Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the building of the Michael E. Smith Middle School in South Hadley, Massachusetts. The school was built in 1961 and was dedicated on January 14, 1962.

The school is celebrating this milestone with an assembly on the morning of January 18, 2012. The assembly will feature several important faculty members who will be speaking, including Principal Erica Faginski-Stark and Walter Morse, a teacher who has worked at the school for 40 years. In addition, Superintendent Sayer, Former Principal Noel, and State Representative John Scibak will all be speaking at this historic event.

The Michael E. Smith Middle School is a public school in the South Hadley school district of Massachusetts. The school has gone by several names, beginning with the South Hadley Intermediate School upon the building's completion in 1962. In 1978, the school's name was changed to the South Hadley Middle School. With this name change came two new grade levels. The fifth and sixth grades were added to the seventh and eighth grades to double the school's classes. In 2002, the school changed its name for the final time, commemorating the late Michael E. Smith, a past superintendent.

For the last decade, the school has undergone several renovations, including the completion of a new building and an extensive remodeling of the interior. Currently, 700 students in the South Hadley School District are educated at the Michael E. Smith Middle School, with a faculty and staff of 104. Ms. Erica Faginski-Stark is the current Principal of the school, and the Assistant Principals are Mr. Vincent Napoli and Ms. Brett Costello.

I wish to congratulate the Michael E. Smith Middle School on providing 50 years of quality education. I wish them good luck in educating the children of South Hadley for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, we would be very happy in this institution if just the Speaker of the House and the majority leader could work together.

There was a deal over the weekend. The Speaker of the House accepted the Senate's version of that agreement only to discover in a conference call that he had to back down. The chairman of the Ways and Mean Committee, my friend, he doesn't believe what they're doing here for one moment. They're courting disaster.

This is the season of Advent and Christmas for Christians. Chanukah begins today. It is the quest for light in our lives, to enlighten the American people as to what is taking place here today; 160 million Americans are going to lose this tax cut. Organized labor and management, they do this all the time. You have a cooling-off period. You get to a more benign time, and you negotiate in good faith.

You've seen what's happened here. A radical element has seized the Republican Party. The Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Brown, is on the

front page of the Boston Globe today criticizing his own party. Dean Heller criticizing his own party. Richard Lugar criticizing his own party.

We're arguing today about unemployment benefits in this season for members of the American family who are going to lose those benefits. We're arguing about a tax cut for middle-income Americans today, 160 million strong; for doctors who care for the most vulnerable amongst us, the Medicare patients over their reimbursement rates.

When you consider what Republicans did during the Bush years with those tax cuts for wealthy people, they never flinched for one moment. The rich were rich, and they weren't going to take it anymore. And they were going to reinforce that idea--cut taxes 10 times in 10 years for the wealthiest among us. We should be voting on what the Senate did. No chicanery.

Put that motion in front of us today, and let's have an up-or-down vote and then explain it to the American people.

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about a program that is set to expire at the end of the year if Congress does not act, and it's the New Markets Tax Credit program. I have fought for this program since its enactment in 2000 because it's a cost-effective way to create jobs and drive investment in communities with high rates of poverty and unemployment. I've seen the amazing results of this initiative first hand back home in Massachusetts, and today I want to highlight one of those Massachusetts projects, the Colonial Theater in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.

Let me tell you a little about the New Markets Tax Credit. The program was designed to stimulate investment and economic growth in low-income communities that are traditionally overlooked by conventional capital markets. The New Markets Tax Credit program attracts capital to low-income communities by providing private investors with a 39 percent Federal tax credit for investments made in businesses or economic development projects located in certain areas where the individual poverty rate is at least 20 percent or where median family income is low.

According to the Government Accountability Office, 88 percent of the New Markets Tax Credit investors said they would not have made the investment in a low-income community without New Markets Tax Credits.

Every project or business financed by New Markets Tax Credits is located in a low-income community and/or benefits low-income individuals. The vast majority, over 90 percent of investment dollars generated through New Markets, has gone to communities with levels of economic distress that far exceed the minimum requirements of the law; and 60 percent has gone to communities with very high unemployment rates that are at least 1.5 times the national average.

Through 2009, New Markets cost the Federal Government, in terms of lost revenue, less than $4 billion. That $4 billion should be treated as a government investment because it has resulted in $50 billion in capital projects in those low-income communities and created or retained an estimated 500,000 jobs. According to the Treasury Department, every $1 of foregone tax revenue under New Markets leverages $12 of private investment in distressed communities. That's results, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, New Markets is a temporary program and unless Congress acts this month, it will expire on December 31. I am, and have been, the lead Democratic sponsor of legislation to extend this program for 5 years; and I have been leading the charge for years to make this a permanent initiative. I once again call on our colleagues to extend New Markets.

Let's talk about the success of New Markets in Massachusetts. Over 170 businesses in Massachusetts have received New Markets financing: Hot Mama's Foods in Springfield; the River Valley Market in Northampton; the Holyoke Health Center; and now the High Performance Computing Center in Holyoke as well.

But I want to focus today on the Colonial Theater in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Pittsfield is a city in western Massachusetts with a population of about 42,000 people. It's the largest community in that region of the State. It has struggled with unemployment and urban blight. The Colonial Theater is a rare architectural gem and one of the greatest acoustical houses in the world, located in the heart of Pittsfield. It was built at the turn of the century, and it was closed for more than 50 years. Periodic attempts to redevelop the theater failed for lack of money and sustained public support.

However, thanks to New Markets Tax Credit, financing of $16.7 million of a total project cost of $21 million, this 70,000 square foot theater and adjacent building were magnificently restored. With 823 seats, the theater reopened in 2006 and now features an impressive lineup of plays and musical shows. James Taylor is currently performing at the Colonial Theater as part of the cast of ``A Christmas Carol.'' Since its renovation, the theater has hosted Arlo Guthrie, the Four Tops, and Bob Weir of the Grateful Dead will perform this spring. Recent musicals and plays at the Colonial Theater include ``The Who's Tommy,'' ``The Producers,'' ``The Wizard of Oz,'' and ``Rent.''

After the first 2 years of operation, the independent research firm Center for Creative Community Development estimated that the Colonial Theater sustains a direct economic impact of $4 million annually and 100 full-time jobs in the Berkshire area.

The Colonial Theater is a symbol of the re-emergence of Pittsfield as an economic and cultural center of the Berkshires. Anchoring the city's comprehensive strategy for downtown revitalization, the restored and vibrant Colonial Theater--along with six-screen Beacon Cinema Complex, also financed with New Markets Tax Credits--has created jobs, attracted new businesses, spurred residential development, and added vitality to this city. Widespread street-level vacancies in downtown Pittsfield has been virtually eliminated and 45 new businesses and restaurants have opened. The restoration has helped attract an estimated 400,000 new visitors to the downtown Pittsfield area each year.

Let's rejuvenate the New Markets Tax Credit program.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am in opposition to this so-called Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, largely because it's neither. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) is correct. He says there have been 16 hearings at the Ways and Means Committee, but never once has there been a conversation. That's the important matter for us to consider.

There has been no give-and-take in this legislation. This was brought to the floor today in the manner of ramming it through the House in order to protect talking points as we move into the new year. If we don't act, 160 million Americans are going to see a tax increase, with working American families seeing a tax increase of up to $1,000 in 2012. We need to extend unemployment insurance to assist millions of unemployed Americans, and we need to fix the Medicare physician payment rate to ensure that seniors have access to their doctors.

I am also opposed to this proposal that they offer today. While I support eliminating the scheduled reduction of 27 percent in Medicare payments to physicians, this is the wrong way to do it--offsetting it by taking $17 billion away from hospital funding.

Now people in America rightly ask: How come it's so difficult to get something done in Congress?

We're going to quibble today with the 8.6 percent of American families who are without work about extending their unemployment benefits. Yet, just 3 years ago, after the company was run into the ground, the head of Merrill Lynch left with--left with--$69 million. At Hewlett-Packard a month ago, the head of the company was dismissed for nonperformance, not in the way the unemployed are dismissed, which is by somebody escorting them to the door, but dismissed with $10 million worth of salary and $13 million of stock. At Enron, everybody at the top held out, and they locked down that stock so people at the bottom couldn't get out.

That's what this is about today.

Picking on the unemployed, 15 million members of the American family without work, as we proceed to this holiday season? We need a tax holiday for middle-income Americans, and that's what we should be doing today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan adviser, who recently testified before the Ways and Means Committee, commented about the Republicans' balanced budget amendment. He stated:

``The proposal that Republican leaders plan to bring up is, frankly, nuts. The truth is that Republicans don't care one whit about actually balancing the budget. They prefer to delude voters with the pie-in-the- sky promises that amending the Constitution will painlessly solve our budget problems.''

Mr. Speaker, the mystical date here is January 19, 2001. Bill Clinton says goodbye and leaves a surplus not subject, by the way, to opinion today but subject to fact of $5.7 trillion. So the decision is made to cut taxes in 2001 by a trillion dollars. The decision is made in 2003 to cut taxes by $1.3 trillion, and then subsequently to engage in a war in Iraq based upon the faulty premise of weapons of mass destruction.

Now, our Republican friends often come to the microphone and say things like, well, we all spent too much money. No, I didn't spend too much money. I voted against the war in Iraq. I voted against the Bush tax cuts. I voted against their prescription benefit proposal.

Our friend from New Jersey a moment ago said the math is clear. But for Republicans, why is the math only clear when Bill Clinton is President and Barack Obama is President? They ran these deficits through the roof. There is no escaping that conclusion.

The budget has been balanced five times since the end of World War II, four of those times during the Clinton Presidency. Twenty-two million jobs were created during those years. This is the equivalent of using a Luger to clean the wax out of our ears.

This proposal is beyond the pale. They ran across the country for the last 2 years with the Tea Party-types saying, Have you read the bill? Yes, we've read the bill, and we've come to the conclusion this is a reckless pursuit of defying our constitutional responsibility when we've already demonstrated that we can accomplish these ends without disturbing the Constitution that they attempted during the campaign cycle to merit.

Let's honor the Constitution, the Tea Party said. And today what do they propose? Disturbing the Constitution after their financial malfeasance for 8 years.

This argument they bring to the floor today is a political gimmick. George Bush, Sr., lobbied me on the amendment many years ago when it failed, and respectfully I pointed out to him that it was nothing more than political theater. When President Bush, Jr., invited me to the White House to discuss his tax cut proposal in 2001 a matter of days after his assumption of the Presidency, he said this is the people's money. And he's right.

But guess what? It's the people's responsibility to honor those veterans hospitals for 35,000 men and women who have served us honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan who are going to need our care for decades to come. It's the people's responsibility on Social Security, the greatest antipoverty program in history. It's the people's responsibility on Medicare, which has added years to life and life to years.

This proposal today overdoes it. There are enough men and women of goodwill in this institution to assemble for the purpose of getting on to a balanced budget without taking this pursuit of dishonoring our Constitution when we should be doing this on our

own right now as the law has prescribed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Supporting Colorectal Examination and Education Now (SCREEN) Act. This legislation will remove barriers to one of the most effective preventive health screenings available, saving lives and reducing health care costs in the process. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

The statistics surrounding colon cancer are startling. Colon cancer is the number two cancer killer in the United States for both men and women. (CDC Colorectal Cancer Vital Signs; July 2011)

Over 50,000 people will die this year from this disease according to the American Cancer Society (2010 Fact & Figures).

These deaths become more tragic when one considers that colorectal cancer is highly preventable with appropriate screening. According to the American Cancer Society (2010 Facts & Figures), the 5 year survival rate is 90% for those diagnosed at an early stage; however, less than 40% of the cases are diagnosed at that stage.

During colorectal cancer screening by colonoscopy, pre-cancerous polyps are removed during the same encounter, thus preventing cancer from developing, as opposed to other cancer screenings where early detection is the goal. That is one reason why the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force provides an ``A'' rating for CRC screenings.

The CDC ``colorectal cancer control program'' screening target rate is 80%. The American Cancer Society and other patient advocacy groups have a target rate of 75%. Unfortunately, only half of the Medicare population is being screened, despite the availability of a Medicare colon cancer screening benefit. According to CMS and American Cancer Society (March 2011), Medicare claims indicate that only 52-58% of beneficiaries have had any colorectal cancer test and there is ``clearly an opportunity to improve colorectal cancer screening rates in the Medicare population.''

The latest findings by the American Cancer Society confirm that screening rates among the Medicare population continue to be in this 50th percentile range, with screening rates among minority populations that are especially low among Medicare-aged beneficiaries.

The CDC concludes that 1,000 additional colorectal cancer deaths will be prevented each year if screening rates reached 70.5%. (CDC Colorectal Cancer Vital Signs; July 2011).

In addition to saving lives, colorectal cancer screening has been demonstrated to save Medicare long-term costs as noted by the New England Journal of Medicine in a recent article (Feb. 2008).

The direct costs of treating colorectal cancer in 2010 reached $4 billion. (CDC Colorectal Cancer Vital Signs; July 2011)

I am pleased that Congress took steps to improve access to life- saving colon cancer screening when it passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March 2010.

While Congress has made tremendous strides in increasing colorectal cancer utilization rates in PPACA, this bill will further make live saving screenings more accessible to Medicare beneficiaries.

Currently, Medicare waives cost-sharing for any colorectal cancer screening recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. However, should the beneficiary have a precancerous polyp removed, the procedure is no longer considered a ``screening'' for Medicare coding purposes.

The unintended consequence of this is that the beneficiary is obligated to pay the Medicare coinsurance because the procedure is no longer a ``screening.'' However, the purpose of the screening is to find and remove precancerous polyps.

The SCREEN Act waives all Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing for colorectal cancer screenings that become ``therapeutic'' or diagnostic procedures.

The legislation also resolves this unintended consequence for beneficiaries participating in health insurance exchanges beginning in 2014.

The SCREEN Act also provides incentives for Medicare providers to participate in nationally recognized quality improvement registries so that our Medicare beneficiaries are in fact receiving the quality screening they deserve.

Lastly, the SCREEN Act removes barriers to screening rates by allowing a Medicare beneficiary to sit down and discuss the importance of the procedure before seeing the provider for the first time right before procedure. The federal government and colorectal cancer patient advocacy groups have concluded that the ``fear of the procedure'' is a major impediment to increasing colorectal cancer screening rates.

Promoting access to colorectal cancer screening is good policy. It will save lives and reduce costs to families and the health care system. Please join with me in the fight against colorectal cancer by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to come before the House to introduce legislation ending a current law loophole that allows foreign insurance groups to strip their U.S. income into tax havens to avoid U.S. tax and gain a competitive advantage over American companies. I am pleased to be joined in my efforts by Senator Menendez who is introducing the Senate companion bill.

Many foreign-based insurance companies are using affiliate reinsurance to shift their U.S. reserves overseas into tax havens, thereby avoiding U.S. tax on their all investment income. This provides these companies with a significant unfair competitive advantage over U.S.-based companies, which must pay tax on their investment income. To take advantage of this loophole, several U.S. companies have ``inverted'' into tax havens and numerous other companies have been formed offshore. And, absent effective legislation, industry experts have predicted that capital migration will continue to grow and other insurers will be forced to redomesticate offshore. As we grapple with significant budget challenges in the years to come, it is essential that we not allow the continued migration of capital overseas and erosion of our tax base.

The bill I am introducing today does not impact third party reinsurance, which adds needed capacity to the market. It is a fundamental business technique for risk management and is to be fostered. Rather, the bill is targeted solely at reinsurance among affiliates, which adds no additional capacity to the market and is often used for tax avoidance.

There have been previous attempts to address the tax avoidance problem resulting from reinsurance between related entities. Congress first recognized the problem of excessive reinsurance in 1984 and provided specific authority to Treasury under Section 845 of the Tax Code to reallocate items and make adjustments in reinsurance transactions in order to prevent tax avoidance or evasion. In 2003, the Bush Treasury Department testified before Congress that the existing mechanisms were not sufficient. In 2004, Congress amended Section 845 to expand the authority of Treasury to not only reallocate among the parties to a reinsurance agreement but also to recharacterize items within or related to the agreement. Congress specifically cited the concern that these reinsurance transactions were being used inappropriately among U.S. and foreign related parties for tax evasion. Unfortunately, as recent data shows, this grant of expanded authority to Treasury has not stemmed the tide of capital moving offshore.

Since 1996, the amount of reinsurance sent to offshore affiliates has grown dramatically, from a total of $4 billion ceded in 1996 to $33 billion in 2008, including nearly $21 billion to Bermuda affiliates and over $7 billion to Swiss affiliates. Use of this affiliate reinsurance provides foreign insurance groups with a significant market advantage over U.S. companies in writing direct insurance here in the U.S. We have seen in the last decade a doubling in the growth of market share of direct premiums written by groups domiciled outside the U.S., from 5.1 percent to 10.9 percent, representing $54 billion in direct premiums written in 2006. Again, Bermuda-based companies represent the bulk of this growth, rising from 0.1 percent to 4 percent. And it should be noted that during this time, the percentage of premiums ceded to affiliates of non-U.S. based companies has grown from 13 percent to 67 percent. Bermuda is not the only jurisdiction favorable for reinsurance. In fact, one company moved from the Cayman Islands to Switzerland citing ``the security of a network of tax treaties,'' among other benefits.

A coalition of U.S.-based insurance and reinsurance companies has been formed to express their concerns to Congress. They wrote to the leadership of the House and Senate tax-writing committees urging passage of my prior bill because, as they wrote, ``This loophole provides foreign-controlled insurers a significant tax advantage over their domestic competitors in attracting capital to write U.S. business.'' With more than 150,000 employees and a trillion dollars in assets here in the U.S., I believe it is a message of concern that we should heed.

That is why I am again filing legislation to end the Bermuda reinsurance loophole. This proposal has been developed working with the tax experts at both the Treasury Department and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation to address concerns that have been raised with prior versions of the bill and develop a balanced approach to address this

loophole. The proposal is consistent with our trade agreements and our tax treaties.

Specifically, the proposal I am filing today effectively defers any deduction for premiums paid to foreign affiliated insurance companies if the premium is not subject to U.S. tax. This is accomplished by denying an upfront deduction for any affiliate reinsurance and then excluding from income any reinsurance recovered (as well as any ceding commission received), where the premium deduction for that reinsurance has been disallowed.

The bill allows foreign groups to avoid the deduction disallowance by electing to be subject to U.S. tax with respect to the premiums and net investment income from affiliate reinsurance of U.S. risk. Special rules are provided to allow for foreign tax credits to avoid double taxation. This ensures a level-playing field, treating U.S. insurers and foreign-based insurers alike.

The legislation provides Treasury with the authority to carry out or prevent the avoidance of the provisions of this bill.

A fuller technical explanation of the bill can be found on my website.

This ``deduction deferral'' proposal is similar to one contained in the administration's budget this year. In an effort to combat earnings stripping, this bill uses a common-sense approach, which will effectively defer the deduction for premiums paid until the insured event occurs--thereby restricting any tax benefit from shifting reserves and associated investment income overseas.

Ending this unintended tax subsidy for foreign insurance companies will stop the capital flight at the expense of American taxpayers and restore competitive balance for domestic companies. Closing this loophole does not impose a new tax. It merely ensures that foreign- owned companies pay the same tax as American companies on their earnings from doing business here in the United States. Congress never would consciously subsidize foreign-owned companies over their American competitors. Thus, there is no reason an unintended subsidy should be allowed to continue.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on this important matter and I assure my colleagues that I will continue my efforts to combat offshore tax avoidance, regardless of what industry is impacted.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce fhe Supporting Colorectal Examination and Education Now (SCREEN) Act. This legislation will remove barriers to one of the most effective preventive health screenings available, saving lives and reducing health care costs in the process. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

The statistics surrounding colon cancer are startling. Colon cancer is the number two cancer killer in the United States for both men and women. (CDC Colorectal Cancer Vital Signs; July 2011)

Over 50,000 people will die this year from this disease according to the American Cancer Society (2010 Fact & Figures).

These deaths become more tragic when one considers that colorectal cancer is highly preventable with appropriate screening. According to the American Cancer Society (2010 Facts & Figures), the 5 year survival rate is 90 percent for those diagnosed at an early stage; however, less than 40 percent of the cases are diagnosed at that stage.

During colorectal cancer screening by colonoscopy, pre-cancerous polyps are removed during the same encounter, thus preventing cancer from developing, as opposed to other cancer screenings where early detection is the goal. That is one reason why the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force provides an ``A'' rating for CRC screenings.

The CDC ``colorectal cancer control program'' screening target rate is 80 percent. The American Cancer Society and other patient advocacy groups have a target rate of 75 percent. Unfortunately, only half of the Medicare population is being screened, despite the availability of a Medicare colon cancer screening benefit. According to CMS and American Cancer Society (March 2011), Medicare claims indicate that only 52-58 percent of beneficiaries have had any colorectal cancer test and there is ``clearly an opportunity to improve colorectal cancer screening rates in the Medicare population.''

The latest findings by the American Cancer Society confirm that screening rates among the Medicare population continue to be in this 50th percentile range, with screening rates among minority populations are especially low among Medicare-aged beneficiaries.

The CDC concludes that 1,000 additional colorectal cancer deaths will be prevented each year if screening rates reached 70.5 percent. (CDC Colorectal Cancer Vital Signs; July 2011).

In addition to saving lives, colorectal cancer screening has been demonstrated to save Medicare long-term costs as noted by the New England Journal of Medicine in a recent article (Feb. 2008).

The direct costs of treating colorectal cancer in 2010 reached $4 billion. (CDC Colorectal Cancer Vital Signs; July 2011)

I am pleased that Congress took steps to improve access to life- saving colon cancer screening when it passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act PPACA in March 2010.

While Congress has made tremendous strides in incresing colorectal cancer utilization rates in PPACA, this bill will further make live saving screenings more accessible to Medicare beneficiaries.

Currently, Medicare waives cost-sharing for any colorectal cancer sceening recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. However, should the beneficiary have a precancerous polyp removed, the procedure is no longer considered a ``screening'' for Medicare coding purposes.

The unintended consequence of this is that the beneficiary is obligated to pay the Medicare coinsurance because the procedure is no longer a ``screening.'' However, the purpose of the screening is to find and remove precancerous polyps.

the SCREEN Act waives all Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing for colorectal cancer screenings that become ``therapeutic'' or diagnostic procedures.

The legislation also resolves this unintended consequence for beneficiaries participating in health insurance exchanges beginning in 2014.

The SCREEN Act also provides incentives for Medicare providers to participate in nationally recognized quality improvement registries

so that our Medicare beneficiaries are in fact receiving the quality screening they deserve.

Lastly, the SCREEN Act removes barriers to screening rates by allowing a Medicare beneficiary to sit down and discuss the importance of the procedure before seeing the provider for the first time right before procedure. The federal government and colorectal cancer patient advocacy groups have concluded that the ``fear of the procedure'' is a major impediment to increasing colorectal cancer screening rates.

Promoting access to colorectal cancer screening is good policy. It will save lives and reduce costs to families and the health care system. Please join with me in the fight against colorectal cancer by cosponsoring this legislation.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for the nice words of introduction.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement is an example of how to do a trade agreement right. This agreement will improve the U.S. trade surplus, emphasis on the word surplus, with Panama, and help with U.S. job creation and economic growth. And thanks to the FTA, Panama has brought its labor laws up to international standards and addressed Panama's status as a tax haven.

Let's start with economics. In Massachusetts, which exported a total of over $8 billion worth of merchandise in 2010, the total number of jobs created in my district supported by exports is over 26,000.

New exports help to support new jobs, and that's why I support the Panamanian free trade agreement. Panama is one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America. This FTA will eliminate tariffs and other barriers to U.S.

exports, promote economic growth, and expand trade between our two countries.

For example, most goods from Panama currently enter the U.S. duty- free, whereas U.S. exporters face import duties in Panama ranging from 5 to over 35 percent. This FTA will level the playing field by eliminating Panama's import duties on U.S. goods. As a result, U.S. passenger vehicle exports are expected to increase by 43 percent, and machinery exports are expected to increase by 14 percent.

Furthermore, Panama is currently free to discriminate against U.S. suppliers in government procurement, including the ongoing $5.25 billion Panama Canal expansion project. The FTA will require Panama to treat U.S. suppliers the same as Panamanian suppliers. There is going to be an explosion of opportunity with the opening of the Panama Canal after its expansion.

Now let's go to labor rights. Over the course of several years, House Democrats, myself included, have identified a variety of deficiencies in Panama's labor laws, and we insisted that the Panamanian FTA not be considered until those issues were addressed. In April of this year, Panama's President signed into law the last remaining changes needed to bring Panamanian laws into compliance with labor obligations of this agreement.

Furthermore, when we took the majority in 2007, House Democrats insisted that the FTA be negotiated or renegotiated to include the May 10 agreement. Among other things, the FTA was renegotiated to require Panama to comply with international labor standards and key international environmental agreements. Labor rights, environmental concerns, human rights. We insisted that those be undertaken, and we were told at one time that the agreement offered had to be all or nothing. House Democrats changed that with our insistence on those basic issues.

Now let me highlight how Panama has addressed its tax haven issue. And I would submit to you today there is no Member of this House that has a stronger credential on cracking down on tax havens than I do. I have stayed at it through the course of a career, and we've had some success, with more guaranteed to come.

In 2000 the OECD listed Panama as a tax haven, but since that time, Panama has worked to adopt international standards of transparency and effective exchange of information. In 2010, the U.S. and Panama entered into a tax information exchange agreement, and this past July the OECD placed Panama on its white list of countries who have substantially implemented international standards for exchange information. These are substantial advancements.

This would not have been possible without Democrats in this House who insisted that the FTA not be submitted to Congress until the tax haven issue was addressed. This FTA is a better agreement because House Democrats insisted on those basic human rights issues.

There is no question but labor agreements, human rights agreements, and environmental agreements have been included because of work that the minority in the House has done. And at the same time, we understand that these trade agreements are not necessarily panaceas. But by and large, the ones that I know that I've supported over a career, and some I've opposed, have had a net impact on economic growth.

These are very difficult issues for Members of this body to undertake. But we argue that the genius of opportunity is what Steve Jobs promoted through much of his life, with many setbacks along the way. But understand that many of the products that Steve Jobs and his genius succeeded in implementing ensure that people across the globe use those products today, and I think this an example of those opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Florence Congregational Church located in Florence, Massachusetts. It was originally a community church named ``The Church of Christ In Florence.'' Its founders visualized it as the center of the abolitionist movement in the village, which was already an active station on the underground railroad, with its charter members being sympathetic to the movement. Its first settled pastor, Horace Carter Hovey, had been driven from his pulpit in Indiana because of his ardent opposition to slavery. Article nine of the church's bylaws, adopted on June 3, 1862, declared ``our decided protest against the sin of slavery.''

The church was dedicated on October 9, 1861, in the sixth month of the Civil War. The Reverend Hovey twice took a leave of absence to volunteer with the United States Christian Commission, serving troops on battlefields in Virginia. Meanwhile, members of the infant church sewed clothing for the soldiers and sent them ``comfort bags'' and food to supplement army rations.

During the 150 years that followed, fifteen successive pastors have served this faith community in Florence. The original twenty-six members increased to a peak of over 900 in the 1960s; subsequently membership settled at its current level of about 200.

The church has continued to function as a center of community life. Today it shares its facilities with the Cloverdale Cooperative Nursery School and Beit Ahavah, a reformed Jewish congregation. It hosts an AA chapter, regular public suppers, a Boy Scout troop, and a summer vacation bible school that draws children from the surrounding area. The present pastor, the Reverend Irven A. Gammon, is deeply committed to his work with the Cancer Connection and to the community.

Madam Speaker, I'm fascinated by this argument, for the people that are viewing it, largely because this is not an argument about new spending; this is an argument about paying for past spending. So when Bill Clinton said ado, said goodbye to the American people on January 19, 2001--this is fact, not opinion--America was staring at a $5.6 trillion surplus. On January 20, George Bush took the oath of office, and when he left 8 years later, we were looking at a $10.6 trillion deficit.

Let's recount those years: Two wars, $2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts, and a prescription D benefit that was unfunded. And all of the money they applied to those arguments--and I am very pleased by the fact I voted against those tax cuts, spoke against them, and voted against the war in Iraq. But all of the money that I've just referenced was borrowed money by the Republican Party. They borrowed all of the money for it--fact, not opinion. And now the bill has come due, and they're on the floor talking about fiscal rectitude.

Now, here's what I think is important: The gentleman from Florida opened this debate, my friend, Mr. Mack, by talking about our money and how that money is utilized. Well, guess what? The veterans hospitals, 35,000 men and women wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, is he saying that that's not our money that ought to pay for those hospitals?

Joe Stiglitz has estimated that the cost of disability for the war in Iraq will be between $500 billion and $900 billion.

I hope people pay attention to what I'm about to say. Almost one out of two people who have served us honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan, they're coming back with a long-term disability. Those VA hospitals are going to be stretched for years to come.

Now, whether you were for Iraq or against it, our responsibility is to pay for those men and women who served us honorably: 20 years old, life expectancy of 80, they're in our care for the next 60 years.

I would note with some humor that the Republican leadership did not send out, today, people that were here for the tax cut vote or for the vote on the war in Iraq. Remember weapons of mass destruction and how that vote was to take place?

Friends, this is about paying our bills. This is not about new spending. And I hope there's no confusion in the hinterlands. Today, because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, every American citizen has a bill of $17,000.

They helped bring us to this path of fiscal irresponsibility during their years of borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, and they ask the American people to embrace amnesia. They set the fire, and now they're calling the fire department.

This is a very simple vote. It's about paying our bills.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about our current fiscal situation and how we got to where we are today. The thought that America would default on its obligations is unimaginable.

This afternoon, we're going to begin a debate on Speaker Boehner's debt

ceiling legislation, and I'll comment later on why I oppose the Speaker's approach. But before we begin that debate, I think it's important to acknowledge, step back, and review how we got to where we are.

The success of the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, which was vehemently opposed by our Republican friends, led to a decade of prosperity and surplus. President Clinton balanced the budget for the first time since 1969 and ran surpluses for 4 years. Between 1998 and 2000, the publicly held debt was reduced by $363 billion, the largest 3-year pay down in American history. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled. By the time Bill Clinton left office, the budget was on track to pay off the entire publicly held debt on a net basis by 2009. Remember, Alan Greenspan warned us that we were paying down the debt too quickly. The clock in Times Square, which chronicled the deficit, was actually turned off at the end of the Clinton years. But, unfortunately, there were those who thought that we should shift course.

Economic growth averaged 4 percent during those Clinton years, compared to an average of 2.8 percent during President Reagan's years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history, fueled by more than 22.5 million jobs that were created during those 8 years, the most jobs ever created during a single administration and more than were created in the previous 12 years.

On January 20, 2001, when George W. Bush took the oath of office, the CBO estimated that the total budget surplus for 2002 to 2011 would be $5.6 trillion. And their campaign began to spend that surplus in earnest, despite warnings. President Bush began taking us down that fiscal path by enacting tax cuts, first in 2001 of $1.3 trillion, and again in 2003, $1 trillion, that cost the government going forward almost $4 trillion. The other major expenditure in those years was our idea that you could simultaneously engage two wars and cut taxes by $2.3 trillion. Remember the argument about weapons of mass destruction that took us to the unnecessary war in Iraq.

While some question tax cuts in wartime, including people like Mr. Lincoln, others thought it brilliant. The Republican leader at the time or the deputy leader at the time said it was patriotic to cut taxes in a time of war. Well, I wonder if the 2.2 million more veterans who have served us with honor and distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to feel that way when proposals come down the road to draw back on the benefits that they've earned. During the Bush years, our country spent $1.5 trillion in Iraq and on national defense.

The turnaround in our budget picture during the Bush years was remarkable. In October of 2008, CNN reported that the debt clock had run out of numbers. The debt clock actually had exceeded 13 digits that had been allotted, so the clock had to be revised.

According to one report at the end of the Bush term, the number of jobs in the Nation increased by 2 percent. That's the lowest or most tepid growth at any time since data began to be collected seven decades ago. Gross domestic product was at the lowest pace for a period of that length of time since the Truman administration. And the price that America has paid for the theology that suggested during all of those years that tax cuts paid for themselves, you can't find a mainstream economist in this town today who will acknowledge that argument. And yet we hear now more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

By the time that the Bush years ended, the debt had increased to $10.6 trillion, setting a record for any administration. And incidentally, the TARP vote that we hear so often, that took place in October of 2008, that's a very important consideration. That was during President Bush's years.

But let me give you a quote that I think sums up much of what we did during those years. Dick Cheney told the Treasury Secretary at the time, Paul O'Neill: Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.

We embraced the prescription D Medicare benefit that we're paying a price for today.

So here we are. My Republican colleagues try to place the blame for this situation on the current administration. There were many of us who saw what was happening with the reckless expenditure during those years and the price that America paid.

We need to vote to raise the debt ceiling. It's the responsible position for all of us to take.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding the time.

This argument today is not about new spending. The argument today is about paying our bills. This is the credit card that has come due for the irresponsibility that we witnessed in this Chamber and across this Congress for 8 years of the Bush administration: two wars and $2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts, a prescription D Medicare drug bill that came due.

Lawrence Lindsey, the President's chief economic advisor at the time, said it was going to cost $300 billion in Iraq. They fired him. Dick Cheney said $60 billion in Iraq and in and out in 6 to 8 months. Ten years later, we're in Iraq.

We have created 2.2 million new veterans. They are going to need our care for years to come in our health centers for the VA. It's going to be expensive. Paul Wolfowitz: In and out of Iraq in 2 months, a few billion dollars. The bill, our friends, has come due.

We cannot send a message to markets anywhere that the full faith and credit of the United States of America is at risk. In the aftermath of World War II, when finances were strained as never before, President Truman had the vision not only to pay off the debt of World War II, but to embrace the Marshall Plan, one of the greatest achievements in American history.

Think of what Mr. Lincoln, who served in this Chamber, by the way, think of what Mr. Lincoln might have said in the midst of the Civil War, America's worst moment, that America would forfeit its expenditures as the bill has come due.

Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Hamilton met in New York with one of the most fateful decisions in American history, to accept the debt of the States, which moved us away from the Articles of Confederation to a constitutional system. And now, at this moment, a political party in our history that always embraced fiscal responsibility, the bill has come due, and it's our obligation to pay it.

I rise in opposition to the ``cut, cap, and balance ruse act.'' This is an ideologically extreme piece of legislation that will end Medicare as we know it, and it preserves tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

I guess some of our colleagues on the Republican side, when they're talking about balancing the budget, they've never heard of America paying its bills during world wars. We paid our bills through the Civil War. We paid our bills through the Marshall Plan, when America was extended as never before.

The American people want a functional government. They want a responsible path forward, and this is not the path that they're suggesting.

A balanced budget constitutional amendment would straitjacket the Federal Government of the United States. I wonder how our Tea Party friends feel about a Republican Party disturbing the Constitution to pay for George Bush's tax cuts. And recall the weapons of mass destruction, 31,000 wounded in Iraq? That bill is due and we need to pay it. Whether you were for Iraq or against it, they served us honorably, and that's what this debate is about.

The war in Afghanistan, we have to pay that bill whether we were for it or against it; $2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts, while simultaneously invading two countries, a prescription D Medicare benefit that was never paid for.

Friends everywhere, and I hope every speaker that comes to the microphone, including the gentleman from Utah, answers the following question: Was the money borrowed along the way in a series of supplemental budgets to mask the size of the expenditures they were requesting?

The people that set the fire are now the ones calling the fire department. We're in debt because of the positions that they offered when Bill Clinton left. When Clinton walked out the door there was a $5.7 trillion surplus, five balanced budgets since World War II, and Bill Clinton gave us four of them.

We're here today because of the policies they embraced.

Madam Chair, I understand Mr. Smith's position here, but the truth is that when he suggests that we're doing things that are interfering with ongoing court tests, there have been a series of votes here already about the health care law and guaranteed to have more coming in this institution. So I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that suggestion.

But I rise today in support of the amendment. It addresses the deadline for filing patent term extension applications under the Hatch- Waxman Act. By adopting a clear standard, the amendment would provide the opportunity and certainty needed to allow innovators to conduct the time-consuming and expensive medical research necessary to bring new lifesaving drugs to market.

The amendment clarifies the law in a manner that tracks the only court decision to have addressed this particular provision. It will ensure that all applications and all cases are treated the same. Because the amendment merely

confirms existing law, it is budget-neutral.

The amendment enjoys broad support on both sides of the aisle. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in supporting it.