Floor Statements

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

Which bill, the House bill, or the House bill as amended, has a bigger tax cut? Which bill? My friends on the other side seem to be confused.

Ms. LEE of California of California. Will the gentleman yield?

I will not yield.

I will enter into the Record the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan experts who analyze our legislation, their analysis of both proposals. They will show that the House bill that extends the payroll tax for a year provides $120 billion in tax relief to the American worker, while the House bill, as amended by the Senate, only provides $20 billion of tax relief to the American worker because they only extend it for 2 months.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

Let's get back to the facts. The facts are that the House bill, as amended by the Senate, is a 2-month bill. The tax relief under that bill for the average American worker is $167. The House bill extends unemployment insurance for a full year. The tax relief under that bill is $1,000. But don't listen to me--look at the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan body that analyzes our legislation for the impact of tax policy on taxpayers. That's what they say. That's what's in the record.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close if the gentleman from New York is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I do have an additional speaker.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

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

The minority seems fixated on this notion that since the Senate passed their version of the House bill by a vote of 89-10 that somehow the House just needs to take their work product, no changes, just accept it, just vote for it.

Well, less than 3 weeks ago, the Senate passed the Defense authorization bill by a vote of 93-7. Did the House just accept that and send it to the President? No. We requested a conference on December 7, and a week later, that conference report was approved by the House. So there's no reason other than the Senate's insistence on a monthlong vacation that we can't do the same here to provide a yearlong solution to the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for a year, and a 2- year fix on the physician payments in Medicare, what's known as the SGR, the sustainable growth rate formula.

Vote ``no'' on this motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 491, I call up the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes, 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 the subject of the bill under consideration.

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

There are four important facts everyone should know about the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act:

First, it will strengthen our economy and help get Americans back to work by lowering the tax burden for middle class families and job providers alike;

Second, it prevents massive cuts to doctors working in the Medicare program to protect America's seniors and those with disabilities-- providing more stability in the doctor payment schedule than there has been in a decade;

Third, it adopts a number of the President's legislative initiatives, which represents the bipartisan cooperation Americans are demanding; and

Fourth, it's fully paid for with spending cuts, not job-killing tax hikes. The CBO tables show the bill is fully offset and saves about $1 billion. And when you add in the flood insurance provisions, the savings are closer to $6 billion.

So it will help families struggling in this economy; it will help the unemployed get and keep a job; it helps seniors; it's bipartisan; and it is paid for.

The House should--and I expect it will--overwhelmingly pass this measure, and the Senate should quickly pass it so Americans can get what they truly want this holiday season--something that helps create jobs while helping those most in need.

While this bill includes the priorities of a number of committees, many of the provisions in H.R. 3630 are within the purview of the Ways and Means Committee.

This bill will extend for 1 year the payroll tax holiday to help middle class families struggling in this economy, while fully protecting the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the Social Security Chief Actuary confirming this fact that I would like to place in the Record.

Social Security Administration,

Office of the Chief Actuary,

Baltimore, MD, December 12, 2011.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We have reviewed the language in the

``Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011''

(H.R. 3630), which you introduced on December 9, 2011. We

estimate that the enactment of this bill would reduce

(improve) the long range actuarial deficit of the Old Age and

Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program

by about 0.01 percent of taxable payroll. All estimates are

based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2011 Trustees

Report. Sections 2001 and 5101 would have a direct effect on

the OASDI program, as described below.

Section 2001 of the bill, ``Extension of Temporary Employee

Payroll Tax Reduction through End of 2012'' would extend

through 2012 the provisions of subsection (c) of section 601

of the ``Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization,

and Job Creation Act of 2010.'' Enactment of section 2001

would have a negligible effect on the financial status of the

program in both the near term and the long term. We estimate

that the projected level of the OASI and DI Trust Funds would

be unaffected by enactment of this provision.

Specifically, this provision would make the following

changes for payroll tax rates and OASDI financing in 2012:

(1) for wages and salaries paid in calendar year 2012 and

self-employment earnings in calendar year 2012, reduce the

OASDI payroll tax rate by 2.0 percentage points, (2) transfer

revenue from the General Fund of the Treasury to the OASI and

DI Trust Funds so that total revenue for the trust funds

would be unaffected by this provision, and (3) credit

earnings to the records of workers for the purpose of

determining future benefits payable from the trust funds so

that such benefits would be unaffected by this provision. For

wage and salary earnings, the 2.0-percent rate reduction

would apply to the employee share of the payroll tax rate.

For self-employment earnings, the personal income tax

deduction for the OASDI payroll tax would be 59.6 percent of

the portion of such taxes attributable to self-employment

earnings for 2012.

Section 5101 of the bill, ``Information for Administration

of Social Security Provisions Related to Noncovered

Employment,'' would require that all State and local

governments report to the Secretary of the Treasury all

distributions from any employer deferred compensation plan

made after December 31, 2012. This requirement would make

available to the Treasury and the Social Security

Administration any amount of such distributions that is based

on earnings from employment with State and local governments

that was not covered under the OASDI program. This required

reporting by State and local governments would effectively

eliminate most noncompliance with individual reporting of

distributions from deferred compensation plans that results

in the application of the windfall elimination provision and

the government pension offset provision for OASDI benefits.

Enactment of section 5101 of the bill would reduce (improve)

the long-range OASDI actuarial deficit by about 0.01 percent

of payroll.

We estimate that other sections of the bill would have no

direct effects on the OASDI program. Please let me know if we

may be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Stephen C. Goss,

Chief Actuary.

Without an extension, a worker earning $50,000 would see his or her take-home pay decline by a $1,000 in 2012, as compared to 2011.

Employers are helped too. Through an extension of 100 percent expensing, job creators down the supply chain will see more demand for their products. This will help boost economic activity and job creation. The President has endorsed both of these tax policies.

The bill will also extend unemployment benefits that are scheduled to expire at the end of the month, but does so while permanently reforming the program and adopting the President's plan to wind down recent expansions of the program.

Since 2008 extensions of unemployment benefits have added $180 billion to the debt. We're putting an end to that deficit spending. This program is fully paid for, and it contains significant reforms, such as allowing States to screen and test unemployment insurance recipients for drug abuse, overturning a 1960s-era Labor Department directive; requiring all unemployed recipients to search for work; be in a GED program if they have not finished high school, with reasonable exceptions; and participate in re-employment services.

It also implements program integrity measures such as new data standardization to crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse. And just as we did in connection with welfare reform, we're giving the States flexibility to design their own re-employment programs similar to the sorts of programs the President has touted, like Georgia Works and wage subsidies.

Why are we making these reforms instead of just passing a straight extension? Because we know that a paycheck is better than an unemployment check. These bipartisan reforms will help get Americans back to work while providing them with assistance during hard times, and that should truly be the focus of unemployment programs, getting people back to work.

In addition to reforming UI, we extend Federal benefits but reduce the maximum number of weeks of all benefits from 99 weeks to 59 weeks in most States by mid-2012. This reflects a more normal level typically available following recessions.

I should point out that phasing out 20 of those weeks is the President's policy. As a result of this extension, an estimated 5 million out-of-work Americans will receive an average of about $7,000 in assistance they need in this tough economy. A ``no'' vote today is a

vote to deny those Americans who are out of work those benefits.

We also end UI for millionaires. The bill simply says if you earn $1 million you have to pay back your unemployment benefits. Though not in the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, the bill applies a similar policy to food stamps. Together, these policies save taxpayers $20 million.

Additional savings are found by freezing the pay of Members of Congress and other civilian government workers for 1 year.

Next, the legislation prevents a 27 percent cut to doctors serving Medicare patients and replaces it with a 1 percent payment update in 2012 and 2013. The 2-year update is the longest that Congress has provided since 2004, which will give us time to develop a permanent solution.

In addition to the Medicare doc fix, the legislation reforms and extends temporary Medicare payment programs. Since 2002, Congress has blindly extended as many as a dozen of these programs. Given that we're running a $1 trillion deficit and borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend, the American taxpayer simply cannot afford to have Congress skip out on doing proper oversight. That's why we're extending only four of these provisions, and we're making reforms to some and requiring additional studies from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Government Accountability Office to get better data on how they're working.

These programs are the therapy caps exceptions process, premium assistance for low-income seniors, ambulance payment add-ons, and geographic payment adjustments for physician office visits, sometimes called GPCI.

In the health care field, the legislation also adopts a recommendation from President Obama that reduces subsidies to high- income seniors by requiring them to pay a greater share of their part B and D premiums. This single change reduces spending by $31 billion in the next decade.

It saves $13.4 billion in wasteful overpayments of exchange subsidies, similar to previous good government changes enacted by overwhelming bipartisan majorities and signed into law by the President, and repeals provisions in current law that hurt physician- owned hospitals.

With regard to the Nation's primary welfare program, the legislation extends through September 30, 2012, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, which is set to expire on December 31st of this year. The TANF extension includes bipartisan, bicameral reforms to ensure that taxpayer funds are protected from abuse. Those reforms include improvements to program integrity, and closing the current strip club loophole so that welfare funds cannot be accessed at ATMs in strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos.

In California alone, nearly $4 million in State-issued cash benefits was withdrawn from ATMs in casinos between January 2007 and May 2010. Another $20,000 in benefits was withdrawn from ATMs in adult entertainment establishments. I think we can all agree that this reform makes sense for taxpayers and for those on welfare.

Finally, the legislation takes two additional steps to better protect taxpayer dollars. First, it makes necessary changes to the additional child tax credit program by requiring the individual, or at least one spouse, to include a Social Security number on their tax return to claim the credit, just as you would have to do when filing for the earned income tax credit. This will reduce Federal spending by $10 billion in the next decade alone.

Second, this legislation reduces Social Security overpayments by improving coordination with States and local governments, incorporating another recommendation from President Obama.

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act incorporates more than a dozen proposals that the President has either offered, supported, or has signed into law in one variation other another. In fact, more than 90 percent of the bill is paid for with such policies.

The list of job-creating provisions and those that help families is almost too long to list, but let me highlight just a few. A bipartisan payroll tax cut for every working American that also protects Social Security; a bipartisan energy project, Keystone XL, that will create more than 100,000 jobs and is supported by both employers and unions; a bipartisan tax cut for small and large businesses to invest now in new machinery and equipment to grow their businesses and create jobs; bipartisan reforms to make sense of Federal regulations like boiler MACT, which will protect as many as 20,000 jobs; bipartisan health care reforms that will help ensure a strong health care industry; a bipartisan push for spectrum auctions that will unleash new growth and create new jobs in the technology sector; bipartisan reforms that help Americans find work faster, instead of just giving them an unemployment check.

The list goes on and on but, in short, this bill is about jobs, jobs, jobs, creating jobs and helping Americans find a job. It's paid for, it is bipartisan, and it will help get our economy back on track. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would note that the Ways and Means Committee has held 16 different hearings or markups on provisions contained in this legislation.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), who is an author of the reform to the refundable child tax credit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just note that this legislation incorporates more than a dozen proposals that the President has either offered, supported, or signed into law. In fact, more than 90 percent of the bill is paid for with such policies.

With that, I would yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

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

That is correct. The language in the bill provides States with the option to screen and test UI program applicants for illegal drug use.

That is a helpful reminder, especially to those States that look to take advantage of how this legislation removes current bureaucratic barriers preventing them from doing that sort of screening and testing, if they so choose.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci).

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

We think it is important to extend unemployment benefits, and that's what this bill does; but we do it with commonsense reforms, reforms that will help those who are unemployed get not just a paycheck from the government, but get a job and get a paycheck from the private sector.

These commonsense reforms are things like requiring unemployment insurance recipients to search for work and, if they don't have a GED, to get a GED. But we have a commonsense exception provision so that if you're an older worker and you've been a pipe fitter for 30 years, well, obviously, a GED isn't going to help you in your job search. But for those who are younger and who don't have the skills they need, it's clear that if you have that certificate, your chances of losing your job are much less.

And, third, we think they should participate in services to get them reemployed. Those are important. States need more flexibility in this area to get waivers from the Federal Government so they can enter in reemployment programs. There are many ideas in the States out there. We aren't mandating this from Washington. We want the States to be the laboratories of invention here.

We also think it's important to allow States to screen applicants for drugs. There's been a 1960s Department of Labor ruling that says States can't even look at this area. But with screening, you can get workers the proper help so they're not bounced from a job because they fail a drug test or don't get hired because they fail a drug test. These are all important, commonsense reforms, and they will help reduce our unemployment rates. They will help people get jobs.

And let me just say, in terms of job search, it is important that there be requirements in legislation to do that. Florida, for example, now requires those claiming benefits to report online each week five jobs they've applied for or to meet with a jobs counselor. The result? In the first 3 months of the new law, 65 percent of the claimants did not meet that obligation. Well,

they need to be out there assisting in finding jobs that they need.

Now, those are then keeping those resources for those who truly are unemployed and who truly can't find a job. In this era of limited resources, we need to make sure that they're used in the best, most effective and most efficient possible way. And these commonsense reforms give States the flexibility to design programs that meet the needs of their State, whether it be in drug screening, whether it be in searching for work, whether it be in employment services, or even States designing programs that allow the employers to receive part of the unemployment check so the workers get hired.

Those are the kinds of innovations that don't happen in Washington because they're saying, Extend the 99 weeks as is. Well, we can't afford to continue to deficit spend, as the other party did, $180 billion worth, since 2008, of unpaid-for unemployment benefits.

This is an important program. It's an important program that must be extended. It should be extended, and it will be extended if my colleagues vote for this legislation. And I urge support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for Mr. Upton to control 15 minutes of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

If the distinguished minority leader had read the next paragraph of the letter to me by the Congressional Budget Office, she would have read that the bill in its entirety reduces the deficit by $1 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert the entirety of the letter to me from the Congressional Budget Office into the Record.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, December 9, 2011.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have

reviewed H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job

Creation Act of 2011, as introduced on December 9, 2011. The

attached tables provide CBO's and JCT's estimates of the

legislation's budgetary effects.

Table 1 presents a summary of the expected impact on

deficits from changes in revenues and direct spending, along

with estimated changes from reductions in existing caps on

discretionary funding (those effects are subject to future

appropriation actions).

According to CBO's and JCT's estimates, enacting H.R. 3630

would change revenues and direct spending to produce

increases in the deficit of $166.8 billion in fiscal year

2012 and $25.3 billion over the 2012-2021 period.

Relative to discretionary spending projected under current

law and assuming compliance with the current-law caps on

discretionary appropriations for the next 10 years, CBO

estimates that the proposed changes in discretionary funding

caps under H.R. 3630 would lead to a reduction in projected

discretionary spending of $26.2 billion over the 2012-2021

period (as shown in the bottom panel of Table 1).

Table 2 provides detail on the changes in revenues and

direct spending for the major provisions of the legislation.

Enacting the bill would reduce revenues by $88.3 billion over

the 2012-2021 period and reduce direct spending by $63.1

billion over that period, according to CBO's and JCT's

estimates. Those changes are the budgetary effects that would

be expected to occur directly from enactment of H.R. 3630,

while proposed changes in spending subject to appropriation

are contingent upon enactment of future legislation.

Table 3 shows the estimated impact of H.R. 3630 under the

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (S-PAYGO Act). Under that

act, budget-reporting and enforcement procedures apply to

changes in the on-budget deficit from changes in revenues and

direct spending. Those procedures call for automatic

reductions in certain direct spending programs if there are

positive balances in either the 5-year or 10-year

compilations of pay-as-you-go budgetary effects.

Following the specifications in the S-PAYGO Act, which

allows for an adjustment to reflect the continuation of

current rates on the payments to physicians under Medicare,

CBO estimates that on-budget changes in direct spending and

revenues subject to the pay-as-you-go considerations would

increase deficits by $136.6 billion over the 2012-2016 period

and would reduce deficits by $4.0 billion over the 2012-2021

period.

H.R. 3630 would direct the Office of Management and Budget

to exclude from its scorecard of balances under the S-PAYGO

Act any estimated deficit reduction for the 10-year period

spanning fiscal years 2012 through 2021. The bill also

specifies that the estimate submitted for printing in the

Congressional Record should reflect three types of effects

that are not included under the S-PAYGO Act: off-budget

effects, projected changes in discretionary spending from

changes in the caps on new appropriations, and estimated

changes in net income of the National Flood Insurance Program

(but those adjustments are not included in Table 3 because

the provision has not been enacted into law).

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Sunshine

(For Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director).

Enclosure.

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

This bill will strengthen our economy and help get Americans back to work by lowering the tax burden for middle class families and job providers.

It prevents massive cuts to doctors working in the Medicare program to protect American seniors and those with disabilities, providing more stability in the doctor payment schedule than there has been in a decade.

It adopts 12 of the President's legislative initiatives, which represents the bipartisan cooperation Americans are demanding, and includes an increase in Medicare premiums for the wealthy, as the President requested.

It will extend Federal unemployment programs to 5 million Americans, those still struggling after the President's failed stimulus program. I'm still waiting for the 3.5 million jobs that were promised and the 6 percent unemployment rate. But we ensure in this bill that they get the assistance they need.

And under this bill, more than 1 year of benefits will be available. It's fully paid for with spending reductions, spending cuts, not job- killing tax hikes.

Commonsense reforms and savings in this bill include things like actually requiring those who receive an unemployment check to look for work and get a GED if they don't have a high school diploma, require undocumented workers who are seeking refundable--that's cash--tax credits to actually have a valid Social Security number, just like is required in the earned income tax credit.

And the bill freezes pay for Members of Congress and other nonmilitary government personnel. This legislation also protects critical programs by reducing the Federal tax subsidies that go to wealthier Americans. We put an end to millionaires and billionaires receiving unemployment benefits and food stamps, saving over $20 million.

We also adopt the President's plan to reduce subsidies to high-income seniors by requiring them to pay a greater share of their Medicare premium. That reduces Federal spending by $31 billion.

All told, this bill incorporates more than a dozen proposals the President has either offered, supported, or has signed into law in one variation or another. In fact, 90 percent of this bill is paid for with those policies.

I urge support of this legislation. This bill is about strengthening our economy, helping Americans find a job. It doesn't add one dime to the debt. It is bipartisan, and it will help get our economy back on track. Please vote ``yes'' for this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation and seek time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a further illustration of the glaring differences in priorities between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans have brought a plan to the floor today that is about protecting taxpayers and creating American jobs. And instead of joining us in that important task, my Democratic friends are offering yet another politically motivated motion.

In fact, one senior Democratic aide recently said to the press, and I quote, ``MTRs are all political.'' You can read it right here.

My colleagues and the American people should not be fooled. They should not be distracted by these political games.

Make no mistake. Our bill extends the payroll tax cut for every employee in this country. And if my friends on the other side of the aisle choose to vote against it, they are supporting a tax increase on every American who collects a paycheck.

This motion contains a massive 10-year tax increase. It increases taxes on employers, on small businesses, on investors, the very people we need paying more paychecks, not more taxes. In fact, this exact provision has been defeated multiple times in the U.S. Senate by Republicans and Democrats alike in a bipartisan effort.

Our bill is about strengthening our economy, getting Americans back to work through commonsense reforms to the unemployment insurance program. It will ensure American seniors and the disabled are protected by preventing massive cuts to doctors working in the Medicare program. And it will be paid for with fiscally responsible reforms, not job- killing tax hikes.

I urge my colleagues, vote against this motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 674) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities, to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility for certain healthcare-related programs, and for other purposes.

Madam 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.

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

I come to the floor today in support of permanently repealing the onerous, job-killing 3 percent withholding law. During House action last month, this legislation garnered more than 400 votes for repeal and passed, as amended, with an overwhelming 95 votes in the Senate last week.

The legislation, which has been championed by Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Wally Herger and our Democrat colleague Earl Blumenauer, is supported by President Obama and makes clear that when we work together, we can find bipartisan solutions to the laws and regulations that stifle job creation. This legislation does just that and frees up valuable resources businesses can use for hiring.

In addition to the provisions in the House-passed 3 percent withholding bill, the Senate amendment contains a variety of veterans- related provisions--a group of Americans clearly deserving of our support.

Finally, the Senate amendment retains another provision passed by this House with bipartisan support and authored by one of the newest members of the Ways and Means Committee, Representative Diane Black. Mrs. Black's legislation modifies the income definition for determining eligibility for exchange subsidies, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, conforming the definition of income in the Democrats' health care law to the standards used by other Federal low- income programs such as food stamps and public housing. In doing so, taxpayers save $13 billion, and Medicaid funds will not be diverted away from serving America's low-income families.

Madam Speaker, today we can take the final step and send this deficit-reducing and job-creating legislation to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Senate amendment to H.R. 674, and I look forward to seeing the President sign this bill into law.

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) control the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bill Goodwin in recognition of his 75th birthday this Wednesday, November 2nd.

Bill Goodwin served as a page in the United States House of Representatives during the 83rd Congress. Sponsored by former Michigan Representative George Dondero, he began his time as a bench page in January of 1953 at the age of 15 in an effort to support his widowed mother and four siblings back home. Bill was quickly moved to work in the Democratic Cloakroom where he answered calls, organized the transportation of documents and later guarded lobby doors and access to the House floor. Additionally, he participated in the page glee club, sang for page graduations, and was even asked by members of Congress to sing the Lord's Prayer on the Floor while the House was in recess.

Most notably, Bill can be remembered for his valiant efforts during the 1954 Puerto Rican shootings in the House Chamber where he assisted in carrying stretchers from the House floor. In a widely popularized photograph of the events, he can be recognized carrying a stretcher bearing Representative Alvin Bentley down the House steps.

In 1955, Bill graduated from the Capitol Page School and returned to Michigan to finish his studies. He entered Wayne State University as a veterinarian student, but left two years later to return home to support his family. He worked as a technician at National Cash Register for several years, and left the company to begin his own cash register business.

An avid entrepreneur, Bill later delved into the hovercraft business, where he secured several patents for the vehicle over the years. Ever the businessman, Bill currently operates his own landscaping business and enjoys taking part in activities such as hunting, and singing in the church choir.

Bill Goodwin's contributions to his family, the State of Michigan, and this House of Representatives have been truly remarkable. On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan, I am honored today to recognize Bill Goodwin in celebration of his 75th birthday. I hope the year to come will bring him health, happiness, and special times with family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 448, I call up the bill (H.R. 674) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities, 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.R. 674.

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

I come to the floor today in strong support of H.R. 674 to repeal the onerous, job-killing 3 percent withholding law. While this legislation has 269 cosponsors, I'd like to acknowledge the leaders on the bill, Ways and Means Health Committee Chairman Wally Herger and our Democrat Ways and Means colleague Congressman Earl Blumenauer. In addition to these advocates, we also have 25 other members of the Ways and Means Committee supporting this legislation--a clear signal of the strong bipartisan support for repeal of this 3 percent withholding rule.

Job creators know all too well that this provision, like many efforts to increase Federal revenue and tax compliance, is lined with paperwork, complexity and costs--all of the things that hinder, rather than help, promote a climate for job creation.

By considering and passing this bipartisan bill, we will unlock new opportunities for hiring. Job creators have told us just that, and it's why this legislation has the support of a diverse coalition of more than 170 groups, including the Government Withholding Relief Coalition.

Like those job creators, others recognize the need for repeal, including President Obama. In the statement of administration policy in support of H.R. 674, the administration noted that ``the effect of the repeal of the withholding requirement would be to avoid a decrease in cash flow to these contractors which would allow them to retain these funds and use them to create jobs and pay suppliers.'' Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more.

Supporting the repeal of the 3 percent withholding law is a demonstration that Washington can work together. With a strong bipartisan vote, we can reduce the uncertainty facing America's job creators, and we can free up valuable resources businesses can use for hiring.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 674 and urge the Senate to swiftly take up and pass this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) be designated to control the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 448, I call up the bill (H.R. 2576) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility for certain healthcare-related programs, 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.R. 2576.

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

I am pleased to come to the floor today and share my time with one of our committee's newest members, the gentlewoman from Tennessee, Representative Diane Black. In taking the lead on this legislation, Mrs. Black has identified an area of poor stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and she's taken steps to save the taxpayers $13 billion. I'm happy to support her and this legislation.

H.R. 2576 modifies the income definition for determining eligibility for exchange subsidies, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. The legislation conforms the definition of income in the Democrats' health care law to the standards used by other Federal low- income programs such as food stamps and public housing.

By aligning this definition with other Federal subsidy programs, the legislation ensures that taxpayer funds will not be used to enroll middle class individuals into Medicaid, which is an abuse of the program's mission, to provide targeted assistance to those who are in most need of help.

One of the most encouraging outcomes of Representative Black's legislation is that it has garnered bipartisan support, including the support of President Obama. In its Statement of Administration Policy, the Obama administration affirms its support for passage and goes so far as to say that, and I quote, ``The Administration looks forward to working with the House to ensure the bill achieves the intended result.''

Today, I urge my colleagues in the House to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2576. I encourage our colleagues in the Senate to quickly follow suit.

I ask unanimous consent that Mrs. Black be designated to control the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill that we're talking about here today which repeals the 3 percent across-the-board rule is cosponsored by two-thirds of this House. This bill has been endorsed by the President of the United States as is. And when the current minority was in the majority, in the stimulus bill they offered this exact legislation, full repeal, without any complications. And then when the final version came over, it was full repeal for 1 year without any changes or complications. I obviously am in strong opposition to this motion to recommit.

Then we get the analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation which says, in typical understatement from the joint committee: Your proposal poses some administrative difficulties. Some?

The burden is going to be on State and local governments to figure out which contractors are or are not delinquent. And either there's a violation of taxpayer privacy, which I don't think anybody in this House would support, a violation of rule 6103, or very complex procedures are going to have to be put in place for government to figure out which contractors are in compliance and which aren't.

As the Joint Committee on Taxation goes on to say: The IRS would need to build the infrastructure to handle the volume of requests from State and local government entities. Implementation difficulties limit somewhat the revenue gain from withholding on State and local governments.

This is more complication in the Tax Code. It goes against what a majority of this House wants to do. It goes against what the President of the United States wants to do. Vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that obviously the murder of any citizen in any country is something to be avoided. But let's just set the record straight that the homicide rate since 2002 against union members has declined 85 percent in Colombia. I think this is an example that the efforts of the Colombian Government are succeeding. And the homicide rate for the general population has declined by 44 percent, and kidnappings as well have declined.

The ILO has also removed Colombia from their Labor Watch List. They did that in 2010, recognizing their collective bargaining rules, recognizing the measures they've adopted to combat violence against trade union members. And so we have a very different picture being painted by the reality there.

I would also point out that three main labor confederations have called the Labor Action Plan the most significant social achievement in Colombia in 50 years.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the lead chief Democrat cosponsor of the bill we're considering today, the Colombia trade promotion agreement, Mr. Farr of California.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

Does the gentleman from Michigan have any additional speakers?

At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).

At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I advise my colleague that I have no further requests for time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that well before the Labor Action Plan was signed by President Obama and President Santos, Colombia had raised their labor standards and aided union members in the exercise of their rights well before the action plan ever occurred. Colombia now has implemented all eight of the ILO core conventions--six more than the United States. The statute of limitations for murder was raised in 2009 from 20 to 30 years. The minimum prison sentence was raised from 13 to 25 years and the maximum was raised from 25 to 40. The authority to declare the legality of strikes is now in the purview of the judiciary, not the executive branch, which depoliticizes these decisions and shows the transition and progress that Colombia has made in this area. Employers no longer have a unilateral right to force a strike to arbitration. The constitution reforms in 2004 shortened by 75 percent the time it takes to prosecute a homicide case. As I mentioned earlier, the murder rate in Colombia against union members has declined by 85 percent since 2002.

As my Democrat colleagues in support of the Colombian Trade Agreement have said, the Labor Action Plan is the most stringent Labor Action Plan anywhere in the world that has ever occurred.

With regard to the cooperative issue, the U.S. Trade Representative testified in the Ways and Means Committee when we worked up this legislation that that loophole has been addressed and has been closed by the Colombian government. This is something the administration has agreed has occurred as well, not just myself.

Let me just address this issue of the Labor Action Plan being placed inside the trade agreement. I would just say that to condition entry into force of the trade agreement with compliance with the Labor Action Plan is completely inappropriate, and that's why there was bipartisan opposition to doing that. I certainly welcome the gentleman's statement that I was able to get the administration to acquiesce to not having the Labor Action Plan put into the agreement. Frankly, there was bipartisan agreement, with the administration agreeing as well on that point.

Let me just say there is a labor chapter in the agreement itself that addresses the labor issues that appropriately fall within the scope of the agreement. The Labor Action Plan goes well beyond that scope. Let me say why. The purpose of the implementing bill, the purpose of the bill before the House today, is to make changes to the United States laws that are necessary to implement the agreement. The Labor Action Plan doesn't require any changes to U.S. law. So therefore it should not and is not in the bill. Apart from being inappropriate, it's really unnecessary to condition entry into force on a labor action agreement that the Colombians have agreed to.

They have demonstrated their commitment to fulfilling the terms of the Labor Action Plan. They have satisfied, and on time, every single action item that has come due thus far. And our administration has certified that they have satisfied those conditions. There's only a few conditions that remain, which are due at the end of the year, and a few due in 2012, which we fully expect they will completely agree to.

And let me just say that it is high time we took up this agreement. Last year Colombian exporters paid virtually no tariffs when they shipped goods to the United States, but our exporters paid a tariff on an average of 11 percent trying to enter into their market. This agreement removes that imbalance by eliminating the Colombian duties. This need is urgent. Our exporters have paid nearly $4 billion in unnecessary duties since this agreement was signed and has been pending over the years.

We know from experience these agreements will yield the benefits that we say they will. Between 2000 and 2010, total U.S. exports increased by just over 60 percent, but our exports to countries in which we have trade agreements increased by over 90 percent. Our exports to Peru, for example, have more than doubled since the passage of the U.S.-Peru trade agreement, and those are very important statistics in these tough economic times.

So this is a major economic opportunity. Delay has been costly. There are major economies whose workers and exporters compete directly with ours. They have moved aggressively to sign and implement trade agreements with Colombia, Canada, Argentina, Brazil. Those undermine our competitive edge for our Nation and our workers and our families.

So we've been falling behind. We've been losing export market share that took years to build, frankly. For example, just the U.S. share of Colombia's corn, wheat, and soybean imports fell from 71 percent in 2008 to 27 percent in 2010 after Argentina's exporters gained preferential access.

Obviously, we have seen, also, a decline in our exports of wheat since Canada signed its trade agreement with Colombia, 2 years after. They entered and enforced their agreement with Colombia, which was signed 2 years after ours. So we owe it to U.S. workers. We owe it to our exporters to approve this agreement now and to press the President for prompt implementation.

I would urge strong support for this agreement, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

I would just say, this agreement will create new market access for U.S. exporters of consumer and industrial products. Over 87 percent of our exports to Panama will become duty-free immediately, with the remaining tariffs to be phased out that are left over a 10-year period. This will cut by more than half the average 8 percent tariff that our exporters face.

This will provide U.S. firms with an advantage over major competitors from Europe and Asia. And because Panama recently signed an agreement with the EU, our advantage is dependent on having our agreement enter into force immediately. So it's not just about what the U.S. and Panama are doing in a vacuum; it's about what the rest of the world is doing as well.

As I said, there are key export sectors that get immediate duty-free treatment: aircraft, construction equipment, fertilizers, medical and scientific equipment. This levels the playing field for our exporters versus importers from Panama, and this agreement will create new opportunities for our farmers and ranchers.

More than half of the current U.S. farm exports to Panama will become duty-free immediately. It gives our U.S. farmers an advantage over our EU and Canadian competitors. Our exports in agriculture to Panama now face a 15 percent average tariff. Our exports of pork, rice, soybeans and wheat, and most fresh fruit will receive immediate duty-free treatment, while our competitors in Asia and Europe will continue to face tariffs on those commodities as high as 90 percent. And that's why you've seen great support, both bipartisan, for this agreement. The American Farm Bureau estimates that the increase in farm exports to Panama alone could increase our agricultural exports by $46 million a year.

Obviously, this agreement also provides our access to Panamanian services markets. It will give our U.S. service firms market access, national treatment, regulatory transparency, and that is going to be very helpful as we continue to try to grow our economy and create jobs here in the United States.

I would agree with my friend from Massachusetts, Panama has improved their tax transparency; and because of the cooperation, adoption of the Tax Information Exchange Agreement, as well as other numerous double taxation treaties that I won't repeat that he referenced, they have been removed by the OECD from the so-called ``gray list'' to join countries such as the United States that meet internationally-agreed-to tax standards.

So by almost any measure, this agreement is positive, and it is something that we should strongly support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would just note that in countries that we have trade agreements with, we have a surplus in manufacturing exports.

With that, I would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Yes, I would be glad to.

If the gentleman would yield, first of all, the agreement includes a robust safeguard that allows the United States to raise tariffs if imports from South Korea surge and injure the domestic textile industry.

Second, the agreement includes a number of provisions to prevent transshipment of products from China or other third countries to ensure that U.S. companies are competing only against South Korean imports.

Third, KORUS uses a ``yarn forward'' rule of origin, which requires that the yarn production and all operations forward occur either in South Korea or in the United States. This stringent rule is consistent with other U.S. trade agreements.

Fourth, the agreement will open up significant new commercial opportunities for U.S. textile and apparel exporters and support the creation of new textile and apparel jobs in the United States.

South Korea is the 10th largest market for U.S. textile and apparel exports. The ITC estimates that U.S. textile exports would increase by $130 million to $140 million, that's 85 to 92 percent, and apparel exports would increase by $39 million to $45 million, that's 125 to 140 percent.

U.S. textile and apparel exporters are currently at a significant disadvantage vis-a-vis European textile and apparel exporters. U.S. companies currently face average tariffs in South Korea of 10.2 percent on U.S. textile and apparel exports. As a result of the EU-South Korea FTA entering into force, EU textile and apparel exporters now face an average tariff of just 0.1 percent.

If the gentleman would yield, we are currently working with U.S. Customs and with the Koreans to avoid this problem. The agreement itself includes a number of aggressive provisions to address transshipment. In addition, U.S. Customs and South Korean Customs have worked closely to develop state-of-the-art procedures, including advanced risk management techniques. For example, textile products are automatically categorized as ``high risk'' and subject to a greater level of scrutiny by U.S. Customs.

In addition, the agreement authorizes textile-specific fraud detection and verification programs. For example, article 4.3 of the agreement requires the South Korean Government to share detailed information about textile manufacturers in South Korea, including production capacity, supplier information, and machinery. This allows U.S. Customs to quickly and accurately estimate likely production and to flag suspicious shipments and companies.

The agreement also allows U.S. Customs to send inspectors to South Korea to conduct on-site verifications to prevent evasion and transshipment. These inspectors are allowed to make unannounced visits; and if the South Korea firm refuses to allow U.S. Customs officials to inspect, Customs can suspend preferential tariff treatment for goods from that company.

U.S. Customs maintains a permanent Customs liaison in our Seoul Embassy who focuses closely on transshipment issues. South Korea has already started implementing its commitments in preparation for the trade agreement. South Korea has dramatically increased resources to address transshipment, including tasking 157 Customs employees to work exclusively to verify the accuracy of country of origin information to products going to countries in which South Korea has a trade agreement.

I will continue to work with Customs and the Koreans to ensure that trade enforcement is a high priority in the Ways and Means Committee.

If the gentleman would yield, actually the tariff asymmetry works the other way around. By value, 73 percent of U.S. textile exports to South Korea would receive duty-free treatment immediately upon entering into force. In contrast, only 52 percent of South Korean textile exports to the U.S. by value would become duty-free immediately.

So, in addition, it's worth noting that South Korean exports to the United States have fallen by 50 percent over the past 5 years, while U.S. exports to South Korea have nearly doubled.

If the gentleman would continue to yield, I look forward to continuing to work together with you and your colleagues in the Textile Caucus to work to address your concerns and ensure that the USTR is aware of industry concerns and that Customs adequately prioritizes its trade enforcement responsibility, particularly as it relates to textiles.

I would just note that this agreement is endorsed by the three big automakers as well as by the United Auto Workers.

With that, I would yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Select Revenue Subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

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

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

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

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

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, I do want to just touch on some points raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). We did work closely together on the supplemental agreement last year with the administration, with automakers, with autoworkers, and that is incorporated in the legislation before us today.

It does address, as the gentleman from Michigan pointed out, key tariff and nontariff barriers, including numerous provisions to ensure that South Korea cannot use a regulatory system or process to block our exports.

The International Trade Commission estimates that the removal of nontariff barriers alone will add an additional between $48 million and $66 million in new exports. That's in addition to the $194 million dollars in new exports expected from lower Korean tariffs on autos alone.

Inaction on the Korean trade agreement has allowed the European Union and other competitors to step in and take our market share. That's diminished our leadership in Asia. The Korean trade agreement is key to our engagement in Asia, and it will be a critical counter to Chinese influence in the region.

We've heard a lot about China today, but how do we counter Chinese influence in the region through this agreement?

This agreement, also, I think, is critically important because it deepens our ties with a strong and important ally. The United States and South Korea have had a 60-year history of standing together. This agreement is really a step forward in our bilateral relationship, and it is an important step that we need to take today.

I would urge passage of this agreement. It has been endorsed--and I have a 4-page list of organizations and associations, including the American Farm Bureau, the Business Roundtable, Heritage, and other groups, a 4-page list--by many organizations supporting the passage of this agreement.

[From The Committee on Ways and Means]

The Support for Job Creating Trade Agreements Is Large . . . and

Growing

Aerospace Industries Association, Agri Beef Co., American

Apparel & Footwear Association, American Automotive Policy

Council, American Chamber of Commerce in Korea, American

Chemistry Council, American Council of Life Insurers,

American Farm Bureau Federation, American Feed Industry

Association, American Forest & Paper Association.

American Frozen Food Institute, American International

Automobile Dealers Association (AIADA), American Iron and

Steel Institute, American Meat Institute, American Peanut

Product Manufacturers, Inc., American Potato Trade Alliance,

American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean

Association, Americans for Tax Reform, Animal Health

Institute, Asia-Pacific Council of American Chambers of

Commerce.

Association of American Chambers of Commerce in Latin

America, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Blue Diamond

Growers, Business Roundtable, Business Software Alliance,

California Cherry Export Association, California Date

Commission, California Dried Plum Board, California Fig

Advisory Board, California Pear Growers.

California Strawberry Commission, California Table Grape

Commission, California Walnut Commission, Campbell Soup

Company, Cargill Incorporated, Club for Growth, Coalition of

Service Industries, Commodity Markets Council, Computer &

Communications Industry Association, ConAgra Foods, Inc.,

Corn Refiners Association.

Dairylea Cooperative Inc., Distilled Spirits Council of the

United States, Dow Chemical Company, Emergency Committee for

American Trade, Equity Cooperative Livestock Sales

Association, Footwear Distributors & Retailers of America,

FreedomWorks, Grocery Manufacturers Association.

Heritage Action, Hormel Foods Corporation, Idaho Barley

Commission, Idaho Grain Producers Association, International

Dairy Foods Association, International Intellectual Property

Alliance, JBS USA, Kansas Association of Wheat Growers,

Kentucky Small Grain Growers Association, Kraft Foods.

Land O'Lakes, Inc., Latin America Trade Coalition, Montana

Grain Growers Association, Motion Picture Association of

America, National Association of Manufacturers, National

Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National

Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers

Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National

Chicken Council.

National Confectioners Association, National Corn Growers

Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives,

National Fisheries Institute, National Foreign Trade Council,

National Grain and Feed Association, National Grape

Cooperative Association, Inc., National Meat Association,

National Milk Producers Federation, National Oilseed

Processors Association.

National Pork Producers Council, National Potato Council,

National Renderers Association, National Sorghum Producers,

National Sunflower Association, National Taxpayers Union,

National Turkey Federation, North American Equipment Dealers

Association, North Dakota Grain Growers Association,

Northwest Dairy Association/Darigold.

Northwest Horticulture Council, Ocean Spray Cranberries,

Inc., Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association, Outdoor Industry

Association, Pet Food Institute, Produce Marketing

Association, Recording Industry Association of America,

Retail Industry Leaders Association, Seaboard Foods,

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

Smithfield Foods, South Dakota Wheat Inc., SPI: The

Plastics Industry Trade Association, Sunmaid Growers of

California, Sunsweet Growers, Inc., Sweetener Users

Association, TechNet, Texas Wheat Producers Association, The

Financial Services Roundtable, Third Way.

Travel Goods Association, Tyson Foods, Inc., U.S. Apple

Association, U.S. Canola Association, U.S. Chamber of

Commerce, U.S. Council for International Business, U.S. Dairy

Export Council, U.S.-Korea FTA Business Coalition, U.S. Meat

Export Federation, U.S. Premium Beef.

Unilever United States, United Egg Association, United Egg

Producers, United Producers, Inc., US Dry Bean Council, US

Wheat Associates, US-Colombia Business Partnership, USA Dry

Pea & Lentil Council, USA Poultry & Egg Export Council, USA

Rice Federation, Valley Fig Growers, Washington State Potato

Commission, Welch Foods Inc., Western Growers Association.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker may postpone further proceedings on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2832 as though under clause 8(a)(1)(A) of rule XX.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from Washington that I have no other speakers and am prepared to close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I support H.R. 2832, the bill that renews the Generalized System of Preferences, known as GSP, and also contains the Trade Adjustment Assistance, also called TAA.

This bill really is the cornerstone of the carefully crafted bipartisan and bicameral agreement that then prompted the President to send the three trade agreements to the Congress last Monday. So this has allowed us, this legislation today, has allowed us to move forward on a long-stalled trade agenda.

The bill renews GSP, which the House passed last month, and that is the largest trade preference program and is estimated to account for 82,000 U.S. jobs that are directly or indirectly related to that program.

The second portion of this bill, the bill that reauthorizes Trade Adjustment Assistance, is absolutely critical because it is one of the core items that has allowed these trade agreements to come forward. And this legislation really does ensure smaller government and less spending on an important program in these difficult economic times where we have a growing debt and deficit.

This program was streamlined and scaled back, and just quickly I'll note some of the highlights. There is no TAA for public sector workers. The number of weeks was reduced from 156 in the 2009 law down to 117 weeks. Also, there is no double-dipping. These benefits run concurrently with current unemployment insurance, or UI benefits, and the health care subsidy was reduced in this legislation.

We also eliminated half of the allowable justifications for the program's training waivers to ensure that those who are eligible for TAA are in those training programs with only limited exceptions.

We also consolidated and reduced all the non-income support expenditures. We reduced funding for the TAA for firms, and also added enhanced performance measures. Now, no worker will qualify for this unless certified by the Department of Labor. This is an important attempt to bring some reform and integrity to our unemployment programs, particularly by strengthening the job training provision where 80 percent of the waivers were used to waive people out of the requirement they job train.

This is an important reform; and it's going to be an important reform in this bill to make sure we implement it so as we move forward on the employment insurance debate later this year, as the gentleman from Washington State alluded to, we actually have a track record on some of these items and can see how they're at least beginning to work.

So I urge my colleagues to support not only all three trade agreements, but also what really was the cornerstone for bringing those three trade agreements to the floor, H.R. 2832.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I reserve a point of order.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw the point of order, and I rise in opposition to this motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, the implementing bill before us reflects a carefully negotiated agreement that involved the White House, the U.S. Trade Representative, and bipartisan staffs and members from both Ways and Means and Finance. All four offices were consulted at every step of the process and all sides were fully involved. This provision was not part of that negotiation. In fact, it was not even raised during negotiations. This threatens to undue the carefully negotiated terms of this compromise and set our trade agenda back.

This motion is a true poison pill. Any change, even moving a single comma, would strip the bill of fast-track protections under Trade Promotion Authority in the United States Senate. Thus, this motion really isn't about Chinese currency practices. It's an effort to kill the Colombian free trade agreement. In fact, the irony is that the only reason the minority is even allowed to offer this motion is because then-Speaker Pelosi took the unprecedented step of turning off the clock on TPA 3 years ago on the Colombian free trade agreement. Passing this or any other motion would reward that decision to put our trade agenda on ice--a decision that hurt our economy, cost us jobs, as U.S. farmers and exporters lost out on opportunity in that fast-growing country.

Finally, with respect to the substance of this motion, everyone agrees that China's currency is undervalued. China must let its currency appreciate and commit to allowing market supply and demand to determine its value. But at the same time, we need to recognize that currency is not the only barrier that U.S. businesses face in China and that legislation on currency is not a silver bullet.

I plan to hold a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee this month on all of these issues, including currency; but this is the wrong vehicle for such legislation and would kill the very important Colombian trade agreement. I therefore urge defeat of this motion and passage of this important trade agreement.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today is a good day. Many of us have been working for years for the opportunity to approve our pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. We have called on the President throughout his term to submit all three agreements to Congress, but opposition among some Democrats led many to believe that we would have to settle for just one or two of the agreements. Today, we have all three pending agreements before us. Approving them will resuscitate the U.S. trade agenda, create U.S. jobs, and help get our economy moving again.

The U.S. International Trade Commission has estimated that the three agreements will increase U.S. exports by at least $13 billion. By the President's own estimation, that could generate 250,000 new jobs. The ITC has also determined that these agreements will increase U.S. gross domestic product by at least $10 billion, a stimulus that doesn't cost a single dime in government spending.

This agreement disproportionately benefits the U.S. because it rectifies the current imbalance in U.S.-Colombian trade. Last year, Colombian exporters paid virtually no tariffs when they shipped goods here, but our exporters paid an average of over 11 percent. The agreement removes that imbalance by eliminating Colombian duties. The need is urgent: Our exporters have paid nearly $4 billion in unnecessary duties since this agreement was signed.

We know from experience that these agreements will yield benefits. Between 2000 and 2010, total U.S. exports increased by just over 60 percent, but our exports to countries with which we have trade agreements increased by over 90 percent. Our exports to Peru, for example, more than doubled since passage of the U.S.-Peru trade agreement, from $2.7 billion in 2006 to $6.1 billion in 2010. That's $2.4 billion more than the ITC had forecast.

In the face of this major economic opportunity, delay has been costly. Major economies whose workers and exporters compete directly with ours have moved aggressively to sign and implement trade agreements with Colombia, undermining our competitive edge. Our workers and job-creating exporters are falling behind, losing export market share that took years to build. For example, the U.S. share of Colombia's corn, wheat, and soybean imports fell from 71 percent in 2008 to 27 percent in 2010 after Argentina's exporters gained preferential access to the Colombian market. And after Canada's trade agreement with Colombia went into effect on August 15, Colombia's largest wheat importer dropped U.S. suppliers in favor of Canadian wheat. Adding insult to injury, Canada signed its trade agreement with Colombia 2 years after we signed our agreement with Colombia.

In short, we owe it to U.S. workers and exporters to approve this agreement now and to press the President for prompt implementation.

It's not only considerable economic benefits that are at stake. The delay in implementing these agreements has left strong allies out in the cold. Colombia, for example, currently sits with the United States on the U.N. Security Council and chairs its Iran sanctions committee.

Colombian troops have served alongside U.S. troops at war, and Colombia has been training militaries and police around the world in counter-narcotics and counter-insurgency. As five former commanders of U.S. Southern Command have said: ``This agreement will meet our duty to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Colombians as they have stood by the United States as friends and allies.''

I urge my colleagues to join me in approving this important agreement, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

I have two more speakers at 1 minute each; so my plan is to have those be the conclusion of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rivera).

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 425, I call up the bill (H.R. 3079) to implement the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I urge rapid passage of this legislation to implement the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement. This agreement enjoys broad bipartisan support, and it's clear why. It levels the trade playing field between the U.S. and Panama. It is good for U.S. companies, workers, and farmers; and it advances our national security and leadership in the Western Hemisphere.

Right now, Panama enjoys almost total duty-free access to the United States market because it is a beneficiary of various trade preference programs. Given the importance of a stable and prosperous Panama, giving Panama this market access is warranted. However, U.S. industrial and consumer products going to Panama face an average duty of 7 percent, and U.S. agricultural exports face an average tariff of 15 percent. Implementing this agreement will level the playing field for U.S. exporters by drastically reducing or ending Panama's tariff on U.S. goods. Most U.S. consumer and industrial products will immediately become duty-free, as will half of U.S. farm exports. Any remaining tariffs will decrease quickly thereafter.

Opening Panama's market will be a boon for U.S. companies, workers, and farmers. The Panamanian economy is rapidly growing and is expected to more than double by 2020. Panama is already one of the largest markets for some U.S. exporters and service firms. The importance of Panama will only grow for these firms and others as we gain greater access to this expanding economy. This is also true for our farmers, whose exports to Panama are expected to significantly increase under the agreement. Not only will American farmers benefit from lower tariffs into Panama, but they will also benefit from the removal of nontariff and regulatory barriers that discriminate against U.S. agricultural products. Best of all, the agreement will create new jobs and greater prosperity in the United States without adding to the deficit.

Finally, the benefits of the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement are not only economic. The agreement is critical to fostering our commitment to Latin America, enhancing our leadership in the Western Hemisphere, and reaffirming our relationship with a close friend. Panama is obviously a vital ally in terms of port and maritime security. It is also an important partner in combating drug trafficking and terrorism. Of course there is also Panama's crown jewel, the canal. The United States is the largest user of the canal, and canal security is paramount to our national security and broadly to open sea routes. Panama's cooperation in maintaining the security of the canal has been vital to our security and the region.

Madam Speaker, for all of these reasons, the time to wait has passed. We urgently need to pass this important job-creating legislation and move forward on an aggressive trade agenda once again.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I understand that I have 21 minutes remaining.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 425, I call up the bill (H.R. 3080) to implement the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

The U.S.-Korea agreement is the most commercially significant trade agreement considered by the Congress in 17 years, and it couldn't come at a better time. With the unemployment rate stuck stubbornly above 9 percent, we must seek out and take advantage of all opportunities to create American jobs. This agreement, known as KORUS, will do just that by supporting hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs in all sectors.

Last year, I worked closely with the administration, the major auto makers, auto workers and Mr. Levin to address persistent barriers to U.S. automobile trade with South Korea. The supplemental agreement which is incorporated in the legislation before us today addresses key tariff and nontariff barriers, and includes numerous provisions to ensure that South Korea can no longer use its regulatory system to block U.S. exports.

The International Trade Commission estimates that removal of nontariff barriers will add an additional $48 million to $66 million in new exports. This, in addition to the $194 million in expected new exports from lower Korean tariffs on U.S. autos.

Inaction on KORUS has allowed the EU and other competitors to step in and steal U.S. market share and has diminished U.S. leadership in Asia. KORUS is key to our engagement in Asia and a critical bulwark to Chinese influence in the region. I call on the President to promptly enter this agreement into force so that our workers, companies, farmers, and ranchers can get off the sidelines and recapture market share. KORUS and the other two

agreements we will pass this week will create sustainable and well- paying jobs.

Passage of KORUS will also deepen ties with a strong and important ally. The United States and South Korea have stood shoulder-to-shoulder for more than 60 years. KORUS is the next step forward in our bilateral relationship, and today's action could not come soon enough.

I look forward to welcoming President Lee during his state visit tomorrow, and to congratulating him personally on passage of this important agreement.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have?

I yield the gentleman 1 minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I have just one further request for time, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I have no further requests for time, so I will reserve the balance of my time.