Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the state of Pennsylvania's Collegiate Academy High School Academic Decathlon team as they prepare to conquer the championship title for the 2003 United States Academic Decathlon (USAD) National Competition.

Pennsylvania's Academic Decathlon team is comprised of students and coaches from the Collegiate Academy High School, located in the 3rd Congressional District. The Collegiate Academy team has already found victory in the local, regional and state USAD competitions and is anxiously awaiting the final national competition scheduled to be held at the end of April in the school's hometown of Erie, Pa.

I'd like to take the time today and recognize these talented students and their coaches, who have mentored and inspired the students throughout the entire school year.

The 2003 members of Pennsylvania's Academic Decathlon Team include: Joshua Cohick, Mara DiTullio, Jarrod Fedor, Noelle Lucas, Brian McNair, Andrew Narusewicz, Eden Roseborough, David Tran and Gregory Stachelek. The team's coaches are Carolyn Huzinec and Paula Lucas.

For more than 20 years, the USAD National competition has brought high school students together to challenge their intellects on various levels and provide an advanced educational opportunity. In the pursuance of academic excellence, academic decathlon teams must vigorously prepare to compete in ten different categories. The winning team will be recognized as the most prestigious high school in the nation.

I believe this scholastic competition to be a grand endeavor for high school students across America. Its continuous success is a prime example of our nation's enthusiasm for education. I am proud that Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District's own Collegiate Academy High School will represent the state this year in the national competition and I wish them the best of luck.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Pennsylvania's Academic Decathlon team and their coaches as they compete to become America's most prestigious high school.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be here, and I particularly want to thank the chairman and thank the committee for having moved this resolution forward so quickly.

It is a real honor to be able to participate in an action which would recognize the value of the long public service that Jim Merry provided as a community leader and as a member of the State legislature, serving in his last 2 years as chairman of the local government committee and also my colleague at the same time that I was serving in Congress.

This was a great experience for me because during my career as a staffer in the State legislature, I had an opportunity to work with Jim Merry in that capacity, and I saw him from a number of different angles. Jim Merry was the kind of legislator that I think Mr. Jefferson had in mind when he considered that our legislatures would be populated with individuals who were citizen politicians. Jim Merry came by his interest naturally. His father had been a State representative in Crawford County during the 1950s and early 1960s, and Jim had been a borough councilman, had been head of the chamber of commerce, and was enormously active in his community.

When the seat came into play in 1980, Jim ran and in something of an upset won the seat and quickly made it his own. It was a seat that straddled the Erie and Crawford County lines, and a lot of diverse communities; but he reached out everywhere he went. He was a fine legislator, an active community member. He was a great gentleman. The thing that I think is his greatest legacy is, although he was a man of his party, he was a very active Republican. At no time did I ever see him become rancorous about his politics. He worked well with people on both sides of the aisle. He was always committed to finding a way of getting things done and putting that over party politics. Particularly important, he always treated every individual with a great deal of deference.

As someone who learned a lot from Jim Merry, it is a real privilege to be able to play a role in honoring him by renaming the post office in the community that he long represented, Linesville, Pennsylvania, where his family still is, where he was a lifelong resident, after him in recognition of that great community contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Members, and ask for a ``yea'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, Secretary of State Powell was in Beijing recently, asking for Beijing's assistance on the issues of North Korea and Iraq. Beijing responded by asking the Bush Administration to consider ``trade-offs,'' especially more American flexibility on the issue of Taiwan. I want to commend Secretary Powell and the Bush Administration for refusing to participate in this sort of irresponsible horse-trading.

We continue to support peaceful solution to any political disagreements between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. At the same time, Congress has repeatedly voiced its commitment to defend the people of Taiwan from aggression, and we have backed this commitment with economic, political and military cooperation. I believe that this Administration has done an exemplary job of reinforcing this commitment by refusing to compromise Taiwan's security in the face of Beijing's attempts at coercion.

Meanwhile, Beijing has turned a deaf ear to Taiwan President Chen Shui-Bian's calls for renewed dialogue between the two. This lack of communication will certainly result in misunderstanding, and could lead to dangerous miscalculations by both sides. These sorts of miscalculations can in turn lead to the sort of military confrontation that we all wish to avoid. I therefore strongly urge Beijing's new leadership to remove Chinese missiles from the area along the Taiwan Strait and to embrace a peaceful approach to managing the cross-strait relationship.

It is time for bilateral dialogue on economic cooperation, democratic governance, improved human rights and peaceful resolution of all issues between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China.

Mr. Speaker, Yesterday marked the one year anniversary of President Bush's historic stand against unfair steel imports. The President's decision to implement safeguard relief for steel products exemplifies the perfect case in which this type of trade law remedy was created for. Implementing a safeguard action on steel products was necessary, appropriate and permissible under both domestic law and our obligations within the World Trade Organization context.

The American steel industry was seriously injured as a result of repeated surges of low-priced steel imports that suppressed domestic steel prices to unsustainable 20 year lows. The impact of these import surges includes 35 American steel companies entering bankruptcy and the elimination of over 50,000 American steelworker jobs.

And yet, the bold safeguard action taken by the Bush Administration alone can not rectify the underlying practices leading to the import surges which placed the American steel industry in such peril. Make no mistake, the domestic steel industry is still very much threatened by enormous global market distortions. Massive foreign steel overcapacity continues to

disrupt the global steel trading system--foreign excess raw steelmaking capacity has averaged more than twice the level of average domestic steel consumption. Foreign governments and steel manufacturers have shown little interest in implementing meaningful capacity reduction programs. And the inefficient excess foreign steel capacity will continue to impose serious pricing pressures in the U.S. market as foreign producers attempt to unload their excess capacity whenever an opportunity presents itself.

This is precisely why I applaud President Bush for having the vision to implement such a broad and ambitious agenda for correcting the distortions in the steel marketplace which have made this threat as cyclical as the seasons themselves. Further, I applaud the Administration for actively implementing its three-part steel program and engaging all steel producing nations at the negotiating table. Specifically, the President's three-part plan will: seek the near-term elimination of inefficient excess capacity in the steel industry worldwide; eliminate the underlying market-distorting subsidies that led to the current conditions in the first place; and implementing the safeguard action for three years to allow for domestic steel industry restructuring and recovery.

All parts of the President's plan must be implemented in order to place our domestic steel producers on a level playing field. The domestic steel industry is a national asset and is inseparable from our nation's economic, political and military development. But while no one disagrees that the American steel industry is an integral component of our nation's economic base and critical to our national security, only a few voices speak loudly to decry the remedy as unfair to steel consumers. Mr. Speaker, I emphatically disagree.

The tariffs implemented under section 201 resulted from a thorough investigation of the facts. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) conducted the most exhaustive investigation of its type in history. Foreign steel producers employed over thirty-four law firms and participated in more than three weeks of public hearings, submitting over 85 feet of legal briefs and arguments. Foreign and domestic interest groups., including domestic steel consumers, who were opposed to any form of relief for the domestic steel industry were given every possible opportunity to participate--and they did.

After this exhaustive investigation, the ITC unanimously found that the American steel industry had been seriously injured as a result of high levels of low-priced steel imports. Following the unanimous decision of injury by the ITC, the President reviewed the Commission's findings, considered if a safeguard action would have a greater positive effect on the economy than it would negative, and then imposed a reasonable set of tariff and tariff-rate-quota measures.

Mr. Speaker, up to this point I have detailed two separate mechanisms which facilitate the specific input of domestic steel consumers. It is evident that the facts in this case provide the merit for the President's safeguard action, that all interested parties had ample opportunity to participate in the investigation, and that, as part of a broader plan to reform trade distorting practices in this sector, the safeguard action is working without serious negative consequences to downstream industries.

Since the safeguard action was implemented one year ago, there has been a modest price recovery on steel products. Keep in mind, however, that the price of steel was at unsustainable levels prior to and had absolutely no where else to go but up. In fact, even after one year with the tariffs in place hot rolled steel prices are still below the twenty year average.

Steel supplies have also been robust since the safeguard action has been in place. Contrary to predictions, there is no evidence that the safeguard measure has unduly hampered import supply. Indeed, imports of flat-rolled steel increased substantially after the imposition of section 201 measures in 2002, as compared to the same period in 2001.

One goal of the safeguard statute is to achieve a period of breathing room from unfairly traded imports which allows the affected industry time to restructure. Since the safeguard action was implemented, domestic producers have enjoyed improvements in revenues, operating income, and capacity utilization. A number of companies have returned to profitability, while other companies have shown significant improvements even though they have not yet become profitable. The industry has made significant progress toward restructuring and consolidation. While recovery and restructuring will take time, the President's plan has allowed the industry to make a real start.

The crisis in steel is not yet over. It is not enough for Congress to look back on the actions already taken by the ITC and the President. Instead, Congress must continue to take an active roll, along with the President, and look toward completing the initiatives we have already begun. The safeguard action was put in place by President Bush for three years, declining each year it is in effect. The safeguard action must not be cut short and must run its full course. Further, great strides must be taken to facilitate a comprehensive and meaningful conclusion to the OECD high-level talks on steel.

Finally, the United States must also maintain and utilize strong trade laws which encourage free and fair trade. Over the long term, strong and full enforcement of U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws is the only means to encourage market behavior and deter the unfair trade practices that initially led to the steel crisis. These laws are critical to the long-term survival of the domestic steel industry. It is essential that our trade laws are fully enforced and that the Administration defend the integrity of this last line of defense against unfairly traded imports in negotiations for new international trade agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the 200th anniversary of the city of Butler in western Pennsylvania. This charming city has a long and rich history and I am confident that it will enjoy a future filled with continuous growth and prosperity.

Butler, like the rest of our great country, was originally inhabited by the Native-American tribes; the land was used as a hunting ground by Indians from the Iroquois Nation during European settlement. The Venango Trail, which runs through Butler, was commonly traveled by settlers in colonial times and was famously traveled by George Washington in the mid 1700's.

Named for Richard Butler, one of Washington's generals in the Revolutionary War, the town of Butler was officially established in 1803. Over the next two hundred years, the city of Butler flourished and became known for its steel industry. In early March, Butler will celebrate its 200th anniversary. May it celebrate for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the city of Butler, Pennsylvania on their 200th anniversary celebration.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to the life of David P. Hanlon, beloved principal of McDowell Intermediate High School in Erie, Pennsylvania, who passed away tragically at the age of 46 on January 10, 2003.

Dave Hanlon will be remembered by the Millcreek community as a dedicated and loving husband, father, teacher, coach, and friend.

As Millcreek Township's athletic director and later MIHS Principal, Hanlon was known for his reassuring presence and ability to inspire students.

He would spend little time in his office during the day, preferring instead to walk the halls of McDowell reaching out to students and teachers. But he spent many late nights at his desk implementing his ambitious plans for the school's future. Dave Hanlon was a fixture at McDowell arts and sporting events, and led many school trips including a government class trip that visited the Capitol two years ago.

Because of his contagious enthusiasm for McDowell, it was often said that he bled blue and white, the McDowell Trojans' school colors.

Mike Gallagher, a close friend, once observed that Hanlon's ability to connect with students ``changed the way kids view adults in their lives.''

The Reverend John Detisch eulogized that ``David was a teacher. And what he taught came not so much from the classroom; what he taught came from the heart.''

McDowell sophomore Hubbell McGeorge wrote the following about Dave Hanlon's immeasurable impact on students lives:

``The first day back to school after such a tragedy is very hard. It feels like a piece of all of us is missing and can't be fixed. There is, and will be, a hole in the school, the district, and the community for years to come.''

Dave Hanlon's dedication to his students was surpassed only by his devotion to his wife Paige and three children, Collin, Peyton, and Braden. On the last day of his life, Dave Hanlon confided to a student about the ``perfect life'' he had found with his family.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to the life of David P. Hanlon, a devoted family man and model educator who will be deeply missed by an entire community.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for giving me the time.

Today, I stand in support of H.R. 4, which is a clear and consistent effort to improve upon the landmark welfare reform law that we enacted when I was a freshman in 1996. As I have stood here listening to this debate, the arguments I have heard have oddly echoed those arguments, and yet the matter is settled. Clearly welfare reform has been successful.

Since we overhauled this country's failed welfare system, some 3 million children have risen out of poverty. That is pro-family. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the number of American children experiencing hunger has plummeted to half of its number in 1995. In all, 3.5 million fewer Americans live their lives in poverty than in 1995.

This is the most successful social experiment of the 20th century, and yet here we are today listening to the left arguing still against welfare reform. They are attempting to turn back the clock, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this awful amendment in the nature of a substitute.

These critics argue that welfare reform is not responsible for the decrease in poverty today, that instead the economy is solely responsible for these changes. Yet they ignore the fact that in the past the economy has risen but welfare rolls had risen before welfare reform; and since welfare reform, despite the Clinton recession starting in the last two quarters of that administration, welfare rolls have continued to drop. Yet some 2 million recipients remain dependent on welfare assistance, and many still do not participate in worker- training programs.

In response, we are poised today to pass a reauthorization of welfare reform boosted by tougher work requirements and reinvigorated work incentives for States and welfare recipients.

I want to draw my colleagues' attention to one specific provision called ``full-check sanction.'' This provision establishes a tough, consistent penalty for those welfare recipients who decline to participate steadily in the workforce. Contrary to the negative predictions of welfare reform's opponents, this provision, where it has been tried, has worked exceptionally well.

A study by former Clinton administration economist Rebecca Blank reveals that these States ``show consistently higher income gains among poor children throughout the income distribution than do States with lenient penalties.''

I am proud to note that by including this provision in today's bill we will soon apply full-check sanctions to welfare recipients throughout America. Full-check sanctions, marriage promotion, and other enhancements will only make welfare reform more effective. Stronger welfare reform means less dependence and more economic independence for the poor of America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington

(Ms. Dunn) for all of her work on the issue of unemployment benefits because I know this has been a big focus of her efforts in this body for the last few months.

Mr. Speaker, last year Republican leadership in the House advanced a program of extended unemployment insurance which has assisted some four million Americans. Today we will be extending that critical program to help the millions of Americans who continue to face unemployment through no fault of their own.

These working families have borne the brunt of hard economic times and will continue to do so until our economy gets back on a growth path and begins to generate new jobs. We in Congress have a fundamental responsibility to help cushion the effects of economic displacement by providing a set of extended unemployment benefits for those who exhaust their regular State compensation. Under today's legislation, these workers who exhaust their 26 weeks of State benefits will be able to collect up to 13 more weeks of benefits; and in a couple of other States with very high unemployment, 13 more on top of that.

This program not only benefits working families but it also acts as an economic stabilizer for communities like the many that we have in western Pennsylvania that have been particularly hard hit by this downturn and its effect on the manufacturing sector, places like Erie, Warren, Meadville. These are communities where this program is going to be enormously beneficial to those who depend on jobs that are tied to the local economy.

Nonetheless, many Americans will continue to face difficulties as this economy recovers. For this reason I will be introducing legislation that reforms the trigger mechanism on extended benefits and that allows unemployed workers to receive up to 26 weeks of additional assistance. State unemployment numbers can mask big regional differences. I believe that a change in the trigger mechanism will allow us to more effectively respond to uneven economic recovery across the country within States.

I support the legislation before us. I believe that we need to continue to work to provide more relief for the unemployed where and when it is needed; and above all since these are workers who want a job, not just unemployment insurance, we need to pass a stimulus package that gets the economy back on a growth path.