Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let me thank all of my colleagues, but I want to start with my distinguished neighbor, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). The gentleman was a dynamic freshman 12 years ago. I remember when he arrived here and we were impressed with his performance then, but it has escalated through the years. He plays a very important leadership role. But to host this event and to listen to these tributes paid by my dear and close friends through the years here in the House is truly moving.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Indiana erred; we just had our seventh grandchild yesterday, so we are up to seven. My wife, Arlene, and I had eight to begin with, and that to me was a good start, but I am pleased that she is here tonight, especially to have the opportunity to hear these tributes paid by colleagues that have been very moving to me. I cannot express my appreciation enough.

One of the things that I reflect on most about my years of service in this body is the personal relationships, and it is that feeling of trust and confidence and the commitment of colleagues to basic principles that I have felt are critically important in the service that we perform here.

I have done things consistently along a path that I believe in.

I have embraced politically all the years I have served, and I know that sometimes constituents do not always believe with those things, but at least I have been predictable. Being predictable along certain lines that I embrace based on our history, and I say that as a former history professor, I think are fundamental values that all of us should be embracing, and that is a commitment to limited constitutional government. It is a commitment to free enterprise and the growth of our economy. It is a commitment to a strong national defense. It is a commitment to advancing free trade.

One of the things that I pointed out when I was teaching is, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) focused on, is the importance of free trade. To me, it has done more to advance civilized values than anything else in the span of recorded history. And I think that personal contact that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) focused on, especially with China, that personal contact with people, and they get the opportunity to see that there is a better way to live and that a better way to live is advancing those free institutions, that we have been in the vanguard of advancing and promoting here in the United States in the span of recorded history and we will continue to do.

I want to focus on one other point that one of our Founding Fathers noted, and that is that the history of liberty is the history of limitation of governmental power, never the increase of it. When we resist concentration of governmental power, we are resisting the powers of death, for the destruction of human liberty has ever been preceded by concentration of governmental power.

All of us have a responsibility in this Chamber and in the other Chamber as well to make sure that we seek to guarantee that we are living within our means, that government is limited in its intrusion into our lives, and simultaneously we are providing the greatest opportunities imaginable for individuals to realize the fulfillment of their talents and ambitions.

I commend my colleagues on our side of the aisle, but I commend some on the other side of the aisle, too, who have joined in this effort. I salute them, and I am going to miss all of you. The personal relationships that I have developed have been very moving to me. Saying good-bye is something that I am not going to do because I do not plan to say good-bye to you folks. I hope that we can continue to stay in touch.

I have no idea what I will do with the remainder of my life, but my birthday was the day after the election, and I told my wife at the time that my defeat may have been God's birthday present. It may have been an opportunity to get back and relax and reflect and decide what I would like to do yet in the remaining time I have and simultaneously try and continue to make positive contributions. I have talents that are in this Chamber, and we heard a lot of those talents tonight, that can continue to carry on that cause here on the House floor. I will try to help in any way that I can in the time I have remaining.

I will only conclude by saying that I have cherished this opportunity, and I cannot tell my colleagues enough how much I have enjoyed our personal relationships through the years in working on objectives that I have cherished. I will continue to try and maintain personal contact with you. I just want to say God bless you all and God bless this institution and the United States of America. It is in good hands. Bless you all.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in a tribute to my good friend, Bill Lipinski, who has made countless contributions to the State of Illinois and to the country during his years serving in the House.

George Washington is quoted as saying, ``How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving, and tolerant of the weak and the strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these.'' I believe Bill Lipinski modeled his Congressional career around this quote.

Bill's efforts in transforming our country's transportation infrastructure, especially that in the State of Illinois, has made every American's life a little easier by more efficient travel. Throughout the years, Bill and I have worked together on several transportation projects, from Metra expansion to road projects. In working with him on each of these projects, he showed great leadership, but most of all he showed great friendship. It is for this that I admire Bill the most. He could look past the harsh realities of partisan politics and work with me to help residents within my district. I will be eternally grateful not only for Bill's support of the projects he and I worked on but also for his friendship.

Another thing I will always remember Bill for is his independence. While Bill is a loyal

Democrat--one that I haven't yet been able to convert--he was never afraid to break from the ranks to cast his vote as he saw fit. I will always miss his camaraderie, and his love for this cathedral of democracy.

Bill, in the years to come, I hope I will still get to see you on the flights to and from Chicago and I wish you all the best in your retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1047, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004. This important, bipartisan legislation is long overdue, and I am pleased we have the opportunity to consider the conference report this evening.

H.R. 1047 is a compendium of trade provisions drawn largely from legislation introduced by individual Members. The bill contains provisions involving the temporary suspension of duties on narrowly defined products, miscellaneous trade items, and technical corrections to the Trade and Development Act of 2000.

There are a number of provisions in this bill that are noteworthy, including several that I have long championed. For instance, I am pleased that the legislation follows in the tradition of both the 2000 and 2002 Trade Acts, by including a reduction of the tariff for certain types of wool used in the production of men's suits.

This reduction in tariffs is important not only as a matter of trade policy, but also to suitmakers across the country, who not too long ago saw their industry decimated by high tariffs. Reducing these tariffs has stabilized the domestic industry, and nowhere is this more apparent than at Hart Marx, the only publicly-

traded company manufacturing suits in America today.

I had the opportunity to tour the wonderful Hart Marx facility in Des Plaines, IL, this past August, and saw firsthand how important that tariff reduction is for the nearly 600 employees at Hart Marx, many of whom are my constituents.

I am therefore most pleased that this legislation will further reduce the tariff on worsted wool. History shows us that this will not only save jobs, but even add to jobs, in Illinois and throughout the country.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2672.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the time, and I rise in strong support of the American Jobs Creation Act. This important legislation will end EU sanctions against our exporters, which is harming U.S. workers while delivering much- needed tax relief to America's job creators.

In April 2003, with U.S. exporters facing EU sanctions, I introduced bipartisan legislation that repealed WTO illegal provisions in our Tax Code, while simultaneously lowering the corporate tax rate for domestic manufacturing from 35 percent to 32 percent. My goal was simple: to make sure that U.S. manufacturers can compete on a level playing field with our foreign competitors.

H.R. 4520 includes my legislation, which means that every U.S. manufacturer will see their taxes reduced by 3 points. That means more jobs here at home, and at great Illinois companies like Boeing, Caterpillar, Abbott Labs, Motorola, Baxter, and Brunswick.

In addition, this legislation contains a number of provisions I have long worked on passing that are very important to my home State of Illinois. For instance, hundreds of small businesses in my district will be able to take advantage of provisions I have authored to allow them to deduct up to $100 for the cost of new equipment every year. The life insurance industry, including Allstate, which employs some 3,500 of my constituents, will benefit from the repeal of policyholder surplus accounts; and Lake County Partners, which helps businesses transform opportunities into success, will benefit from a provision I have championed allowing States to expand their small issue bond programs.

I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) for working with me to include these very important provisions in the legislation that he has presented before us today.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly have traveled a long road in bringing this legislation to the floor, and I am glad to be here today in support of a great bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the American Jobs Creation Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support House Resolution 821, a resolution condemning the abduction of Dylan Benwell from the United States and calling for his return.

Dylan Benwell was born in Ireland to Irish parents. Dylan's biological father died when he was 2 weeks old and his maternal grandparents, Timothy and Ethel Blake, helped care for Dylan following his father's death. Within a few years, Dylan's mother, Serena, met and married an American named John Benwell. Dylan moved with the family to the United States where John was stationed in the Navy in Norfolk, Virginia.

In 2001, Dylan's grandparents, the Blakes, filed for custody of Dylan, which was inexplicably granted by the Irish courts. When Dylan was in kindergarten, the Blakes attempted, but failed, to kidnap him from Virginia. The Blakes then filed a Hague Convention request, asking the courts to order the return of Dylan back to Ireland.

The case was heard in Chesapeake, Virginia and the Virginia court determined that Dylan should remain in the custody of his mother in the United States. Therefore, in the opinion of U.S. authorities, the question of custody has already been adjudicated, and it is clear that Dylan should be with his parents.

The Benwells moved to Winthrop Harbor, Illinois, which is in my district, after John Benwell was transferred to the Great Lakes Naval Station. While in Illinois, John Benwell adopted Dylan and his 3 older brothers. He and Serena also have 2 other children. The 4 oldest boys, including Dylan, have applied for American citizenship.

Unfortunately, the Blakes have remained obsessed with Dylan. As part of the 2001 decision, they were allowed to speak with Dylan on the telephone. During these conversations, they routinely asked Dylan if they wanted to live with them in Ireland. Dylan's answer was always no. Of course, Dylan's mother, his legal guardian, would not send him off with his grandparents.

Recently, the Blakes called Serena Benwell asking to see Dylan. They claimed that Timothy Blake was dying and wanted to make amends for attempting to kidnap Dylan 4 years ago. Serena finally gave in and allowed the Blakes to come to the U.S. to visit Dylan.

On Thursday, July 22, 2004, the Blakes took Dylan to lunch. In order to make sure the Blakes did not kidnap her son again, Mrs. Benwell asked them to give her their passports, which they did. Unfortunately, the passports were fakes and they took Dylan to Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and boarded a British Airways flight to Ireland. The Winthrop Harbor Police missed the Blakes and Dylan at the airport by just 15 minutes.

Dylan Benwell is only 9 years old. Many of us have children and grandchildren who are Dylan's age. Can my colleagues imagine the fear and confusion that this poor child is going through? Can my colleagues imagine their child or grandchild going through this?

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid for Dylan's safety. Consider the following: in a sworn affidavit, Mrs. Benwell told police detectives that her father, Timothy Blake, told her in 2001 that they wished that they had killed Dylan and themselves while they had him rather than allow him to become an American. In addition, according to Mrs. Benwell, Mr. Blake had attempted suicide in 1987, and Mrs. Benwell has also stated that her father physically abused her as a child.

To make matters worse, in 1999, after the Blakes attempted to kidnap Dylan from kindergarten, Ethel Blake was arrested in Virginia for physically striking John Benwell while he was holding his then 2-month- old daughter. Mrs. Benwell also told police that both of her parents have been patients in psychiatric institutions. After the abduction, when the Winthrop Harbor Police searched the hotel where the Blakes had been staying, they found several prescription drugs in the Blakes' room that are used to treat psychiatric and emotional disorders such as schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety.

For all of these reasons, I am deeply concerned about Dylan Benwell's safety and well-being. It is imperative that we return Dylan back to the care of his loving parents. I have been working with the State Department, which is very concerned, and has noted that this is a particularly worrisome case. The State Department believes that the Blakes took the case in their own hands and are now forum shopping, which completely goes against Hague Convention agreements.

It is essential that we in the House of Representatives urge the government of Ireland to recognize the decision of the Virginia juvenile district court. Above all, the Blakes should return Dylan promptly to his parents.

In passing this resolution today, the House of Representatives is making an important statement. Perhaps we are also giving some greater hope to a family in need of some hope. They have been through so much.

Mr. Speaker, it is for all of these reasons that I introduced House Resolution 821. I am committed to ensuring we return Dylan Benwell to the United States and to his family. So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important resolution.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), the gentleman from Texas (Majority Leader DeLay), and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for supporting my efforts to help Dylan and the Benwells. I want to also thank all of the Members who cosponsored this resolution, as well as the staff that helped bring this urgent resolution to the House Floor so expeditiously.

My deepest prayers and sympathy are for Dylan, his mother, Serena Benwell, and their family, as they go through these trying times.

Mr. Speaker, the institution of marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, and with God and the community. That is why I voted for and strongly supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan margin and signed into law by President Clinton. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and also provides that no State shall be required to accept a same-sex marriage license granted in another State.

Opponents of this amendment say we are voting too early on this amendment. They say that traditional marriage is protected by DOMA. However, I know that unless this amendment passes, State and Federal judges will overturn laws protecting traditional marriage after this year's election, just as I know tonight the sun will set.

Left-wing activists in at least twelve other States have filed lawsuits like the one that imposed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Without a constitutional amendment, judges and local officials will continue to attempt to redefine marriages in their States. A handful of judges are doing the work of a liberal few and forcing us to act to protect what should be a settled matter of law. These judges can strike down the Defense of Marriage Act just as four judges in Massachusetts did earlier this year.

The only way to ensure that the people's voice to be heard is an amendment to the Constitution--the only law a court cannot overturn. The future of marriage in America should be decided through the democratic constitutional amendment process. By passing the Marriage Protection Amendment, the American people will have the final say on marriage in the United States, not a group of judges.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to trust the judgment of the American people and allow them to make the final decision on marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Speaker, here's the choice. On one hand, a rich constitutional tradition. On the other hand, the politics of divisiveness. What a despicable choice it is.

With just days left before hitting the campaign trail, this Congress sets a remarkable record today. Since January of this year, the Republicans had the House in session for 93

days. Fewer days than any other single Session since 1948.

The Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House. Here's the tally: No votes on energy reform. No action on the assault weapons ban. No criminal justice reform. No Homeland Security bill. And no action on minimum wage and unemployment benefits.

We can't pass a budget. Only one of 13 annual appropriations bills got done on time this year. And in Iraq, the violence continues. Yesterday, a car bomb explosion killed over 30 people--injuring over 100. We have lost over one thousand American soldiers in this war.

So which of these enormous challenges do we take on today? None of them. Instead, we're debating a constitutional amendment on marriage that is not going anywhere--it has already failed miserably in the Senate. We are just going through the motions here. The Majority is placating its base. For partisan advantage and with total disregard for our constitutional history and the core conservative value of federalism and defense to the State.

Just last month the Vice President said: ``people ought to be able to be free.'' Well, Mr. Vice President, to my surprise, we actually agree on something. People should be free to love who they want. And free to marry who they love. And live in a state where they have equal rights and opportunities, and equal access to government.

But State rights are under attack--from the self-styled conservatives no less, the same folks who are crusading to preempt State gun safety laws, get rid of consumer protection provisions, to eliminate fair lending laws. Why not abolish the 10th Amendment too?

I agree with our former colleague Bob Barr--one of the stronget supporters of States' rights ever to serve in this body. There are three reasons why a constitutional amendment is the wrong choice.

First, marriage is a state issue. Each state should be able to decide on its own how to define marriage for its citizens. Federalism means state sovereignty. We hear a lot of talk about my home state. Let me tell you something--Massachusetts is not forcing other states to take up this issue. Marriage is a matter that has always been left to the states. And each state should be allowed to address this issue in its own due course.

Second, once we start messing with the Constitution, where will it end? With this precedent, the Republicans show a willingness to change the Constitution for ideology. What's next? A Constitutional Amendment on tax cuts? Corporate welfare? The draft?

Finally, Federal constitutional amendment on marriage is unnecessary, irresponsible and irrational. It is wrong.

The House Majority is pitting the Constitution against a craven political calculus. This is election year pandering at its worst. This is a meaningless and demeaning gesture, and insult to those holding sincere beliefs on this issue, all at the expense of our constitutional heritage.

I urge my colleagues to reject this despicable posturing.

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

I would like to stress the fact that H.R. 4520 does not include any provisions that would move jobs overseas. It does contain provisions that would foster economic growth and create jobs here in the United States.

The bill reduces the corporate tax rate to 32 percent only for domestic producers, farmers, small corporations, and manufacturers' activities within the United States. Manufacturing that occurs overseas or offshore would not get the lower rate.

The bill extends enhanced section 179 expensing for small businesses and provides accelerated depreciation for leasehold improvements and offers other tax benefits for businesses. Companies with a lower tax burden have more resources to expand their business and to create jobs in the United States.

U.S. exporters are getting clobbered by penalty sanctions. Lower exports mean a smaller economy and less employment. H.R. 4520 will end the sanctions imposed on the exporters, allowing them to expand and hire more workers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my support for H.R. 1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, it has been my privilege to work on the development of this legislation, and I look forward to its passage today.

Mr. Speaker, if we do not pass this legislation, hard-working families will have to face tax increases over the next 10 years, totaling $109 billion. If we do not pass H.R. 1308, it will most certainly harm the economic recovery we are now enjoying in this Nation.

H.R. 1308 will further eliminate the marriage penalty for American families. Before tax relief was implemented in 2001 and 2003, the marriage penalty tax was a burden to millions of Americans being taxed more than other citizens simply because they were married.

Under our legislation, the $1,000 child tax credit rate will also be extended. If this legislation is not passed, working families will have to pay $300 more per child in taxes than they did in 2003 and 2004. Without our legislation, military families will suffer as the per-child credit for military families will be increased by allowing these families to include tax-free combat pay when calculating their refundable child credit.

President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills also increased the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, exemption amounts from $45,000 to $58,000 for married couples and from $33,750 to $40,250 for single men and women. These increases ensure that the AMT does not hit middle-income families as a result of the tax relief provided in the 2001 and 2003 tax reduction laws. However, if we do not act now this relief will expire at the end of this year.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that it is private citizens, not the Federal Government, that create this Nation's wealth and pay this Nation's taxes. If we do not act on this legislation, millions of America's middle-class taxpayers will suffer as a result. That is unconscionable, therefore I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, every year, 42,000 deaths occur on our highways. Together with 6 million accidents and 5.2 million injuries, the comprehensive cost to our Nation is more than $400 billion per year. The great cost in human lives these statistics demonstrate is the reason why today I offer bipartisan legislation that will assist in the reduction of these tragedies on our Nation's roadways.

Driver error is cited as the cause of 90 percent of these accidents. The World Health Organization (WHO) identified road traffic deaths as a worldwide public health issue, and dedicated this year's World Health Day theme to road safety.

A variety of technologies that could help drivers to avoid crashes have already been developed. These ``intelligent vehicle technologies'' help by warning drivers of impending collisions or compensate for other forms of driver error. While these devices are beginning to be deployed on some automobiles and commercial vehicles, this is happening far too slowly.

The Federal Highway Administration's stated goal for highway safety is to achieve of a 20 percent reduction in vehicle-related fatalities and injuries by 2008. Intelligent vehicle technologies represent the single best opportunity to help us achieve that goal. The Federal Government has long invested in traditional methods of improving highway safety, through the construction of safer roads or through encouraging and then mandating the use of seatbelts. No less important is helping to ensure that automobiles and trucks on our roads are equipped with the latest in these safety technologies.

That is why I have introduced the Intelligent Vehicle Highway Safety Act, which will accelerate the adoption of these technologies, not by regulation, but rather by encouraging consumers to purchase safer vehicles through providing incentives. Vehicles equipped with these life-saving technologies have been shown to reduce accidents anywhere from 40 percent to 60 percent.

My legislation would provide an above-the-line deduction on income tax returns for the cost of purchasing intelligent vehicle technology (IVT) equipment in their passenger vehicles. Businesses that purchase heavy trucks equipped with IVT would be allowed to exempt a portion of this equipment's cost from the Federal Excise Tax (FET). The intent of this legislation is to provide a broad based tax incentive to individuals and businesses that purchase vehicles equipped with IVT safety equipment

Intelligent Vehicle Technologies comprise the range of smart products that enhance safety for drivers, including lane departure warnings, roll stability systems, automatic crash notification systems, workload managers and telematics equipment. The relatively small cost to the Treasury for this legislation is an investment that will save thousands of lives each year. Deployment of IVT will have other benefits as well: accident reduction will reduce injuries, limit property damage and mitigate traffic congestion and its accompanying pollution.

To illustrate, let's take a snap shot of how these technologies could impact the every day lives of American motorists across the Nation. In the New York-Northeast New Jersey area, area residents spend on average 422 million hours each year in traffic related delays. Since 1982 the percent of daily travel time spent in congestion increased from 14 percent to 34 percent in 2001 and peak travel in the same time period congestion increased from 28 percent to 69 percent. This increased congestion represents an $8.4 billion annual cost in delay and wasted fuel, specifically--696 million gallons of fuel on New York City area roads and highways. Over 67 percent of this cost is due to delays caused by driving accidents. And the most sobering statistic of all is the 1,458 traffic deaths that occurred on New York City roadways in 2001. Intelligent Vehicle Technology could reduce congestion costs by $2.8 billion each year, reduce wasted fuel by 238 million gallons each year and reduce congestion by 34 percent.

In our Nation's heartland, the statistics also support the need for measures to be taken to reduce accidents on our roadways. The numbers point to the urgent need for a reduction in the costs to the American people's time, money and quality of life. In the Chicago area, residents spend 27 hours each year in traffic-related delays. Since 1982, time spent in congestion increased from 23 percent to 40 percent in 2001 and for the same time period peak travel congestion increased from 46 percent to 81 percent. If you place dollars to this delay, it costs Chicago area residents $4.1 billion each year in delays and wasted fuel--340 million gallons of wasted fuel to be exact. Once again over 56 percent of this cost is due to driving accidents and related delays. Chicago area accidents in 2001 alone tragically ended the lives of 1,418 motorists. It is estimated that IVT technology could reduce Chicagoland's congestion costs by $1.2 billion each year and save 97 million gallons each year. It is further estimated that IVT technology could also translate into a reduction in the time spent by area residents in traffic congestion by 29 percent.

To illustrate that this is a nationwide problem, fewer residents are harder hit by this ``epidemic'' than those of the Los Angeles, California area. Residents there collectively spend 667 million hours in traffic-related delays. The percent of daily travel spent in congestion has increased from 31 percent in 1981 to 44 percent in 2001, and peak travel time congestion in the same time period increased from 62 percent in 1981 to 88 percent in 2001. This increased congestion costs residents $12.9 billion each year in delays and wasted fuel to the tune of 996 million gallons of fuel, with nearly 55 percent of this cost due to driving accidents. Most alarming is the number of annual fatalities; in 2001 the number of motorists who lost their lives in traffic accidents was 3,753. This is certainly a human tragedy in addition to a significant drain on area commuter time and money.

In the Los Angeles case, research shows that IVT technology could potentially reduce congestion costs by $3.6 billion each year and reduce the number of gallons of fuel wasted in traffic by 279 million gallons. In terms of quality of life, IVT could give back local residents over 28 percent of the daily travel time they currently spend on the roadways of Los Angeles.

The benefits of IVT technology are not limited to our Nation's commuters. Commercial trucks and trailers are responsible for moving nearly 3.5 trillion tons of freight each year. The reliable and timely transport of goods is vital to the health of our Nation's economy. However, accidents involving commercial trucks cost over $24 billion each year in lives lost, medical and emergency services, and property damage. Fatal accidents cost more than any other accidents when heavy trucks are involved, the average cost being $3.54 million per accident for trucks with multiple trailers. Statistically, over the past 10 years, accidents involving large trucks increased by over 15 percent. The deployment of IVT technologies to the trucking industry could also greatly reduce accident rates, cost per accident, and the resulting traffic congestion. Application of these technologies to commercial trucking is a vital part of increasing our nation's roadway safety and ensuring the cost effective and timely transportation of goods throughout the United States.

America leads the world in the development of IVT technology, which comes as no surprise. However, what is surprising is that Europe and Japan lead in deployment of these technologies. It is clear from the statistics above that accidents, congestion, and related loss of life are nationwide problems that need to be addressed by the deployment of these life saving technologies here at home. The goal of my legislation is to jump start the deployment of these safety technologies so that associated benefits become more universally experienced through its widespread use here in the U.S. It is intended to encourage consumers at all income levels to purchase IVT equipped vehicles.

As we continue to consider various legislation this year, I believe it is also important to look at additional innovative ways to address the unacceptable levels of highway deaths and injuries. The Intelligent Vehicle Highway Safety Act will promote safer vehicles. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend Edgar Uihlein of Northbrook, Illinois.

I first got to know Ed Uihlein when I was running for Congress for the first time in 1969. Ed encouraged me just as he has helped other conservative candidates and organizations, including the Leadership Institute.

Ed is a man of extraordinary character. He has worked by the sweat of his brow, and he has worked by the labor of his mind. He has taken care of his own, and he has fought for what was right. Ed has a spirit of adventure and courage. On an impulse, he played hooky from Princeton for a full year while he joined his father on a round-the-world tour in 1936. Ed was in the Navy in World War II, and he took care of his men. When the ship's refrigerator broke down during a long stay in a foreign port, and the crew had no fresh food for a week, he disappeared for half the day, only to return with a barrow full of fresh fish that he himself had caught. The whole ship feasted and the next day the coast where he had fished was full of American sailors trying their luck.

Ed married his sweetheart Lucia in 1941, and built his family with love and care. Today, his five children have fond memories of their parents standing beside their beds, singing duets as they tucked them in. Every morning, Ed drove the children to school, and along the way he would sing to them. As the children got older, Ed would take turns reading books aloud in the evenings, and around the dinner table he would talk politics. They could see his concern, and they came to share it. In 1956, he paid his kids a penny an envelope to address, stamp and seal letters of concern that were sent to every Member of Congress with regard to the heroes of the Hungarian Uprising. Today, their five children and ten grandchildren are productive, patriotic citizens scattered around the country--but, I am happy to say, two of his sons are still living in Illinois.

Ed has made significant financial contributions to individuals, to the arts, and to charities both large and small, many of which are marked ``anonymous''. I once asked his family for a photograph of him and they did not have one. Ed isn't the kind of man who would sit for a portrait photo. That modesty is another facet of his distinction as an individual.

Ed, you're a great American. I am honored to call you friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased that the United States and the Kingdom of Morocco have reached agreement on a bilateral free trade agreement. Morocco has long been a key ally in the Middle East. As many have noted, Morocco was the first country to recognize our sovereignty; and in 1786 we signed the U.S.-Morocco treaty of peace and friendship, which remains the longest unbroken treaty in our Nation's history.

Once implemented, this treaty agreement will be the second of its kind between the U.S. and a moderate Muslim ally, following our trade agreement with the Kingdom of Jordan.

This is an important strategic agreement. While we have had a long- standing diplomatic relationship with Morocco, the U.S.-Morocco FTA cements the economic relationship between our countries. Two-way trade between the U.S. and Morocco is significant, at nearly $1 billion per year. The United States exported over $465 million to Morocco last year, with a trade surplus of over $79 million.

This FTA will eliminate trade barriers, lower tariffs, and provide increased market access for U.S. companies. By knocking down trade barriers in Morocco and in the rest of the world, we can help support even more American jobs. In fact, the International Trade Commission estimates that trade between our countries should double once this agreement is implemented.

This is a strong agreement for all sectors of the U.S. economy. Under its terms, over 95 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods to Morocco will become duty free immediately. This follows the high standards set by recently passed trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, and Australia. This is important for U.S. manufacturers.

This is also a strong agreement for the services sector of our economy, whether it be telecommunications, e-commerce for digital commerce, or new opportunities for U.S. financial institutions. The agreement also contains state-of-the-art intellectual property provisions, including commitments in trademarks, copyrights and patents, as well as tough penalties for piracy and counterfeiting. Taken together, these provisions continue a trade policy that best helps U.S. business compete in a global marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, the Farm Bureau strongly supports this agreement, which covers all agricultural products, because for every $1 in increased imports from Morocco, U.S. farmers can expect $10 in increased exports to Morocco. In 2003, the United States had a trade surplus in agricultural products with Morocco of about $82 million, with exports of over $152 million. The Farm Bureau estimates that this agreement could increase U.S. agricultural exports to over $450 million by 2015, tripling our current exports. Furthermore, because Morocco's agreement with the European Union does not include agriculture, this FTA should give American farmers a competitive advantage over our EU counterparts.

Some have questioned whether labor laws in Morocco are adequate. To that end, I would like to point out that the U.S.-Morocco FTA, like all of our trade agreements, requires Morocco to enforce domestic labor laws in accordance with the bipartisan guidance provided by the Congress in Trade Promotion Authority.

Furthermore, in anticipation of a U.S.-Morocco FTA, the Moroccan government, business community, and labor force, working together in a tripartite manner, found consensus in passing a comprehensive new labor law earlier this year that is consistent with ILO standards. Accordingly, the agreement language creating an obligation to effectively enforce one's laws is, in essence, the same as an enforceable ILO standard in this agreement. I, for one, applaud Morocco for its efforts in overhauling its labor laws in anticipation of completing this important trade agreement.

Some on the other side, including the Subcommittee on Trade ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and the Committee on Ways and Means ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), have raised thoughtful questions with regard to various provisions contained in this agreement. I think we have worked well together to address these concerns, and I am pleased that we have their support. While we may continue to disagree on certain issues, there is a lot of common ground from which to work, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to pass important trade agreements.

Unfortunately, I am sure that a small group on the other side who do oppose free trade may come to the House floor today and argue that this agreement is inadequate in certain respects.

I would ask my colleagues to not be fooled by this rhetoric, which we hear every time when we contemplate trade agreements. We heard it last week during debate on our Australian Free Trade Agreement, a country with which we have a $9 billion trade surplus; we heard it during debate 1 year ago regarding Chile and Singapore; and I am sure we will hear it today with regard to Morocco, a country with which we have a trade surplus.

Please do not be fooled. This discomfort has less to do with the provisions of this agreement than it does their dislike of free trade generally.

Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Members on both sides of the aisle think differently. The American people know that millions of American jobs are dependent upon free trade. U.S. products exported to Morocco currently face an average tariff of more than 20 percent. This FTA will give American businesses exporting to Morocco a leg up to compete as they compete with the European Union. That means better, higher-paying jobs here at home. Perhaps that is why the U.S.-Morocco FTA passed the Committee on Ways and Means by a 26 to 0 vote on Tuesday and passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 85 to 13 yesterday. I look forward to another strong, bipartisan vote today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize my strong support for this agreement and my appreciation to the administration and Members on both sides of the aisle for their efforts in completing it.

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

Mr. Speaker, concerns about the consistency of any future drug reimportation provisions with this free trade agreement are hypothetical. The agreement has no force under U.S. law except to the extent that Congress passes an implementing bill to change U.S. law.

Thus, even if Congress changes U.S. law and the new law were somehow inconsistent with the agreement, that new law would trump the agreement. The agreement cannot prevent Congress from allowing drug reimportation.

The drug reimportation debate in Congress has focused on changes to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that would be necessary to allow drug reimportation, such as changing its provision that only the original manufacturer may reimport a drug. There is nothing in the Morocco FTA or the implementing bill that addresses the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for this requirement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who is cochair of the Morocco Caucus.

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

The new Morocco labor law is a significant improvement over existing labor laws and regulations. The law raises the minimum employment age from 12 to 15 to combat child labor, reduces the work week from 48 to 44 hours with overtime rates payable for additional hours, and calls for a periodic review of the Moroccan minimum wage.

Effective July 1, 2004, the minimum wage in Morocco will increase by 10 percent. Morocco did this to make itself a more attractive FTA partner.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the former speaker for his presentation and what he had to say.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The Committee on Ways and Means' report states the clear coverage of the free trade agreement. ``The committee notes that the FTA will cover trade with and investment in the territory of Morocco as recognized by the United States, which does not include the Western Sahara.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, but we are discussing the U.S.-Morocco FTA, which passed the Committee on Ways and Means by a vote of 26 to nothing. In addition, we have a trade surplus with Morocco. Trade with Morocco creates jobs. The projections are right now that over the next decade our exports will triple in the agricultural sector alone, and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program already provides benefits to anyone adversely effected by trade, and there is no need for a new program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

I think it is important for everyone to understand that we have a trade surplus at the current time with Morocco. The projections are, though, that with

this free trade agreement we will have a very dramatic increase in our exports, especially our exports in the agricultural community with that dramatic drop in tariff barriers that have struck our access there, but we are making progress, dramatic progress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), our distinguished colleague on the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his outstanding commitment in this effort to advance our free trade relations and to advance the civilized values that free trade causes. He has done outstanding work in that effort, and I commend him. I thank his colleagues on his side of the aisle for their strong bipartisan support on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, the administration strongly supports H.R. 4842, which will approve and implement the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, as signed by the United States and Morocco on June 15, 2004.

The U.S.-Morocco FTA advances U.S. economic interests and meets the negotiating principles and objectives set out by the Congress in the Trade Act of 2002. The FTA will benefit the people of the United States and Morocco and illustrate to other developing countries the advantages of more open markets for trade and investment.

The FTA provides for increased access for American farmers, workers and businesses to Morocco's markets. Pursuant to the agreement, Morocco will provide strong protection for intellectual property, ensure that rules on electronic commerce are nondiscriminatory, and provide U.S. firms access to covered government procurement opportunities on the same basis that Moroccan firms enjoy.

The U.S.-Morocco FTA provides a significant opportunity to encourage economic reform and development in a moderate Muslim nation and is an important step in implementing the President's plan for a broader U.S.- Middle East Free Trade Area. It also sets a strong example of the benefits of open trade and democracy. Opening markets is part of the President's six-point plan for continuing to strengthen America's economy and to create more opportunities for American farmers, workers and businesses.

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

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

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

I want to first commend our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the Committee on Ways and Means for guaranteeing unanimous commitment to passage of our Free Trade Agreement with Morocco and look forward to working with them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas).

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), for yielding this time to me and for helping me in getting this bill explained and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4840, the legislation I have introduced that will simplify the Tax Code for small businesses.

Nearly seven in 10 new jobs are created by small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. The Tax Simplification For America's Job Creators Act helps small businesses in three ways:

First, it extends section 179, small business expensing, for 2 years, through 2007. This provision allows small businesses to immediately deduct the cost of up to $100,000 in expenditures for new equipment. Failure to extend this provision will result in an effective tax increase of about $1 billion on small businesses seeking to make critical investments that expand their businesses and create jobs.

Second, my legislation will allow small businesses to take advantage of the cash method of accounting. Under current law, subchapter C corporations cannot use cash accounting, which allows them to deduct expenses in the year paid and report income in the year received, if their gross receipts exceed $5 million. H.R. 4840 indexes the $5 million threshold for inflation, which ensures that more small businesses are not forced to use the more complex, costly, and time- consuming accrual method of accounting. This provision saves business taxpayers roughly $120 million.

Third, H.R. 4840 eliminates from the Tax Code a number of dead-letter provisions, which serve no purpose other than to clutter an already overly complex set of laws.

My constituents tell me that passage of this legislation will mean more jobs and increased economic growth in the Chicagoland area. I am also pleased that some of the Nation's leading small business associations, including the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the NFIB, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Associated Builders and Contractors, strongly support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, my legislation is not a panacea for small business. The government can only do so much. As always, it is the hard work and ingenuity of the American people that lead to expanded growth, job creation, and prosperity. However, taxpayers with business income pay about 55 percent of all income taxes. This bipartisan legislation will not only simplify the Tax Code; but by returning over $1 billion to business taxpayers, it will also let our job creators know that Congress means business when it comes to lowering their tax burden. It is the least we can do.

While I am extraordinarily pleased that we are acting today on much- needed simplification for small business, I want to take a moment to mention the need for greater simplification in the tax laws. I, for one, intend to be dogged in my pursuit of this goal.

To give one example, I have long championed an effort for many years to address a complex and unfair provision in the consolidated return rules. These rules were enacted so that corporate groups could pay tax on the net income of all their affiliated companies. Generally, the rules accomplish this goal, unless one of the affiliated corporations in the group is a life insurance company.

Twenty Members of the Committee on Ways and Means have cosponsored legislation I have introduced, H.R. 2228, that reforms the consolidated returns to address this inequity. Similar legislation passed both the House and Senate in 1999 as part of a larger tax bill that, unfortunately, was vetoed by President Clinton. I would expect that with the appropriate amount of effort, this legislation, as well as other meritorious simplification, can and will be enacted in the near future.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, to continue on the theme of tax simplification, in 2002, the IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2002-28 to allow subchapter S corporations to use cash accounting if their gross receipts do not exceed $10 million. That ruling provided useful clarification for taxpayers. I believe the service should go one step further and make this guidance a formal regulation so that in the future America's small business owners can rely on a simple method of accounting.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a copy of the NFIB's petition to the IRS asking for a final rule to address this issue.

NFIB Legal Foundation,

Washington, DC, July 20, 2004.

Petition for Rulemaking Before the Internal Revenue Service

Hon. Mark W. Everson,

Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Commissioner: The National Federation of

Independent Business Legal Foundation (``NFIB Legal

Foundation'') submits this petition to the Internal Revenue

Service (IRS) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(e) of the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 551 et seq.

Petitioners request a rulemaking to incorporate Revenue

Procedure 2002-28, with three requested modifications, into a

formal regulation. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 555(e),

petitioners request prompt consideration and response to this

petition.

The NFIB Legal Foundation, a 501(c)(3) public interest law

firm, is the legal arm of the National Federation of

Independent Business (NFIB), which is the nation's oldest and

largest organization dedicated to representing the interests

of small-business owners throughout all 50 states. The

approximately 600,000 members of NFIB own a wide variety of

America's independent businesses from restaurants to hardware

stores to bowling alleys.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4056, which urges the President, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security to move forward with the protection of commercial aircraft from MANPADS attacks. I want to commend my colleague from Florida for introducing this critical legislation that not only protects commercial aircraft here in the United States but also takes an aggressive step to encourage the rest of the world to increase their own safety measures concerning air travel.

It is imperative that we in Congress realize that heat-seeking infrared surface-to-air missiles currently held by terrorist organizations pose an imminent threat to commercial aircraft. The terrorist use of MANPADS has resulted in the deaths of more than 350 innocent people. When in possession of those intending to inflict harm, MANPADS are extremely effective and extremely dangerous. An estimated 27 terrorist organizations are known to have heat-seeking missiles, and over 500,000 produced worldwide can easily be purchased on the black market for $25,000 to $50,000.

Last year, I worked with the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security to secure funds for this crucial program to be applied on commercial aircraft. Chairman Rogers generously provided $60 million for fiscal year 2004 and has added funds again in this year's Homeland Security appropriations bill. There are MANPADS defense systems in development right now across the country including a facility in Rolling Meadows, IL, which is in my district. This system is already being used and has been proven to be effective on

our C-17 military aircraft. In order to protect our larger military aircraft, the Department of Defense has already spent close to $1 billion developing and deploying systems that defeat this threat on numerous large body aircraft.

The Commercial Aviation MANPADS Defense Act of 2004 takes the next step in the process of ensuring that every commercial aircraft is equipped with these antimissile devices. The bill readies our airports for the implementation of these defense systems and goes even further in the defense against MANPADS attacks by establishing programs to reduce the number of MANPADS worldwide so that fewer of these missiles will be available for trade and sale.

Once again I would like to commend Representative Mica for introducing this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, when my colleagues and I vote on the U.S.- Australia Free Trade Agreement later today, I hope we do so understanding that trade with Australia currently supports over 235,000 jobs here in the United States, including over 4,400 in my home State of Illinois.

Illinois exports about $1 billion in goods and services to Australia each year, from agricultural and construction machinery, to engines, turbines and power transmission equipment, to motor vehicle parts, to general purpose machinery and to agricultural products. In short, people through nearly every sector of our economy will benefit from this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, we have a commitment to our citizens to enforce our trade agreements, which is why legislation I have authored which we will also consider today, the Customs Border Protection Act, increases by $2 million the resources USTR has to monitor and enforce our trade agreements. I think we can all agree that this is very important. However, some will argue that we should shut our borders and build a wall around our country. That would be devastating to our economy, and I hope a strong bipartisan vote on passage of the Australia FTA today will demonstrate that conclusively.