Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Intelligence Specialist First Class Petty Officer James K. Brown for his 20 years of dedicated service in the defense of the United States of America.

Petty Officer Brown enlisted in the United States Navy in June 1990 and went on to Great Lakes Recruit Training Center, for his basic training. After graduating from Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois in August 1990, James went to Cryptological Training Command at Fort Devens, Massachusetts.

Through out his years of service, Petty Officer Brown has distinguished himself as the Leading Petty Officer in the Intelligence Department and as the special Security Officer for the Command in many ways exemplified by the awards and ribbons he has collected throughout his service. During his assignment to the USS Wisconsin (B-64), he participated in Desert Shield and Desert Storm earning a Flag Letter of Commendation along with Navy Combat Action Ribbon and various other awards. While aboard the USS Nassau (LHA-4) Petty Officer Brown also earned the Blue Nose certificate. He also was part of the support team for the Desert Fox and Kosovo operations.

In addition, Petty Officer Brown participated in the two crucial deployments USS Carl Vinson, launching the first attack on the Global War on Terrorism into Afghanistan in response to 9/11 and addressing heightened tensions off the coast of North Korea. During the second deployment off the coast of North Korea, he participated in FOAL EAGLE and TANDUM THRUST. While on board he pursued his associates degree in General Studies while earning his Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist pin and a Navy Achievement Medal. In the spring of 2003, he took orders to the Joint Military Intelligence College where he spent one year earning his bachelor's degree in Intelligence. Following his pursuit of education, he took orders to the Chief of Naval Operations where he pursued and finished his Post Graduate Education in Intelligence Studies. While stationed at the Pentagon, he received another Navy Achievement Medal and the Chairman of the Joint Chief Staff badge.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to our servicemen and women, like Petty Officer Brown, who have dutifully a nobly answered the call to service for our Nation. They put themselves in harm's way to make our country safer. On behalf of the Michigan 4th Congressional District, I thank First Class Petty Officer James K. Brown for his dedicated service and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, despite its obvious shortcomings.

On March 17, the House approved the prior version of this bill, which would have extended Federal unemployment, COBRA and related benefits, plus the Medicare ``doc fix,'' through the month of April.

Everyone in this town knew those benefits and programs were poised to expire at the end of March if Congress failed to act. But because Senate Democrats refused to pay for a 1 month extension and House Democrats refused to pay for even a 1 week extension, hundreds of thousands have missed an unemployment benefit payment, among other painful effects.

Now that the Senate has finally acted, we are considering a bill to extend these programs, yet again. Only this time, the extension is not just for 1 month, but 2. Predictably, this will add twice as much to the already massive deficit--$18 billion instead of $9 billion.

Unfortunately, efforts in the Senate to add offsets, so that these important provisions do not add to the deficit, were defeated. And, disappointingly, as it has continued to do in recent months, the House is debating this bill today under procedures which do not even allow us to offer a paid-for alternative.

In the past, I have consistently voted for bills extending unemployment benefits. I will reluctantly vote for this bill today, because voting yes is the only way to continue these important benefits for laid off workers in my State, where the unemployment rate is a staggering 14 percent.

Simply put, we should not punish those workers for the failure of the Congress to find a way to pay for the extension of these benefits. Similarly, we shouldn't punish seniors, who risk losing access to doctors if we don't reverse the 21 percent cut in the physician fee schedule that took effect at the start of this month. We all knew this cut was coming, yet for the second time in as many months, the Democrats' failure to act allowed this cut to go into place.

But everyone should know this bill is far removed from what we really should be doing. What we should really be doing is paying for the new spending we approved, instead of simply adding it onto our already overcharged national credit card.

In the longer run, we all know that unemployed workers and their families need something more than another round of extended unemployment benefits. Most of all they need jobs. And jobs are something this majority has been totally incapable of producing.

A little over a year ago, Democrats promised their trillion-dollar stimulus plan would create 3.7 million jobs. Yet that bill was followed by 3 million more job losses. Unemployment rose to 10 percent instead of the 8 percent peak the other side promised. And now 16 million Americans are unemployed, with millions out of work for over a year, both all-time records.

They deserve our help, but they also deserve a job and a country not sinking ever deeper into debt.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are generous. And they know that these continued unemployment benefits--especially in areas of the country where jobs are scarce--are important. But they also deserve a Congress that acts responsibly.

It is too late to add offsets to this bill, and I am not prepared to vote against it for that shortcoming, since it would further hurt many who are most in need of our help. But the next time we deal with this issue, Members need to have a real choice so that we can help workers without hurting future taxpayers by driving up the debt by tens of billions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, which will make a few small, but important changes to the administration of our tax laws.

There is no question that April 15th is the most feared date on the Calendar. It is viewed with dread for good reason.

The tax code is mind-numbingly confusing. It is a maze of forms and schedules and instructions that turns the simplest tax form into a lengthy challenge and that forces millions of Americans to turn to help, whether from an accountant, a professional tax preparer, or one of the many computer software programs designed for this purpose.

The bill before us does make a few good changes to the code, including a provision long championed by Congressman Sam Johnson, a true American hero, that will end the long outdated requirement that employers record and report their employees' personal use of company- provided cell phones and Blackberries.

Another provision worthy of support will require the IRS to notify taxpayers they suspect have been victims of identify theft. That certainly makes sense.

And for those taxpayers who do file their returns electronically, this bill will shorten the time the IRS has to pay refunds before interest accrues. This is a taxpayer friendly provision that will encourage electronic filing, which is both faster and cheaper for the government.

Finally, let me express my thanks to Congressman Becerra for making some changes to this bill that helped secure my support.

As introduced, the bill would have established a new authorization of up to $20 million per year to fund Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Centers. The IRS has funded these programs in the past without authorization, which is troubling enough. But of even more concern is the fact that ACORN was a recipient of these funds.

Today, we know how badly ACORN was abusing the public trust, and I do applaud the IRS for heeding our call and canceling those contracts when the extent of ACORN's misconduct came to light.

But I don't yet have confidence that the government will avoid a similar mistake in the future and again fund groups like ACORN. Simply put, Congress should not authorize these grants until we know who will be receiving them and how they will be used.

And so I thank Mr. Becerra for agreeing to remove this language to allow the Congress to examine the issue more closely.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

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

It's tough to see this bill either as a small business bill or as a jobs bill, and, specifically, I have three concerns:

One, it raises taxes on employers during a recession, making it tougher for Americans to find needed work.

Two, roughly 80 percent of the so-called tax relief in the bill is dedicated to State and local governments.

Small governments are not small businesses, and they do not create the kind of private sector jobs that we need.

Three, the limited and very narrow tax provisions, even if well- intentioned, will not do enough to help employers create jobs.

Under this bill, American jobs will be taxed. That's the simple truth regarding the provision limiting treaty benefits for certain deductible payments. This is very similar to a provision offered previously by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and accounts for about 40 percent of the $19.4 billion in tax increases in the bill.

There's never a good time to raise taxes on employers and American workers, but given the continued weakness in the economy, now may be the worst time. Data from the Department of Labor confirms that 48 States have lost jobs since the Democrats' stimulus bill passed, 3.3 million jobs have been eliminated since the Democrat stimulus bill passed, and a record 16 million Americans are out of work.

In case you need more evidence that the Democrat stimulus bill failed, just look at the $2.5 billion in ``emergency'' welfare spending that was added to this bill. This money will be paid out in the third fiscal year since stimulus money first started flowing. That's the third year. This bill increases spending, it increases taxes and will not create private sector jobs. In that respect, this is the ``Mini Me'' of the Democrats' stimulus bill.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

I have heard that this welfare expansion is about jobs. Frankly, it's not. Democrats propose to expand the welfare emergency fund that was contained in last year's failed stimulus bill by $2.5 billion. They just extend it for another year and add that money. But since this legislation doesn't really alter how the money is spent, we can only assume the new spending will be a lot like the current spending. So what has the money been spent on so far? Almost none of it has been spent on jobs. Almost all of it has been spent on more and larger welfare checks.

I would like to insert in the Record from the recent Congressional Research Service report on how the welfare emergency funds have been spent to date. As of March 18, 2010, only 13 percent of those funds have been spent on subsidized employment. Instead, 87 percent was spent on short-term aid and basic assistance. That is, on welfare checks.

[From the Congressional Research Service, Mar. 23, 2010]

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

(By Gene Falk, Specialist in Social Policy)

State and Tribal Use of TANF Emergency Funds

As of March 18, 2010, states and tribes have been awarded

$1.8 billion of the total $5 billion appropriated. Figure 1

shows the TANF ECF grant awards by category of spending. The

figure shows cumulative grant awards through March 18, 2010.

It shows that $848 million, a little less than half of the

total grant awards of $1.6 billion was to help finance

increases in expenditures for basic assistance. Another $726

million, 40% of the $1.8 billion, was for non-recurrent

short-term aid and $231 million, 13% of the total, was for

subsidized employment.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I place in the Record a letter to Mr. Levin and myself from the Organization for International Investment, a large association representing over 5 million Americans. It is an association of U.S. subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad which also accounts for one-fifth of all exports which says that the language in this legislation would override many of our bilateral income tax treaties and could lead to retaliatory actions by other countries.

I would also note that during the markup of this legislation in committee, even the Obama administration's own witness, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Tax Policy stated that the Treasury Department has, and I quote, ``Concerns about the specifics of this provision and whether it will override many of our income tax treaties.'' She also stated the administration prefers a more targeted approach.

Organization for

International Investment,

March 15, 2010.

Hon. Sander Levin,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Levin and Representative Camp, On behalf of

the Organization for International Investment (OFII), I am

writing to express concern with a tax provision included as

Section 401 of the discussion draft of the Small Business and

Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010. While we recognize the

need for revenue, we must oppose Section 401 as an offset

because it represents a clear and harmful override of our

existing U.S. income tax treaties. Although positive changes

were made to this proposal since it was originally introduced

as an offset to the 2007 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419), OFII remains

opposed because it still uniquely discriminates against U.S.

subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad and clearly

violates many of our international agreements.

OFII is the largest association of U.S. subsidiaries of

companies headquartered abroad. U.S. subsidiaries play an

important role in the growth and vitality of the U.S.

economy. They provide high-paying jobs for over five million

Americans and account for almost one-fifth of all U.S.

exports. A discriminatory tax increase sends a negative

signal to international investors and may dissuade these

companies from choosing the United States as a location for

job creating investment.

As drafted, Section 401 would unilaterally override many of

our bilateral income tax treaties and could lead to

retaliatory actions by other countries or withdrawal by our

treaty partners from existing treaties, negatively impacting

international business transactions. The Senate has opposed

this and similar provisions twice in the past two years for

these reasons.

Congress has not held any hearings to examine this issue

and whether the proposal is the appropriate remedy to address

any perceived concerns. In this regard, there is no evidence

that existing safeguards, including the substantial and

restrictive anti-treaty shopping provisions (so-called

``Limitation on Benefits'' (LOB) provisions) contained in

most of our current U.S. income tax treaties, are

ineffective. Further, if material tax abuses were evident,

the Treasury could implement changes to the U.S. Model Tax

Treaty which would avoid the negative consequences of

violating our international agreements.

Since a similar proposal was introduced in 2007, the

Treasury has taken great strides to update the three

bilateral tax treaties without LOB provisions (Iceland,

Hungary, Poland). A protocol adding an LOB provision to the

Iceland treaty was negotiated by Treasury and ratified by the

Senate in 2008. A similar protocol with Hungary has been

negotiated and initialed and could be ratified

this year. Treasury is expected to pursue a similar amendment

to the treaty with Poland during 2010-2011.

Consistent with the conclusions in the Treasury Report that

was released in November 2007 that reviewed potential abuse

of income tax treaties, OFII believes re-negotiation of

existing income tax treaties without LOB provisions is a more

appropriate way to address the concerns underlying this

provision and we urge you to oppose including Section 401 in

the final version of the Small Business Jobs Bill. We would

be glad to discuss our concerns with your staff in greater

detail.

Sincerely,

Nancy McLernon

President & CEO.

Organization for International Investment

OFII is the only business association in Washington D.C.

that exclusively represents U.S. subsidiaries of foreign

companies and advocates for their non-discriminatory

treatment under state and federal law.

members

ABB Inc., ACE INA Holdings, Inc., AEGON USA, AgustaWestland

Inc., Ahold USA, Inc., Airbus North America Holdings, Air

Liquide America L.P., Akzo Nobel Inc., Alcatel-Lucent, Alcon

Laboratories, Inc.

Alfa Laval Inc., Allianz of North America, ALSTOM, AMEC,

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Anheuser-Busch, APL Limited,

AREVA, Inc., Astellas Pharma US, Inc., AstraZeneca

Pharmaceuticals.

BAE Systems, Barclays Capital, Barrick Goldstrike Mines,

Inc., BASF Corporation, Bayer Corp., BIC Corp., Bimbo Foods,

Inc., bioMerieux, Inc., BNP Paribas, Boehringer Ingelheim

Corp.

BOSCH, BP, Bridgestone Americas Holding, Brother

International Corp., Brunswick Group, BT, Bunge Ltd., Case

New Holland, CEMEX USA, Cobham.

Covidien, Credit Suisse Securities (USA), Daiichi Sankyo,

Inc., Daimler, Dassault Falcon Jet Corp., Deutsche Post World

Net USA, Deutsche Telekom, Diageo, Inc., EADS, Inc., EDF

International North America.

Eisai Inc., Elbit Systems of America, LLC, Electrolux Home

Products, Inc., EMD Serono Inc., Ericsson, Evonik Degussa

Corporation, Experian, Finmeccanica North America,

Flextronics International, Food Lion, LLC.

France Telecom North America, Garmin International, Inc.,

GDF SUEZ Energy North America, Inc., Generali USA, Givaudan,

GKN America Corp., GlaxoSmithKline, Hanson North America,

Hitachi, Ltd., Holcim (US) Inc.

HSBC North America Holdings, Huhtamaki, Hyundai Motor

America, Iberdrola Renewables, ING America Insurance

Holdings, InterContinental Hotels Group, John Hancock Life

Insurance Co., Lafarge North America, Lenova, Logitech Inc.

L'Oreal USA, Inc., Louisiana Energy Service (LES),

Louisville Corporate Services, Inc., LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis

Vuitton, Macquarie Aircraft Leasing Services, Macquarie

Holdings Inc., Maersk Inc, Magna International, Marvell

Semiconductor, McCain Foods USA.

Michelin North America, Inc. Miller Brewing Company,

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics, Munich Re, Nestle USA,

Inc., The Nielsen Company (US), Inc., Nokia, Inc., Novartis

Corporation, Novelis Inc., Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals.

Oldcastle, Inc., Panasonic Corp. of North America, Pearson

Inc., Pernod Ricard USA, PetroBras North America, Philips

Electronics North America, QBE the Americas, Randstad North

America, Reed Elsevier Inc., Rexam Inc.

Rio Tinto America, Roche Financial USA, Inc., Rolls-Royce

North America Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, SABIC Innovation

Plastics, Saint-Gobain, sanofi-aventis, SAP America,

Schlumberger Technology Corp., Schott North America.

SGL Carbon LLC, Shell Oil Company, Siemens Corporation,

Smith & Nephew, Inc., Sodexo, Inc., SolarWorld USA, Solvay

America, Sony Corporation of America, Square D Company,

Sumitomo Corp. of America.

Sun Life Financial U.S., Swiss Re America Holding Corp.,

Syngenta Corporation, Takeda North America, Tate & Lyle North

America, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Thales USA, Inc.,

The Tata Group, Thomson Reuters, ThyssenKrupp USA, Inc.

Tim Hortons, Toa Reinsurance Company of America, Tomkins

Industries, Inc., TOTAL Holdings USA, Inc., Toyota Motor

North America, Tyco International (US), Inc., Tyco

Electronics, UBS, Umicore USA, Unilever.

Vivendi, Vodafone, Voith Holding Inc., Volkswagen of

America, Inc., Volvo Group North America, Inc., Welspun,

Westfield LLC, White Mountains, Inc., Wolters Kluwer U.S.

Corporation, WPP Group USA, Inc., XL Global Services, Zausner

Foods Corporation, Zurich Insurance Group.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say to the gentleman and to those on the floor, to say this is the same proposal that occurred in the previous administration is really an oversimplification. The previous administration really wanted to have a more targeted approach to this. They wanted to, certainly through treaty amendments, targeted domestic law provisions, that would address the problem of potential abuses under this area of law. But they didn't want to damage our treaty relationships with all of the other countries.

And as the gentleman from Louisiana has said, this would damage our treaty relationships with over 60 countries. We have a letter in the record from the organization overseeing nearly 5 million U.S. workers and companies headquartered abroad. The Treasury testified at the committee that this is not the approach they want to take. They would much prefer to take similar approaches to the Bush administration. So in terms of tax policy, we actually have the Treasury Department wanting to do the same thing.

This is outside of that. This is overbroad. It would hurt our relationships.

I reserve my time.

I reserve my time.

I reserve at this time.

I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve, Madam Speaker.

I continue to reserve.

I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. From this debate, I think it's difficult to see whether this legislation is either a small business bill or a jobs bill. Frankly, it's neither one. The reason is the tax increases in this bill will hurt an already weak economy. To raise taxes on employers during a recession makes it even harder for Americans to find work.

Second, roughly 80 percent of the tax relief in this bill goes to State and local governments and to pay State and local governments. To borrow more money, as this bill does, is not what America needs right now.

Lastly, I would say there are some tax provisions, very small ones, that have received bipartisan support. But, frankly, those good things are outweighed by the structure of the bill and the way the bill is drafted, because even those well-intentioned measures will not do enough to help employers create jobs; and, particularly, the provision that would override our tax treaties with 60 countries, that even the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, when testifying before the committee, said she had concerns over, and also which has been rejected by the Senate, which means the almost $7 to $8 billion they are using to fund this bill will not see its way across the floor of the United States Senate. So I think we would do better to come back and try to do something that would actually potentially do something about job creation and see its way to the President's desk for signature.

With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit.

In its current form.

Madam Speaker, today we begin to repeal some of the most troubling aspects of the Democrats' health care bill. This Republican motion is straightforward. It strikes troubling tax increases, it maintains tax relief for small businesses, repeals unpopular provisions of the health care bill that force middle class families to pay more taxes and more for their health care, and is fully paid for in compliance with the PAYGO rules.

To meet the PAYGO rules, the motion eliminates the so-called emergency welfare spending and closes the Black Liquor tax loophole that's repeatedly passed the House but has yet to become law.

Here's what we keep: the few provisions that directly help small businesses, including an exclusion from capital gains tax on investments and qualifying small businesses; new protections for small businesses from excessive penalties if they unknowingly fail to disclose certain information related to their participation in tax shelters; and a temporary increase in the amount of small business start-up costs that can be immediately expensed.

In addition to this tax relief, we begin today to repeal some of the troubling aspects of the Democrats' health care bill. Today we seek to eliminate two of the tax increases in the health care bill that would hit middle class families and violate the President's pledge that you can keep the health care plan you have and like.

First, the motion repeals the cap on the minimum annual contribution to flexible spending accounts, which will be capped at $2,500 per year under the health care bill starting in 2011.

FSAs, which are currently used by 35 million Americans, encourage consumers to be more aware of both the cost and quality of health care goods and services. Approximately 7 million Americans put more than $2,500 into their FSAs. According to the Employers Council on Flexible Compensation, the median income of an FSA holder in 2008 was just $55,000 a year. Repealing this provision would provide Americans with $15.6 billion in tax relief.

Second, the motion repeals the ban on using several forms of health savings, including FSAs and health savings accounts, also known as HSAs, to purchase over-the-counter medicines. Not only does this ban discourage tax-free savings, it discourages Americans from choosing cheaper, nonprescription medicines when they're available. By repealing this provision, we'll not only provide $5.5 billion in tax relief, but we'll also help American families lower their health care bills.

This motion offers Members a clear choice. A vote against this motion is effectively a choice to close the Black Liquor loophole to pay for billions of dollars in additional Medicaid spending. A vote in favor of this motion is a vote to close that Black Liquor tax loophole to pay for small business tax relief that will actually help create jobs and undo some of the harmful tax increases on American families passed by the House in the dark of night on Sunday.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before being recognized, would the gentleman please state his point of order.

Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

Madam Speaker, my point would be that we actually raise revenues in years 2010 and 2011. We do not reduce revenues, so I would suggest that the point of order is without merit.

Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard further on the point of order.

Madam Speaker, I am informed that the underlying bill has a Budget Act problem, and the waiving of all points of order against the consideration of the bill in the full House, including 303, would make the gentleman's point of order unacceptable and would make his point of order invalid.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The American people have spoken. They do not want the tentacles of the Federal Government reaching into their lives and controlling their personal health care decisions. Yet that is exactly what will happen under the Democrats' health care bill. Federal bureaucrats will be making your health care choices for you and your family, and the IRS will be enforcing them.

The American people know that you can't reduce health care costs by spending a trillion dollars or raising taxes by more than half a trillion dollars. The American people know that you cannot cut Medicare by over half a trillion dollars without hurting seniors. And the American people know that you can't create an entirely new government entitlement program without exploding the deficit. They are right, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has confirmed it.

Simply put, the Democrats' bill will not only ruin our health care system, but the tax increases will ruin our economy and kill jobs.

I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people and kill the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to a true American hero, the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Linder.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 45 seconds to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, an Army Ranger, Mr. Davis of Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 45 seconds to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Dr. Boustany of Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I would like to remind the Chair that Medicare and Social Security passed with large bipartisan majorities.

With that, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), our conference chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, at this time just for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

For the purposes of a unanimous consent request, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

(Mr. ROE of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

For the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

(Mr. KING of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the Republican whip.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I will yield to the gentleman from California for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

We've heard a lot of discussion tonight about this bill and how it's been characterized. Let me just read a few quotes from my friends on the Democratic side who've characterized this bill.

A Democrat from North Carolina says: There is no question that our current health care system is broken and that we need to make significant reforms to improve it in an equitable, fiscally responsible, and sustainable manner. In my opinion, the bill as written does not meet those criteria.

A Democrat from Tennessee says: After thorough and careful review of the legislation, I am unconvinced that the long-term trend of rising health care costs is adequately addressed and am, therefore, unable to support the legislation.

A Democrat from New Mexico said: I do not believe that the bill does enough to contain costs.

A Democrat from North Carolina says: Health care reform is needed, but the bill before us is too expensive, does not adequately address rising medical costs and skyrocketing insurance premiums, and tries to do too much too soon. We simply cannot afford to create a new Federal bureaucracy that costs nearly $1 trillion when our national debt is $12 trillion and there is no plan in place to address it. I will not vote for it.

Another Democrat from Virginia says: I have spoken with countless small business owners, families, medical professionals, and average citizens across Virginia, and it becomes very clear that this bill is not the right solution for Virginia's health care challenges.

On and on and on again. This is not the right bill for America. This costs $1 trillion, raises a half a trillion in taxes, and cuts Medicare by half a trillion dollars. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form.

As the previous vote shows, there is bipartisan opposition to the health care bill the Senate sent to this House. It is with good reason. The American people, Republicans and a few brave Democrats--34, to be exact--34 brave Democrats have rejected it precisely because of the legislation's deep flaws. The motion to recommit offers us a chance to fix the most egregious defect, allowing taxpayer funds to subsidize abortions.

Mr. Speaker, the very strict rules of the House waive the reading of all of these rules and motions, but this motion ensures the Hyde language remains the law of the land. The latest in a long string of deals--the one made today with the President--does not protect the life of unborn children. As the gentleman from Mississippi, a Democrat, warned earlier today, anything the President does by Executive order, he can undo by Executive order.

There is no bargaining or dealmaking when it comes to the life of the unborn. A life is a life. And it is the responsibility of this House to defend these children.

When this measure was last before the House, it passed overwhelmingly, 240-194. It should do so again.

I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) to further discuss this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Americans do not want a government takeover of health care. They do not want a 2,000-page bill that puts Federal bureaucrats in charge of their personal health care decisions. They do not want a half-a-trillion-dollar cut to Medicare to fund a new entitlement program. And they do not want a half-a-trillion-dollar increase in taxes, or $1 trillion in new Federal spending. They do not want the back room deals that were cut to buy off special interests. And they certainly do not want a health care bill that will increase the cost of their health insurance.

But that is exactly what the Democrat bill does. And that is exactly what the Democrats are trying to cram through Congress this week. If the majority wants to pass this bill, they ought to have the guts to hold an up-or-down vote and not try to hide from the American people what is really being voted on.

Madam Speaker, Americans do not want and can't afford this bill. Let's scrap it and start over.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ryan Bedford and Travis Jayner on their performances in the 2010 Winter Olympics. These are two outstanding athletes from my district. Ryan and Travis are great athletes, who can truly be called ``Olympians,'' and who we can be proud of as representatives of America in the 2010 Winter Olympics.

Ryan Bedford of Midland, Michigan, is an outstanding skater and represented the U.S. in the Olympics in the 10,000 meter speed skating event. In fact, Ryan is the reigning U.S. champion in that event. Ryan has a history of impressive skating accomplishments and in a one-week span last spring he won two world championship medals in two different events. Last year, Ryan was a member of the world champion short track relay team, and one week later, as part of the long track speed skating pursuit team, he earned a bronze medal at the 2009 Single Distance Worlds. He started skating at the age of 5, beginning his career at the Midland Speed Skating Club in Michigan.

I also congratulate Travis Jayner on winning the bronze medal in the 5000 meter relay for short track speed skating. Travis trains in Midland, Michigan. On Friday, February 26, Travis won his first Olympic medal when the American speed skating team crossed the finish line in 6:44.498. The 2010 Olympics were his first, but Travis has a long record of speed skating accomplishments: he was the 500 meter National Champion in 2008-09, he won bronze at the 2007 and 2009 World Team Championships, and won two gold medals in the relay at World Cup 5. Travis has become a versatile athlete competing in 500m, 1000m, 1500m, 3000m and 5000m relay teams. He got his start on the ice at the age of 5, after the encouragement and support of his father, who was also a speed skater.

Today I wish to congratulate Ryan Bedford and Travis Jayner for their participation in the 2010 Winter Olympics as true Olympians and athletes my district and our country can be proud to cheer for.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Dale Kildee, on casting 20,000 votes in the United States House of Representatives--the people's House.

Twenty thousand votes is quite an achievement, and to some, it may seem like a miraculous number. But the true measure of Dale's accomplishment is a much smaller number--he has only missed 27 votes in his entire career. That's right, Dale cast 20,000 votes out of 20,027-- a batting average of .999 over a 33-year career. That certainly qualifies the man from Flint for the Congressional Hall of Fame.

But it isn't the statistic that counts, it is what that statistic represents: Dale's work ethic and his dedication to the state of Michigan, his district, which neighbors mine, and the people he serves.

Dale has been a leader on the Congressional Auto Caucus he helped to form. This caucus has been a valuable asset for the American auto industry and has helped serve as a platform to protect Michigan auto jobs. We have worked together on many local economic development projects, most recently, the development of the new MBS International Airport, which is a valuable asset for our region's economy.

Today, I join my colleagues in congratulating and commending Congressman Dale Kildee for not only reaching 20,000 votes, but for his career of service to the families of mid-Michigan.

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

If this so-called PAYGO legislation fails, there is no increase in the debt limit and you cannot separate the two concepts. If this legislation passes, the debt limit increases by an astounding $1.9 trillion, the largest one-time increase in the debt limit ever. Since the majority came into control of Congress 3 years ago, the debt limit has been increased by over $5.3 trillion, or by nearly 60 percent. Despite this massive heap of debt thrust on the American people, Democrats plan to pile on even more debt next year.

According to the President's newest budget proposal, the amount of debt subject to the limit will increase by nearly $1.4 trillion from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2011. A number that large is hard to put into perspective, but let me offer a few points of reference. The President intends to increase the debt in just 1 year by an amount equal to the entire GDP of Canada. This 1-year increase in the debt is larger than the GDP of India, Mexico, Australia, or South Korea. It is larger than the GDP of Ireland, Poland, and Belgium combined. We've heard a lot of talk recently from the President about the need to get America's fiscal house in order. However, according to the President's own budget, Congress will have to raise the debt limit again before 2011 is over.

Even more disturbing is the fact that under the President's proposed budget, debts subject to this limit will exceed the size of the entire U.S. economy by 2013 and remain more than U.S. GDP through the next decade and presumably for years to come.

Experts on both sides of the political spectrum agree that this kind of runaway debt threatens the very foundation of America's economy. Yesterday, the market provided a stark warning as credit rating agency Moody's stated the U.S. AAA bond rating is threatened by deficits driving up this debt.

I hear a lot from the President, from my colleagues in the majority, about inherited deficits and debt, but let's be clear. According to the President's own budget, the largest deficit in U.S. history will be under a Democratic administration and a Democratic majority in

Congress. A Democratic President and a Democratic Congress plan a 1- year increase in the debt larger than the size of major economies around the world.

This isn't about what anyone inherited. It is about what this President and the Democrats in Congress planned for America: too much spending, too much taxing, and too much debt.

My friends on the other side are fond of the analogy that raising the debt limit is necessary in the same way that someone who has eaten in a restaurant must now pay the bill. That analogy is misleading. It is more accurate to say that having sat down at a restaurant with enough money for a decent meal, Democrats decided to go on an eating binge. It's simply irresponsible for Democrats to spend the American people's money in this fashion.

Rather than letting this massive debt increase pass, I urge Congress to examine its out-of-control spending habit this year rather than after the election, as the President suggests with his so-called deficit commission.

I urge this House to restore responsible spending. Vote ``no'' on the largest one-time increase in the debt limit ever.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for purposes of a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Ryan to control.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to and remember the life of an outstanding individual, Mr. Robert G. Heft of Saginaw, MI, who I am sad to report passed away this week.

Mr. Heft, who liked to be called simply ``Bob,'' was a man whose innovation and patriotism created a legacy that reaches even into outer space.

Bob was the man behind a true representation of patriotism, the symbol of our Nation that flies proudly today above this very building, across the country, around the world, and yes, is even on the moon.

Using his mother's sewing machine and a hot iron, Bob created the first fifty-star flag as an assignment for school. His teacher originally gave him a B minus, so they made a deal: if Bob's design was accepted by Congress, he would change the grade to an A.

So Bob sent his prototype to his Governor and Congressman.

Then, one morning in 1958, Bob received a very special phone call. On the other end of the line was President Dwight D. Eisenhower, personally calling the high schooler to tell him that Bob's version of the American Flag was picked by the President to replace the 48-star flag as the official design for our recently-expanded Nation. Bob's flag was chosen from more than 190,000 entries submitted.

Bob was there with the President on July 4, 1960, when the flag was flown for the first time. What began as a history project later became the longest-serving flag in American History, an American icon, and the true face of freedom. Bob's work is an inspiration to our students that each morning recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And yes, it was his flag that just a few years later was launched and planted on the Moon, a perpetual reminder that our citizens' innovative talents know no bounds.

Bob's service to our Nation did not end there though. He was a longtime Professor at Northwest State Community College in Archbold, Ohio. After his retirement, Bob served as mayor of Napoleon, Ohio for 14 years, becoming the longest serving mayor in the town's history. During this time, Bob also became a popular motivational speaker, going to schools and veterans' groups all over the country to tell his unique stories. The many that met him said that Bob emanated a true warmth and love for his country.

I wish to extend my sincere thanks to Bob Heft, a true patriot throughout his life. I also wish to extend my deepest condolences to his family and friends. Though most citizens may have never met him, all have been touched by the symbol of American freedom that he created, and has become part of the integral fabric of this country.

I thank the gentleman from Nevada for yielding, and also I want to thank him for his leadership on the Ways and Means Committee this year.

The bill before us is a candid admission by the majority that their tax, borrow, and spend ways have driven America deeper and deeper into debt. In fact, because of the failed trillion-dollar stimulus spending bill, America's unemployment is higher than predicted and revenues are lower. But that hasn't stopped the majority from continuing to spend, spend, spend.

Just last week, the majority rolled six major spending bills into one omnibus bill that increased, on average, Federal spending by 11 percent. Now, the bill before us asks us to increase the debt limit another $290 billion. The American people are asking: where are the jobs? But all they have been shown is more deficits and more debt.

Let's be honest with the American people. It really isn't $290 billion the majority wants to increase the debt limit by. It's more like $1.8 trillion. In a few short months, we'll be right back here voting on another bill to increase the debt limit, probably by another $1.5 trillion.

At the end of 2007, the public debt equaled 65 percent of our gross domestic product, or GDP. By the end of 2009, the figure will exceed 83 percent, and according to President Obama's own budget projections, it will exceed 100 percent of gross domestic product by 2011. Think about it: at the rate the majority is spending, the Federal debt in 2011 will exceed the value of all goods and services produced by the economy that year.

This isn't just a Democrat or a Republican problem. It's a huge problem for every single American. It threatens our economic recovery and our future prosperity. So let's remember the words of then-Senator Obama in 2006 who warned of the dangers of raising the debt limit without addressing the underlying cause. Here is what he said: ``The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies.

``Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means `that the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.''

Americans do indeed deserve better than what they have received this year. But rather than heed that warning, Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey recently said: ``We don't really have a choice. The bill's already been run up; the credit card has already been used. When you get the bill in the mail, you need to pay it.''

The gentleman from Wisconsin was correct: the credit card has been used. But this legislation doesn't pay the bill. It doesn't even make the minimum monthly payment. It simply asks for more credit.

After going on a $1.4 trillion deficit spending binge and maxing out the taxpayers' credit cards, Democrats are now asking to increase the credit limit. We should not be asking for more credit. We should be developing a plan to control Federal spending so that future generations are not trapped under this mountain of debt.

Until we see a plan to actually address this underlying problem, as then-Senator Obama warned we must, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Albert Einstein once said, ``The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.''

Yet even though their stimulus bill hasn't created a single job and has resulted in 10 percent unemployment, House Democrats have brought to the floor today a stimulus II bill that explicitly amends, continues, or expands numerous provisions of their failed stimulus I bill.

And here's a graphic depiction of this insanity.

How does spending more on the Bureau of Reclamation create jobs now when it didn't before? How does transit capital assistance create jobs now when it didn't before? And how do more loan guarantees create jobs now when they didn't before?

This is a ``son of stimulus'' bill. Let's stop the insanity. Vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2194.

I am deeply concerned that Iran continues to pursue nuclear capabilities in defiance of the international community. The Iranian leader's abhorrent statements against America and Israel are outrageous.

Both current and previous Administrations view Iran as a profound threat to U.S. national security interests, a view that reflects my position as well.

We must address the situation. I have continually supported efforts to give U.S. Presidents the tools and capabilities needed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and I continue to do so today.

I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of H.R. 2194. I believe we need to expand sanctions to refined petroleum resources to prevent Iran's nuclear proliferation. However, while domestic sanctions are critical, it is also important that our allies participate in an international coalition so that combating Iran's nuclear proliferation is a multilateral effort.

This bill, like other Iran sanctions bills that have preceded it in this chamber, was referred to the Ways & Means Committee. Usually on Iran bills, Foreign Affairs and Ways & Means discuss and agree jointly on the provisions in the bill that fall within the jurisdiction of my Committee. These conversations have always been very productive in the past. This process provides the best possible outcome, because it respects the strength and thrust of the bill, as well as positions the legislation to give our Administration the best chance at continuing to cultivate and maintain international multilateral pressure.

We are still in the midst of that process for the bill now under consideration, and the bill we are voting on reflects the starting point of that process, not the end result. The aspects of the bill within the jurisdiction of Ways & Means that the two Committees are still discussing include the bill's provisions addressing the President's waiver authority, the structure and content of the additional mandatory sanctions, and certain definitions.

Although we have not completed our discussions, I can nevertheless offer my full support to this bill because of the Foreign Affairs Chairman's commitment to continue working with the Ways & Means Committee on these outstanding issues.

In light of that commitment, it is my expectation that bona fide, good-faith discussions between Ways & Means and Foreign Affairs will continue as this legislation proceeds in the legislative process.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, let me be blunt. We can and should be doing much more to advance our trade agenda and to create much needed jobs for American workers.

This year, America's trade agenda has stalled, and it has had a chilling effect on our economy, on job creation and on global commerce, in some cases, even weakening our national security interests. The delay in considering the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement alone has cost U.S. exporters and their workers over $2.4 billion in unnecessary tariffs.

Last week, the President said there would be a renewed focus on trade next year. I welcome that commitment, and I stand ready to prepare our free trade agreements for congressional consideration. In the meantime, we still have valuable work to do. Although we are not dealing with any of our pending free trade agreements today, we are considering important trade programs which protect our own interests and which help advance developing nations--extensions of the Generalized System of Preferences and the Andean Trade Preference Act.

Make no mistake; the legislation before us is far from perfect, but it is a chance to ensure that the trade agenda does not slide further backward. By supporting this bill, we are sending a signal to the world that America is ready and willing to engage.

I am a strong supporter of our trade preference programs. These programs are vital, particularly as we struggle with the global recession and with the collapse in international trade. Allowing these preference programs to lapse would be a mistake that would encourage the rest of the world, which is already passing us by when it comes to new trade agreements, to increase their lead on us, and we cannot allow that to happen.

As I noted, this legislation should have been stronger to provide greater certainty to American employers doing business in developing countries, something sorely needed in this economic climate.

I would have preferred to see a 2-year extension of that program instead of the 1-year extension before us, but I think we all agree that a 1-year extension is better than no extension at all.

I would also have preferred to see a continuation of the bipartisan provision in the current Andean Trade Promotion Act program that requires enhanced oversight over Ecuador's compliance with the eligibility criteria. Unfortunately, this legislation fails to recognize the serious questions that surround Ecuador's compliance with the eligibility criteria for this program.

The 2008 bipartisan extension of ATPA extended benefits for Ecuador but required the administration to issue a report on Ecuador's compliance with eligibility criteria. This report, released on June 30 of this year by the Obama administration, highlighted multiple concerns, which I share.

Specifically, the report raised questions about Ecuador's compliance with its international investment obligations. The report raised concerns about Ecuador's decision to increase certain import duties above their bound levels and impose quotas on imports. None of these issues have been resolved. In fact, they have gotten worse.

Despite failure by Ecuador to address the issues raised in the Obama administration report, the majority has inexplicably stripped out last year's reporting requirement. For all the talk from the other side about enforcement and compliance, this legislation fails to address legitimate concerns our workers and employers face in Ecuador. While the legislation requires reporting for all of the Andean countries, I am disappointed that the majority has decided not to engage in specific oversight of a country clearly falling short of our expectations.

As 2009 comes to a close, there will be many retrospectives on the year. One focus ought to be on whether Washington advanced a pro- growth, pro-job trade agenda. The answer is clearly ``no.''

We started the year with the passage of a new Trade Adjustment Assistance program, showing what can be achieved when there is a bipartisan, bicameral commitment. We should all be very proud of what we have done for workers who are trying to adjust to the global economy.

But until today, there has been absolutely no positive movement on the trade agenda since TAA. While I am encouraged the majority decided to extend two trade preference programs, the failure to make this legislation as robust as it could have been shows the need to return next year to the sort of bipartisanship that we saw on TAA. I urge the majority to make that happen, and I am committed to doing my part.

Madam Speaker, we owe the American people a better result. Today's legislation gives us the first opportunity to build on the President's words to us at the White House last week, in which he acknowledged the importance of trade in creating jobs, but it represents the bare minimum.

I urge my colleagues to support a robust trade agenda that creates opportunities for American workers. For that reason, I support passage of this legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Reichert).

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I urge my colleagues to support the Andean Trade Preference Extension Act of 2009, which will extend the Andean trade preferences, as we know as ATPA, and also the Generalized System of Preferences, we also refer to as GSP, for an additional year. However, I do think it's important to note my disappointment that we did not put a message specifically putting Ecuador on notice that its behavior and its receipt of continued benefits is at serious risk. There is a deteriorating investment climate in Ecuador as well as their repudiation of the bilateral investment treaty. I think it's very important that while it is understood in this legislation that there is language maintaining a review, I am concerned that there is not specific language aimed at challenging Ecuador's actions. I do think this is a change from current law and it's a step backward. I think it's important to send a strong message that any central tenet of a preference program is that the participants uphold their commitments to the rule of law as well as their commitments to the U.S. on investment and other matters.

So as a result of this, I believe preference programs should not be viewed as an entitlement; that they are based upon meeting certain criteria as I mentioned, particularly, as others have said, the observance of labor and environmental laws, certainly actions to prevent the distortion of investment as well as the support and enforcement of intellectual property laws as well as reasonable access to markets.

However, I do think despite these concerns, this legislation is extremely important. It is essential that we extend this for another year. I think that this is an important step to take, and I will support its passage. I look forward to working with the administration as well as my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin, as we continue to address trade issues in the coming year.

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