Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, why are we playing these political games? We have 15 million people out of work, we have families, small businesses, seniors and job creators facing

a nearly $4 trillion tax bomb that will go off on January 1, and here we are playing political games.

This bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. Everyone knows it. We are wasting time today. And worse than that, it undercuts the President's own sincere efforts to work with Dave Camp, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Senate Republicans and Senate and House Democrats to actually come up with a real solution to solve this problem. Instead, this body is rushing forward with more political theater. And my question is, wasn't September the time to play political games? Right now with the clock ticking, shouldn't we be all about solutions?

Let's talk about two myths. Democrats say, let's pass this, it will help jump-start the economy. It will do just the opposite. One, the people they hit, these consumers, hold one of every $3 in consumption today. So Democrats say, instead of going into that Main Street shop this Christmas season spending money, send your dollars to Washington, that will help the economy.

Secondly, it damages the small businesses that are the backbone of job creation. You will hear this claim that it only hits 3 percent of small businesses. You know how they figured that? They counted the tax ID numbers so people who have small businesses that have been vacant for years are still counted. But if you count the actual income from small businesses, that's what gets taxed, half of all small business income, half of all the income that creates jobs in America will be hammered by the Democrats' tax bill.

And don't take my word for it. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget Office, and the President's own head of the Council of Economic Advisers say passing all tax relief for all people in America will boost the U.S. economy more than this bill.

Final point: These dollars won't be used for deficit reduction. Democrats and the President have signed seven bills, $625 billion of tax increases, in the last 2 years. Guess how much went to deficit reduction? Not a dime. It all went to expand the government and double that to a bigger government.

Let's stop playing games. Let's get real solutions. Let's have an up- or-down vote that extends tax relief for all Americans, that helps move us into the next 2 years, and let's stop that ticking tax bomb.

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

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I yield myself 15 seconds to point out the Chamber of Commerce says 2,600 businesses, small businesses, and business associations have signed a letter pushing and making the case for extending all tax relief for all small businesses and all taxpayers, including a number from California, the Orange County Business Council, the North Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, and a number of other small businesses.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who has fought against higher taxes and for more small business job creation.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman who is a leader in cutting taxes and in restraining the level of government spending, the leader of the House Republicans, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Madam Speaker, ten years ago today, our world lost a great champion for global democracy and the rule of law.

John Alvis, a close friend and constituent of mine, was murdered on November 30, 2000 in Baku, Azerbaijan where he was working for the cause most dear to his heart spreading democracy around the globe. For those of you who never had the honor to meet John, I'd like to tell you today about this 36 year old idealistic warrior for international democracy who never met a stranger.

I first got to know John when he helped guide my first campaign for Congress and in 1999, I was honored to witness first hand John's impact around the globe as he assisted the Republic of Georgia in their transition to a democratic government. His passion to export American democratic principles was unrivaled and that lead him from his home in Texas to the former Soviet Union.

John's young life was ended by an unknown assailant while he serving as a resident director of the International Republican Institute, training campaign workers and election officials in Azerbaijan. One of his colleagues there probably described John best as someone who ``touched the lives of everyone he came in contact with.'' I and members of my staff remember John for his infectious laugh, his great sense of humor, his passion for all things politics, his love for man's best friend, his Dalmatian Jersey, and his innate ability to keep people together even in the toughest of times.

Even though it was just two weeks before John was due to return home to celebrate Christmas that he was killed, this proud Aggie lives on through the recipients of the John Alvis Memorial Scholarship at Texas A&M University who exemplify his passionate American Patriotism through their public service.

I am concerned that John's murder remains unsolved. Madam speaker, I want to take this opportunity to impress on the Government of Azerbaijan and the FBI the necessity to continue to press to bring those responsible for this heinous act to justice.

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

I rise today with strong concerns about two provisions in this bill related to the pay-fors. First, some of the policies in this bill make sense such as extending welfare programs or better preventing incorrect unemployment insurance payments. But beyond this, instead of using the UI and trade-related savings in this bill to reduce our Nation's staggering deficit or pay for extending unemployment benefits or promoting job-creating trade, Democrats want to use these savings for new, unrelated spending. Going on a spending spree now will make the job of helping the unemployed, promoting job-creating trade, and balancing the budget next year even harder.

For example, by better preventing and recovering unemployment benefit overpayments, this bill saves about $3 billion over the next decade. But at a time of record budget deficits when many States and Federal unemployment programs are bankrupt and deeply in debt, that money will not be used to strengthen unemployment insurance programs or even to pay for a needed extension of these benefits. Instead, this legislation diverts that money outside of the unemployment insurance system for unrelated spending. How that makes sense is beyond me.

While we're on the issue of diversion, this bill uses customs user fees, which are fees associated with the import process and which typically are used when we are passing trade legislation to benefit U.S. manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, and workers such as the miscellaneous trade bill, our preference programs for developing countries, and trade promotion agreements.

The fact that this bill diverts the fees to offset a nontrade program limits our ability to pass trade legislation that helps create American jobs and levels the playing field abroad for our U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and service companies.

I've grown tired, frankly, Mr. Speaker, of this Congress using the Ways and Means Committee to support its spending sprees. When we spend money on a new program, we should offset that with spending cuts, not by using funds already designated for a pro-growth, pro-job purpose.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

I appreciate the effort, Mr. Speaker, by Chairman Levin to address the concerns of Ranking Member Camp and other Republican Members that were raised at our various hearings. And while the revised version addresses the WTO consistency issue, my view is that, on balance, the promises that this bill makes to compel China to appreciate its currency to reduce the trade deficit and to create U.S. jobs won't be realized, and, therefore, I oppose this bill.

Rather than focus on China's currency policy alone, a priority must be creating American jobs by promoting U.S. exports, and this bill doesn't do enough to provide new market access for American businesses, farmers, and workers. If we are to meet the President's goal of doubling exports, we must focus our energy on tearing down real substantive barriers to U.S. access to China's consumers. We must require China to better U.S. intellectual property rights and end its directed lending, cease its innovative policy, and move other artificial barriers to U.S. exports. Such an effort would benefit thousands more American workers than the focus on China currency alone.

I am concerned that moving on this bill makes it more difficult for us to resolve these other issues, and I think we ought to be careful to avoid doing more harm than good in tearing down these barriers.

Breaking down barriers to U.S. exports is difficult work and requires concerted effort by Congress and the administration. To begin with, rather than merely paying lip service to new and pending trade agreements, we have to find a way to move these agreements forward.

Currently, there is no clear end date for concluding the Trans- Pacific partnership negotiations, no plan from the administration on how it intends to resolve issues related to the U.S.-Colombian, -Panama trade agreements, and just limited discussion on the U.S.-South Korea trade agreement.

The administration must also return to the negotiating table and complete bilateral investment treaty negotiations with China. Entering into a bit with China could help on many of these issues and is necessary to ensure that Americans have the same rights in China as our other trading partners.

Mr. Speaker, while this bill is improved from its original version, it is no substitute for a comprehensive China policy that the administration and the majority have failed to give us. I urge, and strongly urge, a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), who has played a key role in opening trade barriers for U.S. products.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is focused on jobs, spending, and getting this economy back on track.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would make the point that the Chinese currency appreciated 20 percent during President Bush's administration. It had no impact on the trade deficit. It has only appreciated 5 percent under the current administration, with no impact on the trade deficit.

I reserve my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who is, again, focused on jobs and getting this economy back on track, as well as limiting the size of these dangerous debts and deficits.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I do think it is unfortunate to try to interject partisan politics into a serious issue. There is already concern that after 4 years this bill is now being rushed to the floor a few weeks ahead of the election. I think at this point on an issue so serious, we ought to be thoughtful, understanding there are Members on both sides of the aisle that have come to different conclusions about this bill.

With that, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

General Leave

I am, Mr. Chairman.

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

This is an issue, I think, where good people can disagree. There is unanimity in the desire for China to appreciate its currency. There are differences of opinion about what impact that truly would have on our complex relationship with China economically. And there have been a number of issues raised throughout the hearings on this bill, and I do appreciate, to Chairman Levin, taking into account the number of the objections on the most, we think, troubling provisions that Ranking Member Dave Camp from Michigan and others raised during those hearings. I think some of those issues have been addressed in a very positive way, but there are real concerns about how effective this will be, and if it will truly compel China to change its currency regime or that it will significantly change our trade deficit.

I would like to submit for the Record a letter sent by, I think, almost 30 of our major job creators in America, groups that represent many of our agriculture companies and workers, our technology sector, our manufacturing and financial services sector, those who produce and sell medical devices and services throughout the world, including groups like the National Retail Federation; the broader job creators like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and companies that compete and succeed successfully selling U.S. products in China.

This letter agrees with Chairman Levin and others that China needs a yuan exchange rate response to trade flows and that China should move rapidly toward that. But it says:

``We do not agree, however, that H.R. 2378 as reported can help achieve that goal. To the contrary, we believe that passage of this legislation is counterproductive not only to the goals related to China's exchange rate that we all share but also to our Nation's broader goals of addressing the many and growing challenges in the U.S.-China economic relationship, including inadequate protection of intellectual property, restrictions on market access, financial services liberalization, export of commodities such as rare earths, discriminatory indigenous innovation and other industrial policies. Above all, this legislation will do more harm than good to job creation and economic growth at a time when we need both dearly.''

The point of that, I think, is that there are a number of barriers to selling U.S. products fairly and successfully in that growing Chinese market. We all have the same goal. How we achieve it is where we honestly differ.

This group concludes this way:

``We share Congress' desire to have China act more quickly to adopt a market-determined exchange rate, but the proposed unilateral measure is not going to achieve that result. We urge you to oppose H.R. 2378 and, instead, work with and vigorously call on the administration to develop a robust bilateral and multilateral approach to

achieve tangible results, not only on China's exchange rate policies, but also on other Chinese policies that are harming American businesses, workers and farmers.''

I think that is the point, perhaps, of those of us who believe this bill will not achieve what we hope.

While I urge opposition of this bill, there are those who believe that, as we move forward, regardless of the outcome, we ought to, Republicans and Democrats, join hands and insist on fair access to Chinese markets, on a level playing field and on a growing trade relationship that is balanced to increase Chinese consumption, as well as to increase U.S. savings that will rebalance the trade relationship for decades to come. We share those goals and look forward to working with those in Congress who also share them.

September 28, 2010.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny Hoyer,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader, House of Representatives,

U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leaders Hoyer and Boehner: Like

Congress and the Administration, we agree that China needs a

yuan exchange rate that responds to trade flows and that

China should move rapidly towards a market-determined

exchange rate. In addition to continuing U.S. government

efforts, our organizations support strong, coordinated and

enhanced multilateral pressure, including at the early

October Finance Ministers' Meeting in Washington and

continuing at the November G20 Leaders' Meeting in Seoul, to

achieve concrete progress on China's currency and exchange

rate policies.

We do not agree, however, that H.R. 2378 as reported by the

Committee on Ways and Means can help achieve that goal. To

the contrary, we believe that passage of this legislation is

counterproductive not only to the goals related to China's

exchange rate that we all share, but also to our nation's

broader goals of addressing the many and growing challenges

in the U.S.-China economic relationship, including inadequate

protection of intellectual property, restrictions on market

access, financial services liberalization, export of

commodities such as rare earths, discriminatory indigenous

innovation and other industrial policies. Above all this

legislation will do more harm than good to job creation and

economic growth at a time when we need both dearly.

Unilateral legislation, which seeks to increase tariffs on

imports from China, is unlikely to incentivize China to move

expeditiously to modify its exchange policies. Rather, it

would likely have the opposite effect and could engender

retaliation against U.S. exports into the Chinese market,

currently the fastest-growing market for U.S. exports. Our

companies do not fear retaliation--if it were based on WTO-

consistent actions that would achieve the desired result,

with benefits outweighing the costs. But counterproductive

tariff legislation will not get us closer to the goal of a

market-driven exchange rate and will shift the focus away

from the core issue of China's currency and onto U.S.

unilateral action. Such an action would embolden PRC

retaliation and undermine U.S. government efforts to address

a growing number of discriminatory Chinese policies,

weakening our economy by harming American exports of

manufactured goods and farm products.

Despite efforts to make H.R. 2378 consistent with the rules

of the WTO, it is not clear that the legislation meets the

WTO's standards for the application of countervailing duties

(CVDs). The legislation would require the Commerce Department

to estimate what the ``true'' exchange rate is, a process

that will be highly subjective and potentially politicized.

Since application of CVDs to imports from China on the basis

of this legislation is of questionable WTO legality, China

would almost certainly challenge this action as violative of

U.S. WTO obligations, which would focus the world's attention

on the United States and WTO technicalities, and away from

China's exchange-rate policies.

We share Congress' desire to have China act more quickly to

adopt a market-determined exchange rate. But the proposed

unilateral measure is not going to achieve that result. We

urge you to oppose H.R. 2378 and instead work with and

vigorously call on the Administration to develop a robust

bilateral and multilateral approach to achieve tangible

results not only on China's exchange-rate policies, but also

on other Chinese policies that are harming American

businesses, workers and farmers.

Sincerely,

Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed);

American Chamber of Commerce in China; American Chamber

of Commerce in Shanghai; American Chamber of Commerce

in South China; American Apparel & Footwear Association

(AAFA); American Soybean Association; American Meat

Institute; Business Roundtable; Coalition of New

England Companies for Trade (CONECT); Coalition of

Service Industries; Consumer Electronics Association;

and Corn Refiners Association.

Distilled Spirits Council of the United States; Emergency

Committee for American Trade (ECAT); Fashion

Accessories Shippers Association (FASA); Financial

Services Forum; Financial Services Roundtable;

International Dairy Foods Association; Los Angeles

Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Association;

National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Customs

Brokers and Forwarders Association of America (NCBFAA);

National Fisheries Institute; National Foreign Trade

Council; and National Retail Federation.

Pacific Coast Council of Customs Brokers and Freight

Forwarders (PCC); Retail Industry Leaders Association;

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association;

Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association; Toy Industry

Association; Travel Goods Association (TGA); United

States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel

(USA-ITA); U.S. Chamber of Commerce; US-China Business

Council; U.S. Council for International Business; USA

Poultry & Egg Export Council; and Washington State

China Relations Council.

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

I thank my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6016, the Audit the BP Fund Act of 2010. I urge support for the bill that would provide for an ongoing independent Government Accountability Office investigation and audit of the operations of the compensation fund created by BP to reimburse those who were harmed by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico beginning on April 20, 2010.

The bill specifically determines the effectiveness, including the timeliness of claim payments and the accuracy of these operations in determining amounts of damages compensated.

I believe the BP fund was established to help make whole the economies along the gulf coast that were damaged or destroyed by the disaster. $20 billion, as we know, is a tremendous amount of money, and it can go a long way to compensate gulf coast victims of the spill.

We must ensure that compensation is done fairly, timely, and without bias, political pressure, or fraud.

We have heard complaints from State and local attorneys critical of the overly restrictive terms. Others have said there's not been enough time to assess the damages. Others are concerned that fraudsters will take money away from those honest people and families and businesses that are waiting for their dollars.

And thus far, the fund has paid out about $400 million to approximately 30,000 claimants. Obviously, that is about 2 percent of the fund. That is slow--we think a little too inefficient for those who have been damaged--and this is precisely why we need this bill, to ensure that the fund functions as it should.

With that, I urge support for H.R. 6016.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, July 26, 2010, I was unable to cast my vote in support of the Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act.

I am in support of this legislation and its passage.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is a thinly disguised roadblock, a permanent roadblock to American energy.

It will drive American companies out of the gulf, delay future drilling, increase dependence on foreign oil, kill 300,000 good-paying U.S. energy jobs and levy a new $22 billion tax on American energy, but not on foreign oil. It includes a protectionist measure that the White House itself is troubled about that invites retaliation, will kill U.S. jobs and prevent repairs from occurring in U.S. shipyards.

This is a choice between American energy workers and foreign oil. No Texas lawmaker, no gulf State lawmaker can support this bill and say they truly care about energy workers' jobs in America.

Mr. Speaker, with millions of American families out of work, Republicans will fight for American energy workers and their jobs. The question is will Democrats fight alongside us?

The drilling moratorium is killing American energy jobs now. It needs to end now. The rigs are already leaving overseas. So are the jobs, equipment, and the capital. Workers are being laid off, small businesses are struggling to survive, and they won't. The Melancon amendment doesn't save these jobs, these families, these small businesses whose livelihoods are at risk. It does not end the current moratorium that's devastating us now. The Republican motion to recommit will.

It is the only vote on this floor where each lawmaker can stand up and fight for these American energy workers right now.

The gentleman from Michigan is right. This bill is more proof of failed economic policies of Washington Democrats, and I think they've acknowledged and they've admitted that that massive $860 billion stimulus bill has failed. It's failed the American public. It's failed 15 million American workers who are out of work, and about a third of them who've almost given up on ever finding a job.

And we were promised, when that huge stimulus bill was passed, that unemployment would go down--it went up--that we would have 7 million more jobs than we do today. They promised the jobs would come from Main Street from small businesses. It turns out, as Mr. Camp said, all of the new jobs are in government. And government jobs only last as long as you're paying out of your pocketbook to keep them on that job.

That's why this recovery is one of the slowest in America's history because consumers, they're scared to spend because they see all of this debt in Washington and they wonder who's going to have to pay it all back, and they know it's them. Businesses aren't bringing back new workers, aren't hiring new ones because they're afraid of the types of proposals like this they see in Washington, D.C.

I remember the President standing at the White House saying, If you pass the stimulus bill, it will jump-start the economy and restore consumer confidence.

Well, the economy certainly isn't jump-started. And today, 90 percent of Americans believe this economy is in bad shape. Most of them think it's not going to get any better any time soon.

And from a jobs standpoint, this bill may actually destroy more jobs than it creates, and this is why:

America has one of the worst tax codes in the world. You know that if you've had to pay taxes. It's even worse when American companies try to sell our American goods and services around the world, when you try to compete around the world. We double tax our American businesses--we're one of the few countries that do that--so, oftentimes they lose out on contracts. They can't sell their products because of this horrible tax code.

What this bill does is ensure that they are double taxed. In the past, what we said is we'll try to help you, American business, by removing one of those layers of tax. This puts it back.

So, at a time when we need to sell more U.S. goods and services, create more American jobs, this bill actually does the opposite. It taxes our U.S. companies more when they try to sell and compete. That means our workers lose out. That means our workers lose their jobs. That means other foreign countries gain and America loses.

This bill is, again, one of the reasons this antijob, antibusiness, antigrowth Congress and White House are holding this economy back, keeping us from recovering, holding our hopes, I think,

hostage to this ``let's tax everyone'' mentality.

I'm convinced Americans are genetically disposed to bouncing back from recessions.

This recovery is different. America's not bouncing back because government's in the way, because this Congress is the obstacle, this White House is the obstacle.

Stop passing tax increases. Stop standing in the way of our jobs, of our growth, of our prosperity. This bill kills more jobs than it creates. It doesn't deserve to go any farther.

I will vote ``no'' and urge Members to vote ``no'' as well.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and admire the fierce tenacity of Chairwoman Maloney as she fights for her constituents in New York, but I have a real problem with the way the bill is paid for.

Looking at Texas Task Force 1 standing at Ground Zero, going through that rubble and their heroism, themselves, they went there to save survivors, not to raise taxes. And that's what this bill does. It kills American jobs. It raises taxes on companies that invest in America, that build American plants, that hire American workers, buy American equipment, pay American taxes. It punishes those companies that create U.S. jobs $7 billion.

Why would we use 9/11 as an excuse to harm American jobs? It makes no sense at all.

We can do better than this. We have to do better than this. This tax increase is absolutely inappropriate, and I urge its defeat.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BRADY of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, we're all aware of the ongoing turbulence in the credit markets that has made it very difficult for owners of real estate, including commercial real estate, to obtain financing for new projects or to refinance existing ones. Transaction volumes have fallen, asset values have fallen, and rents have fallen. Our real estate markets are desperate for infusion of new capital.

One significant source of capital investment for these projects is foreign investors. It's important for Congress to periodically review the restrictions that the U.S. Tax Code imposes on foreign investment to ensure that these restrictions do not unnecessarily discourage this investment, especially during times like this.

Earlier this year, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) worked with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) to introduce H.R. 4539, legislation that would modify some of the tax rules in this area collectively known as FIRPTA, the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act. Today's legislation based on their earlier bill would remove an unnecessary barrier to foreign investment in the U.S. real estate market, providing increased liquidity that is sorely needed.

Under current law, foreign portfolio investors who own less than 5 percent of U.S. publicly traded companies are exempted from the more stringent tax regime under FIRPTA. This bill would simply raise that 5 percent threshold for this FIRPTA exception to 10 percent for investments in publicly traded real estate investment trusts, or REITs. This modification would encourage investment of additional capital into our real estate markets at a time when the credit markets need it most.

Let me say just a word about the offset the majority has chosen for this bill, the tightening of the IRS levy rules for Federal contractors identified as owing taxes. This provision is based on a similar proposal that was included in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request, and it was subsequently included in H.R. 4849, the small business and infrastructure spending bill introduced by Chairman Levin, which passed the House on a mostly party-line vote on March 24 of this year.

The bill we're considering today was introduced just last night, and for the very first time, the real estate proposal that Mr. Tiberi had been working on with the gentleman from New York has been paired up with this particular offset. Since the bill with this new offset was introduced last night, we've conducted considerable due diligence on this provision, including discussion with representatives of numerous associations representing potentially affected taxpayers.

While none of these associations have offered any expressions of support for this offset, we are, at this time, unaware of any group that intends to actively oppose this bill because of this provision. Should H.R. 5901 pass the

House, I'll certainly continue to discuss this new provision with potentially affected groups to ensure it does not place any undue burden on taxpayers.

That being said, the crisis in the credit markets is a serious concern we all share, and this bill will help our struggling real estate markets get the capital they need.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Markey and Ranking Member Barton on this issue.

I rise as the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee on Ways and Means, not on the underlying bill, but on specific provisions.

Specifically, I am troubled to see that this bill includes the controversial ``Buy American'' provisions that closely mirror the failed stimulus bill. It makes no sense to repeat provisions that have delayed deployment of stimulus funding, led to unnecessary cost inflation, confused local officials, and impeded the creation of American jobs, clogging, not priming, U.S. economic recovery. These provisions have also created serious concerns under our international obligations and invited our trading partners to adopt their own ``buy local'' laws, hurting our ability to sell abroad and harming U.S. jobs.

In this global environment, it is not simply enough to buy American; we have to sell American throughout the world for American jobs and American workers.

It's unfortunate we are repeating these mistakes. As this bill moves forward, I will continue to object and seek to strip these provisions out of the bill.

Madam Speaker, at this point I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, who is focused on creating manufacturing jobs through open markets, Congressman Davis.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman who is the top Republican on the Oversight Committee on Ways and Means and has focused both on ending the drilling moratorium that is killing U.S. jobs in the gulf, and also opening new markets for our American manufacturers, services, and ag community, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the former top Republican on the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from California who's focused on creating jobs through selling more California and United States products and services, Mr. Herger.

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

First, addressing some earlier comments, many Democrats, including Chairman Levin, supported bringing China into the World Trade Organization to force them to play by the rules. And since we've done that, when they have violated those rules, the United States has prevailed in seven of the eight complaints we have brought to that organization. So it is helping keep China in line so we have a level playing field.

Also, if you've picked up the paper in the last week, you've noticed that while auto sales in the United States for our auto manufacturers has remained flat, its sales are growing overseas, and its profits are growing because they're allowed to sell American automobiles around the world. That's good for the U.S. auto workers in the United States.

I appreciate the chairman bringing this legislation together. I know it is well-intended. It's important to tackle America's trade deficit the right way. And I think everyone understands another government commission alone is no substitute for new customers for American workers, farmers, and manufacturers.

The best way to strengthen the trade deficit while strengthening America's economy is to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and open the world to more U.S. products and services. I know if my Democrat friends and those in the White House are serious about reducing the trade deficit, we are eager to work with them by starting to take up and passing the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

I rise in support of this bill because I think that any objective and honest commission will find that creating new markets and new customers for American exports will reduce our trade deficit, will create jobs, and stimulate our economy.

I think it's absolutely appropriate that Congress is considering this legislation today of all days. Today is the fifth anniversary of House passage of the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement, which gives us an opportunity to look at real results. Those results clearly show how trade agreements increase U.S. sales and reduce trade deficits. As you know, America is a very open market. Countries sell into the United States. But when we try to sell our products, too often we find that ``America need not apply'' sign.

Trade agreements tear that sign down and give us a chance not one-way trade in, but two-way trade where we have a level playing field. The world has changed. It's not enough to simply buy American. We have to sell American. We have to sell our products and goods and services throughout this world. In fact, over 80 percent of our trade deficit today is with countries that are not trade agreement partners, that are not level playing fields for the United States. That's why we push hard for those agreements.

For example, 5 years ago the United States had a $1.2 billion trade deficit with Central America. Last year, the United States had turned that around, because of the agreement, to a $1.2 billion trade surplus, and we're on track to surpass that surplus again this year. Last year, the United States had a trade surplus in manufactured goods with our Central American partners of almost $2 billion. We're on track again this year.

Nor is CAFTA the only example of how trade agreements can improve the U.S. trade balance. This week also marks the eighth anniversary of the final House vote on the Trade Act of 2002, under which we have resoundingly successful trade agreements with 13 countries now in force. Last year, the United States had a trade surplus of over $25 billion with these 13 countries. And so far this year, we have a surplus again.

Looking at just trade in manufactured goods reveals that these agreements were even better for American manufacturing workers. Last year, the United States had a trade surplus of over $29 billion in manufactured products with these countries that we have free trade agreements. And again, we have this year a surplus already of nearly $16 billion. Without question, these trade agreements have reduced U.S. trade deficits and increased U.S. trade surpluses.

The three pending agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea would have the same results by leveling the playing field for our American workers.

Madam Speaker, there is one sector in which the United States runs a structural trade deficit, that is energy, and I appreciate the chairman including this in the commission. Last year, our deficit in energy products accounted for almost half of the trade deficit.

So our trade deficit isn't principally in goods--it's in oil, it's in energy. That's what the American people want to change. We can take an enormous step toward reducing our trade deficit simply by increasing American-made energy. Unfortunately, many Democrats in Congress have taken just about every step they can to reduce American-made energy production.

First, House Democrats rushed through the House a massive national energy tax that would cripple the U.S. energy sector. Now, the White House has defied the courts and has imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling that damages jobs and damages U.S. energy production. The impact of that moratorium would be to increase the deficit because it will result in more imports of foreign oil. This moratorium also means fewer manufacturing jobs.

In fact, last week a recent analysis by IHS Global Insight found the drilling moratorium in the gulf would result in over 300,000 jobs lost along the gulf and over $147 billion in lost State, local, and Federal tax revenue. It is a terrible blow to American jobs.

If the sponsors of this legislation are serious--and I believe they are--about reducing the trade deficit and working together to create manufacturing jobs, let's focus on negotiating more trade agreements to open foreign markets to our U.S. sales and promoting U.S. energy production. We don't need a new government commission to accomplish either of these.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this legislation, but I cannot.

As Mr. Camp has pointed out, this has always been a bipartisan process. When Republicans were in the majority, we regularly prepared this legislation in a bipartisan, transparent manner. It was bipartisan because Democrats and Republicans worked together to review every provision and to ensure there was no opposition to any provision and that it protected American companies. It was transparent because every provision was reviewed by the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the ITC's report was posted online for all of America to review. Every provision was subject to public notice and comment.

I am happy to say, and I compliment our Democrat majority for continuing these transparent policies in this legislation, but as lead Republican originally on this bill, however, I will vote against this legislation because it violates the letter and the spirit of the Republican moratorium on earmark requests. Congress has to get a handle on earmarks. There is no question about it.

While the miscellaneous tariff bill, the one we are looking at today, ought to be a model for the way other committees deal with the earmark requests, in the House rule, clause 9, the majority's overbroad and, I think, carelessly written effort to handle the earmark problem has, unfortunately, netted these provisions. As a result, in establishing a moratorium to discipline the process, Republicans have no choice but to include a miscellaneous tariff bill. That is the only reason I'm voting against this bill.

I guess I am puzzled. This is no surprise. We visited as Republicans and Democrats on this issue, trying to find a way forward for months now. If you are truly serious about passing this measure, why would you demand a supermajority that ensures its defeat rather than a normal majority vote that ensures its passage? For months, we've said we cannot help the moratorium on this bill this year, and we are sincere about it. By choosing the suspension route, you have killed this bill.

So the question is: Where do we go from here?

We have so many trade issues that we face as Republicans and Democrats. We have differences about what that trade agenda should be. I worry--and others do--that we have moved to the sidelines. Other countries have stepped ahead of us, selling their products ahead of U.S. products. We've seen this in Colombia, where American farmers have now lost half of our market because of our benching ourselves as a country.

We have to find a bipartisan way forward on opening new markets for U.S. companies. We have to find a bipartisan way forward on facilitating trade, on modernizing our own customs and border processes to allow trade while we become more secure. We have to find a bipartisan way forward on the pending trade agreements with Colombia and Panama and Korea. The President has asked us to find a way forward as he tries to as well.

We have to find a way forward in a bipartisan manner on China--on currency, on protecting intellectual property rights, on setting standards and rules for trade throughout this world. We have a lot at stake in working together, which is why I think choosing the most confrontational method on this bill is shortsighted and why, unfortunately, this bill will be defeated--because of the choice to seek a supermajority rather than the normal route of a majority vote in this House.

Reluctantly but strongly, I oppose this bill because of the earmark moratorium. I am hopeful that the majority will bring this back under regular order. Democrats with an almost supermajority in this House already can pass this bill, but we have been very open from the beginning about the fact that, if it is brought up under suspension, it will die. I regret that. I would encourage us to find a bipartisan way forward on trade and facilitation on the miscellaneous tariff bill.

Mr. Speaker, no one disagrees prisoners shouldn't have cell phones. Prisons ban them already. But some prisoners have a habit of getting around the rules--even if it's a federal crime. And it's a dangerous problem. In Texas, we've had cases where prisoners on death row made threatening calls to victims, prosecutors and their families.

Senator Feinstein's bill takes a baby step--but little more. We need to give our prison officials a more reliable weapon. The answer is allowing them to use devices that jam the cell signals--making it impossible for the phones to even work.

We have the technology to do this and do it in a way that doesn't interfere with legitimate use--such as for communities that live nearby.

I've introduced legislation, H.R. 560, the Safe Prisons Communications Act, that would create a process whereby a State or prison could petition the FCC to allow them to use the jamming devices, which are currently prohibited. This bill would save lives, and give our prisons the tools they need to really combat this problem.

I ask my House colleagues to support bringing my legislation to the floor.