Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I rise in very reluctant support of this rule. I am eager to see this bill move forward. It is my bill. It is our committee's bill. But I am disappointed in one particular aspect of this rule.

The rule does not protect section 129 of the bill from a point of order. Section 129 raises the cap on the military family housing privatization program. This provision does not appropriate one dime in any new money; it merely increases the authorization level in order to allow fiscal year 2005 projects to proceed.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget referenced the defense authorization bill. It does not even touch on 2005. It talks about 2006. This money, if the cap is not removed, is going to disappear by about November.

Unfortunately, CBO has decided that this provision should be scored. Its rationale for doing so is a little strange and thoroughly unconvincing. The crucial point is this: If the developer cannot service the debt on a project, the Federal Government is not on the hook. This has been stated over and over. There is no backing of any kind for the developer's private debt.

The bottom line is that this is a bookkeeping dispute with CBO, nothing more. But because of the decision of the CBO, this provision is vulnerable to a point of order, and I was hoping that this rule would waive that point of order.

By the way, CBO and OMB scored this the same way since 1996, but this year CBO decided to change it. Nothing in the program has changed, but CBO decided to change the scoring.

The housing privatization program is an enormously successful and popular program. I cannot think of a single person, including the chairman of the Committee on the Budget himself, who has expressed opposition to this program. The administration put out a statement on the bill that strongly, strongly supports the provision. They do not agree with CBO's scoring.

Earlier this year, my subcommittee heard from military spouses who testified to the positive difference that this program made in their lives. Let me just quote from one spouse, Mrs. Susan Sinclair of Fort Rucker, Alabama.

``Thank you for your efforts to improve our housing. The Residential Communities Initiative, RCI, has made many of our government neighborhoods look like civilian communities. My neighbor received a letter from her daughter stating that Camp Humphreys, Korea,'' we are talking about Korea now, ``had the best housing in the Army. What a change. As many of you know from my testimony 3 years ago, when my husband and I were stationed in Camp Humphreys, we lived in a condemned Quonset hut.''

By the way, that still exists around the world, around this country in many ways, too.

``This new housing is a testament to your committee's desire to improve the quality of life of our soldiers and their families. I want you to know how much we appreciate your efforts.'' By the way, we have many of those.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard positive comments like this all the way up to the Joint Chiefs level. I really want to identify, too, with the comments of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), because I think he had some very, very significant points.

I have personally seen this housing program and many members of this subcommittee have done so as well, and they have done some great work. Some new communities have been built, and this is a vast improvement.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I again say that I will support this rule, but only with serious reservations.

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 H.R. 4837, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to present the fiscal year 2005 military construction appropriations bill, which was reported out of the full committee on appropriations on July 9 by voice vote.

Let me at the beginning thank all of the people who contributed to this bill, the subcommittee staff, and my ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). I want to also call attention to some of the staff who did remarkable work to bring this bill forward: Carol Murphy, Walter Hearne, Eric Elsmo, Mary Arnold and, of course, Tom Forhan on the minority side.

The ultimate purpose of this bill is to support our service men and women by providing a quality of life commensurate with the sacrifices they are called upon to make. I want to thank each Member again of the subcommittee, because they did contribute greatly via, in some cases, CODELs to look at some of the housing, for example, around the country and around the world. I thank them for their hard work and support, and certainly I add to it again the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who has been a strong and vocal supporter of our men and women in the service for years.

The bill totals $10 billion, which is $162 million above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and $450 million above the President's request. The bill also contains a general provision related to housing privatization that CBO scores as additional budget authority. I will get to that shortly. But let me emphasize that $10.003 billion is what the bill appropriates, and not a penny more.

Mr. Chairman, we are at war. Many will argue that in such a time as this, when so many of our servicemembers and their families are making great sacrifices, that this bill does not provide enough. In one respect, they are right. There is no question we could do more if we had more. But I think this bill does a lot of good things and provides our active, Guard, and Reserve servicemembers with critically needed infrastructure to meet their mission goals, and it improves housing and community facilities for their families.

That being said, I want to draw some attention now to the highlights of this bill. Within the total amount of $10 billion, the bill provides $5.3 billion for military construction, including $1.1 billion for troop barracks; $833 million for the Guard and Reserve component and other facilities such as schools, fitness centers, and child development centers.

The bill also provides $1.6 billion for family housing construction, including funding for about 18 to 24 privatization projects, depending upon the cost of those projects; $2.5 billion for family housing operations and maintenance; $246 million for costs related to past BRAC rounds; and $166 million for the NATO Security Investment Program.

In addition, the bill fully funds overseas military construction; it fully funds the chemical demilitarization construction program; it provides the requested funds for projects associated with new weapons systems, including the Army Stryker vehicle, the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, and the C-17 Globemaster cargo plane; and provides much needed funding for the Navy to continue replacing inadequate pier infrastructure.

Now I want to say a word or two about the family housing privatization program.

Mr. Chairman, a limitation on budget authority was placed on the program when it was first authorized in 1996. This $850 million cap was put in as a safeguard for what was then a new and untested program, a pilot program, if you will. Eight years later, the program has become one of the most successful programs we have ever had for improving the quality of life and morale of our troops and families.

This cap will be reached before the end of this year; and if action is not taken to increase the limitation in fiscal year 2005, progress on replacing substandard homes will be seriously hampered. Unfortunately, we have run into a scoring issue with the CBO, which has complicated the solving of this problem.

To my colleagues who are concerned about the impact that the provision would have on our budget deficit, I want to say this, and I may have to repeat this: this provision does not appropriate any new money. None. All the money that is needed to support privatization is already contained within the bill. All this provision does is raise the authorization to allow the program to continue. Not a single dime more will be drawn from the Treasury as a result of this provision.

The committee, frankly, disagrees with the new approach that CBO has decided to take to score the program. It does not reflect the reality of the program. To me, since the provision spends no new money, scoring is like building a bridge where there is no water.

Mr. Chairman, this is truly a vital program. To endanger it because of some bookkeeping disagreement would be unwise. I personally have seen the homes being built because of the program, and I have talked to military spouses about how their lives have improved because of this program. You might be interested in knowing twice the percentage of families that are in the military service are married as compared to, say, during the Vietnam War. This is a good program, it is a bipartisan program, and it is a necessary program.

CBO's rationale for how it scores this program is complex, convoluted, and unfounded. Every Member of Congress that I have talked to strongly supports this program, and I mean every Member. Every witness that testified before the subcommittee supports this program, including the Joint Chiefs and the military spouses. The chairman of the Committee on Armed Services supports this program. Even the administration, the White House, and the Department of Defense strongly support the provision and submitted statements to the committee that it would not result in any, any additional cost to the Federal Government. I have not heard from one single person that does not support this program.

If the housing privatization cap is not raised, then 16 projects covering 23 installations spanning 13 States will be affected in fiscal year 2005. The affected projects include major installations in California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. A significant number of Members on both sides of the aisle will feel the impact on their military constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues for their support of this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), who is also a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who is a member of the subcommittee as well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman

from Virginia (Mr. Goode), who is a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, and a member of this subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) who was previously the chairman of this committee for 4 years.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), who is a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

I believe my colleagues can tell from the input that has been brought forward this afternoon and the contributions from everybody that everyone here feels very strongly about this issue, extremely strongly. In fact, I think about the work that this subcommittee has done. We have always striven to do things in a fashion that

represents actually what ends up being a bipartisan effort, but we actually do not seek that necessarily. It is just that what we are doing is for the common good of our military, and it seems to be appropriate then that it all works out in our favor.

This, I believe, is a fair bill. It is a good bill. We worked with some monetary restrictions. That is something that has to happen over here. It happens all the time.

The other thing I would say, this is, as the chairman has mentioned, a must-pass bill. We cannot think about it and talk about it, but it has got to pass. It is one of the requirements of this committee.

So I would simply say that this, with input that we have got, with the feeling being 100 percent in terms of supporting this measure, that we are in a position to carry out what it is that the troops want. They deserve better housing. This bill promises better housing; and in fact, it does something about the inadequate housing, too, that has become a major problem because the goal of the military is to get those inadequate housing situations out of the picture by 2007. To crimp this, it would simply crimp what we are trying to do here.

So I would urge everybody to support this bill. It is a good bill, and I thank everybody.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill and encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of it today.

I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for their working together to produce a very, very good bill. Let me also commend the staff for the work that they have contributed. They have addressed the chairman's, ranking member's and as many of the other Members' problems and interests as possible and done a very good job in producing an effective bill. I hope and expect it will receive broad bipartisan support today.

Mr. Chairman, the foreign operations bill is arguably the most important contribution to America's foreign policy that the House of Representatives makes. Let me briefly highlight a few areas.

Assistance to the Middle East is always a central part of this bill.

For fiscal year 2005, Israel will receive $2.2 billion in military assistance, $360 million in economic assistance, and $50 billion to resettle Jewish refugees in Israel. I strongly support all of that funding.

The U.S.-Israel relationship is a cornerstone of our overall foreign policy, and Israel is our critical ally in the Middle East. We do disagree from time to time, but the U.S.-Israel relationship is incredibly strong.

I also support the military and economic assistance to Egypt in this bill. Because of the level of cooperation we are receiving from Egypt in the war on terrorism and the peace process, I believe the bill contains the right balance of military and economic assistance for each at this time.

I understand that an amendment will likely be offered today to change the balance of assistance to Egypt. I will strongly oppose that amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it as well.

I am also very pleased this bill contains $35 million in economic support funds for Lebanon, including $4 million for the American educational institutions that are there. Lebanon has great potential, and USAID's Village Cluster Program has played an important role in the development of villages throughout Lebanon. I know many Members agree with me on that and that the continuation of this program of $35 million is critical.

Let me just highlight what this bill provides for Armenia. Unfortunately, Armenia is a landlocked country surrounded by nations on both sides that are hostile to it. Because transportation routes into Armenia are sealed, the Armenian economy is being strangled. Therefore, it is appropriate for the U.S. to provide substantial economic assistance. This bill provides $65 million in economic assistance to Armenia, which is an increase above the administration's request.

We also must be very careful with the military assistance we provide in the Caucasus, in the South Caucasus. I believe it is absolutely critical to maintain complete parity in military assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan. I am pleased that this bill does exactly that.

The State Department's Middle East Partnership Initiative is becoming one of the most progressive reform programs in the Middle East. I am pleased that this bill continues to provide funding for this important initiative.

There are many more valuable programs in this bill, including the Millennium Challenge Corporation, IMET to Greece, microcredit, and, of course, funding to fight the scourge of HIV/AIDS.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me once again urge everybody on this floor, all Members on both sides, to support this bill, a good bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Since the 1978 Camp David accords, Egypt and the United States have shared a close relationship built around mutual strategic interests and common goals.

The U.S.-Egyptian military is both strong and important.

Our military assistance to Egypt has helped to build an Egyptian military that is interoperable with the United States, and actively supports U.S. security goals in the region. This Egyptian capacity has enabled our U.S. ships to safely traverse the Suez Canal, and enabled our planes to effectively traverse Egyptian airspace.

Let me be clear. I am not satisfied with the pace of economic and political reform in Egypt. I know many of the Egyptian people feel the same way. There are many issues the United States and Egypt will have to work through in the coming years. It is important for the United States to continue to press Egypt on these issues.

However, I believe this amendment would unwisely undermine the U.S.- Egyptian military relationship. This would be particularly damaging at a time when Egypt is providing important cooperation in the War on Terrorism and the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. In addition, as we ask Egypt to take a more prominent role in the security of the Gaza strip, we should not undercut Egypt's ability to play the role we are asking them to play.

Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I appreciate the 2 minutes.

I obviously rise in strong support of the Australia free trade agreement. Let me add a few positives to what has already been said.

We have some who disagree with us on the other side. They have split up the other side. Trade is absolutely critical to our economy. American businesses and workers are the best in world. When we open up markets for American products, our companies sell more overseas and create more jobs back here at home.

This agreement is certainly clearly beneficial to the U.S. Two-way trade, as has been stated, between the U.S. and Australia is approximately $29 billion; and I will mention it again, the surplus of $9 billion. Every State in America exports. Every single State exports to Australia.

My home State of Michigan, for example, ranks as number five, fifth highest, over $2 billion in export products in the last 3 years; but we can do a great deal more than that. Let me take a look at the American auto industry for a moment. This is a significant part of the economy in my district and many, many more around the country.

It is no secret that global competition in the auto sector is intense. Auto companies around the world work hard to realize price advantages over their competitors. The U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement gives our auto companies a real leg up. As a result of this agreement, on January 1, 2005, American auto exports to Australia will cost 10 to 15 percent less than our Japanese, Korean, and European competitors.

That means more work building cars for export to Australia for the 600,000 Americans employed by auto companies and the 2 million Americans who work for auto suppliers, as well as the many industries that support those companies. These are real benefits that we will bring to those American workers and many others by passing this agreement today.

Free trade agreements, like the one before us today, are good for our country, with our good friend Australia in particular. They mean more jobs at better wages. They mean long-term health for our economy.

So let us make it a reality. Vote ``yes'' on the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for sitting in the chair, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for being so involved in this whole process.

Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of MEP, I have come to the floor to urge a vote against this amendment. I am for MEP, but I am against this amendment.

Let me tell the Members why. I am against it because funding MEP at $106 million, which is the level of funding the program has provided in H.R. 4754, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005, is exactly what we want. Just yesterday the House of the Representatives passed the CJS by an overwhelming margin, 397 to 18. The $106 million level is the point at which all MEP centers will continue to provide their valuable service to our Nation's manufacturers.

Additionally, the bill before us today already authorizes significantly increased funding for the MEP program. In fact, the legislation already increases MEP funding by more than 200 percent compared to the current fiscal year 2004 level.

Furthermore, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) would allow the Federal-State-private network match to increase from one-third to one-half. An increase to a one-half match would jeopardize the MEP network and increase its vulnerability.

The one-third match has been in place for many years, and centers have long known that they cannot rely exclusively on Federal funds. This one-third match from the Federal Government, State governments and the private sector, is critical to maintaining the balanced program well into future.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Gordon amendment, and urge my colleagues to vote no.

In closing, let me again commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for his leadership in bringing this to the floor. He has been an outstanding champion on this bill and a great example.

I urge a no vote on the Gordon amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4754, the CJS Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005. I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), for producing what I believe to be an excellent bill, and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) as well; and I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this legislation.

There are many reasons to support this bill. I want to note one program in particular, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for recognizing the importance of the MEP program to our Nation's manufacturers by funding it at $106 million. At that level, all MEP centers will continue to provide their valuable service to this country's manufacturers.

The MEP program, as has been discussed, is a Federal-State private network of over 60 centers with 400 locations in all 50 States. In fiscal year 2002 alone, MEP served approximately 18,000 small- and medium-sized manufacturers nationwide. These manufacturers reported an additional $2.8 billion in sales, $681 million more in cost savings, and 35,000 more jobs simply as a result of their projects in these MEP centers.

In my district alone, which has over 1,500 manufacturing companies, 92 percent of which are under 100 employees, Tru-Val Tubing Company in Waterford, Michigan, has seen dramatic improvements in productivity from the training provided by the MEP. The MEP center in Michigan, called the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center, taught Tru-Val how to streamline the processes and reduce their inventory.

By embracing the concept of ``lean thinking,'' Tru-Val can now produce more products in less space. The result is higher productivity and huge savings for the company. In fact, because of these improvements, Tru-Val has been able to increase its employees from 85 to 120. It is truly a success story. And for these reasons, I strongly support the MEP program, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Detroit Pistons. Tuesday night, playing at the Palace of Auburn Hills in my district, the Pistons defeated the Los Angeles Lakers to win the 2004 NBA championship.

From top to bottom, the Pistons were a model of teamwork and dedication. Owner Bill Davidson provided the foundation for the Pistons' championship and has been a positive member of the Detroit and southeast Michigan community for years. President of Basketball Operations Joe Dumars built this team and coach Larry Brown molded the Piston players into a cohesive, team-first group.

This has been a very exciting season for the people of Michigan. They have embraced the Pistons, as millions outside of Michigan have. Fans identified with this team. The Pistons represented core American values of hard work, persevering through difficult times, and sharing both success and failures with family and loved ones.

I want to thank the Pistons and everyone in their organization for giving us from Michigan a team to be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Rabbi Elimelech David Goldberg, the founder and National Director of Kids Kicking Cancer. Rabbi Goldberg is one of 10 outstanding individuals from across the country selected this year to receive a Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leadership award.

Over a decade ago, Rabbi Goldberg experienced the painful loss of his 2-year-old child during a bone marrow transplant for lymphocytic leukemia. Later, when he was approached to run a camp for children with cancer, he at first refused, fearing it would be too painful. On further reflection, he saw the opportunity to help other children in pain as a way to give meaning to the life of his daughter, and he embraced the challenge. Rabbi Goldberg's training as a black belt convinced him that karate could be a powerful aid to pain management and empowerment for young patients, enabling them to heal physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

When Rabbi Goldberg incorporated martial arts therapy into the program of the oncology camp in 1996, the results were dramatic. Children were encouraged to envision themselves not as cancer victims, but as healthy kids with tumors. They learned to control their fear and pain within a community of peer support that mitigated the isolation of illness. Following this success, with the aid of a small grant, he created a pilot program at Children's Hospital of Detroit in March 1998.

When he incorporated the Kids Kicking Cancer organization in 1999, Rabbi Goldberg gave up his rabbinic congregation, active counseling practice, and directorship of the oncology camp. Today, ten social workers and child life specialists who are also martial arts teachers give weekly classes, accompany children to painful clinic visits, and visit them at home. There is also a hospice program for patients whose cancers are not responding to treatment. Kids Kicking Cancer has been working with over 400 children in Michigan, and is now starting Kids Kicking Sickle Cell in Michigan and Brooklyn, NY.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Rabbi Elimelech David Goldberg for his accomplishments as founder of Kids Kicking Cancer and for his efforts put forth in achieving a 2004 Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leadership Program award.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my Michigan colleagues in rising in support of House Concurrent Resolution 295, which congratulates and salutes Focus: HOPE on its 35th anniversary.

Focus: HOPE, located in Detroit, is the result of the vision of Father William T. Cunningham and Eleanor Josaitis, who were compelled to make a difference as the 1967 riot left metropolitan Detroit sharply divided along racial lines. Ever since, Focus: HOPE has been committed to bringing together people of all races, faiths, and economic backgrounds. In short, the accomplishments of this organization are nothing short of remarkable. For example, Focus: HOPE helped to conceive and develop the Department of Agriculture's Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which has been replicated in 32 states. Through this program, Focus: HOPE helps feed 43,000 people monthly throughout Southeast Michigan.

Additionally, Focus: HOPE has revitalized several city blocks in central Detroit by redeveloping obsolete industrial buildings, beautifying and landscaping Oakman Boulevard, creating pocket parks, and rehabilitating homes in the surrounding areas.

For these reasons, as a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, I have been pleased to assist Focus: HOPE over the past several years. Their growing list of accomplishments fills me with pride and I will continue to support them in future years.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating this pillar of the community that has achieved so much in the great state of Michigan. I am confident Focus: HOPE will continue down this path for many years to come. Their mission statement states in part: ``Recognizing the dignity and beauty of every person, we pledge intelligent and practical action to overcome racism, poverty and injustice.'' Focus: HOPE's years of excellence have demonstrated that they do indeed stand behind their message.

Mr. Speaker, regretfully, my plane was unavoidably delayed yesterday and I was unable to record my vote in the House of Representatives. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcalls 177, 178, and 179.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation--the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act--that addresses the mounting problem of counterfeit manufactured products. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this bill at the earliest opportunity.

The size and scope of counterfeit manufactured goods around the world is growing every day. In fact, the International Chamber of Commerce estimates that seven percent of the world's trade is in counterfeit goods and that the counterfeit market is worth $350 billion.

Not only are these counterfeit goods a documented health and safety risk for consumers here and abroad, but these counterfeit goods also impact our economy by stealing sales from legitimate American manufacturers and costing Americans high-paying manufacturing jobs.

In fact, the U.S. Customs Service has estimated previously that counterfeiting has resulted in the loss of 750,000 jobs and costs the United States around $200 billion annually. Counterfeit automobile parts alone cost that industry over $12 billion. It is estimated that if these losses were eliminated, the auto industry could hire 200,000 additional workers.

The plight of manufacturers in this country has received a great deal of attention in recent months, and rightfully so. The plight is real.

Manufacturers in this country are the most efficient and technologically advanced in the world, but they face many challenges. In the face of massive global competition, the biggest problems facing manufacturers are the costs they can't directly control, and harm the environment in which they compete. As policy makers, I believe we should focus on improving that environment, and cracking down on those companies who break the rules in the United States and abroad is one way that should garner strong bipartisan support.

The Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act does this by strengthening the federal trademark law used to prosecute counterfeiters. It has three key provisions.

First, the bill provides for the mandatory destruction of the equipment used to manufacture and package counterfeit goods. Under current law, counterfeiters can have their illegal goods seized, but retain the equipment they used to make them. I think we can all agree that we should not leave counterfeiters in business, and this provision will help us in that effort.

Second, the bill clarifies that Title 18, Section 2320, prohibits trafficking in counterfeit labels, patches, and medallions that are unattached to any goods. Sophisticated counterfeiters have sold counterfeit versions of the trademarks themselves in the form of patch sets or medallions that can later be attached to generic merchandises and given the appearance of a genuine product. This is counterfeiting and should not stand.

Finally, the bill offers greater protection for ``famous'' marks by removing the requirement that the spurious trademark be used in connection with goods or services identical to those for which the spurious mark is already registered.

One important example of why this last provision is necessary is the famous Nike ``swoosh.'' Nike had never intended to enter the sports watch market, so it did not register its trademark for sports watches. A counterfeiter took advantage of this loophole by selling sports watches bearing a counterfeit Nike ``swoosh'' because that trademark was so popular. Nike was forced to add sports watches to its trademark registry because it had no recourse under the law to stop the counterfeiter. The bill closes that loophole.

The Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act will have a positive impact here in the United States, but its reach can be global. Counterfeit manufactured goods are a world-wide problem and we will need the cooperation of our trading partners to effectively fight counterfeiters. With these provisions in law, our trade negotiators will be able to seek stronger anti-counterfeiting provisions in bilateral and international agreements with trading partners, with these improvements as the basis for asking other countries to enact similar changes.

I thank Congressman Mark Green of Wisconsin for joining as an original co-sponsor of this legislation. I encourage all my colleagues to join us in cracking down on the counterfeit goods that threaten public safety, steal sales from legitimate manufacturers, and cost American jobs.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation into law.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentlewoman that just spoke, there is another alternative that we can talk about as well, because throughout the country, small business owners face a problem, because they cannot afford to offer their employees health insurance.

The Small Business Health Fairness Act, H.R. 4281, which we are going to debate this week, helps to resolve health care benefit concerns for small businesses and their employees. Through Association Health Plans, small businesses will have the ability to secure affordable health care contracts. Uninsured employees will receive the security of affordable health insurance.

Here is something that I think is significant: Out of the 44 million uninsured Americans, so called, about 25 million of them are people in small businesses, either the dependents or the employees themselves.

The price of health care benefits has risen by 12 percent this year alone. Escalating health care premiums makes it nearly impossible for small business owners to afford to offer health care benefits to their employees.

H.R. 4281 will make health insurance a reality for small businesses. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I commend Peggy A. Dzierzawski of Troy, Michigan, on the occasion of her thirty year anniversary in the accounting profession. Ms. Dzierzawski has a long and notable career as a public servant in Michigan. I have known Peggy for many years now. Her good nature, dedication, and enthusiasm for her work are extraordinary. She is a trusted and dedicated individual who has much to be proud of on this milestone in her career.

Peggy has truly distinguished herself through her work for the Michigan Association of Certified Public Accountants (MACPA) and its nearly 16,000 CPAs and affiliated professionals in Michigan. As President and CEO since 1997, she rose to the MACPA's top position after working in each of its departments. Her tenure is filled with laudable accomplishments, including helping to protect and assist the citizens of Michigan by overhauling the state's public accountancy statute.

Peggy attended Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, and the Institute for Organizational Management at the University of Notre Dame where she earned the prestigious national Certified Association Executive (CAE) designation from the American Society of Association Executives in 1995.

It should be noted that Peggy has long been active in many professional and community organizations, on both the national and local level. She is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and is Past Chairman of the Michigan Society of Association Executives (MSAE). In fact, she was the first award recipient of the MSAE's Strategic Association Leader Award in 2002. Moreover, Peggy is a member of the American Society of Association Executives and Meeting Planner (Professionals) International, as well as a Board member of Junior Achievement of Southeastern Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Peggy A. Dzierzawski for her many years of service and devotion to the accounting profession and community as a whole. I am glad to have known Peggy these many years and I wish her, her husband Ron, and all of her family, my heartfelt congratulations on this day.