Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat amusing listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle fulminating against the notion that we would allow Delegates to participate in our deliberations of the Committee of the Whole. Obviously the people either haven't read the proposal, or they don't care about what the content is, because these are duly elected representatives that we are proposing to be able to enter into efforts only under operation as Committee of the Whole. While they are signaling their intent, how they would vote, that if at any point they provide the margin that would change the outcome, we provided for a revote. So we are protecting the integrity of the House, it is just when we are operating in the Committee of the Whole, and it is to give voice, for example, to the Republican Delegate from Puerto Rico who represents 4 million people who do pay taxes, who fight in our wars; Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents full tax-paying citizens of the District of Columbia who have been disenfranchised. In effect we have a tax-paying colony of United States citizens. That is our Nation's capital. It is shameful that Eleanor Holmes Norton hasn't been extended full voting status, but we will work on that ultimately by changing the Constitution.

Until that day comes, this represents a reasonable compromise to give voice to the men and women who are Delegates, who play an important role, including Puerto Rico, a Republican Delegate, and Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents American citizens disenfranchised in the District.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today on a somewhat lighter note. While we are dealing with affairs of state, we are going to hear partisan bickering back and forth. We are going to be dealing with major issues or war and peace and global warming. We also have an opportunity this week to reinstitute a tradition that continues to unify and uplift Congress, and I am speaking about bike-partisanship. The last 15 years have signaled a renaissance in cycling--the feats of Greg LaMond and Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France; Americans using over a hundred million bicycles around the country; the landmark ISTEA legislation reauthorizing the Surface Transportation Act that since 1991 has directed $8 billion to biking and walking and trail activities, $4.5 billion in the last bill alone, another record.

We are working for ways to enhance the status of people who burn calories, not oil, people who take up less space on congested roadways, do not contribute to air pollution, and simplify the parking problems faced by more Americans.

It is not just better for the cyclists, but it is better for the motorists who don't have the cyclists competing with them. It is better for the health of Americans. We know that we are dealing with an issue of obesity in America, a lack of exercise. Think right now how many Americans are stuck in traffic on their way to ride an exercise bike at a health club.

Well, we have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, by enlisting friends on both sides of the aisle to rejoin the Congressional Bicycle Caucus. I strongly urge that my colleagues respond to the invitation that is going out today along with my co-chairman, Tom Petri, a great member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to join with us. Last session we had over 160 bike-partisan members from both parties who dealt with issues of transportation. We have done activities that involve members and staff and family. We urge fellow members to sign up now to be ready for the hundreds of cyclists that will join us for the annual Bicycle Summit in March. This is one activity that brings us together that all people can benefit from, and they will be entitled to their membership pin in the Congressional Bicycle Caucus.

I strongly urge that we take these steps for a healthier America, for an environmentally sensitive America, for an America where children can get to school safely on their own, and that we are able to live a little lighter on the land.

Madam Speaker, today, all over Capitol Hill people are preparing for the State of the Union speech. Iraq, global warming, health care are all at the top of everyone's list. One that, unfortunately, will be suspiciously absent is the topic of a conference that is taking place just across the Potomac River, the third National Dialogue on Water Resources. Yet there is nothing that is more important than the discussion about water. Indeed, if you are talking about war and peace, climate change and health care, they are all directly related.

Water is not just a potential source of conflict, but of conflict resolution. You can actually measure water flows in quality. If the Israelies and the Palestinians can solve their water issues, who knows where it could lead.

Health. One-half the people in the world today who are sick are sick due to water-borne disease, almost all of which is preventable.

Global warming. We are concerned about global warming because of the impacts that are directly water-related: rising ocean levels, coastal erosion, storm surges, disappearing snow pack and polar ice, flooding, rainstorms; too much water too little water in the wrong places at the wrong time. Global warming is all about water.

It is my hope that regardless of what is discussed in the State of the Union and thereafter, that we can add this subject to the top of the list of the 110th Congress, to work with the administration and people on both sides of the aisle to build on one of the few areas of bipartisan progress that we have seen in the recent toxic atmosphere on the House floor.

In the 108th Congress, we were able to work to reform the flood insurance programs, before Katrina. In the 109th Congress, we had the landmark Water For the Poor Act that I was able to work on with Republicans Henry Hyde and Senator Bill Frist.

There are some simple steps that we can take now. I hope that Chair Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf will fund our international water and sanitation commitments. I hope that out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee we will update the hopelessly outmoded Corps of Engineers water principles and guidelines that are over a quarter century old and lead to bad decisions. I hope that we can continue Chair Frank's commitment to further flood insurance reform.

Others are going to take more of a lift, but we can use water supply and quality in the farm bill to pay farmers to do the right thing and make a profound difference on water around the country. We can shift our frame of reference to deal with basin-wide water management; and we can use the huge value implicit in water resources to fund our crying needs.

At core, Madam Speaker, it is time for us to match our policies on where the water comes from, which date back to the beginning of our country and were basically frozen in place by 1950, to overlap with our water quality and environmental and health protections which have been developed largely since that time.

Money is actually less of a problem because, while water is priceless, we are doing silly things with it; for example, subsidizing people to grow cotton in the desert. When we have an era where for bottled water, some people are paying up to $8 a gallon or more, we are paying more than gasoline or cheap wine, there are ways that we can tap into that value. We spend too much on uncoordinated infrastructure investments with inappropriate pricing, poor planning and incremental fragmented management.

We have the possibility to refine those partnerships, both public and private, to bring together the Federal agencies, even Congress itself, to limit our stovepipe mentality with fewer subcommittees and more policy management. It is not really that hard. College students, farmers, local government officials, Girl Scouts and church youth groups understand these basic principles after the most basic of study. It is time for the rest of the players to catch up with them, and I hope starting with the 110th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, after 12 years of failure to deal meaningfully with a comprehensive energy policy Republicans instead, gave this Congress and the American public a legislative grab bag. Today, under Democratic leadership, we are starting in the right direction to give conservation and energy choice, which Americans understand will take more than 100 hours, given the schizophrenic approach to energy by this administration and the previous Republican Congress.

We want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing with an overall framework to reduce greenhouse gases, to deal with carbon emissions, to provide predictability for all the players, whether they are people who are going to be dealing with alternative energy or they are the American consumer.

By eliminating unnecessary subsidies to form a fund to deal with alternative energy conservation and global warming is a terrific start. I am pleased that we are doing it at the conclusion of these first 100 hours and look forward to more in the months to come.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

In listening to my friends from the other side of the aisle, first of all, I am sorry my friend from Georgia is not here because I think I could tell him who the 10 percent are who don't believe in clean air, at least I could direct him to people in the administration and to the committee leadership on the other side of the aisle for the last 12 years who proposed policies that clearly indicate that they don't care about clean air.

It is amusing to hear from our friends from the other side of the aisle who for 12 years have run the show and are complaining about some of the choices that are being made by some 4,000 institutions of higher education. If they had something that they wanted to do, I am sorry, but they didn't for the last 12 years. But what we have done in the first 12 days is to act to make a difference.

I would be happy to yield on the gentleman's time?

I would be happy to.

And I am saying for 12 years they had a chance. I am sorry if you couldn't work with the administration and the Republicans who ran the other Chamber. But my point is I am not dealing with Taj Mahals; I am dealing with community colleges that have not had the basics. I am not talking about rock walls for 50 students at one time; I am talking about basic laboratory space, classroom space, library space, people who are having difficulty getting access.

The point is that the people on the other side of the aisle have been talking about this while they have been cutting opportunities and cutting budgets, cutting taxes. This bill continues our commitment to working families, promoting competitiveness in the workforce by starting by cutting interest rates on these subsidized undergraduate loans. It targets the lower and middle income students and their families with the most financial need and the least support.

The poor often get grants; the rich don't need them. This bill would save that college borrower in the middle thousands of dollars. In my State in Oregon, our students have the second highest amount of debt in the country. Over 40,000 Oregon students a year will be substantially helped by this legislation amongst the 5\1/2\ million students around the country in times of skyrocketing tuition.

Now, unlike the Republican approach of the last 12 years of cutting budgets and cutting taxes and putting the tab on the credit cards of our youth, this bill is fully paid for by offsets. Five of these six were included in President Bush's fiscal year 2006 budget and have bipartisan support.

We owe it to our students, our communities, and hard pressed families to make college not just a dream but an affordable reality, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5 as an important first step in making that happen

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

The Medicare prescription drug program was controversial from the start in part because of the notorious way it was strong armed through the House in the middle of the night after holding the voting machines opened for hours. Our new rules will prevent that.

Part of the controversy was the huge cost of a new unfunded entitlement with generous, probably unnecessary, subsidies and a prohibition on bargaining for a better price.

This better price is important because total drug costs for seniors, premiums and drugs, are going up. A review of drug company balance sheets where advertising and profit dwarfs basic research shows room to lower prices without undue stress on their research budget or their profit.

Competition and bargaining power combined with the Secretary's bully pulpit can probably save billions of dollars for seniors, hundreds, perhaps thousands, for individuals because these costs, remember, for most seniors are still going up.

Our action today is just a first step, a signal and a tool. The program is not set in stone. We are committed to the best treatment for our seniors and all taxpayers. This is a tool for the administration that, if they will use it, can save money and improve the program. It is a start on a longer and critical process to provide cost-effective quality health care for our seniors and ultimately for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, every American has a very personal stake in today's discussion because everyone knows people who would benefit from breakthrough research using stem cells. Indeed, with 100 million Americans at risk from a variety of diseases, ranging from Lou Gehrig's disease to Parkinson's, it is almost impossible not to know somebody impacted. The most profound beneficiaries are our family and friends who have not yet shown any symptoms, but may fall victim to one of these devastating diseases.

The stakes in this debate are both high for potential benefit to the physical condition of all human kind, as well as the establishment of appropriate boundaries between public policy and personal theology. The President failed the latter test when he exercised the only veto in his entire career.

In the last election, the American voter made it clear their families deserve an opportunity for embryonic stem cell research to be conducted in a reasonable, controlled manner, to hasten the day of vital life- saving, life-enriching therapy for all.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

We listened to our friends on the other side of the aisle cite averages, but those averages include the incomes of people like Bill Gates. They ignore the realities of 100 million lower-income Americans who are struggling to even approach middle income and who have been suffering a decline in recent years. These are people who pay more for food, for housing, for transportation. They are discriminated against by payday loans and subprime lending. Some are too poor to qualify for the child tax credit because of the perverted tax priorities that the Republicans have had in the last 12 years.

The dire results that have been cited by my friends on the other side of the aisle are simply hogwash. I come from one of the 28 States that increased its minimum wage and has indexed it automatically for inflation. Since we have done that, our economy is stronger, and our business leadership will tell you that what we have done is fair; it is good for all of us, not just the poor.

I hope this is a first step that is followed by increased awareness and sensitivity to 100 million lower-income Americans. Helping 13 million today with their first pay raise in 10 years is a good start.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No matter what you call it, another escalation in the war in Iraq is wrong. I will oppose in both word and deed any effort to send more troops. We've tried it before. It will not just mean more American casualties. It will bring more violence to the Iraqis while adding to the burden on our already strained Armed Forces. We should start instead bringing our troops home, not sending more into harm's way in what the President's advisers have already admitted is a political decision, not a strategic one. Let's take advantage of the new congressional leadership to change direction in what Americans know is our most important issue, ending the war in Iraq.

We should start with the resolution the Bush administration used to authorize this disaster. Knowing what we know now, the authorization of force bears little relation to reality. Instead, the committees of jurisdiction should use their upcoming hearings to craft new legislation that will mean a withdrawal of our troops as well as guide our continued involvement in Iraq until that withdrawal is complete. I will introduce legislation later this month that would provide exactly that sort of guide by refocusing our efforts on political, diplomatic and economic strategies.

Most importantly and most immediately, Congress has clear authority through its power of the purse. We must demand accountability for how money is spent, who is getting how much and for what purpose. We need to target war profiteering. There are too many accounts of contractors who have taken taxpayer dollars and abandoned our troops under fire and the Iraqi people in need. We need an entity like the Truman Commission during World War II to aggressively investigate contractors, punish war profiteers and recover misspent funds by canceling any failed or fraudulent contracts. By redirecting as much of the money as possible to projects run for and by Iraqis, we can repair that damaged country as cost effectively as possible.

We must also reconsider the unprecedented privatization of our military effort. The outsourcing of these basic support functions in Iraq has left contractors unaccountable to the American people, immune from military law and has cost the taxpayers much more than we've needed to spend.

While we're at it, Congress should end the outsourcing of our work. It should be embarrassing to the Republican leadership that it took the Iraqi Study Group to provide the oversight and accountability that Congress should have done these past 4 years.

We need to work to make sure the political discussion surrounding Iraq is not just more civil but more effective. We need to make it possible to debate this issue in terms of facts and the policy consequences and not hide behind the cloud of politics. In the 2002, 2004 and 2006 election cycles, there was lots of talk about Iraq, but people didn't tell the truth. Instead, the issue was manipulated for political purposes. We must resist the efforts to reduce this discussion to how it will impact the next election rather than how we got into this mess and how we are going to get out of it. In all of this conversation, we need to be dealing with the long-term security of the United States.

We must look at the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq in the context of those violent fundamentalists around the world that would do us harm, threats of genocide in Darfur and chaos in Somalia, nuclear proliferation, global warming and the loss of America's influence in the world. In none of those areas does escalating the war in Iraq make the world a safer place.

The American people would welcome Congress doing our job right. Only then can we turn this disaster around and provide the security for families in America and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I could not be more pleased that we start the hundred legislative hours dealing with the implementation of 9/11 commission recommendations.

On the first somber anniversary of 9/11, I asked myself whether we had done all we could have as a Congress to make America safe. Sadly I did not think so and my feelings were vindicated when the bipartisan independent 911 commission later reported that much more was left to be done. That was as unacceptable then as it is now.

The American public expects and deserves better. By moving forward with these recommendations today, we are keeping faith with that commitment and making long overdue progress. I understand that this is the beginning of that commitment rather than the end. There are other things that I would do much more quickly including giving the American public the budget numbers so they can begin to evaluate our stewardship, but I understand that these will take more time.

We are striking a balance between rapid action, broader consensus and bipartisan engagement. Today we're dealing with the lowest hanging fruit and setting the stage for more progress. I look forward to the committees' of jurisdiction in the House stepping up their efforts, and to the Senate joining us in what I hope will be a steady stream of further reform. Until that happens, launching the grant program for interoperability among first responders refocusing investments based on risks and not political power and providing a platform for the legislative leadership to coordinate in these critical oversight areas are very important first steps.

We'll continue to work for further streamlining the congressional intelligence and security oversight, but I am delighted that this will be done in an open legislative platform and

moving away from the backroom dealing that has shut out the minority.

This represents an important and long overdue step forward.

I appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Inslee, in permitting me to speak on this. I appreciate your continued leadership in spotlighting issues of global warming, energy efficiency, and the difference it will make for Americans across the country.

I too was impressed today with the clear, articulate vision set forth by our new Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, reemphasizing the commitment that the Democratic leadership and our caucus has to deal meaningfully with problems of global warming, energy independence and efficiency.

Having an opportunity this evening to focus on this is important because for the first time in a dozen years we won't just be talking about this. We have legislative leadership that is committed to action, to dealing with the redirection of vast subsidies that have been given to people who need them the least, and, instead, rationalizing investments in areas that you have championed with alternative energy, wind, solar, biomass and, particularly, conservation.

You are right, tracking the problems of transportation is central to dealing with greenhouse gases, global warming and our alarming dependence on oil imported from increasingly unstable areas of the world.

I appreciate the conversation that you and Mr. Holt have had about the positive impact, the President and the Republican leadership in the last half dozen years have been baring their head, claiming that we can't deal with problems of global warming, climate change, energy conservation because of the economic disruption.

You have cited examples from our Pacific Northwest where there are entrepreneurs ready to go, rolling up their sleeves, with things that will make a difference, creating jobs in this country, that will, in fact, conserve resources and save money.

Our ability to invest in wise, diverse transportation choices for the American public has the opportunity to put money in the pockets of Americans while it fights greenhouse gas. We consume approximately 10 percent of the world's petroleum supply each year driving our SUVs to work and back. The commitment to make sure that the Arctic wildlife refuge is the last place we drill, not the next, that makes energy conservation more available to Americans, and unlocks the economic potential of a whole array of new technologies and products.

I look forward to continuing our conversation here over the next few minutes. I, personally, am committed to continuing, as I have in both of your districts in the past. I know you both have constituents that are concerned about transportation choices. This Congress might be able to do something to provide equity, for instance, for cyclists, people who burn calories instead of petroleum, but are treated differently in our Tax Code for their commuting costs, for instance. I look forward to working with you to make these a reality and make a difference to enhance the planet, protect our national security and put money in the pockets of the American taxpayer.

If the gentleman would yield

I appreciate your positive words about our community. And I do take pride in essentially having reached 1990, emission levels for carbon dioxide and actually having reductions in per capita emissions for each of the last 4 years. And it has been done, not at the expense of economic development and choice, but rather, as a result of providing it. And this is a point, I guess, that I am eager for us to pursue. And I appreciate the leadership that you gentlemen have exercised, both in terms of looking and investigating what's going on in Oregon and providing leadership in your own States and in your own communities.

The average American family, today, pays more for transportation than anything else in their budget, except for housing. And for Americans who make less than $40,000 a year, typically, they pay more for transportation than for housing. So our being able to have sensible development patterns where people can live closer to where they work, employing what Mr. Holt was talking about in terms of smarter technology to let people know what they are getting into in terms of congestion, and giving people choices. This is not about saying you can't drive a car.

But when I go to other communities, and since I have been in Congress, I have been in more than 200 communities across the country working on issues of transportation, land use and affordable housing. What I find is that people are complaining not that we are trying to take away their choices, but because they have no choice. Too many communities, people can only drive to work in a single occupant vehicle. In many of these communities, 90 percent of the children cannot go to school safely on their own by bicycle or walking. And what we are talking about here is giving back choices to the American public about where they live, how they travel, choices that will not only reduce congestion, improve air pollution, it will put money in the pockets of American families.

Thank you. And I am intrigued with the conversation, the way that it is going at this point. We talked a moment ago about giving Americans more choices as to how they transport themselves. We can avoid the disastrous policies of this administration and the past congressional leadership of picking winners and losers and picking the wrong ones to win.

What you have described I have seen in my own State. There are people going gung ho in terms of biomass, in terms of wave energy, and technology that is emerging around the country in colleges and universities, in small businesses and large to take advantage of the opportunity.

If we just level the playing field, if we shift the massive subsidies away from the people who do not need it and do not deserve it, and help level the playing field for these emerging technologies dealing with biomass from any of a variety of fuel stocks, of dealing with electrical, solar, wind, wave, if we level the playing field, if we give them a fair and predictable tax treatment, which we do not do now, we can take these subsidies that are frankly not buying us anything.

It was interesting, the report that was suppressed by the administration for a year, that revealed we actually would have done more for energy supplies in this country, rather than lavishing tax breaks on the most profitable corporations in the world, the oil companies, selling the most profitable product, oil and gas, we would have been farther ahead just buying it up.

By our redirecting these investments, we can help this nascent technology grow around the country and we can have unleashed the potential of making a difference and allowing the free market to work after we level the playing field, after we enable them.

As you indicated, we are probably going to need to have some rules of the game to be able to jump-start these markets. But I really appreciate what you are talking about here.

I was in over a dozen States this last fall working on behalf of a number of our new colleagues, including in Ohio. I am intrigued that they to a person are concerned about global warming, to a person they understand before they become Members of this body what you are talking about here, and it makes me think that we have a real opportunity to tap some creative energy in this body to finally, as I say, stop talking about it and actually do something.

If I could briefly comment, I appreciate what you have each indicated in terms of the new generation of dealing with biofuels. I think this is an example of how we move forward.

You are absolutely right in terms of being able to zero in on the research, to squeeze out of this, to have tax incentives that are uniform, predictable and deal with the second and third generation of ethanol development and dealing with what might happen in terms of unlocking the power of biology here.

I have been struck by how there are many opportunities for us in the new farm bill to redirect, what is it, $23 billion of subsidy at this point that flows increasingly to a very small number of farmers, often corporate farms or large ones in a small limited area in a small, limited number of crops. We have an opportunity to unlock that, help farmers with their energy production, allow more farmers into it and find out how we unlock the power of this ingenuity.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we are acting quickly in this Congress on the unfinished business from the last Congress. In short order we will be dealing with things like implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, we will have a clean, up-or-down vote on the minimum wage unchanged after 10 years, and we will be able to deal with promoting stem cell research and cutting interest rates on student loans. Again, this is getting past the unfinished business left over from the last Congress.

I am pleased that today, unlike how we started the last Congress, we are not beginning by watering down the ethics rules or making it more difficult for the minority.

I believe very strongly in the commitment that our caucus has made. Our leadership has articulated that we are not going to treat the Republican minority the way that we were treated. I think it is going to be very important, Mr. Speaker, that we deal with the spirit with which these rules are enforced. And I am absolutely certain that you will find that the people on the Democratic side of the aisle are going to make sure that the spirit is enforced to make sure that voting machines are not kept open for hours in the middle of the night; making sure that our commitment to have functioning conference committees, where Republicans will be invited to attend conference committees, know when they are there, be able to sign off on them, and not have things parachuted in in the middle of the night in back rooms that nobody had seen; There will be no effort to have the notorious K Street Project turn the business lobby into a partisan tool.

Most important, I am interested in our progress to maintain and enhance civil discourse on this floor. I look forward to a bipartisan effort on an ethics panel that would be independent enforcement and that issue will be reported back to Congress by March 15. I am interested in working on a bipartisan basis to establish this independent mechanism for ethics oversight.

The rules we are adopting today and that we will be refining are an important first step to realize the promise of

the new Congress. Most important will be the spirit. And I, for one, pledge myself to work with Rules Committee members on both sides of the aisle to make sure that that spirit is maintained.

Mr. Speaker, this bill serves as a reminder why the American people feel Congress is failing them. It is little more than an incoherent grab bag of the good and bad. I am disappointed that the Republicans, in their last act of power, chose to skirt their responsibilities as lawmakers by sending this bill to the floor at the last minute and under a rule that does not allow for Members to thoroughly analyze its contents. Due to a prior engagement in my district, I was unable to be here to vote on H.R. 6111. But in the end, there is no good vote for this bill. It is my hope that under Democratic leadership next year, we will hold ourselves to a higher standard and refuse to make policy like this.

Had I been present for the vote on the Markey-Hinchey motion to recommit on the Alternative Minimum Tax and oil royalties, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6406 and the various trade bills it includes. Unfortunately, I cannot be present to vote in favor of it because of a prior engagement in my district. However, this legislation is a good example of how honest trade can help American consumers, workers, and businesses and promote growth in poor countries at the same time.

Honest and fair trade will help the U.S. and other countries grow more prosperous and stable. Trade barriers, quotas, and restrictions hurt all but a select few by raising prices for consumers, limiting efficiency, and restricting the ability of developing countries to improve their economies. I am pleased that this legislation moves us toward more open markets in a number of significant areas.

Extending the Generalized System of Preferences, the Andean Trade Preference Act, and the AGOA third party fabric rule, as well as establishing trade preferences for Haiti, promotes jobs and growth in some of the world's poorest countries, part of a strategy to help move countries toward self-sufficiency and giving workers more options and bargaining power. At the same time, preferences support and preserve manufacturing jobs here in the United States as it makes many of their inputs cheaper. So too are consumer products from these countries less expensive, giving Americans more purchasing power. I recognize the concerns that many people have expressed over changes being made to these programs and I look forward to working with Chairman Rangel in the upcoming Congress to strengthen them to ensure that they are as effective and fair as possible

I spoke the first time we considered the Vietnam bill about the benefits of granting permanent normal trade relations to Vietnam. Vietnam has agreed to open their markets to U.S. manufactured goods, services, and agricultural commodities, including key Oregon products such as beef and pears, while imports from Vietnam are also important to supporting many jobs in Oregon at companies like Nike and Intel. Perhaps most importantly, this bill will contribute to reform in Vietnam and the process of U.S.-Vietnam normalization.

Finally, this legislation includes important tariff relief provisions for the bike industry, allowing the duty-free import of certain specialty bicycle parts not produced in the United States, and for my hometown of Portland, Oregon, facilitating the import of streetcars for our local public transit system, at a time when there's no domestic supplier, saving money for Portland taxpayers. I particularly appreciate the help of Jennifer McCadney of the Ways and Means staff for making the inclusion of these provisions possible.

For too many Americans, trade has been a source of insecurity and inequality, instead of growth. For too long, critical questions of how the United States engages in an increasingly global economy have been used as partisan and political wedges. We must develop an honest trade policy that can be broadly supported by Americans of all political stripes and that reflects the concerns that I hear from Oregonians. While this will be a long-term process, this legislation meets that basic test and moves us in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2370, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act.

This Senate-passed bill is light-years better than the version passed by the House, which I opposed. It focuses on the Hamas-led government and reinforces the goal of a two-state solution, with a secure Israel living side-by-side with an independent Palestinian state in peace.

While I don't believe this legislation is necessary, as there is already a prohibition on U.S. assistance to foreign terrorist organizations, I recognize the progress made in this legislation toward prioritizing on the basis of our strategic interests and maintaining flexibility in our efforts to promote a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

I have two hesitations: One, I hope this is not read as a signal in the region--by either side--that the United States is more interested in didactics than negotiations. Two, I hope that Section 9, related to diplomatic contacts, will be interpreted as narrowly as possible, so as to allow for contact with a Hamas-led government if it is determined that such contacts could promote Israel's security and a peaceful two- state solution.

However, I greatly appreciate the changes made to this legislation and the flexibility shown by its sponsors in considering the concerns of many Members of Congress, the Bush administration, and outside experts. Because of this progress, I intend to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Illinois permitting me to speak on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate for us to pause and reflect on the many contributions of Milton Friedman. At any point we have great thinkers who challenge conventional wisdom. It is appropriate to honor Prof. Friedman. There are some who credit him as the founder of the Chicago School of Economics. There are others who see that he was a free market paragon. I see him as a symbol of what can be done intellectually if people are thinking about the future of problems and creative about solutions.

Milton Friedman understood that, at core, we had a problem in this country with poor people who were poor. They didn't have enough money. He also had suspicion about the various bureaucratic responses that government has assembled over time. And he had presented a provocative proposal to have a guaranteed annual income, a flat basic amount that everybody would be entitled to, regardless of what they did or who they were, that would be cheaper and more effective to administer, that would actually deal with the problem of poor people that they didn't have money. It would reduce the interference in their lives and allow them to respond to a lot of the pressures that we typically associate with how families react.

This was something that was actually briefly considered by the Nixon administration, discarded because it was a little radical at the time. The costs were somewhat uncertain, although Friedman was convinced that in the long run it would actually be cheaper.

This was the inspiration for the earned income tax credit, which is probably the single most effective mechanism, in a Reagan era, that Republicans and Democrats could get behind to reduce poverty. It helped people in a cost-effective way, diminishing the disincentives for work, and was something for which Mr. Friedman never really fully received the acclaim that was deserved by him. This has affected millions of lives in ways that people on both sides of the aisle of a variety of different philosophical perspectives could feel comfortable with.

I think there is also a lesson here, Mr. Speaker, because there are many problems that face us on the floor of this House, that don't have to fall in neat little boxes in a philosophical or a partisan way. We are looking for example, Mr. Speaker, at the investment in agriculture in this country, in a way that cries out for reform. We are spending $23 billion in a year of record-high farm prices.

Now, if my friends on the Republican side and my friends on the Democratic side would think of the teachings and the spirit of Milton Friedman, we could bring people together in a bipartisan way to reform this Depression-era set of programs that is not really an agricultural policy. The ``Freedom to Farm'' bill is observed in the breach, not its actual implementation. We can design a Friedman approach that would be better for the taxpayer, that would be better for the environment, that would actually help individual family farmers more effectively and more directly.

It is but one example that I think, that I hope we can tackle as we move into a new Congress. Perhaps with a new spirit, with a change in the rules so that people will actually be able to more fully and fairly debate on the floor of the House of Representatives, that we can take things like this that can bring the right and the left, the conservative and the liberal, Republicans and Democrats, together to solve problems in a way that will be better for the American people, and we will be better as an institution.

It is with great respect that I join in support of the resolution in honoring Milton Friedman and his career, and I hope that the next Congress is willing to embrace the spirit of his creative mind to be able to do some things that actually we can all agree on need to be done.