Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medical Research Protection Act of 2013. This bill will protect our national investments in biomedical research from impending automatic federal budget cuts. If we do nothing, these automatic budget cuts or ``sequester'' will cancel $85 billion in federal spending between March 1 and September 30, including roughly $2 billion from the National Institutes of Health budget. That amounts to a failure to fund or renew funding for some 2,000 grants at America's research universities, where the world's top scientists are discovering treatments for diseases like cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and HIV/AIDS. This bill would ensure that NIH's budget is protected for the balance of this fiscal year.

I have opposed the sequester--a senseless and irresponsible approach to deficit reduction--since day one. I voted against the bill that put the sequester in place, and I have sponsored a bill with my colleagues in the Progressive Caucus to remove the entire sequester, to protect critical programs like Medicare, Head Start, Community Health Centers, and so many other priorities.

That said, Seattle's economy relies uniquely on federal funding for biomedical research. Science and technological innovation is the lifeblood of our local economy and a source of tremendous civic pride. The University of Washington receives more federal funding than any other public university in the nation, and is the state's third largest employer. The great majority of the UW's federal funds come from the NIH. This academic hub creates a spillover effect in the private sector that has made Seattle one of the brightest destinations for scientists the world over. It is no exaggeration to say that sequestration of research funding threatens the heart of Seattle's economy, which is why I am introducing a standalone measure today to stop cuts to the NIH.

To be clear, this bill will turn off the sequester for NIH from the period of March 1, 2013 through September 30, 2013, and reduce the amount of the sequester by that amount to avoid deeper cuts to other programs.

Mr. Speaker, here we are with another Republican straw man out here--a bill set up to fail. The Senate has not yet adopted its rules. We don't know where the filibuster is going to be used or anything, and you're saying they have to do something by a fixed date. Now, we've had fixed dates in here as long as I've been here, and we never make them; but what we are creating is continuous chaos globally in the economic world, and what you're doing by this is simply saying, hey, let's have another big kerfuffle. We'll be out here in May, 4 months from now, making exactly the same speeches. We'll all bring out the same pieces of paper and read from them and give the same speeches, and we will continue to retard the ability of the American economy to move forward.

We cannot send the message worldwide that the United States has lost

the ability to make decisions, to pay its debts. If that's the message you want the world to get, that's what this is about today. I'm voting against this. Bring back one that lifts the debt limit and that gets it out of the way so we can get down to the cost-cutting that needs to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I come here to the floor today to speak on behalf of the regular order. I hope that this Congress can be one in which it's not First World War trench warfare, where we retreat into our bunkers and lob grenades at each other, but where we can come together and deal with the problems that face this Nation.

The first opportunity will be raising the debt limit. The President doesn't create the debt limit; we do. We authorize the President to spend that money. We put him out there and say, Spend it; and we must give him the ability to pay the bills that we have incurred by our actions. So it shouldn't be a trench warfare issue.

There are some bigger issues, those issues of the debt and how we deal with the major crises before us in health care costs. Those issues can be debated in the regular order. Committees can come up with bills about how we should reduce the costs, whether it be in defense or it be in health care. But that should be developed and worked out in a regular order in the House. That's my sincere hope for this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to endorse the amendments to S. 3472. But in talking about this, I want to talk about the process by which we got here. Nothing ever goes as fast in the House of Representatives as we want it to. And I want to commend my colleague, the ranking member on the Education committee, George Miller, for his historic leadership on child welfare issues. He got here in the '70s, and there was nobody looking after kids. Nobody. There was no focus anyplace in the Congress. So he took it on. He had hearings and hearings and hearings and hearings. And that brought about the bill that passed in 1980. It was called the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.

Now when I got here as a child psychiatrist, I looked around and saw there was some stuff to do, and I wrote the Fostering Connections Act, which I authored and passed in the 2008 Congress with strong bipartisan support with the intent of improving the lives of kids in foster care. We continued to look for a way to make this system really function. And through the 1980 act, the law gave the power to shift resources from temporary out-of-home care toward either providing services to a child or his or her family or finding other permanent adoptive homes.

One of the key provisions of the Fostering Connections Act was to better provide for educational stability. What we found was that kids constantly were moved, their records were lost, and there were long delays. And the single thing that gives them a real chance to make it in society, that is, an education, was being denied by the bureaucracy that sort of thought, well, this is just, we'll get the records there when we get the records there.

So it's fitting that the ranking member on the Education and Workforce Committee is here to help guide this current legislation making it easier for foster kids to succeed academically through the House today.

Why is education important? Well, if you go to the same school, you know the people, you find a teacher, you find a teacher who might be interested in you when a parent wasn't interested in you, or you had no one else in the world that was interested in you, but you found a teacher, and that's what the educational system has done to hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of foster kids.

Now, we thought, well, we'll just write into Fostering Connections a change in Federal policy which would make sure that youth maintain some kind of continuity within their school when they're forced to move from home to home.

It says that a State welfare agency must coordinate with educational agencies to ensure that a child remains in the school in which he or she is enrolled at the time of placement. If remaining in the child's school of origin is not in his or her best interest, that State must ensure the child is immediately enrolled in a new school without waiting weeks or months for paperwork.

Now, with Fostering Connections, it seems like a simple thing to say that kids ought to continue in the same school. As with any law we pass, there is always this implementation period. As a result, it has taken us several years to figure out the problems and the barriers to successfully implementing this particular provision. Many teachers and school administrators are still unaware of these provisions. Many schools lack any coordinator or coordinating entity to facilitate cross-agency collaboration to serve the best interests of the child.

In addition, we have evidence that the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act currently hinders child welfare agencies in their efforts to meet the educational needs of kids in their care. Child welfare agencies have difficulty in obtaining the school records of foster kids. Students miss school for long periods of time waiting for school records to be transferred.

We know that education is a predictor for future adult success. Yet too many children and foster youth are unable to get this start because of the barriers in our system. This piece of legislation is an attempt to break down those barriers and make it work more smoothly.

The passage of the Uninterrupted Scholars Act will help ensure that needed coordination and help to ensure foster care youth succeed academically. This bill will have enormous positive impact for thousands of children in the foster care system. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, last night we hoped to have proof that Republicans can raise taxes. Speaker Boehner's Plan B not only raised taxes on millionaires, but on working families too. Yet, Grover Norquist, tax lobbyist and self-appointed Emperor of Taxes, proclaimed that Plan B does not violate his ``no tax increases pledge.'' Sorry Grover, it does, and conservative groups know it.

Heritage Action, Club for Growth, Citizens United, Tea Party Express and others all agree that this bill raises taxes, and oppose it for exactly that reason.

We were hopeful that Speaker Boehner decided to send a message to Grover Norquist that his tax pledge days are over--every Republican that would have voted for the plan would break the pledge by voting to raise taxes. Norquist's pledge was ridiculous to begin with. Presidents Reagan and Bush both said they wouldn't raise taxes, but did because it was the responsible thing to do.

Unfortunately, last night the Republican caucus failed to stand up to their misguided ideology on tax increases. At the last minute, Speaker Boehner pulled the bill because it didn't have the votes. Rather than take a difficult vote, the Speaker showed us, yet again, that the House Republicans cannot deal with the problems of this country.

Madam Speaker, the Bible says that by their deeds ye shall know them, and this Congress should pay heed to that message.

This week, we're mourning 20 children buried in Newtown, Connecticut. The President is right when he says we've seen this too many times before, and it has to end.

About this time 24 years ago I was sworn into the Congress. Two weeks later, five children were killed and 29 were wounded in the Stockton, California, schoolyard at Cleveland Elementary School.

You would have thought that we would have acted. Bills were put in. It took us until 1993--4 years--to pass the assault weapon ban. Courageous legislators stood up and said enough is enough, but hearings and all went on and on and on about military-style weapons that should be banned.

Anybody knows you don't hunt with a banana clip with 30 bullets in it. That's not hunting. That's not what you use at a gun range. We know that we shouldn't be able to buy a gun if you have a record of serious mental illness. You would think those things that were common sense would become law.

They became law in 1993, and there was a pushback from the National Rifle Association that said, well, all right, you can pass this, but with a 10-year sunset on it. Why do you put a sunset on an assault weapon ban? But we did. The fight was led by a courageous lawmaker who was willing to stand up and take the chance of having the NRA come down on him. His name is Pete Stark. Pete Stark led the fight in the House. Dianne Feinstein led the fight in the Senate. He pushed and pushed and pushed and put the bill in again and again and again and finally got it through. In a few days, he will cast his last vote in the House. I'm going to miss him. We need courageous legislators like that. What we didn't have 10 years later were courageous legislators.

When the ban came to an end in 2004, the House was in different hands, politics had changed, 9/11 happened, and everybody said, What's the problem, we don't need this ban anymore. It's very clear that there are some things we can do--things like the weapon ban--but the real difficult part for us is to have a discussion about violence in our society.

One of my old friends in Afghanistan told me you can tell a country by what its national game is. Ours used to be baseball. But it's hard to believe that baseball is our national game anymore when you look at Sunday Night Football and realize how we glorify violence. Go into a game store and look at the games that we buy for our kids at Christmas--games that make it possible for you to sit and kill people hour after hour after hour, sitting alone by a computer.

We don't want to talk about those issues. We've managed to get some of the violence on television down before 8 o'clock at night when kids are still up, but we struggle because in a free enterprise society you can do anything you want. Well, we run the risk of having the difficulties we have here today.

The other thing we have to think about is the whole question of how we deal with the mentally ill. In 1996, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act passed in California. It made it almost impossible to put anybody in a locked facility unless they were imminently going to kill somebody or kill themselves. ``Gravely disabled'' was the term. We made it very hard to deal with these kinds of cases, and privacy rules and all of this we've added on over time has made it even more difficult. But it is clear that we as a society have to face the fact that there are some people who need help. This mother was looking for it.

We must act in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 60th anniversary of the Museum of History & Industry (MOHAI) in Seattle, and to salute the museum as it prepares for the Grand Opening of its new museum at Lake Union Park on December 29, 2012.

Since its founding in 1952, MOHAI has established itself as the preeminent history center in the Seattle region, engaging over 100,000 visitors and 17,000 students and their teachers each year in the exploration of the history, character and development of Seattle and the Central Puget Sound region.

Drawing on a collection of more than 4 million historic artifacts, archives, photographs and oral histories, MOHAI exhibits and programs bring visitors face-to-face with the challenges of the past so that they can make informed decisions for the future. Working with school districts from across the region, MOHAI programs foster the civic literacy which is so essential to a strong community, and the museum provides a full range of scholarship services so that all students have access to the power of history.

With the opening of its expansive new museum in the landmark Naval Reserve Armory at Lake Union Park, MOHAI is poised to launch a history museum distinguished by leading edge technology, research and educational programs, which will serve the Seattle area for the 21st Century.

In recognition of its excellence, MOHAI is accredited by the American Alliance of Museums, is an official affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, and was selected by Museum Magazine as one of the 60 international ``museums that matter.''

As we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Museum of History & Industry, I would like to convey my congratulations to MOHAI on the opening of its new museum and its expanding work to ensure that the lessons of history are shared with generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate World AIDS Day today, we have reason to be proud of what we've done to fight HIV/AIDS.

When I came to the Congress in 1989, AIDS was a death sentence; now, with the right medicine, it's a manageable chronic disease. And we've made real progress toward a vaccine. That happened because the United States Congress took action. It wasn't magic. People living with the disease fought to make it happen, and leaders in the Congress and the White House fought to make it happen too.

As we recognize World AIDS Day today, we cannot get complacent. We can create an AIDS-free generation--it is possible. But it will slip away if we let these essential programs get cut. Today, we should resolve to stay the course, to keep the pressure on, and win the fight, to honor all those who died of AIDS and all those who are still fighting for AIDS today. This Capital has an epidemic of AIDS. We need to deal with it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to grant permanent normal trade relations to Russia and Moldova.

Let's begin with Russia. Russia joined the WTO this summer. Congress does not have veto power on that. All we can do here is decide whether to allow U.S. businesses and workers to see the benefits of Russia's WTO obligations.

Will Russia always honor these obligations on its own initiative? Probably not. But Russia's WTO membership means we can at least hold them to those obligations, and we must be prepared to enforce those obligations. That is a lesson we've learned the hard way over the last few years. This bill actually does that. This bill has strong antibribery and anticorruption provisions. It has mechanisms to help strengthen our intellectual property rights.

But that's not all. Another critical piece of this bill is the Magnitsky Act, placing real sanctions on those individuals who are complicit in human rights violations. This is a serious policy upgrade and a big win for human rights.

At the end of the day, Russia's entry into the WTO can be expected to create real jobs here in the U.S. by reducing tariffs and other barriers to U.S.-made goods and services. The tariffs on information technology products are completely eliminated. Russia's aircraft, chemical, and pharmaceutical tariffs are heavily reduced. This means real job growth around the country in the coming years.

In many ways, this agreement is one-sided to our benefit. Our tariffs are not going down, but Russia's are. Russia is a WTO member regardless of what we do today, but with this bill, we can make sure that American businesses and workers get the benefits of Russian commitments.

Finally, this bill gives permanent normal trade relations to Moldova, a country that joined the WTO more than a decade ago. The Moldovans want closer ties with their friends in the United States and Europe. This bill demonstrates that we share that interest with our Moldovan partners.

I urge the passage of this bill unanimously by the Members here. Everyone in this country will benefit from it.

Mr. Speaker, I've got to hand it to my Republican colleagues. When they commit to something, they really commit. This Republican House has the worst environmental record in Congress's history. We've taken over 300 votes against the environment. And here we are again. On our last day to get any real work done, Republicans are voting to kill the environment.

Instead of dealing with important issues like taxes or jobs, Republicans are actually trying to repeal auto emissions standards that will save Americans $1 per gallon at the pump--standards the auto industry wants and that consumers are happy with.

Instead of helping Americans find jobs, or helping the millions of homeowners facing foreclosure, Republicans are gutting clean air and clean water standards.

Instead of doing something to actually help America be a healthier place to live and work, Republicans are doing everything in their power to spoil it.

My Republican colleagues are saying regulations are killing the coal industry. The truth is that coal isn't selling in America--it just can't compete with cleaner, cheaper natural gas. The free market that my Republican colleagues worship is working. And the coal industry knows it.

Since coal is being beat here in the U.S. market by cleaner, healthier forms for energy, the coal industry has put plans in motion to ship our American coal to China. The industry will make millions in profits selling our coal, mined from our public lands, to go overseas. Trains full of coal will obstruct commerce, especially in the northwest, and endanger public health, all at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Make no mistake, today's bill isn't about saving the coal industry. The coal industry is doing that already, they're finding other markets. This bill is nothing more than a political ploy that puts industry and ideology over less expensive energy, public health, and our environment, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the ten-year anniversary of One World Now!, a pioneering, Seattle-based educational program that presents underserved youth with the opportunity to learn world languages and cultures through after-school classes and study abroad programs.

When it was founded, One World Now! was a pilot program run out of a single public school in Seattle with only 12 students enrolled. After ten years of hard-earned success and steadfast dedication to educating underprivileged youth, One World Now! has expanded to 8 Seattle high schools, 2 middle schools, and has also partnered with schools in Los Angeles, New York City, and Honolulu. Over 2000 youth have participated in programs orchestrated by One World Now!, and its consistent growth makes me optimistic that that number will continue to grow.

As we integrate into a more globalized world, it is imperative that youth from all backgrounds receive a worldly education that teaches the importance of tolerance and cultural understanding. Since 2002, One World Now! has endeavored to paint a brighter future for our leaders of the next generation by giving them a strong foundation in international relations.

The success of One World Now! in bringing youths of all cultures together under the common banner of education is admirable and has never been more necessary. As we celebrate the 10th anniversary of this commendable program, I would like to convey my unwavering support for One World Now! and its commitment to youth, culture, and education.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.

I assume, Mr. Speaker, that the majority is prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think there's anybody on this floor who has any objection to what we've tried to do here for the Carpenters.

I think that the question really is: Why do we not have regular order in the House of Representatives? This bill was so hastily drafted that it, the original version, did not even cover Carpenters, had to be amended so that it covered them. Now, that comes because you don't have hearings. That comes because you don't have witnesses come in and tell people how this works.

We witnessed a rather sad event in Libya just the other day. I was a Foreign Service officer, and I felt very strongly the feeling of sadness and grief when Foreign Service officers died.

Suppose one of them had an outstanding student loan signed for by their parents while they went to Georgetown school of whatever?

The fact is that this bill--is that line of duty? No. So now we're taking one little narrow class and we're drawing one narrow little bill, when, in fact, there are a lot of people who, in the line of duty, get killed and debt forgiveness makes sense, as it does for the Carpenters and for the families who cosigned the loan.

When your son or daughter goes off to college and you sign a loan with them, you don't expect them to die. But you certainly aren't going to withhold your signature if that's the only way your son or daughter gets an opportunity to pay for college.

But this bill says that only one line of duty service-connected--and it doesn't define ``service-connected''--and it's only if you're in the military. There are a lot of other people who serve in this country, in public service--police officers, firemen, Foreign Service officers.

There are a lot of people who ought to have been considered when this bill was brought before us. It was not brought before the committee, just popped out here on the floor as a unanimous consent bill.

Now, this Congress has been the most do-nothing Congress in the history of the country--less hearings, less bills--but we have had 302 votes in this Congress to reduce regulations on the environment. We found time for every fifth vote in the last 2 years to have been to reduce regulations protecting the environment. We couldn't have hearings on something like this because we were busy doing things like that. We spent 33 times trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We simply have not dealt with the problems that face this country.

There's another issue that ought to be before the committee. It's as important, perhaps, as this issue, perhaps affects more people. That's the debt forgiveness that comes by the money that banks reduce the principal on loans.

Now, if you have a loan for $300,000 and you have to refinance it, and you go and it's assessed, your house is now only worth 200,000, you're out of luck.

Your house is under water. Now, the bank can reduce the principal down to 200,000. They can grant you $100,000 forgiveness. But you know what happens to you when that happens? That 100,000 appears on your doorstep as income in the next taxing cycle.

That provision is in--we have an exemption for that presently, but it's expiring in January, and we simply have not even brought that issue up. There are thousands of people out there with foreclosures on their homes who are being socked or will be socked by debt forgiveness by banks. Those are the kinds of other issues that should have been dealt with.

Everyone's going to vote for this bill. I suspect that unless the Republicans want a vote on it for PR purposes, it'll go without a sound. None of us are going to ask for a vote, because it's obvious that this is one of those places where you want to make sure that a family who gives their son or their daughter does not get socked with a debt on top of it.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this, but urge the leadership on the other side to think about having hearings and reestablishing the regular order in the House so that we can answer some of the questions that are about this bill and think about many of the other issues that we have not dealt with.

We're within 2 days of the end of this Congress, and we've got thousands of issues. Everybody knows that November and December are going to be terrible because we're going to be right back here trying then to deal, on the back of a galloping horse, with a huge number of issues that have not been dealt with by the shortest Congress, the least hearings, the least bills passed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, of all of the challenges facing our nation's health-care system, perhaps the most neglected is the gaping hole in our workforce of primary-care physicians. One estimate projects a shortage of 45,000 primary-care doctors by 2020. Due to the retirement of a generation of physicians, the aging of our population, and the entry into the system of some 30 million newly insured thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we do not have enough primary-care doctors to meet the demand, and the problem will continue to worsen without a major initiative to produce new doctors.

Primary-care doctors are the front lines of our physician workforce. Under the right conditions, they oversee and coordinate health care for their patients. They educate patients on how to prevent illness and manage chronic conditions. They are the medical generalists who establish long-lasting bonds with patients throughout their lives. Proper primary care is also one of the keys to containing health-care costs. On the other hand, inadequate primary care leads to neglected and mismanaged conditions, which causes costly emergencies and illnesses downstream.

I am introducing the RDOCS Act to help solve this problem. Modeled after the successful ROTC program, RDOCS offers full scholarships to medical students in exchange for a 5-year service commitment in a medically underserved area. RDOCS will be administered by the states, which will send RDOCS scholars to their state-operated medical schools. RDOCS officers (as they are known after graduation) will then become licensed and serve as primary-care doctors in their state of residence. The program is authorized to start immediately and begin graduating its first additional 4,000 new primary-care doctors in 2020, and 20,000 new doctors by 2024.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we are going to get close to universal health coverage in the United States. But universal coverage will not be meaningful if we don't have enough doctors to serve our population. I am optimistic that Congress can demonstrate leadership in restoring our doctor workforce for the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, on March 26, 2012, I introduced H.R. 4258, the Republic of Georgia Democracy Act of 2012. I introduced this bill in response to the growing acts of repression by the Government of Georgia against the Democratic opposition there in the run-up to the October 2012 parliamentary election.

After reviewing reports from the region and meeting with members of the opposition, I became worried that the parliamentary election would be viewed as illegitimate if the situation did not change.

I offered H.R. 4258, which threatened termination of the tens of millions of dollars the United States gives Georgia each year in assistance--including millions for democracy promotion--in the event of illegitimate elections, in an attempt to demonstrate to the ruling regime the cost of stealing the election.

I regret to report that the situation is getting worse.

The United Nations, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the European Union have all raised concern. Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has publically called for free, fair, and competitive elections, but the Georgian government does not seem to be listening.

For more than two decades, successive administrations and my colleagues in Congress have worked hard to expand democracy in the post-Soviet world. We did so believing that the former Soviet states would be more stable and more economically prosperous if governments were more responsive to the will of the people.

This is especially true in Georgia, where the United States has invested considerable financial resources and political capital in an attempt to create a model democracy in a complex region.

These investments are now at risk. The Georgian government is succeeding in creating an atmosphere of intimidation and fear, handicapping the opposition's ability to operate and access the media and voters, and taking steps to ensure victory before election day.

The United States can ill afford to stand aside and watch democracy in Georgia unravel.

If another round of illegitimate elections occurs, there will be more instability, including the possibility of peaceful protests and a violent government response, which has been the historic norm.

This would threaten key American interests, including democracy promotion, energy security, stability in the Caucasus, relations with Russia, and operations in Afghanistan.

I have included a recent article that highlights the Georgian government's efforts to repress the democratic opposition. The article from the Economist notes that only 38% of Georgians think their country is a democracy and that this election could be on course to a political crisis.

If things continue on their current track, there are few scenarios where this election will be seen as legitimate.

The United States should take steps now to prevent a potential political crisis that would arise just before the U.S. presidential election. I would encourage the Obama Administration and my colleagues to communicate clearly to the Georgian government the importance of free, fair, and competitive elections and that Georgia's relationship with the United States cannot survive a stolen election or subversion of democratic principles.

Like a canary in the coal mine, I will do my best to continue to warn my colleagues of this looming disaster and provide regular updates. I hope the United States acts before it is too late.

[From the Economist, Jul. 13, 2012]

Georgian Politics--Blood Feud

(by G.E. Tbilisi)

Georgian democracy in trouble? The government claims that

the ``Russian-influenced opposition'' could subvert Georgia's

parliamentary elections in October this year. In contrast,

Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder of Georgian Dream, an

opposition party, complains of systematic discrimination at

the hands of an increasingly authoritarian regime. New

polling results show that only 38% of Georgians think

that Georgia is now a democracy, compared with 49% in

February.

Georgians may have too pessimistic a view of their own

country. As a recent pre-electoral assessment from the

National Democratic Institute (NDI) points out, Georgia has

implemented several key democratic reforms in recent years.

New institutions ensure the accuracy of the voters' list or

regulate party financing. Amendments to the electoral code in

late 2011 and early 2012 introduced a raft of positive

changes although the failure to redraw electoral districts

(which range from 6,000 to 158,000 voters) means some votes

are worth less than others. Recent ``must carry'' provisions

will improve opposition parties' access to the media by

obliging cable providers to transmit all television channels

with news programmes during the sixty-day campaign period. In

all, the ``2012 electoral process is more formalised and

regulated compared to past elections'', the NDI concludes.

Even so, the dark side of Georgian politics, which Thomas

de Waal has likened to ``a blood feud'', has been all too

evident since Mr. Ivanishvili entered politics in October

last year. Georgia's richest man remains without Georgian

citizenship, an absurd situation of which most of his

compatriots disapprove; the sooner that is resolved, the

better. The Chamber of Control stands accused of levying

disproportionate fines on the Georgian Dream movement, which

Mr. Ivanishvili has refused to pay. (It has responded by

seizing some of his assets). And before Parliament adopted

the must carry provisions, Channel 9, a new television

station co-owned by Mr. Ivanishvili's wife, and Global TV,

the only broadcaster that carried it, suffered from almost

continuous harassment.

Both sides continue to vilify each other, complaining of

harassment, improper campaign spending, attempted bribery of

state officials and abuse of administrative resources. A

debate in the European Parliament on 4th July about Georgian

politics reached similar extremes. As punch-ups during

Georgian Dream campaign meetings in the central Georgian

villages of Mereti on 26th June and Kareleti on 12th July

suggest, it could get nastier still.

Yet Mr. Ivanishvili's political awakening has also awoken

Georgian voters. Huge, peaceful rallies have taken place

across the country, far beyond anything seen in recent years.

Many more Georgians (75%) now plan to vote in October's

elections than intended to so in September last year (51%),

polls show. And the political debate is increasingly focused

on issues that matter to ordinary Georgians, not just

personalities.

Georgian Dream unveiled some of their plans in May: cutting

utility costs, investing in agriculture, free universal

health-insurance and increased pensions. Vano Merabishvili,

the former interior minister who became prime minister in

late June, announced the government's four-year post-election

programme shortly after taking office. He too wants to boost

pensions, provide universal health-insurance, and invest in

agriculture. Mr. Merabishvili has also set up a new ministry

to tackle unemployment (roughly 34% of Georgians say they are

unemployed, compared with an official rate unemployment rate

of 16%), and promises to provide each family with vouchers

worth $600.

Does Mr. Merabishvili's appointment indicate that Mikheil

Saakashvili, the president, is unlikely to become prime

minister once his term in office expires in early 2013? As

one of the few big beasts of Georgian politics, Mr.

Merabishvili would certainly be hard to shove aside. At any

rate, slightly more Georgians would oppose such a job-swap a

la Putin than would approve of it.

Reassuringly, 55% of Georgians surveyed think the elections

will be well conducted, and only 21% fear falsification. But

there is little room for complacency. Mr. Ivanishvili has

said that if he has any evidence of vote-rigging by the

authorities, he will call for street protests. For most

foreign observers, and many Georgians, that would be a step

backwards. Yet 27% of those polled say he would be justified

in doing so. Come October, that sentiment could matter.

While most Georgians are focused on who will win, Georgia's

allies say the credibility of the electoral process is key.

As the NDI states, ``further development of democratic

institutions and practices offer the best chance for western

integration and for long-term prosperity and stability.''

With the political temperature likely to rise further in

coming months, Georgia's politicians would do well to bear

that in mind. Will they?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which extends expiring provisions of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, adds the country of South Sudan to a list of countries eligible for trade preferences, implements technical fixes for the CAFTA agreement, and renews the Burma sanctions.

The expiring third-country fabric provision is the cornerstone of AGOA and one of the most valuable parts of our trading relationship with Africa. Tens of thousands of workers and hundreds of companies depend on this provision.

It is critical that we extend it now before it expires next month. We have delayed this extension for a year, and this unnecessary delay has cost thousands of jobs and millions in investment. It has hurt progress in Africa. We could have avoided these senseless job losses here and in Africa.

I introduced this legislation to extend third-country fabric and add South Sudan over a year ago. The delay was just politics. We are, unfortunately, in an era when commonsense things can't get done. As usual, the political games accomplished nothing.

AGOA itself was truly bipartisan. We all worked together to compromise it and get a good thing done. That was a different era. At least today's vote will reflect some of the bipartisanship that has been a hallmark of AGOA from the start.

The bill also adds South Sudan to the list of AGOA-eligible countries. South Sudan deserves every opportunity and

every vote of confidence we can muster.

This package also contains important technical fixes for CAFTA textiles--that's from Central America--the fixes that businesses and workers have been waiting for since February of last year.

I also am pleased that we are renewing our evolving policy on Burma. Burma has made important steps in the last 18 months, but there's still a long way to go.

I'm particularly pleased with the investment transparency measures that the State Department has put forward. They are innovative, common sense, and exactly what investors and the American public need and expect.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, Joe Crowley.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California, (Ms. Bass).

May I inquire as to how much time remains.

Does the gentleman from Michigan have any more speakers?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, many people played a part in all of this. Nothing in Congress ever gets done by one person. Nothing ever gets done by one side or the other, and the good things that happen here always happen on a bipartisan basis. I'm sorry Ed Royce left, because Ed Royce and I worked together.

One day, he called me. He said, Jim, I'm going out to Africa to look at some of the places in which the AGOA Act is working. Will you go with me?

I said, Why?

Well, he said, I need a Democrat on the trip.

That kind of relationship is rare around here, unfortunately, and I think that people need to recognize that it is still going on--that this place runs on trust.

Very early on in this session, I said to Dave Camp, When are you going to bring up the AGOA Act?

He said, It's going to come up.

I've asked him many times since, and he has said it's going to come up. So I told all of my African friends, It's going to come up because Dave Camp said it's going to come up.

I'm really pleased to acknowledge that he kept his word, because what this place runs on is trust. If you don't trust somebody in here, then you don't do business with him. If you trust him, even if it takes him a long time and you have to poke him a bunch of times, you know that ultimately he's going to do what he said he was going to do. I want to acknowledge Chairman Camp for that because I think it is reflective of what can make it possible for us to do tax reform in this House.

It is something that took a long time the last time they did it, but it was built on the trust between Reagan and Rostenkowski and Tip O'Neill. It took a bit of time, but it will happen again if we learn to act on the behalf of the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.