Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on May 20, 2004, I introduced legislation along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) authorizing appropriations for fiscal year 2005 and 2006 for the Customs and Border Protection, or CBP; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE; the Office of the United States Trade Representative, or USTR; and the International Trade Commission, ITC.

This legislation is necessitated by the expiration at the end of this fiscal year of the existing authorization for the former U.S. Customs Service. It is also a part of our ongoing process of exercising oversight and focusing on the critical importance of the efficient flow of trade across our borders.

The Customs Service has a long and distinguished history. It was the first agency of the Federal Government to be created over 220 years ago to collect revenue and to ensure that imports flow smoothly across the border. Today, Customs collects more than $20 billion in revenue each year.

With international trade comprising nearly 25 percent of our gross domestic product, CBP's mission to move goods across the border in a smooth, efficient, and predictable manner is a vital part of our economic strength and viability.

In addition to this, over the years, Customs has taken on many other functions because of its unique border presence. Fighting against illegal drugs, transshiped t-shirts, and Rolex knock-offs are just a few of these other functions.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States, the role of Customs in guarding our borders against chemical, biological, and conventional weapons has become more prominent.

This legislation authorizes sufficient funding for CBP and ICE to satisfy all of their various responsibilities.

This legislation also authorizes appropriations for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 for the Office of the United States Trade Representative of $39.6 million per year. In order to ensure that we benefit from free and fair trade, it authorizes an additional $2 million per year for the appointment of additional staff in the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this legislation passed the Committee on Ways and Means by a bipartisan 33 to nothing vote, and I look forward to its passage by the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

I want to remind my colleague that we can get into the debate on reimportation of drugs at some time when it is relevant, because it has no application to this agreement.

I am pleased that the House today will pass the long-overdue U.S.- Australia Free Trade Agreement. I applaud the efforts of President Bush and the USTR in negotiating an agreement that opens markets for U.S. exports by eliminating tariffs, reducing nontariff barriers, opening services markets, and strengthening intellectual property protections.

This is an important agreement. The U.S. enjoys a $9 billion trade surplus with Australia, and Australia is our ninth largest goods export market. Australian firms in the U.S. employ about 85,000 Americans, and it is estimated that U.S. exports to Australia support more than 150,000 U.S. jobs. Under the terms of this agreement, over 99 percent of U.S. exports of industrial goods to Australia will become duty-free immediately. U.S. manufacturers estimate that the elimination of tariffs could result in nearly $2 billion per year in increased U.S. exports of manufactured goods.

This agreement also gives our farmers new opportunities. All U.S. agricultural exports to Australia totaling more than $400 million will receive immediate duty-free access. Key agricultural products that will benefit from immediate tariff elimination include soybeans and oilseed products, fresh and processed fruits, vegetables and nuts, and pork products. Our dairy farmers also will have immediate access to the Australian market.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement is also very important to my State of Illinois, which is home to companies including Caterpillar, Boeing, Motorola, Abbott Labs, and Zurich Life. Illinois exports to Australia directly support approximately 4,400 jobs in the State of Illinois. Additionally, there are 20 Australian-owned companies in Illinois, employing over 2,000 people. Nine hundred of these positions are manufacturing jobs. Trade with Australia supports numerous other high- paying jobs in areas such as transportation, finance, and advertising; and between 1999 and 2003, Illinois exports to Australia grew by 12 percent. This Free Trade Agreement means more jobs, better jobs, and higher-paying jobs in Illinois and America.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, it has been my privilege to have been involved in the completion of this trade agreement, and I thank my colleagues who worked so hard to make this a reality.

I would also like to express appreciation to staff, including, to name just a few, Angela Ellard, Stephanie Lester, Matt Howard, Tim Reif, Viji Rangaswami, Mike Castellano, Brian Gaston, Sam Geduldig, Brian Diffell, Andrew Shore, John DeStefano, Amy Heerink, Rachael Leman, Janet Nuzum, James Koski, Greg Sheiowitz, Chris McConnell, and Vergil Cabasco. I thank them.

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

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

I would like to remind everyone of a Dear Colleague that was released yesterday by our ranking minority member on the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and our ranking member on the full Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel); and this is in their Dear Colleague letter: ``The Australia Free Trade Agreement is worthy of support. Article 17.9.4 of the Australia FTA essentially codifies existing U.S. law in an international trade agreement. Current U.S. law allows patent holders to bar the import of their patented products. The patent provision will not have a practical effect due to the fact that Australia's domestic law prohibits the export of drugs purchased through its government-subsidized program which accounts for over 90 percent of all drugs sold in Australia.

``Article 17.9.4 matters only to the extent that the United States is allowing the import of prescription drugs from Australia, or which are covered by a patent owned by an Australian firm. As a practical matter, with or without the Australia FTA, there is little possibility of importing prescription drugs from Australia.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), cochair of the U.S.-Australia Caucus and a member of our Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Australia FTA does not prevent Congress from passing legislation on drug reimportation. Under the U.S. Constitution, no trade agreement could do this. Any law passed by Congress will always trump any FTA. There is nothing in the Australia FTA or H.R. 4759 that changes U.S. patent laws or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The patent provision in the FTA restates U.S. law and applies to all patents, not just pharmaceuticals. Not including this provision would be devastating to U.S. intellectual property rights holders in every sector.

Australian law already bans the exportation of drugs dispensed under its pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Unlike Canada, Australian law expressly prohibits other parties such as a wholesaler or pharmacist from exporting non-PBS dispensed drugs. Therefore, any change in U.S. law would have no practical effect on reimportation to Australia due to Australia domestic law, regardless of the FTA; and, therefore, Australia would have no plausible basis to claim harm or pursue sanctions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), one of our colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The State of Vermont exported $12.8 million of merchandise to Australia in 2003. Vermont's high-value exports to Australia include food for infants, aircraft and sports equipment; and if the FTA was in place in 2003, 99.8 percent of Vermont's exports would have entered Australia duty free.

American exports to Australia directly and indirectly support over 270,000 jobs in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

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

Oregon is a trader with Australia right now, and Australia is the 10th largest market for Oregon goods that are exported with total exports valued at over $257 million in 2003. Oregon's high-volume exports to Australia include chassis trucks, fertilizers, vehicle parts, and helicopters.

Oregon exports to Australia directly support approximately 1,200 jobs. Additionally, there are 12 Australian-owned companies in Oregon employing over 300 people. Trade with Australia supports numerous other high-paying jobs in areas such as transportation, finance, and advertising.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

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

Australia is the eleventh largest market for Ohio goods exports, with total exports valued at around $389 million in 2003. Ohio primarily exports high-valued products to Australia, such as aircraft engines and parts, other aircraft parts, auto parts, forklifts, pet food, and household appliances. If the FTA was in place in 2003, over 93 percent of Ohio's exports would have entered Australia duty free.

Ohio's exports to Australia directly support approximately 1,854 jobs. Additionally, there are 17 Australian-owned companies in Ohio, employing 1,800 people, with 1,300 of these positions in manufacturing jobs. Trade with Australia supports countless other high-paying jobs in areas such as transportation, finance and advertising.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that Australian businesses have more than $817 million invested in Ohio.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply remind all those paying any attention to the debate that we enjoy a $9 billion trade surplus with Australia at the present time, and that will expand greatly with the passage of this free trade agreement.

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

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

I am sorry I cannot yield my time, but I will, Mr. Speaker, use some of my time at the present moment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the administration strongly supports H.R. 4759, which will approve and implement the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement as signed by the United States and Australia on May 18 of this year. The U.S.-Australia FTA advances U.S. national economic interests and meets the negotiating principles and objectives set out by the Congress in the Trade Act of 2002.

The agreement enhances our close trade relationship with Australia and will further open Australia's market for U.S.-manufactured goods, agricultural products, and services. As soon as the FTA enters into force, tariffs will be eliminated on nearly all manufactured goods traded with Australia. In addition, Australia will eliminate tariffs on all exports of U.S. agricultural products.

The U.S.-Australia FTA further solidifies our relationship with an important partner in the global economy and a strategic ally. It sets a strong example of the benefits of free 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 workers and farmers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Australia is the 15th largest market for New Jersey goods exports, with total exports valued at nearly $307 million in 2003. New Jersey primarily exports high-valued products to Australia such as pharmaceuticals, printed media, medical equipment, perfumes, and chemicals. If the FTA was in place in 2003, 99.44 percent of New Jersey's exports would have entered Australia duty free. New Jersey's exports to Australia directly support approximately 1,400 jobs. Additionally, there are 13 Australian-owned companies in New Jersey, employing 900 people. Seven hundred of these positions are manufacturing jobs.

Trade with Australia supports numerous other high-paying jobs in areas such as transportation, finance, and advertising.

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

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

I want to congratulate my colleague from North Dakota on his support for this Free Trade Agreement and also explain to folks that Australia is the third largest market for North Dakota goods exports, with total exports valued at over $47 million in 2003. North Dakota's exports to Australia include tractors, front-end loaders, beans, and agricultural sprayers. These exports support approximately 220 jobs in North Dakota. The Australia-U.S. Free Trade Agreement provides tremendous opportunities for North Dakota businesses, offering them preferential access to a strong economy and growing market. And I think the gentleman's folks back home will particularly appreciate his support, as do all the rest of us, for this important Free Trade Agreement.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate a comment I made earlier from the Dear Colleague released yesterday by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). And it says: ``The patent provision will not have a practical effect due to the fact that Australia's domestic law prohibits the export of drugs purchased through its government-subsidized program which accounts for over 90 percent of all drugs sold in Australia.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for his commitment to these fundamental principles that are involved here in the best interest of this country as well as our good friend and ally Australia for all these years. I thank him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the Australian government prohibits the export of drugs from Australia. They subsidize drugs for their own people, and they prohibit the export of those drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart). This is not a repeat. This is his younger brother.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the

gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

I would like to just reiterate in closing that this is an important agreement, and Australia is a close ally and friend of the United States. As the Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile has said, this FTA is the commercial equivalent of the ANZUS treaty on security issues signed in 1951. This agreement represents the best FTA ever negotiated regarding industrial products, over 99 percent of which will become duty free immediately. And it is estimated that U.S. exports to Australia support more than 150,000 jobs currently. And in addition, Australian farms in the U.S. employ over 85,000 Americans. The U.S. already enjoys a $9 billion trade surplus with Australia, and this agreement is clearly in our national interest; and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this agreement. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4759.

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

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4759, the bill just passed.

Mr. Speaker, I have noted with interest that some prominent Democrats have decided that part of their election strategy is apparently to scare the American people into believing that the economy is weak.

I hate to rain on their parade, but here are some numbers: Inflation is at record lows; interest rates have been at record lows; real GDP has grown 5 percent during the last four quarters, the fastest annual rate in almost 20 years; the unemployment rate is 5.6 percent, which is lower than the 30 year historical average. Real disposal personal income increased at 4.9 percent annual rate in the first quarter of 2004.

Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me like some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including the presumptive nominee for President, have apparently failed to do their homework. I, for one, do not think the voters are going to be impressed by this nonsense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my strong support for H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. This important legislation will end EU sanctions against our exporters, which is harming U.S. workers, and will deliver much-needed tax relief to the manufacturing sector of our economy.

In April 2003, I introduced bipartisan legislation to repeal ETI and return that money to domestic manufacturers. That legislation lowered the corporate tax rate for domestic manufacturing from 35 to 32 percent, and I am therefore quite pleased that $75 billion in direct relief for U.S. manufacturers has been included in this legislation. Of this, $13 billion is devoted to current ETI beneficiaries through important transition relief, and over $60 billion is devoted to rate cuts for manufacturers. Lowering the cost of doing business for this sector of our economy is critical for keeping the playing field level with our foreign competitors and stimulating U.S. job growth.

I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) for working with me to include these very important provisions in the legislation before us today and, at the same time, I am pleased that the legislation also includes significant international tax reforms.

Contrary to the assertion by some, these provisions do not shift jobs overseas. Rather, they allow our multinationals doing business abroad to become more competitive.

This creates jobs here at home and is critically important to the long-term competitiveness of our multinationals engaged in the global economy.

H.R. 4520 also extends the enhanced section 179 expensing for 2 years, making it easier for small businesses to invest in new equipment and grow their businesses, and includes many tax relief and simplification provisions for smaller, subchapter S corporations. This, coupled with the nearly $200 billion in tax relief for small businesses provided in the Bush cuts of 2001 and 2003, is fundamental for helping small business, the backbone of our economy, continue to thrive.

No legislation is perfect; and I, for one, wish we had the resources available to do more. But this is a great first step, and it comes at an important time. If we do not act, EU sanctions against many U.S. goods will continue to grow until they reach 17 percent, further harming U.S. businesses and workers. And we must not allow that to happen.

Mr. Speaker, we 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. We have two alternatives. We can vote to end EU sanctions against U.S. manufacturers then ensuring that all sectors of our corporate economy continue to flourish, or we can vote to allow sanctions to continue to grow. I suggest that there is only one responsible choice, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the American Job Creation Act.

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to and express my sympathy on the passing of one of Illinois' greatest sons, Ronald Reagan.

I was inspired by Ronald Reagan some 40 years ago when he, the Great Communicator, first outlined his vision for America. His vision was one of free enterprise, strong defense, and limited government. I was so drawn to these principles that I worked with fellow conservatives to nominate him for President in 1968 and again in 1976.

The biggest heartbreak in my political career came in 1976 when we were unable to secure Reagan the nomination. But we stayed at it. Ronnie stayed true to his principles; and, finally, in 1980 we had a man in the White House who I knew would turn this country around. Reagan did just that. He turned around our economy, he ended the Cold War, and he renewed hope for Americans.

Reagan was able to accomplish so much in his years as President because he approached everything as a gentleman. He never allowed politics to become personal. He treated everyone with respect even when he disagreed with you. And always his wit and humor won you over.

I am proud to say that I knew Ronald Reagan not so much for his accomplishments, and there were many, but I am more proud to have known him for the man he was. As President, Reagan brought his hometown- Illinois values with him to the White House. And these are the same values we all share in Illinois, the value of hard work, of faith, family, and unlimited opportunity.

Reagan was, as history will bear, one of America's greatest Presidents. And I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering his family and this Nation during our season of mourning. And may God bless us all.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1047) to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, to make other technical amendments to the trade laws, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for H.R. 4359, legislation that makes permanent the $1,000 child tax credit.

The Bush tax cut of 2003 accelerated the amount of money American working families with children are able to keep, from $600 to $1,000. If we do not act today to make this tax relief permanent, next year working families will end up having to pay $300 more per child in taxes than they did in 2003 and 2004.

In the following years, the Federal Government will take American families on a financial roller coaster ride. In 2005 through 2008, families will continue to see their taxes increased by $300 more per child. In 2009 it will decrease to $200 more. In 2010 they will get the full $1,000 credit, only to have the rug whipped out from under them in the following 2 years when the credit will decrease to $500 per child.

Does this sound confusing? I will boil it down to its simpler form. A vote against this legislation is a vote to increase taxes on American families by $228 billion over 10 years. That is money earned by mothers and fathers who work hard to pay the enormous costs required to keep food on their families' tables and clothes on their families' backs.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4359.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2001 we passed the first Bush tax cut, which I am proud to say created the new 10 percent tax bracket. Before this legislation was passed, the lowest tax rate was 15 percent; and without immediate legislative action, 73 million hard-working American taxpayers, including 22 million low-income taxpayers, will see their taxes increase next year. In 2004 the 10 percent rate applies to the first $7,000 of tax-paying citizens' taxable income for single taxpayers and $14,000 for joint filers. However, beginning in 2005 through 2007, the 10 percent tax rate will shrink and apply only to the first $6,000 in taxable income for single filers and $12,000 for joint filers. In 2011 the 10 percent bracket will disappear all together. We cannot allow any of this to happen.

The legislation before us today maintains the size of the 10 percent bracket at $7,000 for singles and $14,000 for married couples. H.R. 4275 also makes permanent the 10 percent tax bracket and indexes the income limits for inflation. Once enacted, it will save the average American taxpayer more than $2,400 over the next 10 years. Who will benefit from this? 73 million American taxpayers, including 22 million low-income taxpayers, small business owners and their employees, hard- working Americans who through no fault of their own are about to be hit with a tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, a vote against this legislation is a vote to increase taxes on those who can least afford it.

I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for his leadership role in ensuring that this does not occur, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation, the passage of which will be of great benefit to our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, today the House has a chance to help small business with their number one concern: health care. Many Members are already aware of this, but 25 million small business owners, their families and employees currently do not have health insurance. It is simply too expensive. We have a system in our country today that puts small business on one playing field and big business on another, and that is not acceptable. Small business is the driving force of our economy, the number one job creator in the Nation, and the backbone of our local communities.

H.R. 4281, the Small Business Health Fairness Act, puts small business and big business on a level playing field. It gives small business the capability of buying health insurance at the same cost and with the same rules that big business plays by. I think it is time we gave our small businesses a helping hand.

I am confident that we will pass legislation to create association health plans today, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support it; but it is time for the other body to act and pass the Small Business Health Fairness Act. The time has come to address this problem, and the entire Congress should support this legislation.

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

Health care providers in my district need relief. Doctors, nurses, and hospitals all are struggling to shoulder the burden of the escalating cost of medical malpractice insurance.

Many regions of the country have been hit especially hard by this medical liability crisis, and doctors are leaving my district in suburban Chicago and moving to Wisconsin or Indiana to practice where medical malpractice insurance costs significantly less.

I certainly do not want them to go, but I understand why they are leaving or why some are choosing to retire early. The price of medical malpractice insurance has made it cost prohibitive for physicians to practice. It is not just doctors either. Hospitals, many of which struggle every year to keep solvent, have been hit especially hard. I am confident that the House will pass H.R. 4280, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support it; but it is time for the other body to act and pass this bill. Congress's inaction to address the medical liability crisis is driving doctors out of all of our districts.

The time has come to address this problem and pass the HEALTH Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1969 Congress enacted the individual alternative minimum tax, AMT. The purpose of this tax was to require that all taxpayers pay some tax on their income. We can have a debate about the merits, or lack thereof, of the AMT and I hope that in time we will.

Many of the provisions of the Tax Code that gave rise to the AMT do not exist today and have not existed for many years. However, today a more immediate issue confronts us. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton tax increase of 1993 increased the AMT tax rate but failed to adjust the exemption numbers for inflation. As a result of this tax increase, millions of American families, middle income families are forced to pay the AMT each year.

President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills increase the AMT exemption amount from $45,000 to $58,000 for married couples and from $33,750 to $40,250 for single individuals. These increases ensure that the AMT is the result of the tax relief provided in the 2001 and 2003 tax relief laws do not hit middle income families. However, if we do not act now, this relief will expire at the end of this year. As time goes on and as inflation and costs increase, the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT increases.

If we do not act, over one million single filers and seven million married filers will be caught up in the AMT. The legislation before us today will extend the 2003 tax relief through 2005 and will adjust the exemption amount for inflation. Single filers earning up to $40,900 and married couples earning up to $58,950 will be exempt from the AMT.

Mr. Speaker, millions of middle class Americans run the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy. 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 today, nearly eight million middle class taxpayers will suffer from our inaction. That is unconscionable and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 4181, the permanent repeal of the marriage tax penalty.

On June 7, 2001, President Bush signed a repeal of the burdensome marriage penalty tax as part of the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. With this, President Bush lifted the unconscionable burden for millions of Americans taxed more than other citizens simply because they were married.

If H.R. 4181 is not passed this year, married couples will be required to pay 20 percent more in Federal taxes than unmarried Americans earning the same income. And in 2010, they once again will be paying the exorbitant marriage taxes in place before tax relief was enacted in 2001.

One of the many charges the Preamble of the United States Constitution requires of us who serve in government is to promote the general welfare of the people of this Nation. Before President Bush took office the economy was heading into a recession. The Nation was shocked and the recession made worse when the attacks of September 11 took place. The acceleration of the President's tax cuts returned money to the pockets of American citizens, the people best qualified to reinvest and spend their own money on their businesses and consumer goods. The increased spending which has resulted from these tax cuts has led to the steady improvement of the economy, a steady improvement which we as a nation continue to enjoy.

The repeal of the marriage penalty is also an important step in strengthening marriages and families in this country. The idea that couples were and could be again penalized by incurring taxes for getting married is unacceptable. It is wrong that a nation would lay a tax on marriage in any way, shape, or form.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 4181, and I urge my colleagues to support and pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection on the 51st anniversary of International Customs Day. On January 26, 1953, the World Customs Organization, formally known as the Customs Co-operation Council, held its first meeting in Brussels, Belgium. At this meeting, the Council designated January 26 as International Customs Day in order to recognize the role that customs services around the world play in facilitating trade while protecting national borders from importations posing security threats.

Finding this balance is particularly difficult given the challenges our country currently faces. It will be important for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to continue to offer the world class level of trade service and facilitation that U.S. business has come to rely on while ensuring that security needs are addressed. It will also be important to maintain the revenue collection linkage with the Treasury Department that has historically been so significant.

At one time, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, then the Customs Service, was the sole revenue producer for the young United States. Although that role has diminished over the years, Customs collected a record $23.8 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2002. Today, Customs is still a major source of revenue for the Federal Government, returning about $8 to the taxpayer for every dollar appropriated by Congress.

For nearly 125 years, Customs funded virtually the entire government and paid for the nation's early growth and infrastructure. The territories of Louisiana, Oregon, Florida and Alaska were purchased; the National Road from Cumberland, Maryland, to Wheeling, West Virginia, was constructed; and the Transcontinental Railroad stretched from sea-to-sea. Customs collections built the nation's lighthouses, the U.S. military and naval academies, and the City of Washington, and the list goes on. In 1835, Customs revenues alone had reduced the national debt to zero.

Customs was the parent or forerunner to many other agencies. In the early days, Customs officers administered military pensions (Department of Veterans Affairs), collected import and export statistics (Bureau of Census), and supervised revenue cutters (U.S. Coast Guard). Customs also collected hospital dues to help sick and disabled seaman (Public Health Service) and established standard weights and measures (National Bureau of Standards).

During the first stages of the response to the terrorist attack on September 11th in New York and Washington, D.C., Customs quickly assumed a leading role. The international nature of the terrorist threat means that international customs cooperation has become vitally important. In January 2002, Customs initiated the Container Security Initiative (CSI), which allows Customs officials to screen containers at designated foreign seaports. In CSI's first year alone, Customs reached agreement with 15 governments to place Customs personnel at 24 ports.

The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection also works with customs officials in foreign governments through the auspices of the World Customs Organization, which speaks for 161 Customs administrations drawn from every continent and representing every stage of economic development. The United States has been a member since November 5, 1970.

WCO Members are responsible for ensuring that more than 98 percent of international trade is conducted in compliance with national legislation and international agreements. The WCO renders technical assistance in areas such as customs tariffs, valuation, nomenclature, and law enforcement. Its objective is to obtain, in the interest of international trade, the best possible degree of uniformity among the customs systems of member nations. America benefits when both exporters and importers operate in an atmosphere of simple unambiguous customs operations around the world.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection for its fine work both nationally and internationally, and I look forward to the completion of work within the World Customs Organization to further harmonize and simplify the customs rules that affect international commerce.