Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation to address a very serious problem.

Because of the policies put in place by this Congress and this Administration, our country has prospered and enjoyed continual economic successes. More than 2 million jobs have been created nationally in the last year and our national unemployment rate is down to 4.8 percent. In the last quarter alone, our GDP grew by 1.7 percent.

However, my home state of Michigan has not yet seen this success. Our state economy continues to struggle, our manufacturing base is in serious jeopardy and our unemployment rate of 6.6 percent is one of the highest in the nation. The troubles of the auto industry--Michigan's largest employer--have forced layoffs, downsizing and cutbacks.

Workers in my state are losing their jobs, and our unemployed face multiple challenges and impending statistical disadvantages.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am introducing this legislation today. My bill, the Job Creation Incentive Act, will help businesses in Michigan and across this country create more jobs.

Simply put, my bill will generate jobs by giving small businesses tax incentives for every new employee they hire.

It is a well known fact that collectively, small businesses are the number one employer in our Nation. When we encourage these small businesses to expand their payrolls and hire more employees, we not only create jobs but we also promote business development and growth.

My bill will give companies with 100 employees or less a tax credit for every new employee they hire. The credit will be equal to 5 percent of the new employee's salary, up to $2,500 maximum, and the new employee must have been on the payroll for at least 960 hours--the equivalent of a full-time position for six months. If companies create multiple jobs, they can receive multiple credits up to a total of 25 percent of their tax liability for the year.

I know that tax incentives are not the complete answer to all of our economic problems in the state of Michigan. We still must work continually to find solutions to solve the problems within our manufacturing base and bring relief to our businesses and our workers.

I also know that for some of us it may be difficult to understand that while America's economy is doing so well nationally, there are still areas where more help is greatly needed. My district is one of those areas.

The Job Creation Incentive Act will help our small businesses through these tough times and will allow them to do what they do best-- innovate, drive economic growth, compete in the domestic and global marketplace, and create more jobs for American workers.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time to speak on behalf of my bill, the Job Creation Incentive Act. I respectfully request the support of my colleagues for this important piece of legislation to ensure the future success of Michigan's economy and job growth across the country.

I oppose the amendment as well, Mr. Jefferson. The State of Louisiana has already received $6.2 billion in CDBG for reconstruction efforts. And yet, the State of Louisiana has yet to submit a plan for the funds, which is required by law.

HUD has been working with the State to craft a reasonable and rationale plan, and we hope to have a better idea of their needs and a recovery plan very soon.

In addition, we are providing an additional $4.2 billion in CDBG to further assist the gulf coast States affected by the hurricanes in 2005, and this includes Louisiana. I am confident that Louisiana will receive funds from this bill. And so, again, I repeat, I oppose the amendment on that basis.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, the gulf States are free to use any of the CDBG funds for

low-income housing. They can use all of the $4.2 billion, or even all of the $11.5 billion that we provided last year. What we are trying to do is provide the maximum amount of flexibility, flexibility just as we did for New York City after 9/11 but still preserve the low-income housing. This is all very, very important for the Governors.

In my view, we have already struck a good balance between flexibility and housing, while still allowing other development activities such as water and sewer construction business, development of transportation planning and debris removal, which is a big, big thing, as you know. We have allowed those things to go on.

I thank the gentlewoman for her interest, but I ask for a ``no'' vote.

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, our intent was to provide funds with the maximum flexibility to help all the people in the affected gulf coast region. This is really again an issue for the Governors of the affected States. The Secretary does not implement these plans. The Governors create the plans, and they also spend the money. Our language does not allow the Secretary to provide a blanket waiver of the low and moderate income provision. He must give notice of the waiver and explain why he granted such a waiver.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I recognize the gentlewoman is very much an advocate of emphasizing and focusing on the low income, and I appreciate that. But what we need to do is to let the States use these funds in the way that will best rebuild the devastated areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia for allowing me to speak on this very important resolution today.

Mr. Speaker, last month, I came across a story of a young constituent of mine, Alexandra McGregor, who started a grass-roots campaign for a National Support the Troops Day.

After watching a news report about a fallen soldier, Alexandra began to think of all the days set aside to honor great Americans. Her idea for a National Support the Troops Day was hatched because of her belief that our active duty troops should be honored in the same way as veterans, Presidents, and other great Americans.

Alexandra was inspired to contact local, State, and Federal officials about her idea. She even went so far as to write to one high school in each State to encourage them to participate in a National Support the Troops Day.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today because of Alexandra and those like her who wish to show their appreciation to the troops.

Currently, the U.S. officially honors the service veterans and patriots with designated national holidays. However, there is no official national day of recognition for active duty troops. We need to honor these men and women and show them that Americans across the country are appreciative of their hard work and sacrifice.

This resolution calls for Americans to participate in a moment of silence on March 26 to recognize our active duty troops. Mr. Speaker, this is no arbitrary day. Alexandra choose this day because it is the birthday of her late grandfather, a World War II veteran.

Today, there are over 1.3 million active duty troops both here at home and abroad. These men and women range from first-year military academy cadets to colonels and generals fighting in the global war against terrorism. Although we cannot thank them all individually, they all deserve our respect and admiration for their dedication to this great country. This resolution will honor our active duty troops as they deserve to be honored. On March 26, we will stand and salute these brave men and women.

With this resolution, it is my hope that our troops will know that the American people, from a 16-year-old girl in Waterford, Michigan, to the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, are grateful for their service. With our country at war, it is more important than ever to show our appreciation for our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to ask for support of this resolution. I appreciate very much those that have joined in support of this resolution and for the support of the dedicated, courageous, heroic men and women of our Armed Forces.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to speak on my bill, H.R. 32, the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act. I sincerely want to salute the chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for the effort he has made. And I also wanted to thank the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. Scott and anybody else that wants to rise. I appreciate very much all the hard work and the support you have given this bill.

I introduced this bill last year in response to the concerns of many manufacturing companies about the proliferation of counterfeit products, especially auto parts. Simply put, counterfeit parts and goods cost American jobs. Every year, counterfeiting costs the U.S. an estimated $200 billion, and that is climbing. Counterfeit auto parts alone cost the automotive supplier industry over $12 billion annually.

To put it in more tangible terms, it is estimated that if these losses were eliminated, the auto industry could hire 200,000 additional workers.

Counterfeit products not only damage our economy, as the chairman just mentioned; they compromise the safety of all Americans. Counterfeit auto parts, including brake pads, have been found in taxi cabs; fake prescriptions drugs have been confiscated; babies have been fed fake formula; and even, and this is serious, military combat vehicles have received counterfeit parts.

Oftentimes there is no way, virtually no way of telling the difference between a legitimate and a counterfeit product. That is why H.R. 32 prohibits trafficking in also counterfeit labels, patches, and medallions.

This legislation also requires convicted counterfeiters to not only surrender confiscated counterfeit goods but also, more importantly, the equipment used to make those products. H.R. 32 will help to dig up the counterfeiting networks by the roots, to stop criminals from reusing machinery and defrauding the American people.

I do just want to briefly address why we have to pass H.R. 32 again, when the House passed it last year by voice vote. First, the Senate added a technical clarification to address the concerns of some Internet marketplace companies that this bill would unfairly punish them for crimes committed by third parties. I support this technical change. The intent of this bill is not to punish the victims of counterfeit schemes but, rather, to penalize those that blatantly and consciously pursue the sale of counterfeit products.

Second, the Senate added additional anticounterfeit provisions that broaden the activities deemed criminal under current law to include international property violations, and I fully support the addition of these provisions.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to again thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner for his work on this bill. His committee has been tasked to do so many things over the last several months, so many pressing issues; and it took some time to bring this about. I sincerely appreciate everything he has done to bring this along. I also want to thank everybody else who was involved in bringing this bill to a final legislative finish.

We should all be proud of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a civic and business leader of Michigan, Mr. Richard M. DeVos, Sr., who will celebrate his 80th birthday this year.

Mr. DeVos cofounded the Amway Corporation, one of the most successful direct selling companies in the world. His efforts have enabled over 3 million people to own independent businesses.

Yet Mr. DeVos's work stretches beyond the realm of business; both he and his wife are

actively involved in philanthropy and charitable work. Their generosity has helped countless individuals both in their hometown of Grand Rapids and across Michigan. Institutions such as the DeVos Children's Hospital, the Cook-DeVos Center for Health Sciences, and the DeVos Campus of Grand Valley State University bear witness to their commitment to give back to the community.

Richard DeVos has also written three books that have inspired innovative and entrepreneurial spirits in younger generations. After undergoing a heart transplant in 1997, Mr. DeVos became the chairman of the Speakers Bureau for United Network for Organ Sharing and has worked diligently to deliver his message of perseverance and hope.

Today I rise to thank Richard M. DeVos, Sr. for his lifetime of service and dedication to our community, to congratulate him on his many accomplishments, and to wish him a happy and healthy birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a young constituent of mine, Alexandra McGregor, and to speak to her efforts to support our troops, both at home and aboard.

A few weeks ago I came across a story of a young girl starting a grassroots effort, for a ``National Support the Troops Day.'' After watching a news report of a fallen: soldier; Alexandra was inspired to contact her local, State, and Federal officials with her idea. I stand here today because of Alexandra and her efforts.

Throughout the calendar year Americans set aside days to honor great patriots, leaders, and fallen soldiers who have given their lives to defend the freedom that Americans cherish. These men and women should be honored and I, like all of my colleagues, honor their memory with my work in this great body. However, we as Americans do not have an official day to salute our active-duty soldiers. Today, there are over one million men and women who serve our country. These brave individuals deserve our respect and admiration for their courage to protect all Americans.

With Alexandra as my inspiration, today I am introducing a resolution that would mark March 26th, ``Support The Troops Day.'' With this resolution I ask all Americans to participate in a moment of silence on March 26th to honor the hard work and accomplishments of our soldiers both at home and aboard.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. George Weeks on 40 years of outstanding service to the residents of Michigan and to the institution of American journalism.

Mr. Weeks has dedicated his life to reporting in an honest, trustworthy, and professional manner. His commitment to quality journalism and public service has been a valuable asset to the greater Detroit community and to the State of Michigan.

George Weeks' fearless pursuit of excellence has touched the lives of many. His distinctive ability, combined with his genuine concern for the community, has set the standard for journalists and public servants to come.

Although I may not have personally agreed with every commentary, Mr. Weeks has always provided unique insight and clarity on political issues and current events. His ability to communicate and his true devotion to his readers have been incredible assets to our area. His presence in our papers will be sincerely missed.

Today I rise to thank George Weeks for his lifetime of service and dedication to our community, to congratulate him on his many accomplishments, and to wish him the best in his well-earned retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the extraordinary career and accomplishments of the Honorable Hilda R. Gage as she retires this year. I am honored to recognize her service to Michigan and Oakland County as Judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Oakland County Circuit Court.

Judge Gage has long been an influential woman in both Oakland County and Michigan. Elected to the Oakland County Circuit Court in November of 1978, she presided there for three terms before she was appointed to the Michigan Court of Appeals by Governor Engler. She is retiring this year after a combined total of 37 years of service in Michigan courts.

While presiding, Judge Gage has been honored by many associations for her exemplary service. She is widely regarded as a very influential woman not only in the State of Michigan but nationally as well. In March 2002 she was recognized by Corp! Magazine as one of ``Michigan's 95 Most Powerful Women'' and has been honored by the Women's Bar Association in December, 2000 for her contributions to the practice of law, improving the legal system, and her dedication to the community. Additionally, she was given the Roberts P. Hudson Award in October 1991, by the State Bar of Michigan for Outstanding Contributions to the Bar. This is the highest honor bestowed by the State Bar.

Judge Gage is also credited with many ``firsts'' throughout her judicial career. She was the first female chairperson of the National Conference of State Trial Judges in 1986 and holds the same distinction for the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission in 1991. She also chaired and helped to originate the State Bar of Michigan Judicial Conference, holding the chair of that conference from its inception in 1982 through 1984. This conference was the first organized body in which the circuit, probate, and district judicial associations meet on a regular basis. Finally, she was the first recipient of the Award of Judicial Excellence, given by the National Conference of State Trial Judges and American Bar Association in August of 1994.

Judge Hilda Gage has served Oakland County and the State of Michigan with honor and pride for the duration of her career and I am honored to thank her for her commitment to justice and integrity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Harold ``Sandy'' Sandelman, a resident of Laguna Woods, California, for turning 100 years old on November 26, 2005.

Mr. Sandelman, a son of a Russian immigrant, was born in Sault Saint Marie, Michigan, on November 26, 1905. In 1912, his family moved to Detroit, Michigan where Mr. Sandelman attended high school and became known for his ability to sing, dance, and play the banjo. In fact, the students named Mr. Sandelman ``Banjo Buddy'' because of his passion for playing the instrument.

Following high school, Mr. Sandelman attended Wayne State University for one year. After a year of college, Mr. Sandelman returned to Detroit and worked for Metro Goldwin Mayer selling motion pictures to various theatres in southern Michigan. Mr. Sandelman also worked in the advertising business for several years before becoming a salesman of building materials until he retired at the age of 75.

Mr. Sandelman has also enjoyed a long life of playing golf from age fifteen into his early nineties. His drive, energy and enthusiasm should encourage us all to live life to the fullest.

Mr. Sandelman is the father of Mrs. Carole Lynn Jones who is married to Mr. Robert R. Jones, who resides in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, a part of Michigan's Ninth Congressional District, which I represent.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to wish Mr. Sandelman a happy 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 3058.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 565, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3058) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

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

I bring to the House the first-ever conference report for Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the independent agencies, plus the District of Columbia. This is a complex bill, but an important bill, making appropriations for our Nation's important infrastructure: roads, airports and rail, for our Nation's capital, for our Nation's housing needs, and for our Nation's judiciary. We have met the needs for fiscal year 2006, all the while staying within our 302(b) allocation of $65.9 billion, and total spending of $133.4 billion.

I would like to thank my friend and ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for all of the hard work and the keen interest in the programs in this bill. He has proven to be a valuable partner, and I want to commend him. He has made significant contributions to this bill, and I thank him for his support.

I would also like to thank the members of the subcommittee for their hard work during the hearing process and in creating the bill. I certainly want to mention and point out that this staff, the entire staff, has really done some extraordinary things over the last several days, and they have had some sleepless nights, and so they are prepared to leave here tonight and catch up on some needed sleep.

This is a good bill, a clean bill, and one that I urge a ``yes'' vote to pass the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and the District of Columbia bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.017

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the ranking member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I do indeed. There is language in the bill addressing the Free File Alliance stating that ``the conferees are aware that the IRS and the FFA have signed a new 4-year agreement under which the IRS continues to agree not to enter the tax preparation market.''

The conferees direct IRS to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement.

We believe that this will ensure that the IRS adheres to the agreement and will not enter the tax preparation market.

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

Mr. Speaker, likewise, I urge everyone to support this bill. It is a good bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of the House have until midnight, November 15, 2005, to file the conference report to accompany H.R. 3058.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the motion to instruct on H.R. 3058.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3058) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his commitment to the programs in this bill and for his partnership in what has been a most interesting journey to bring this bill to a conference.

This bill is a huge compilation of government operations, public service programs and critical national infrastructure. Like other appropriations bills, our allocation and commitment to fiscal responsibility makes funding these programs a challenge. Our task was to fund well-run, effective programs to the greatest extent that we could and encourage reform in others. Two of the motions, Amtrak and HOPE VI, fall into the latter category.

Starting first with Amtrak, this is a railroad in desperate need of reform. This year alone Amtrak will carry over $120 million in funds that were provided to them by the Congress in fiscal year 2005 but not used. The DOT Inspector General, an official respected on both sides of the aisle, has informed us that $1.275 billion is sufficient for Amtrak to continue operating its existing route structure without reductions in frequency, and to dedicate sufficient resources to continue the effort to bring Amtrak-owned infrastructure to a state of good repair. Also included in this figure is $278 million to meet Amtrak's debt service obligations on its nearly $4 billion in outstanding loans.

HOPE VI is a program that is just that for many people, hope that the grant to create new public housing will actually be spent in their neighborhoods. Currently, over $2.8 billion in HOPE VI grants has not been spent. Only 37 of the 224 communities have actually seen the finished product.

For those 37 communities, HOPE VI is a terrific program, and I was a supporter of HOPE VI for that reason, because there are some good examples. However, HOPE VI is not working for the other 187.

Here is another program in desperate need of reform, and I am hopeful for that in the coming year, with whatever level of funding is provided for the program. The authorizing committees of jurisdiction will look for ways to make this program more effective.

Section 722 of the Senate bill deals with micropurchases. I believe the administration has already acted on this issue, and we are supportive of the Senate's provisions.

In the end, we recognize the challenges of reform and have not abandoned our commitment to fund good programs. We will do our best under this allocation that we have to meet to fund the priority programs, including HOPE VI and Amtrak. Again, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and

all the members of the subcommittee for their hard work this year.

With that, I would merely announce that I would accept the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, today I, along with 17 other bipartisan, original cosponsors, am introducing the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act (AMCA). This bill will help our manufacturing companies and their workers in a time of need. Right now, America's manufacturers are facing unprecedented international competition so it's critical that we pursue policies that make American manufacturing industries the strongest in the world.

In order to be competitive on the global market, our manufacturing base has to have access to timely supplies of competitively priced raw materials. Our manufacturers have to sell their goods at globally competitive prices, so they need to get their inputs at globally competitive prices too.

The problem is excessively high raw material prices are hurting our manufacturers. For example, U.S. steel prices are now the highest in the world. As just one example, the price for hot-rolled coil is over $100/ton higher than anywhere else in the world. When the costs of inputs for our manufacturing base are higher than the rest of the world, it undermines their ability to compete.

Government policies are part of the problem. For example, there are now over 150 different import restrictions covering over 20 steel products from over 30 nations. Some of these have been in effect since the 1980's, and cover steel products that are more expensive here than anywhere in the world. These restrictions can cause large distortions in the U.S. market for raw materials, and can inflict harm on the manufacturers and workers who need those materials to make their products. They hobble our manufacturers in tight markets, and choke off our larger manufacturing base.

However, the astonishing reality is this harm to our manufacturing base is being ignored when decisions about import restrictions are made. The International Trade Commission (ITC) and Department of Commerce (DOC) don't even allow the industrial users any meaningful participation in the process. Think about this. American companies are directly impacted by these decisions, but they are not even considered in the process. In fact, foreign producers have more rights in this process than our own American industrial users. This is especially disturbing since steel consuming jobs outnumber steel producing jobs by over 60 to 1. This is extremely unfair and unwise.

I testified at the ITC twice earlier this year during hearings on 5- year sunset reviews for duties on hot-rolled steel and stainless steel sheet and strip. Duties on these types of steel had already been in place for 5 years, and now the ITC was required to make a decision about whether they should continue. Companies who need these types of steel testified at these hearings too and provided information about the trouble they have getting the quantity and quality of the steel they need at competitive prices. When a manufacturing company can't get the raw materials it needs, that causes damage to the company particularly when they have to deliver their products just-in-time. Because of these duties, the industrial users are suffering damage.

I also introduced House Resolution 84, which urges the ITC to consider the effects of duties on industrial users during these sunset reviews. This resolution has 48 bipartisan cosponsors. All we were asking was that the ITC consider the effects of these duties on the consuming companies.

When the report explaining the ITC's decision to keep the duties in place came out, I was shocked that there was no evidence at all that the ITC considered the effects of the duties on the industrial users. Nothing. These are American companies with American workers, but there was no evidence the ITC listened at all.

Furthermore, during one of the hearings a representative for the steel industry stated ``the Commission is precluded from considering the impact of imports of the subject merchandise on domestic steel consumers in determining whether the antidumping order should be revoked.'' This person was saying in effect that the ITC is not even allowed to consider the effects of their decisions on our manufacturing base. This is just wrong and it must be addressed to prevent unnecessary damage to our manufacturing base.

Antidumping and countervailing duty laws are necessary and they're in the interest of the United States, when applied in an objective and fair manner, to prevent unfair pricing and subsidized competition. But it's not fair and it's not acceptable when American companies being hurt by duties on imports can't even be considered in the process.

Mr. Speaker, basic fairness and common sense require us to change the law. My bill will address this problem by giving industrial users legal standing to participate in the antidumping and countervailing duty processes. It will require the ITC and the DOC to consider the information provided by the businesses that use these products. This is only fair. Furthermore, the process for imposing duties will remain the same, with the addition of a simple test that looks at the downstream harm. Under this bill, when making decisions on import restrictions, an economic impact test would be conducted by the ITC to determine the net effect on the American manufacturers affected by those decisions. In order for a restriction to

be imposed, the test must show it would provide greater benefit than harm to U.S. interested parties in that case. If not, it can't be imposed. This is only fair, and makes sure our policies are economically sound.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill to help our American manufacturing base be as competitive as it can be.