Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 844, I call up the bill (H.R. 8) to extend certain tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and to provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing for comprehensive tax reform, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 8.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge what a colleague from Georgia called a legacy vote--making permanent the tax cuts Republicans enacted back in 2001 and 2003. I couldn't agree more, and let me say why: because we're making permanent tax policies Republicans originally crafted.

Now back then, despite having a majority in the House, a majority in the Senate, and a Republican in the White

House, those policies were only temporary. That's because Democrats refused to join Republicans in providing tax relief for working families. Well, after more than a decade of criticizing these tax cuts, Democrats are finally joining with Republicans in making these tax cuts permanent. Republicans and the American people are getting something really important--permanent tax relief.

As big as that is, and it's only the first step when it comes to taxes, this legislation settles the level of revenue Washington should bring in. Next, we need to make the Tax Code simpler and fairer for families and small businesses, and we need to pursue comprehensive and fundamental tax reform to create the jobs we need and to make American businesses and workers competitive in the global marketplace. Simply put, the Tax Code is a nightmare. It's too complex, too time-consuming, and too costly. About 60 percent of individual taxpayers have to hire others to do their tax returns because the code is too complicated. As a result, if tax compliance were an industry, it would be one of the largest in the United States and would consume 6.1 billion hours, the equivalent of more than 3 million full-time workers.

And yes, it's too costly. In 2008 alone, taxpayers spent $163 billion complying with the individual and corporate income tax rules. Add to that the fact that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the OECD and an outdated system of taxation, and it's not too difficult to imagine why many don't view America as an attractive place to invest and hire.

Nothing about the bill we're considering tonight changes any of those realities. That's why the Ways and Means Committee will pursue comprehensive tax reform in the next Congress. So by making Republican tax cuts permanent, we're one step closer to comprehensive tax reform that will help strengthen our economy and create more and higher paychecks for American workers.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and get us one step closer to tax reform.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the distinguished chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

This is the first step. And now that we have permanently settled how much revenue the government is going to take out of the economy, we can move on to next steps. We can and will pursue comprehensive tax reform this year, in 2013, and next steps. We need to address the fundamental driver of our deficits and debt, and that is out-of-control spending.

I urge support for this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman that I am prepared to close.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We've heard some talk about what does the fiscal cliff mean, and I would say that I agree with my friend from Maryland that if we didn't address the fiscal cliff issue, every single American would see a tax increase, and it would be a big tax increase. It would be the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. That's why it's so important we're here tonight acting in a permanent way.

And I would say also to my friend from Michigan, he is correct, this is a permanent tax policy. These are permanent tax provisions we're putting in this bill that permanently sets the baseline. It permanently sets how much money the government can take out of the economy. Because of this, this is the largest tax cut in American history.

I think that's helpful, because the best way to get out of our debt and deficit is to grow our economy. We can do that through comprehensive and fundamental tax reform, and this is just the first step to getting to the ability to strengthen our economy and create the jobs we so badly need.

We've had years of anemic economic growth. We have projected anemic economic growth in 2013. It is so important that we try to create jobs and grow the economy, and we can do that through comprehensive pro- growth tax reform that lowers rates, broadens the base, and simplifies a Tax Code that is far too complex.

As I said in my opening statement, the Tax Code is a nightmare--and it is--and it's getting almost late enough to have a nightmare ourselves.

Let me just say that we not only need to grow the economy, but we also need to address the fundamental causes of our debts and deficits, and that's out-of-control spending--obligations that we have not got the financial wherewithal to meet. We need to strengthen those programs and make sure that they're sustainable for the long term, but we also need to address the problem that is out-of-control spending.

So this is the first step--permanent tax policy that then sets the stage for comprehensive and fundamental tax reform--and then addressing out-of-control spending. This will be several steps. This is an important one, and this is a critical one for the future of the country. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6655) to establish a commission to develop a national strategy and recommendations for reducing fatalities resulting from child abuse and neglect.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5

legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6655, the Protect Our Kids Act of 2012. As we are too painfully reminded this week by the horrific tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, for all the good this Nation has done to lift up children, we still have much more work to do. So, Mr. Speaker, before I get into the remarks about the bill I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to the victims and their loved ones struggling, as we all are, to understand this senseless assault on children and their educators.

While Newtown is rightly receiving the Nation's attention, what goes unnoticed far too often is the number of children that die each year in this country as a result of abuse and neglect. Sadly, their deaths often come at the hands of those who should be caring for them the most.

State reports indicate that more than 1,500 children in the U.S. died from abuse or neglect in fiscal year 2010, and research shows that these reports may significantly understate the actual number of these fatalities. Congress should do what it can to prevent these tragedies, which is why this legislation is before us today.

This legislation is the result of careful bipartisan work over the past couple of years. In 2010, I requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) review what is known about the circumstances of child deaths and near deaths resulting from abuse and neglect, State approaches to gathering and reporting this information, and what steps the Department of Health and Human Services has taken to support the collection and accurate reporting of this information.

GAO completed its review in July of last year and presented its findings at a Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources hearing that same month. In their report, GAO said many more children die from abuse and neglect than are currently reported. They also reported that government agencies have different definitions of abuse and neglect, and that administrative barriers hinder the sharing of this information across agencies.

Following that hearing, I worked with Congressman Doggett--and I thank him for his bipartisan support--the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, to develop a legislative proposal to address these issues. Last week, the subcommittee held another hearing to review this proposal. Finally, after almost 2 years of work, we are here on the House floor today to consider and pass this important bill.

This bipartisan legislation will establish a commission charged with developing recommendations to reduce child deaths caused by abuse and neglect. The commission will study a variety of issues, including data on fatalities, prevention methods, and the adequacy of current programs before making their recommendations. Any Federal agency affected by a recommendation of the commission will be required to report within 6 months on how it plans to address the recommendation. Importantly, this legislation is paid for and will not add to our deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this bipartisan bill and, in doing so, take an important step toward preventing the tragic deaths of so many of our Nation's children from abuse and neglect.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Paulsen, the acting chair of the Human Resources Subcommittee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to State Representative Paul E. Opsommer in recognition of his faithful service as a member of the Michigan House of Representatives. His fulfillment of three terms as State Representative concludes the most recent phase of what has been a remarkable career in public service, and he leaves behind a dedicated legacy in Lansing.

Before being elected to the 93rd district of Michigan in 2006, Paul had a career in business and local government. He served as Director and later Vice President of Action Management Corporation in Flint, and prior to that as a City Councilman and Mayor of DeWitt. His extensive experience serving on local government agencies and boards, including the DeWitt Schools Strategic Planning Board and the DeWitt Downtown Development Association, among others, also gave him a wide-ranging knowledge of issues important to the region.

In the Michigan House, Paul served on the Energy and Technology, Regulatory Reform, Insurance, and Health Policy Committees, and most recently as Chairman of the Transportation Committee and Associate Speaker Pro Tempore. As a legislator, Paul was dedicated to the passage of sound public policy, and his insights and experience brought a fresh perspective to the House.

Paul is an esteemed Michigan citizen and it is with great pride that I dedicate these remarks to his life and career. I wish him and his family the best as he closes this chapter of his life and begins his next endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution constituting a question of the privileges of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Ranking Member Levin to honor Raymond J. Ahearn, Specialist in International Trade and Finance in the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service (CRS). After a distinguished career of more than 37 years of service to Congress on international trade and economic policy issues, Ray will retire on December 28.

During Ray's years of direct support for Congress, he achieved a remarkable record of accomplishment. His authoritative, non-partisan and objective expertise and analysis, as exemplified in his many reports, confidential memoranda, committee prints, and confidential consultative work for Members and congressional staff, have addressed just about all major international trade and economic policy issues before Congress. His institutional knowledge of U.S. trade policy and the policy-making process has been invaluable, especially to the Ways and Means Committee and its Members.

Ray's deep institutional knowledge of U.S. trade policies and laws, the global trading system and architecture, multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations, regional economic groupings, and the fundamental trends in the global economy have played a critical role in Congress' consideration of these issues. He has also provided intellectual leadership to the overall research agenda of the CRS Trade and Finance Section, working closely with the Ways and Means Committee, as well as many other congressional offices and committees, in ensuring that the CRS international trade and finance work was closely aligned with policy issues of core congressional interest in an authoritative, objective and timely manner.

We congratulate and thank Ray for his years of excellent service to Congress. We wish him the very best in his retirement.

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

Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bipartisan legislation to ensure that American companies, workers, farmers, and ranchers benefit from Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization. Almost three months ago, Russia became the 156th member of the WTO. Since then, exporters from every WTO member but one--the United States--have been guaranteed the benefit from the concessions that Russia made to join the WTO. These benefits include increased access to Russia's growing market in goods and services, improved protection of intellectual property rights in Russia, Russian animal and plant health rules based on international standards and science, and binding dispute resolution if Russia does not live up to its WTO obligations. If U.S. exporters want to be guaranteed these benefits as well, we must pass this bipartisan legislation and establish permanent normal trade relations with Russia.

This bill would allow us to gain important rights and powerful new enforcement tools with respect to one of the world's largest economies without giving up a single tariff or other concession. We could double or even triple U.S. exports to Russia within 5 years. But until we do, these benefits will go to our foreign competitors while our exporters fall further behind.

With our high unemployment, we cannot afford to pass up any opportunity to increase our exports and create jobs. And the longer we delay in passing this legislation, the more ground our exporters will lose.

I don't dispute that our relationship with Russia has many challenges. On the commercial front, we face weak enforcement and protection of intellectual property rights, as well as discriminatory standards for U.S. agricultural products. Russia's recent adoption of the WTO's rules should address many of these issues, but this bill goes farther by requiring the administration to stay focused on Russia by making sure that it lives up to its WTO obligations, resolves outstanding trade issues with Russia, and improves the rule of law in Russia.

Many of us also have significant concerns with Russia's foreign policy. Much as I believe that Russia does not always act responsibly, I also believe that this legislation cannot be seen as rewarding Russia. Instead, any benefit that is conferred is on U.S. job creators. I also fully share the concerns of many of my colleagues on Russia's abysmal human rights record, and that's why I support adding the Magnitsky legislation to this bill, on the third anniversary of the murder of Sergei Magnitsky while imprisoned.

For all of these reasons, we urgently need to pass this important bipartisan legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

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

I thank the gentleman for his comments. Also, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Madam Speaker, how much time remains?

Thank you.

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Reichert).

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Long).

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Yes, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I too want to thank Mr. Levin for his work on this legislation and for his long-time work on Jackson-Vanik. Those were very different times. His leadership there, I think, has paved the way for the effort that we're going to see today--I think a very large bipartisan vote. I appreciate the bipartisanship on this bill.

I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who will be retiring at the end of this Congress, who is the chairman of the Rules Committee, who has been a leader on trade, trade issues, and has really been a mentor to me on these issues since I came to Congress. His leadership will be missed both in the Rules Committee and his intelligent contribution to debate on the floor, as well as his leadership on trade issues.

This truly is, as Mr. Levin said earlier, a bipartisan effort, and many brought it forward: Mr. McGovern, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Cardin, a former member of the Ways and Means Committee now in the Senate. This is the seventh bipartisan trade bill we've had this Congress. Also, not to be forgotten, this moves Moldovan PNTR. Moldova joined the WTO 11 years ago. Finally, we're seeing a resolution and some movement there.

As others have said, Russia is and will be a member of the WTO, regardless of whether or not the United States grants Russia PNTR. The commercial benefits, the jobs that will be created here in the United States because of Russia's accession, are significant if we do grant PNTR. As a WTO member, Russia will be subject to rules and regulations that the WTO creates that they're not subject to now. They must comply with all of their rules and regulations. It helps level the playing field for our workers, our employers, our exporters, and particularly in the areas of discriminatory practices, intellectual property rights, more transparency, implementing uniform rules and customs, all the things that are needed to have a viable economic--a dynamic and equal relationship are important there.

Also, it's important to note that our employers, workers, farmers, ranchers, and employees will not get any benefits of having Russia into the WTO unless we grant this.

This is an important step. It will bring us big gains. As has been said, this establishes tools that will help us ensure Russia's enforcement. And I think particularly also in the area of human rights, it's important that the Magnitsky legislation is a part of this legislation.

I urge support for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago this October, Congress directed the President to appoint a Special Representative for Trade Negotiations to lead the Administration's efforts to expand global trade. As a result, for the past 50 years, the U.S. Trade Representative has led the Executive Branch in aggressively opening markets to American-made goods and services and promoting economic growth and job creation through trade. USTR's leadership has contributed in significant ways to the tremendous economic growth that the United States enjoyed over the past 50 years and firmly established our global economic leadership.

Across Administrations, USTR has maintained an admirable bipartisan and close working relationship with Congress. I've always said that the very best people become the U.S. Trade Representative. The 50-year history of USTR demonstrates that the men and women who have served as the U.S. Trade Representative are strategic thinkers and tough negotiators--the kind of intelligent, can-do people who have demonstrated their ability to advance our trade agenda. And the dedicated USTR employees who serve with them also exhibit that intellectual rigor and high caliber. I'm proud of all that they have accomplished in opening markets and enforcing our rights under our trade agreements.

USTR is uniquely nimble, lean, and effective. In a world that has changed dramatically over the past 50 years, USTR's small size,

independence, and direct access to the President have been critical to its success. With these attributes intact, I am confident that USTR will continue to fulfill its mission effectively and commendably for the next 50 years.

Today, I honor USTR on its 50th anniversary, the 16 men and women who have served as the U.S. Trade Representative, and the thousands who have proudly served under them. I wish USTR the best for another 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Chairman Paul F. Oreffice of The Dow Chemical Company for his distinguished life and career as he nears his 85th birthday. Mr. Oreffice is a true American success story, having immigrated to the United States from Venice when he was 12 years old to later becoming the CEO of one of the world's largest and most recognized corporations.

Paul joined The Dow Chemical Company in 1953, after graduating from Purdue University and serving two years in the U.S. Army during the Korean War. He maintained a variety of international assignments early in his career before being named President and Chief Executive Officer in 1978. His adept business skills while head of the company helped him become the first person to receive both the Palladium medal and the Chemical Industry medal in the late 1980s. He was named Chairman of the Board in 1986, and served in that position until his retirement in 1992. Throughout his tenure, The Dow Chemical Company remained one of the largest and most well-respected manufacturing companies in the world.

It is because of the determination and success of individuals like Paul that America remains the land of opportunity for folks wishing to achieve great things through hard work and ingenuity. On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District, I congratulate Paul for his remarkable life and career.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Petty Officer Gregory Gaylor, an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Technician with the United States Navy. Petty Officer Gaylor is being honored by the Navy at the USO annual gala this November as the 2012 USO Sailor of the Year. He is being recognized for the steadfast determination and unwavering courage he displayed in saving the lives of his fellow soldiers and furthering the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.

Perhaps the most notable aspect of Petty Officer Gaylor's service came when he expertly led a three man EOD team during combat operations in Afghanistan from December 2011 to June 2012, in which he was responsible for locating and dismantling Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), among other objectives. In April of 2012, Gaylor and his team were fired upon by four separate machine gun positions, but with little regard for his own safety he managed to clear a nearby compound of explosive hazards and help transport those wounded from the line of fire. Overall, he located and destroyed four IEDs, faced six direct fire engagements, and trained over 300 Afghan Commandos in Counter-IED tactics and basic demolition techniques, which aided in the autonomy of Afghan security forces.

The courageous and selfless actions of Petty Officer Gaylor are truly commendable and indicative of the skill, professionalism and fortitude of the men and women of the United States Navy. On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District, I congratulate Petty Officer Gaylor on achieving the USO Sailor of the Year honor and thank him for his remarkable service to this great nation.

Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago this October, Congress directed the President to appoint a Special Representative for Trade Negotiations to lead the Administration's efforts to expand global trade. As a result, for the past 50 years, the U.S. Trade Representative has led the Executive Branch in aggressively opening markets to American-made goods and services and promoting economic growth and job creation through trade. USTR's leadership has contributed in significant ways to the tremendous economic growth that the United States enjoyed over the past 50 years and firmly established our global economic leadership.

Across Administrations, USTR has maintained an admirable bipartisan and close working relationship with Congress. I've always said that the very best people become the U.S. Trade Representative. The 50-year history of USTR demonstrates that the men and women who have served as the U.S. Trade Representative are strategic thinkers and tough negotiators--the kind of intelligent, can-do people who have demonstrated their ability to advance our trade agenda. And the dedicated USTR employees who serve with them also exhibit that intellectual rigor and high caliber. I'm proud of all that they have accomplished in opening markets and enforcing our rights under our trade agreements.

USTR is uniquely nimble, lean, and effective. In a world that has changed dramatically over the past 50 years, USTR's small size, independence, and direct access to the President have been critical to its success. With these attributes intact, I am confident that USTR will continue to fulfill its mission effectively and commendably for the next 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 788, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 118) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by

the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human Services relating to waiver and expenditure authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 118.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J.Res 188, a resolution to disapprove of the Department of Health and Human Services rule waiving the work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, cash welfare program. The requirement that 50 percent of a State's welfare caseload work, or prepare for work, was a central part of the bipartisan 1996 welfare reforms signed into law by President Clinton. Those reforms were overwhelmingly successful in reducing welfare dependency and poverty while increasing work and earnings. Unfortunately, President Obama said that he would have opposed such reforms had he been in Congress at that time. And so on July 12 of this year the Obama administration issued an ``information memorandum'' to waive the welfare work requirements in a blatant end-run around the current Congress.

The administration's action is unlawful on two fronts. First, the welfare work requirements are contained in a section of the Social Security Act, section 407, that may not be waived according to that law. Second, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office determined that the administration's ``information memorandum'' qualifies as a rule and therefore should have been officially submitted to the Congress for review before being issued. It was not.

Just yesterday, GAO released another report that found that HHS has never before issued any TANF waivers in the history of the program, including involving the TANF work requirements. More importantly, they found that when previous HHS Secretaries were asked about the possibility of waiving work requirements, HHS responded that ``the Department does not have authority to waive any of these provisions.'' That was the conclusion of the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, and at least, to date, the Obama administration.

When it comes to welfare work requirements, I guess we can say President Obama was for them before he was against them. Unfortunately, for the President, the American people do not agree with his original and most recent position on this issue. A recent survey shows that 83 percent support a work requirement as a condition for receiving welfare. And for good reason. The work requirement and other 1996 reforms are responsible for increasing employment of single mothers by 15 percent from 1996 to 2000, and decreasing welfare caseloads by 57 percent over the last decade-and-a-half.

But inexplicably, these results don't sit well with the Obama administration. They refuse to acknowledge their mistake and rescind their memorandum. That's why we've brought this resolution to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to preserve the successful welfare work requirements and join me in passing this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds only because the gentleman referred to me.

I will just say that the issue that he refers to was actually to extend the work requirements to other programs, which actually would have increased the work requirements.

Let me just say, I'm glad my friend brought up the fact checkers, because The Washington Post fact checker calls the Democrats' claims of increasing work ``a stretch,'' stating that it is not clear that ``the net result is that more people on welfare will end up working,'' and actually gave the ``eloquent speech'' by President Clinton my friend referenced two Pinocchios for saying that it would increase work by 20 percent.

At this time I would yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a Member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

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

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers. I believe I have the right to close. I'm prepared to close when the gentleman is through with his speakers.

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

When the bipartisan welfare reform bill was passed in 1996 and ultimately signed by President Clinton, the work requirement was a key part of that welfare bill. And the work requirement is this: that at least 50 percent of the caseload has to be engaged in work. And the principle was that, if you're able-bodied, you ought to be working if you're going to be receiving Federal benefits.

Now, the statute named 12 different things that qualify as work. Most of us think of work as going actually to employment, but there are 12 things. And a couple of them, let me just say, such as job search and job readiness actually, under current law, qualify for work. Vocational training and education qualifies for work as long as it doesn't exceed 1 year.

Also put into the statute was a clear statement that the work requirement could not be waived, because changing the paradigm on welfare was absolutely critical. And as I said in my opening statement, it has been important to reducing welfare caseloads, to bringing people to independence, to reducing child poverty. Those were all critical goals that have been met.

Let me read what Dr. Haskins, the Staff Director of the Ways and Means Committee--and I was on the Ways and Means Committee; I helped write the welfare bill; I was on the conference committee--said at that time, in terms of waivers. ``Waivers''--and this is the committee report.

Waivers granted after the date of enactment may not override provisions of the TANF law that concern mandatory work requirements.

That's because this was such an important part of the change that we were trying to bring to welfare. And it's been very successful, some might say the most successful social change that has occurred.

So every administration since then, whether it was the Clinton administration or the Bush administration or even at the beginning of the Obama administration, recognized that work requirements could not be waived. There is plain language in the statute in section 407 that says the work requirement cannot be waived.

Then here comes the Obama administration, through an information memorandum, that now both the GAO and the Congressional Research Service say is really a rule; and I would like to place in the Record both the letter of September 4 and the September 12 Congressional Research Service memorandum, both which say that the administration action was a rule.

The full CRS report I am inserting in the Record is available online at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/evaluating_whether_the _tanf_information_memorandum_is_a_rule_under_the_cra_redacted_ 5.pdf

Now comes the administration saying, Well, we don't have to go to Congress to change the law. Even though Congress voted on this in a bipartisan way and this was a critical piece of major legislation, we're just going to send in an information memorandum and have unelected bureaucrats change the law of the land.

People who sort of referee things around here, like the GAO and CRS, said, No. Hold it. Stop. This is not an information memorandum. This is a rule.

If an administration wants to promulgate a rule, there are certain criteria that they have to follow. The reason is that unelected people are making law. So, in order to do that, they have to inform the Congress, and they have to do certain things, none of which the administration did. Let me read a piece of this information memorandum:

Projects that test systematically extending the period in

which vocational education training or job search-readiness

programs count toward participation rates, either generally

or for particular subgroups, such as an extended training

period.

Under the law I just said, vocational training can only last a year. This information memorandum reads you can be in training for longer than a year. Number one, that is weakening the work requirement. Number two, they did not follow the law by notifying the Congress. They need to go back, and they need to issue a rule.

Frankly, if this is that important to them, come engage the Congress. There has been no consultation. There has not been one staff person from HHS who has come up and had an opportunity to brief any of us on this. I am willing to work with the administration. I'd like to hear their ideas. I'd like to have that opportunity to do so. I think it is regrettable that we've gotten to this point, but we've gotten to this point because there has been a mistake. They made a mistake, and they need to withdraw that.

I urge that we support the resolution. This is too important to have unelected bureaucrats make the law of the land.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Government

Accountability Office,

Washington, DC, September 4, 2012.

Hon. Orrin Hatch,

Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives.

By letter of July 31, 2012, you asked whether an

Information Memorandum issued by the Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS) on July 12, 2012 concerning the

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program

constitutes a rule for the purposes of the Congressional

Review Act (CRA). The CRA is intended to keep Congress

informed of the rulemaking activities of federal agencies and

provides that before a rule can take effect, the agency must

submit the rule to each House of Congress and the Comptroller

Genera1. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that

the July 12, 2012 Information Memorandum is a rule under the

CRA. Therefore, it must be submitted to Congress and the

Comptroller General before taking effect.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6410) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for taxpayers making donations with their returns of income tax to the Federal Government to pay down the public debt.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6410, a bill to provide a simple way for individuals to voluntarily donate funds to pay down the national debt. Under current law, you can contribute to debt reduction, but like all things with the IRS, it isn't easy. If you dig deep into the 189 pages of instructions that accompany the 1040, you'll find, on page 88, the following:

Do not add your gift to reduce debt held by the public to

any tax you may owe.

To contribute to deficit reduction, one must send a separate check or money order to the Bureau of Public Debt, or they can go online at the Web site and use a credit card. Warren Buffett, who says he wants to pay more in taxes to pay down our debt, can't actually do so when filing his taxes.

H.R. 6410, however, gives Mr. Buffett and generous Americans like him a simple, easy way to help pay down our debt. This legislation adds to appropriate tax forms a box with the captions, and I am quoting:

By checking here, I signify that in addition to my tax

liability (if any), I would like to donate the included

payment to be used exclusively for the purpose of paying down

the national debt.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that H.R. 6410 reduces the public debt by $135 million over 10 years. It makes it easy for those who want to donate money to the Treasury for debt reduction to voluntarily do so without raising taxes on entrepreneurs and job creators. If Warren Buffett wants to give, then H.R. 6410 allows him to give to his heart's content, and the payments will go directly to an account at the Treasury dedicated exclusively to debt reduction.

Mr. Speaker, it's not enough to speak in political platitudes about what we can do to reduce our debt. Now you can put your money where your mouth is. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in passing this legislation.

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

I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I advise my colleague that I am prepared to close.

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

I can understand why my friends on the other side are talking about everything but the bill before us. And that's because this administration's record on the deficit is so dismal. We're going on our fourth year of trillion-dollar deficits. The deficit under their watch is now $16 trillion.

You know, what we really need to do is grow this economy and create jobs, and we know that their tax increases that they love so much would cost us 700,000 jobs. Look at this: 43 months of unemployment of 8 percent. That's why they want to talk about everything but this.

They've said the question is how to reduce the deficit. The fact of the matter is this bill does reduce the deficit, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, by $135 million. Now, they might not think that's much, but to most Americans, every million dollars counts.

So, I think it's important that we move forward on this, that we grow our economy, that we grow our economy to create jobs. And we know that taxes on small businesses that they propose cost us jobs.

So let's pass this bill. It's a step forward. It allows those Americans--we all hear it as we go around the country--people say, ``I'd like to give more. How do I do it?''

This makes it easier, it makes it straightforward, and actually is scored as reducing the deficit.

Let's vote to make a step for reducing the deficit. We have bigger issues we need to deal with. We're going to deal with those. That's why this committee, Ways and Means, has been focused on tax reform this year, more than 20 hearings. I hope we can move forward on fundamental tax reform. Let's vote for this bill. Let's give those Americans who want to be more generous, who want to check a box and contribute more specifically to deficit reduction, a very transparent, straightforward, and easy way to do that.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5986) to amend the African Growth and Opportunity Act to extend the third-country fabric program and to add South Sudan to the list of countries eligible for designation under that Act, to make technical corrections to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States relating to the textile and apparel rules of origin for the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement, to approve the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation to strengthen trade and investment ties with Africa and the CAFTA-DR countries and support well-paying jobs in the United States. The legislation also extends the President's authority to impose the import ban on products from Burma for an additional 3 years and reauthorizes the actual imposition of the import sanctions for 1 year. The legislation has broad bipartisan support and is supported by all stakeholders.

AGOA has succeeded in deepening trade and investment ties with sub- Saharan Africa and underscoring U.S. commitment to the region. The apparel industry has been a major driver of employment growth in Africa under AGOA. In Lesotho alone, jobs in the textile and apparel industry have more than doubled--growing from 19,000 to 45,000--because of AGOA. This bill extends the third-country fabric provisions which are vital to ensuring the continued success of the AGOA program and ensures that the new Republic of South Sudan is eligible to benefit from AGOA.

Under the CAFTA-DR trade agreement, trade has grown substantially. And since the implementation of this agreement, the trade deficit the United States previously had with these countries has turned into a trade surplus. Today's legislation builds upon that success by further improving the agreement's textile rules of origin. These changes encourage greater use of U.S. inputs in the CAFTA-DR countries, which supports U.S. jobs and improves trade integration in our hemisphere.

In 2003, Congress passed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which included an import ban on products of Burma renewable once a year for a total of 3 years. The law has been extended twice. This legislation extends the President's authority to impose the import ban for an additional 3 years and reauthorizes the actual import sanctions for 1 year.

Now, I want to acknowledge the positive developments in Burma over the last year, but much work remains ahead with respect to political and economic reforms, human rights, the release of political prisoners, freedom of speech, press, association, as well as religion, and the treatment of ethnic groups within the country--all factors required for full termination of the import sanctions and other restrictions in the 2003 law.

I encourage the Burmese Government to continue its current reforms and commence others to fully address the concerns that led Congress to pass the 2003 law. For all of these reasons, we urgently need to pass this important legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I just have one remaining speaker, so I'm going to reserve. But before I do that, I just want to acknowledge Mr. Rangel's remarks and acknowledge his leadership on this issue over many years. He was at the forefront of making this AGOA agreement a reality, and I want to thank him for that and for all of his hard work over a very long period of time.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, who's been active in trade issues his entire career in Congress.

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

I have no further requests for time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee for his kind comments and for his leadership as well over the years. This really was a team effort. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle came together to make this a reality.

I'll just briefly say that this is bipartisan legislation that does deepen our trade and investment ties with Africa and with the CAFTA-DR countries. It also supports well-paying jobs here in the United States as well as in other countries, as Mr. Dreier stated. This is not a zero sum game. This will help both of our nations as well as Africa. Also, this legislation reauthorizes the import ban on Burmese products.

I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6169, the Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act of 2012.

Yesterday, House Republicans, joined by 19 House Democrats, voted to extend current tax policies through the end of next year. That was an important, responsible step to provide Congress the time to pass and enact comprehensive tax reform without risking further damage to a fragile economy.

The failure to stop the tax hike that's looming at the end of the year could push us over a jobs cliff. I know many Democrats want to raise taxes, but an independent study by Ernst & Young shows the Democrat tax hike would eliminate over 700,000 jobs. We can't afford to lose more jobs in the United States, and that is why we voted to extend the current tax policy.

Instead of raising taxes on small businesses and making it harder to create jobs, as the Democrat plan did, Republicans are focused on creating jobs, reforming the Tax Code to make it simpler and fairer for all Americans, and strengthening our economy. The bill before us today provides a pathway to that goal.

This bill forces Congress to do its job, something I think all Americans will support. It provides a specific time line for the House and the Senate to act next year on a comprehensive tax reform bill. It also ensures an open process. A bill is introduced and then the appropriate committees may amend it. Democrats and Republicans, alike, will have an opportunity to debate and offer changes.

And this bill tells the American people exactly where we want the debate to start. We say that tax reform should: eliminate special interest loopholes to reduce rates for families and employers, reducing the current six tax brackets down to just two (10 and 25 percent); help America be competitive in the global economy by setting a corporate rate of 25 percent and updating a 50-year-old international tax code to a modern and more competitive territorial system; and get rid of the alternative minimum tax that's currently looming over 31 million middle class families.

We also don't think we should ask taxpayers to bail out Washington's wasteful spending. Tax reform should not result in the Federal Government taking more out of the economy and more out of taxpayer pockets than the tax system historically has.

Tax reform is not about making the government bigger, it's about creating jobs. That's why this bill says Federal tax revenues should remain within historic norms of 18-19 percent of gross domestic product.

Independent economists have noted, when paired with appropriate government spending cuts, comprehensive tax reform that includes these policies could lead to the creation of 1 million Americans jobs in the first year alone.

Compare that to the Democrat plan offered yesterday--a tax hike that would eliminate over 700,000 American jobs. The choice could not be clearer. Do we want and does America need Democrat tax hikes that destroy jobs? Or do we want, and does America need, Republican-backed tax reform that creates a simpler, fairer code and 1 million jobs in the first year alone?

Today, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have one more opportunity to stand with families and job creators by joining House Republicans to demonstrate their commitment to passing and enacting comprehensive tax reform next year. We can and should work together to revive our economy and get the unemployed back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this legislation. And in doing so, take an important step to creating a simpler, fairer Tax Code and more jobs for American families.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would just say to my friend that I don't know whose plan that is. Somebody made that up because that's not our plan. A plan that increases middle class taxes isn't something that I could agree with.

What we envision is an open process that Republicans and Democrats can offer amendments on. But the point is this: comprehensive tax reform that creates jobs and gets the economy moving and gets us back on track can be accomplished.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished members of the Ways and Means Committee and chairman of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I would just yield myself 15 seconds and say that the plan the gentleman refers to is a made-up plan. What we're looking at is the model set up in the Bowles-Simpson Commission, which has been endorsed in a bipartisan way, that will be an open process that will allow amendments so we can debate these ideas in that process, not this made- up bill that they went and are discussing on the floor today.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the distinguished chairman of the Health Subcommittee.

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

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader of the House.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would just say that the gentleman from Texas just described current law as long as you don't bring it back. So what we're looking for is really--we are in a crossroads. I agree with him on that. We really have a choice. Do we follow their path of a tax hike that costs us 700,000 jobs, or do we follow our path of comprehensive tax reform that grows our economy and creates up to 1 million jobs?

At this time, I will yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

And I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) be permitted to control the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for the purposes of a colloquy.

I do, Mr. Woodall. I envision with this framework an open debate, as I've said on the floor, one that will entertain a variety of proposals and one that will include amendments

so that we can move forward as a Congress on enacting comprehensive and bipartisan reform.

Absolutely, there will be a full and robust discussion because, as I said, there will be amendments in committee, and there will be an opportunity for Members to weigh in. And, obviously, this will be a national debate. So this is about getting us on that path and moving forward. Because as we know, the alternative is, do we have taxes go up and cost us 700,000 jobs, or do we try to get us on a path of reform that will create the million jobs that we need to get this country moving again? So absolutely.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. Speaker, we just have one final speaker to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.