Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739, the bills just passed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2427.

It is clear to me that the best way to help seniors is both to ensure that they have access to safe, affordable prescription drugs and to foster an environment where innovation can flourish, where new and better drug treatments will be developed for future generations.

The U.S. continues to be the world leader in the development of new drugs and treatments that improve the quality of every American. I want to lower drug costs for the seniors in my district, but not at the risk of stifling the very innovation that creates the drugs in the first place.

Some have called this a free trade issue. Yet it runs contrary to the fundamental tenets of free trade. Free trade creates efficiencies by opening borders, lowering tariffs, and giving consumers access to products and services from other countries. Reimportation stands this fundamental tenet on its head by giving Americans access to American pharmaceuticals that have been sold to the Canadian Government, a single payer that can, in effect, name its price at a lower cost than the laws of supply and demand allow.

Congress can take a number of different steps to lower the cost of drugs for all consumers. We have already taken the most important one by passing a $400 billion drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of a free trade partnership with both Chile and Singapore. We should all support the model that Chile provides for economic, social, and democratic development. Chile more than doubled its GDP during the 1990s. It was the fourth fastest growing economy in the world. This extraordinary growth was fostered by low inflation, a balanced budget, clear regulatory accountability, a strong financial system, and a competitive economy. It ranks high, higher than many developed countries on international indices measuring economic success.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement is a comprehensive, leading-edge agreement that includes U.S. trade negotiating objectives and strengthens an important economic relationship with a strategic U.S. trading partner. The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement sets many precedents, including lower barriers to trade and high-technology products and services and establishing new standards for intellectual property protection.

I urge my colleagues to support both of these critically portrayed agreements that we have negotiated that will set a positive example in both regions of the world.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa. The international mobility of business professionals has become an increasingly important aspect of our competitive markets for both suppliers and consumers. Facilitating the movement of professionals allows trade partners to more efficiently provide each other with services such as architecture, engineering, consulting, and construction. TPA establishes that the principal negotiating objective regarding trade in services is to reduce or eliminate barriers to international trade in services.

Each trade negotiation the United States enters, like Chile and Singapore, is approached individually to determine if the conclusion of a temporary entry chapter will benefit U.S. trade in services, and if so, whether a section on temporary entry of professionals is needed in the agreement.

The Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements contain provisions allowing for the temporary entry of business professionals into the other party to facilitate trade in services.

This amendment would potentially limit our ability to discuss our current obligations under NAFTA, Chile and Singapore.

This amendment would also encourage other industries that would like their issues taken off the table in future negotiations to offer amendments.

The administration worked diligently to address concerns on temporary entry in the Singapore and Chile FTA, and it is very sensitive to Members' concerns regarding the inclusion of temporary entry provisions in free trade agreements.

USTR inherited a tradition of including such temporary entry provisions in trade agreements from prior administrations. These provisions are used to facilitate trade in services which is a predominant economic interest in the U.S.

My experience with Ambassador Zoellick is that he is very sensitive and responsive to congressional concerns, and I am confident that he will be in this regard as well.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. This legislation includes much needed reforms to how the United States distributes foreign aid. President Bush's new foreign aid initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account, offers aid only to those countries that meet certain standards of respecting human rights, investing in the future of their peoples, and promoting economic opportunity and freedom. With this proposal, President Bush has issued a challenge to help those that are less fortunate, to promote universal human rights and values around the world, and to be part of the worldwide spread of democracy and freedom.

This past March, I introduced H. Con. Res. 119, a resolution that offers Congress's condolences to the loved ones of those innocent Americans that have been killed in Israel, and calls on the Palestinian Authority to work with Israel to protect all innocent people (regardless of citizenship) from terrorist violence.

Sadly, since H. Con. Res. 119 was introduced, four more Americans have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists. That is why I offered an amendment to H.R. 1950 that incorporates the text of H. Con. Res. 119 with some additions to reflect the deaths and injuries inflicted on American citizens by terrorists since its introduction.

Since Yasser Arafat, on behalf of the Palestinian people, renounced violence in the Oslo Peace Accords on September 13, 1993, at least 41 Americans have been killed by Palestinian terrorists. At least another 79 Americans have been injured in terrorist attacks. That grim total includes a knife attack on an expectant mother that resulted in the death of her unborn child.

My amendment also requires that the State Department begin to include the killing of every American by terrorists in its annual "Chronology of Significant Terrorist Incidents," as reported in future Patterns of Global Terrorism reports.

This amendment will make the American public more aware of the harm coming to our citizens overseas and show the surviving families that Congress knows and cares about the deaths of their loved ones. And it will reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that terrorism--both in America and in Israel--will be defeated.

I would like to thank International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde and Ranking Member Tom Lantos for their assistance and support for H. Con. Res. 119 and this amendment. In addition to my own staff, I also want to thank Andrew Shore and Shalla Ross of the House Republican Conference and Paul Teller of the Republican Study Committee for their hard work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to welcome Pastor Deborah Logan as our guest chaplain. Pastor Logan serves as a co-pastor at the Christian Faith Fellowship Church in Zion, Illinois, with her husband, Pastor James E. Logan.

In 1994, Pastor Logan and her husband, James, were ordained and installed as first assistant pastors of the Christian Faith Fellowship Church Waukegan. Three years later, she and James took the helm as pastors in the same church, now known as the Christian Faith Fellowship Church Zion.

Since then Pastor Logan and her husband have worked together to build a church in the North Shore area to uplift and encourage families through spiritual guidance and fellowship. These days the ministry continues to experience phenomenal growth as the vision of strong families led by strong spirit-filled men in their rightful place in the home is fulfilled.

I have had the privilege to join them at one of their services, and it was a joyous and uplifting experience.

Pastor Logan and her husband have been married for 15 years, and together they have two beautiful children, Cameron James and Llexis Charity.

I thank Pastor Logan for her continued dedication to her church, her community, and our country. I deem it an honor and privilege to welcome Pastor Deborah Logan to the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, my return flight to Washington was unavoidably detained due to inclement weather, and I therefore missed two votes this evening. I ask that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been here, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 334, the Hostettler Amendment, and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 335, final passage of H.R. 2658.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the mayor of Lindenhurst, Illinois, Paul Baumunk, whose outstanding leadership and commitment to community service has significantly benefited the people of Lindenhurst.

A longtime resident of Lindenhurst, Mayor Paul Baumunk served as a teacher in Lake County for 31 years, both with the Lake Forest High School and the College of Lake County Vocational Center. He also served as a member of the Lindenhurst Plan Commission and the Lindenhurst Lakes Commission. In addition, Paul somehow found the time to participate in the Chamber of Commerce, the Lindenhurst Men's Club, the Lyons Club and in VFW Post #4894.

Although he has always been a devoted public servant, Paul has always held his family as a top priority. He and Joy, his wife of 32 years, originally settled in the community of Lindenhurst in 1977 to raise their son Philip and daughter Amy. Paul's retirement will allow him to spend more time with his family, something he will greatly cherish.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating Mayor Paul Baumunk on his retirement after 12 years of diligent service to the Village of Lindenhurst, Illinois. Paul has been a valuable member of the community for which he cares so deeply, and his service will be greatly missed. I wish him the best of luck in future endeavors, and I know he will enjoy his retirement for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. As a member of the Committee on Ways and Means' Subcommittee on Health, I can say with confidence that this bill is a fair and balanced approach towards providing millions of America's seniors with prescription drug coverage.

Congress is long overdo in helping our seniors with the skyrocketing costs of their prescription medication. Seniors are struggling and we need to help them. But we cannot ignore that the current program without an expensive new drug benefit is not financially stable. The Medicare program is already struggling to provide a finite number of health services to nearly 41 million elderly and disabled. It is imperative that this House takes action before the retirement of the baby boom generation, which will add another 36 million beneficiaries to the Medicare roll. Simply adding a new drug benefit is not the answer.

I support H.R. 1 because it includes a number of reforms that will ensure the long-term fiscal integrity of Medicare through modernization. This legislation gives seniors the same range of private health insurance plans available to Members of Congress and other Federal employees. If seniors do not want to enroll in a private plan, they have the option of staying in traditional fee-for-service.

The time has come for Congress to work together to move past political rhetoric and provide prescription drug coverage for seniors. More importantly, it is time to institute reforms to ensure that future generations will have the security of knowing that Medicare will be there when they retire. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 1.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when strained Federal, State, and local budgets are affecting our country's funding for the education of our people, some individuals and organizations in our private sector are doing something about it. They have combined efforts with the Committee for Citizen Awareness (CCA) to provide all the secondary schools and many others in their area with free educational videotapes. These videotapes explain civic issues about our country and how our government works.

The CCA is a nearly two-decade-old not-for-profit organization that produces and distributes award-winning educational videotapes that focus on civic issues. These videotapes feature appearances by people such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, many Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senators, and other pertinent individuals.

The subjects covered in these videotapes are particularly important for a number of reasons. For example, although America is the world's greatest democracy, our people vote at a rate lower than any other country. Surveys have shown that one of the major reasons for not using the right to vote is a general lack of understanding of our government and the citizen's role in it. One of the many civic goals of the CCA and these civic-minded individuals and organizations is to correct this problem with the gift of these educational videotapes.

The videotapes are given free to all the public and private high schools, community and junior colleges, community access television stations, and to many libraries and chambers of commerce. Our country and our democracy are better because of the efforts of the CCA and because of its countless dedicated sponsors.

Madam Speaker, one of the biggest challenges facing our country today is the fact that nearly 41 million working Americans do not have health insurance. While some opt out of purchasing health insurance, a majority of people simply do not have access to affordable health insurance coverage. Routinely I hear from constituents in my district about this very problem. They are struggling to keep up with ever increasing insurance premiums and are left with few coverage options. Few can afford premium increases of 12 percent or more each year, especially in a slow economy. This is a problem in communities across the United States. In fact, the annual. cost to the United States for uninsured Americans is estimated to be somewhere between $65 and $130 billion.

More than 60 percent of the 41 million uninsured Americans work for a small business or are a dependent of a small business worker, and small businesses have been hardest hit by skyrocketing premiums. Currently, labor unions, medium-sized businesses and Fortune

500 companies like Ford, Chrysler and Wal-Mart have the ability to offer health benefits to their employees without complying with the diverse benefit-laden insurance mandates that exist in each of the 50 states. This exemption keeps health insurance costs down. Unfortunately, small businesses, less able to shoulder the burden of such mandates, end up paying almost 18 percent more than their big business counterparts for similar health insurance coverage. This is simply unacceptable.

Today, I join my colleagues in supporting, The Small Business Fairness Act (H.R. 660). H.R. 660 allows small businesses to form Association Health Plans (AHPs). I believe that AHPs can help reduce the number of uninsured, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation. By creating AHPs, small business may pool their resources and increase their bargaining power with insurers, which will allow them to negotiate better rates and purchase quality health. care at a lower cost. H.R. 660 is an important first step toward making health insurance more affordable and accessible.

The time has come for all Members of this House to support small businesses. It is time to pass the Small Business Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003, and I commend my friend from Washington Mrs. Dunn for being such a strong advocate for this legislation.

The United States is the land of opportunity, encouraging free enterprise and rewarding entrepreneurs. The estate and gift tax runs contrary, to this basic philosophy. When I came to Congress over 30 years ago, I set out to eliminate the death tax, which is simply unfair, outdated and penalizes our families, farmers and small business owners.

According to recent statistics, one-third of small business owners today will have to sell outright or liquidate a part of their firm to pay death taxes. In addition, half of those who must liquidate to pay their death taxes will each have to eliminate 30 or more jobs. In addition, small business owners that insure against such an outcome face the burden of paying onerous premiums. This is hard-earned money that otherwise could be used to expand their business. We must put an end to it once and for all.

Death tax repeal was included as part of the 2001 Bush tax cut. Under that legislation, the death tax phases out over a period of year, and is eliminated completely in 2010. Unfortunately, due to the arcane procedures of the Senate, the provisions in the 2001 bill sunset in 2011, or 10 years after enactment. Therefore, we need to take action now to make the repeal permanent.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank small business and family owned business groups like the National Automobile Dealers Association for tirelessly fighting to end this punitive and harmful tax. They have been powerful and influential advocates in this effort.

I ask unanimous consent that the following letter from the National Automobile Dealers Association urging repeal of the Death Tax be included in the Congressional Record.

National Automobile

Dealers Association,

McLean, VA, June 18, 2003.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Automobile

Dealers Association (NADA), the nearly 20,000 franchised new

car dealer members of NADA, and their more than one million

employees, we are writing to urge you to vote yes on H.R. 8,

to eliminate the estate tax once and for all.

The majority of NADA's members are small family-owned and

community-based businesses. Most assets of automobile dealers

are not liquid. A dealer's capital is invested in the land

under the dealership, buildings housing showrooms, vehicle

repair equipment, and other facilities. Dealers also need

substantial working capital to finance new- and used-car

inventory. Thus, for dealers, the death tax can cripple or

kill the family-owned business since they are left with few

options but to sell the business or incur substantial debt to

pay the tax.

In providing for the elimination of the estate tax in H.R.

1836 in 2001, Congress clearly recognized the inequity and

unfairness of estate taxes. As it was noted at the time,

there is something very wrong in our system when a small

businessman or businesswoman spends a lifetime building a

business, paying taxes, providing jobs and serving the

community only to have the government step in at their death

to collect another tax. In enacting H.R. 1836, Congress and

the President wisely realized that death should not trigger a

tax. Only when assets are sold should there be a taxable

event.

The question now before the House of Representatives is

whether to continue that wise policy beyond 2010. NADA and

its dealer members and their employees firmly believe that

supporting H.R. 8, making estate tax repeal permanent and

postponing taxes until assets are sold is critical to the

preservation of family-owned and community-based businesses

like automobile dealerships.

Preserving these businesses is crucial to the health of the

national economy and essential to the economic well being of

local communities. These businesses provide the majority of

new job growth in this country. Very often, family-owned

businesses are central to the economic vitality of local

communities, providing good livelihoods for millions of

working Americans.

NADA respectfully urges you to vote yes on H.R. 8. This

vote is about preserving family-owned businesses in local

communities across this great nation. Thank you for your

consideration of our views.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 760, I rise in strong support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. By passing this legislation we will once again take a step towards banning the truly horrifying practice whereby an innocent life is taken in a most gruesome way.

During this procedure, which is used in second and third trimester abortions, the infant's body is delivered, leaving only the head in the womb. At that point the abortionist pieces the back of the infant's skull with a sharp instrument and then proceeds to vacuum out the infant's brain tissue, thus collapsing the skull, allowing the now-dead infant's body to be extracted.

This legislation makes it a federal crime for a physician, in or affecting interstate commerce, to perform a so-called partial birth abortion, unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. Under H.R. 760, anyone who knowingly preforms a partial-birth abortion would be subject to fines and up to two years in prison. The bill provides that a defendant could seek a hearing before the state medical board on whether his or her conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother, and further provides that those findings may be admissible at trial.

The House has passed legislation in each of the last four Congresses banning partial-birth abortions. In the 104th and 105th Congresses, President Clinton vetoed the partial-birth abortion bans. Both times the House voted to override the veto, but the Senate sustained it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very important legislation. Thanks to President Bush, this Congress has an opportunity to finally ban the gruesome procedure without the threat of a presidential veto. By passing H.R. 760 today, we will take a giant step towards protecting innocent babies who, through no fault of their own, have their lives taken.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce the Jobs Protection Act of 2003, legislation which will respond to a recent World Trade Organization ruling that held that our export-related tax benefit, the FSC/ETI provision in our tax code, violates our trade agreements. It is my distinct pleasure to be joined in this effort by my good friends Charles Rangel and Don Manzullo.

This legislation achieves two goals: it brings the United States into compliance with the WTO, and it keeps the playing field level for our manufacturers, which will keep jobs here. I'd like to address each of those issues.

As Chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, I have a strong interest in preserving and promoting free trade throughout the world. Trade is fundamental to our relations with other nations, and free trade has been the greatest civilizing force throughout modern history. I have fought ardently for many years to ensure that the United States, which is the largest exporter in the world, maintains its rightful role as world leader when it comes to trade.

Like my colleagues who have joined me in introducing this legislation, I believe that we must comply with our international agreements. To do otherwise could precipitate a trade war, which would be an unacceptable result. Therefore, this legislation repeals FSC/ETI and brings the United States into compliance with our WTO obligations.

The issue, then, is how to best replace FSC/ETI. In recognition of the fact that the repeal of FSC/ETI raises the tax burden of current beneficiaries by at least $50 billion over ten years, this legislation returns that money to the U.S. manufacturers. In order to understand why that is so crucial to protecting our job base, it is important to understand why the FSC/ETI benefit exists in the first place.

U.S. corporations that export manufactured goods pay a 35 percent corporate tax rate on their profits. In addition, the corporation pays an additional value added tax when they it sells its products in Europe. However, European manufacturers get a portion of their VAT rebated. FSC/ETI compensates manufacturers for this double taxation, thus leveling the playing field between U.S. and European manufacturers. That means jobs stay here. Were this benefit to be repealed with no replacement, U.S. jobs and wealth would be artificially transferred to Europe. This is another unacceptable result.

Therefore, the Job Protection Act of 2003 provides a permanent new deduction, which is an effective rate reduction for U.S. manufacturers, that is consistent with our trade agreements. It is structured in such a manner as to preserve and strengthen U.S. jobs. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is a goal we should all support!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be clear as to the process we should follow as we debate how best to replace FSC/ETI. We have faced challenges to export-related benefits in years past. As in the past, it is my fervent belief that our common goal must be to protect the interests of the United States, not our foreign competitors. While I expect a great deal of vigorous debate as we seek to comply with our WTO obligations, I remain hopeful that we will resolve any differences in a dignified manner, not giving our opponents the benefit of a public spectacle.

A summary of the provisions of the legislation follows.

The Job Protection Act of 2003--Strengthening U.S. Manufacturing and

Addressing the WTO Challenge to FSC/ETI (April 2003)

repeal of fsc/eti

The Job Protection Act of 2003 (the ``proposal'') would

repeal the current-law FSC/ETI benefit effective for

transactions after the date of enactment.

Transition relief: The proposal would provide two types of

transition relief--

(1) Binding Contracts: The proposal would not affect

transactions pursuant to binding contracts in effect on the

date of introduction of the legislation. This provision

ensures that pre-existing arrangements of U.S. taxpayers are

not retroactively penalized merely because of the WTO ruling.

(2) General Transition Relief: The proposal also would

provide general transition relief based on the company's

average FSC/ETI benefit during 2001. A company would receive

a deduction for 100 percent of its base period amount

(indexed for inflation) for 2004 and 2005, 75 percent for

2006 and 2007, and 50 percent for 2008 (no general transition

relief thereafter). A permanent benefit for production

activities in the U.S., described below, would begin to

phase-in as the general transition relief phases out. The

general transition relief is not contingent upon future

exports and, therefore, is WTO compliant.

permanent benefit for manufacturing activities in u.s

Strengthening U.S. Manufacturing: The proposal would

provide a permanent new deduction which reduces the effective

corporate tax rate that would apply to so much of the

company's taxable income as is attributable to ``U.S.

production activities''. U.S. production activities would be

defined as the manufacture, production, growth, or extraction

of property eligible for the current FSC/ETI benefit whether

or not actually exported.

Calculating U.S. Production: The portion of the taxable

income attributable to U.S. production activities would be

calculated by computing total gross receipts from sale,

rental or license of eligible property produced in whole or

part by the taxpayer in the United States, and then

subtracting from those gross receipts inventory costs,

directly allocable deductions, and a pro rata portion of

other deductions. Allocation would be done in a manner

similar to the method used in allocating deductions between

U.S. and foreign source income.

Corporate Tax Rate Reduction: For companies with 100

percent domestic production, the effective rate reduction

would be 3\1/2\ points (35 percent corporate tax rate reduced

to 31\1/2\ percent) once fully phased-in. Other companies

would receive a sliding-scale effective rate reduction based

on the value of their U.S. production of eligible products

compared to the value of their worldwide production.

revenue neutral

The bill has been structured to be roughly revenue neutral

year-by-year and over the 10-year budget period. The proposal

does not include any extraneous revenue offsets.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1584) to implement effective measures to stop trade in conflict diamonds, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before I speak on the bill, I want to congratulate Members on both sides of the aisle, especially the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) for the gentleman's work on behalf of getting this bill introduced. I also thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) on the other side of the aisle.

This is a very important bill that has nothing to do with partisan politics whatsoever. When it was introduced in 2001, it passed this body by a vote of 408 to six. I think the six Members that voted against it at the time are probably reconsidering it because there is no basis for anyone to find any objections to it.

I hope that the bill we have before us this evening, based on H.R. 2722 from the 107th Congress, which passed by that 408 to six vote, and since that time the administration has worked with the international community to finalize the structure of the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme which controls the trade in rough diamonds, that it is to all countries, and it prevents trade in conflict diamonds and the bill reflects the new structure. I thank the administration for its hard work and dedication to the effort on this important issue, too.

The funds derived from the sale of rough diamonds have been used by rebels and state actors to finance military activities and to overthrow legitimate governments, subvert international efforts to promote peace and stability, and commit horrifying atrocities against unarmed citizens.

During the past decade, more than 6.5 million people from Sierra Leone, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been driven from their homes by wars waged in large part for control of diamond mining areas. The United Nations Security Council has issued resolutions urging nations to take actions against conflict diamonds. In response, the United States has issued various Presidential executive orders to ban direct imports from nations subject to the United Nations resolution. The United States has also led international negotiations to reach an agreement that set standards for diamond extracting and trading nations to meet.

These international negotiations, the Kimberly Process it is called, came after the name of the city in which they were initiated. It creates a system of checks and balances for rough diamonds throughout the world. This system tracks through governmentally verifiable certificates that trade in diamonds between countries and individuals. Since its January 1 implementation date, over 40 countries are participating in this system. The United States requires this system to ensure that its leadership position in this critical matter continues. Finally, this bill is consistent with our WTO obligations.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill and to pass this important legislation.

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