trade Organization on cases which are consistent, particularly with our anti- dumping and countervailing duty laws. We have found over and over again that we have not been successful in defending our rights under these domestic laws in the WTO. We also, of course, found on the tax issues we were unsuccessful.

So we are hopeful that these additional funds will, in fact, be used by the United States Trade Representative to fight for U.S. interests in the World Trade Organization that is consistent with our domestic law to prevent our market from being flooded by illegally subsidized products that we have seen over and over again, particularly in steel.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I just wanted to point out to our membership the additional resources that are being made available, and certainly our intentions are that they are to be used by the USTR to defend the right of American producers and manufacturers, particularly when they are facing unfair competition from foreign markets.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of this free trade agreement and urge my colleagues to support it. This is a bilateral free trade agreement between the United States and Australia. I think that we stand to make more progress when we work on

bilateral agreements rather than multinational agreements, particularly when we are dealing with a country that is very similar to the United States.

The United States and Australia have much in common. Both nations respect basic labor rights and the enforcement of basic workers' rights. This agreement strengthens the enforcement of those laws. Both nations respect the environment, and the agreement calls for both parties to commit to establish high levels of environmental protection and not to weaken or reduce environmental laws to attract trade or investment.

Australia is a close ally of the United States in many of our international activities. The United States enjoys a trade surplus with Australia of $9 billion per year. It is our ninth largest export market.

Mr. Speaker, Australia is a good friend, and it is in our interest to establish a free trade agreement with Australia.

It will open up more markets to U.S. manufacturers and farmers. Australia's tariffs for manufacturing will basically be eliminated on goods coming from the United States to Australia; 99 percent will enter Australia duty free.

There is key relief on the exports of agricultural products to Australia. The United States estimates that more than 400 million per year will receive immediate duty-free access to Australia; and let me just point out as a footnote, there is no additional access to Australia in regards to sugar. This agreement will help U.S. manufacturers and farmers. The United States will enjoy tariff preferences over its European and North Asian competitors and products, such as chemicals and heavy machinery.

In fact, the U.S. National Association of Manufacturers has estimated that the free trade agreement will result in a minimum of $2 billion per year increase in manufacturing exports to Australia. In regards to farming, the United States is already the second largest supplier of Australia's food imports. This bill will even give us greater access.

Mr. Speaker, I think my district is somewhat typical in the Nation. I have a port. We have a large presence of manufacturing. We have a strong agricultural community. My State and the people of Maryland will benefit from this free trade agreement. The people of this Nation will benefit from this free trade agreement. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, on July 6 and July 7, I was away from Washington on official Congressional business. During that time, I was unable to vote on several issues of importance to the people of my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 328, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 329, ``no'' on rollcall No. 331, and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 332.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this time just to express my disappointment with this rule and my opposition to it. I listen frequently where Members of Congress like to say that we do not want to treat ourselves differently than we treat the general public. Yet

on this appropriations bill that affects our budget, we use different standards than we do on other appropriations bills. That is wrong.

The ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), pointed out there are only eight amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules. It would have been very easy to allow those amendments to be considered and then use the democratic process to either vote up or down those amendments. But, no, the majority refuses to allow us to have a debate on this floor on issues that affect the manner in which we operate the legislative branch.

I am particularly disappointed that the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) was not made in order. We have an obligation to make sure that the resources of this body are used appropriately. That is the Committee on Appropriations' responsibility; that is the responsibility of our debate on the legislative branch bill. Yet we are not going to have an opportunity to see whether we could use a better standard on the franking privileges of our committees.

It is my understanding that the majority controlled that. The minority has no opportunity. The majority has used that at least in one committee in a partisan manner. That is wrong. We should have a chance to be able to debate that issue.

We work together to try to make sure that the resources of the legislative are used appropriately. In this case, it looks like it was not. Our opportunity to speak is when the legislative appropriation bill is on the floor. We are going to be denied that opportunity, because the majority refused to make in order an amendment so we could have that debate. That is wrong.

Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, reject this rule, so that we have an opportunity to be able to have a full discussion on the legislative branch appropriation, as we would on any other appropriations bill that comes before this body.

Mr. Speaker, as we mark June as National Homeownership Month, it is imperative that we look for ways to help more of our citizens to achieve the American Dream of homeownership.

Home ownership is the cornerstone of the American Dream. For millions of American families, this dream is still just out of reach. This is especially true for families living in economically distressed neighborhoods, where the costs of renovating existing buildings or that of new construction frequently exceed the market value of homes in the community, making it impossible to obtain mortgage financing. This leads to further deterioration in declining neighborhoods, and forces families to look elsewhere for the opportunity to own their own home.

My friend Rob Portman and I introduced H.R. 839, the Renewing the Dream Tax Credit Act, which would provide a tax credit for single- family home ownership. Modeled after the successful low-income rental housing tax credit, this proposal would allow states to allocate federal tax credits to developers and investors who provide single- family homes for purchase by qualified buyers in qualified areas. The program will also help stabilize troubled urban neighborhoods, while spurring new construction and rehabilitation in rural areas targeted for economic development.

The bill would allow states to provide developers or investors tax credits up to 50% of the combined costs of acquiring, building, and renovating properties for sale to qualified buyers. The tax credits would be carefully targeted to areas in need of economic growth incentives, and to families who need help buying a home. States will have flexibility in allocating the tax credits. The available tax credits under the program are capped at $1.75 per capita, with no state to receive less than $2 million in credits.

This proposal has the support of a broad coalition of groups with substantial expertise in the housing industry, including the National Association of Home Builders, the National Conference of State Housing Agencies, the National Association of Realtors, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and a number of non-profit organizations, including the Enterprise Foundation, the Local Initiative Support Corporation and Habitat for Humanity International.

H.R. 839 could open the door to affordable homeownership for as many as 50,000 families annually. It would not only provide affordable housing, but is expected to create up to 120,000 jobs annually. H.R. 839 enjoys broad bipartisan support, with 288 co-sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives. House passage of H.R. 839 would be a fitting tribute to National Homeownership Month, bringing the American Dream home to tens of thousands of working American families.