Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today funeral services are being held at the Congregation Shaarey Zedek in Southfield, Michigan for its beloved, esteemed Rabbi, Irwin Groner.

Rabbi Groner served the congregation for over 50 years. He became a continuing source of wisdom and warmth of personality for numerous thousands as he served in various positions in the Jewish community in metropolitan Detroit and beyond. He was active in promoting good will among all faiths in metropolitan Detroit.

His written works will continue to spread his words of wisdom in books of his sermons and his publications on Torah. Also persevering will be the feelings of the deepest affection among all of us blessed by his friendship.

In his words: ``Our congregation has prayed together, wept together, rejoiced together, failed together and achieved together.''

Today his congregation and all privileged to know him join in tears for his passing and in prayers of gratitude for his life.

Our heartfelt condolences go to his wife Leypsa and the entire Groner family.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a bipartisan bill, and I will try to keep it within that spirit to the extent possible.

As we are here today on January 1, hours away from Americans returning to work, markets reopening around the world, and all eyes focusing on whether this institution can govern, this legislation allows us to get done what we need to get done.

This bill is vital for our Nation's economic well-being and, I want to emphasize, for its standing as the world's most important economy. It is vital for 114 million middle class families whose tax cuts are made permanent. It's vital for 2 million unemployed American workers who need continuation of their insurance while they continue to look for work.

It is vital for 30 million middle-income Americans who otherwise would have been hit by the alternative minimum tax. And it's vital for 25, and I emphasize this, 25 million working families and students who benefit from the Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit and the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which helps families pay for college.

And it's vital for physicians and millions of their patients who would have been hurt by drastic cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates. It's also vital for businesses, through an extension of important tax provisions such as the R&D credit, and also renewable energy incentives that must continue in this great country of ours, and bonus depreciation to encourage business investments.

But I want to emphasize this, somewhat in contrast to what our chairman has said: this legislation breaks the iron barrier that for far too long has prevented additional tax revenues from the very wealthiest. It raises $620 billion in revenue by achieving the President's goal of asking the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans to pay more, while protecting 98 percent of families. That's right, that's what it does. And 97 percent--I want to emphasize this, contrary to propaganda coming from the other side, 97 percent of small businesses from any tax increase.

And, lastly--and this needs to be emphasized especially in view, Mr. Chairman, of your comments--this package is vital for future deficit reduction efforts, setting the stage for a balanced approach from here on out by delaying sequestration through 1-1 revenue to spending cuts.

Yesterday, President Obama again said he is committed to deficit reduction, but he emphasized several times, and I quote:

We've got to do this in a balanced, responsible way with

additional revenues as well as spending cuts, so I urge its

passage.

This bill sets the important precedent I mentioned in terms of additional revenues as well as spending cuts. The time is urgent. The time is now. We should support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

We Democrats sat on Ways and Means, time after time, when Republicans passed tax cuts and never brought $1 to the table to pay for it. They thought that that was the way to promote economic growth. How wrong they were.

It's now my privilege to yield 1 minute to a person who has the title ``leader,'' but who has been so much more than a titular leader, who has valiantly led our efforts, and we owe to Nancy Pelosi a real debt of gratitude for our being where we are today.

With real pleasure, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

I yield myself 15 seconds.

I just don't want the chairman's statement that this settles permanently how much revenue will be made available. The President has made clear there has to be a balanced approach, and no one should be misled into thinking otherwise, no one.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

I will yield to my temptation to respond, and I will now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished gentleman, a member of our committee, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

I now yield 2 minutes to another member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), our colleague-to-be on Ways and Means.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I now yield 2 minutes to Danny Davis, our colleague from Illinois who is soon rejoining us on Ways and Means.

I now, with pleasure, yield 3 minutes to another member of our leadership, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

We are going to vote soon, but first we want to hear from our whip, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, who has worked so hard on these issues for decades.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

If the gentleman from Michigan is ready to close, I'll do the same and yield myself the balance of my time.

I regret the last statements. It is not correct to say that the President has not been interested in deficit reduction. That is not true. It was the Republican leadership in this House that walked away from a big package. So I think it is troublesome that you come here apparently saying you're going to vote for this bill by launching an unfair, untrue representation of what's been going on.

I want it to be very clear, because my guess is that the chairman will talk again that there has been a permanent level of revenue set by this bill. That is not correct. If that's an effort to get votes on your side, I want the record to be clear.

I'm going to close by reading from the President's statement of yesterday:

I want to make clear that any agreement we have to deal

with these automatic spending cuts that are being threatened

for next month, those also have to be balanced, because,

remember, my principle has always been let's do things in a

balanced, responsible way.

The same is true for any future deficit agreement.

Obviously, we're going to have to do more to reduce our debt

and our deficit. I'm willing to do more--

He already has done substantial.

--but it's going to have to be balanced. We're going to

have to do it in a balanced way.

And then he talks about the need to address Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1509, the Medicare Identity Theft Prevention Act. There has been longstanding bipartisan support-- led by Ways and Means Members Lloyd Doggett and Sam Johnson--for removing Social Security numbers from Medicare beneficiary cards. A similar bill passed the House all the way back in 2008, but the Senate failed to act. No progress has been made on this issue in the intervening years.

That said, I must express concern about violating regular order in bringing this bill to the floor today. There are technical edits that we believe are important to make before it is signed into law. Unfortunately, because it didn't move through the committee process, such changes are impossible under the suspension of the rules.

Removing Social Security numbers is one step to protecting beneficiaries from identity theft. The Social Security number is especially valuable to identity thieves as it serves as the key to authenticating an individual's identity in order to open accounts or obtain other benefits in the victim's name. Identity theft can be particularly devastating to seniors because their incomes are so modest.

We have held hearings on these issues and our Members have voted for these protections numerous times. No one can question our commitment here. But I would urge that we work to make sure that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Social Security Administration are provided appropriate funds for such a large undertaking as its been the cost and complexity which has held up this issue for so long.

The Social Security number is printed on the Medicare card beneficiaries carry in their wallets. It is used for communication between the beneficiary and Medicare, providers billing Medicare, enrollment transactions with Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare prescription drug plans, and communications within and between Medicare's 50 internal information systems and between Medicare and the Social Security Administration.

This is not as simple as printing new cards as some would lead us to believe. It requires revising numerous computer systems as well as significant beneficiary and provider education. And, there are serious risks to beneficiaries' access to care and out-of-pocket costs if mistakes are made.

The cost will likely be in the hundreds of millions. Yet, the Medicare agency and Social Security Administration have been underfunded by Republicans for years. They are working with minimal administrative budgets. This bill improves on the 2008 legislation passed with bipartisan support because it provides funding. But we must make sure that the funding is sufficient and that both the Medicare agency and Social Security Administration equitably access these funds.

Madam Speaker, I support this bipartisan legislation, H.R. 1845, but I must express concern about once again violating regular order in bringing this bill to the floor today. Neither the IVIG Access Act nor the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers (SMART) Act went through the committee process, thus depriving Members of the opportunity to discuss these policies in an open forum.

One consequence of this lack of dialogue is that this bill does not provide any funding to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to implement the new Medicare Secondary Payer rules, something that could have been corrected in committee were Members able to do so. This is yet another example of placing additional burden on an already woefully underfunded administrative agency.

This is an important moment. These bills move the Nation dangerously closer to the cliff with only 11 days before our Nation would go over it. They make finding common ground far more difficult with only 11 days left to find it. These bills are not a plan; they're a ploy. They are bills to nowhere. They undermine trust so essential for agreement. We've just heard it.

The Republicans claim that letting the tax rate go up from 35 to 39.6 percent on income over $1 million is not a tax hike because it would happen on its own. But then they say that if the tax cut rate would go up on income below $1 million by happening on its own, it would be the biggest tax increase in history. That is patently inconsistent.

But far worse than the hypocrisy is the way they design their tax provisions. For those with income over $1 million, they provide a tax cut of at least $50,000.

They raise only one-third of the revenue contained in the Speaker's discussions with the White House and far less than proposed by the President. Talk about undermining trust.

It would raise taxes on 11 million middle class taxpayers--11 million--through their failure to continue the education credit, and they hurt millions of other middle class families with their failure to keep the improvements to the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit.

And there is stony silence, indeed stone-hearted silence, on 2 million unemployed workers looking for work who would lose their insurance immediately on December 29. And silence on the 27 percent cut to doctors treating Medicare patients.

And in a deeply cynical move, so cynical, the Republicans have decided to offer another bill to put off some of the sequester in defense. And they pay for it how? By deep and ugly cuts to important programs impacting seniors, kids, and disabled Americans.

The Republicans are tying themselves into knots. But in doing so, they're tying into knots the chances for our Nation not going over the cliff. Vote ``no'' on these bills that take us backwards, that undercut trust, that increase the chances of going over the cliff. This is not a plan; it's a ploy.

I did not know that I would follow the distinguished majority leader.

I just want to say, and I mostly want to talk about Plan C, but for him or anybody else to come on the floor and say that the President hasn't proposed spending cuts isn't true, and it undercuts the necessary level of trust to find common ground. That kind of a statement should not be made.

I sat in the Rules Committee for 3 hours and participated for 2 hours last night. There was no reference to Plan C, and it came up just a few minutes secretly before midnight. The purpose of Plan C is to try to get votes for Plan B within the Republican Conference. What it does is to undermine the Affordable Care Act by eliminating the true-up protections, and the joint task committee says it would result in the loss of health insurance coverage for 420,000 people. It would also repeal the Social Services Block Grant which provides services for millions of Americans.

It wasn't many years ago when Chairman Camp wrote:

SSBG has been a key source of flexible funding for critical

social services.

So now in a desperate effort to find votes for Plan B, you turn your back on that.

Finally, it would harm millions of low-income families and their kids. The estimate is it would affect 1 million families and more than 3 million kids.

Searching for votes for Plan B with that kind of an approach, I think, is abominable.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the City of Oak Park, and thank the residents of Oak Park who have provided me with the honor of representing them in Congress for 30 years. My beloved late wife, Vicki and I, enjoyed lasting friendships with so many in the community for many years. I have been proud to see the fabric of this community diversify racially and to watch it develop economically.

Historically, the area that was to become Oak Park existed within Royal Oak Township, and was first settled in 1840. The first major housing development came in 1914 when the township sold land to the majestic Land Company to be developed as the Oak Park subdivision. The subdivision was incorporated as a village on May 3, 1927. The village incorporated as city on October 29, 1945. Planned developments in the late 1950s resulted in Oak Park being named ``America's Fastest Growing City'' at one point.

I have enjoyed participating in so many activities and events in Oak Park like the annual 4th of July parade, Dr. Martin Luther King Day program and activities sponsored by your schools and your strong and vibrant religious institutions.

I was proud to host several events in the city including our Community Resource Fairs where we brought together Oak Park residents with county, state and federal agencies to that offered critical services within the community.

Mayor McClellen, who was preceded by long-time mayor Jerry Naftely, along with all of the dedicated City Council members and other local elected officials continue to move the City of Oak Park forward, and I look forward to following their success in the years to come.

As I close, I can say with confidence that the City of Oak Park and its residents are in good hands with Congressman Gary Peters. My office will, of course, stay in close touch on issues that impact Oakland County and southeast Michigan as we all work together to re-vitalize our Michigan economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the City of Southfield, and thank the residents of Southfield who have provided me with the honor of representing them in Congress for 30 years. My beloved late wife, Vicki and I, called Southfield our home when I was first elected to Congress, and our Congressional office was based there for many years. I have been proud to see the fabric of this community diversify racially and to watch it develop economically.

Historically, when Governor Cass first ordered the area in the ``south fields'' of Bloomfield Township surveyed in 1817, he could not have guessed at the fine city it would become. Though it became a township in 1830, it wasn't until 1958, over 100 years later, that Southfield would formally incorporate into a city.

Southfield has earned its moniker, ``The Center of It All.'' Strong neighborhoods. Good schools. Manufacturing. Office high-rises which house more than 100 Fortune 500 companies. And, a deep sense of community and friendship.

I have enjoyed participating in so many activities and events like the annual Dr. Martin

Luther King Day peace walk and commemoration, ceremonies at the VFW, activities sponsored by your schools and your strong and vibrant religious institutions, and the effort many years ago to cleanup the Rouge River, which I actually got into. I am pleased at what a leader your community has become in the Veterans History Project interviewing over 200 veterans and placing their histories at the Library of Congress. And, congratulations to Dr. Wanda Cook-Robinson, the Superintendent of Southfield Schools, who was recently named the 2013 Superintendent of the Year by the Michigan Association of School Administrators.

I was proud to fight for the federal dollars needed to create the Center for Innovative Materials Research. This partnership between Lawrence Technological University, TARDEC and the Army Research Lab, was established for the research, development and testing of carbon- fiber composite materials for defense applications.

Mayor Lawrence, former mayor and current City Councilman Don Fracassi, along with all of the dedicated City Council members and other local elected officials continue to move the City of Southfield forward, and I look forward to following their success in the years to come.

As I close, I can say with confidence that the City of Southfield and its residents are in good hands with Congressman Gary Peters. My office will, of course, stay in close touch on issues that impact Oakland County and southeast Michigan as we all work together to re-vitalize our Michigan economy.

This discharge petition frames the issue immediately before us: will Republicans take America over the cliff, and the middle class tax cuts with them, in order to protect tax breaks for the very wealthy. And will they take the economy with them over the cliff?

The fiscal cliff confronting us threatens an economic mess, half of which could be resolved in one fell swoop--by passing the middle class tax cuts. The Senate has already acted. The President is waiting to sign it. Republicans should join with Democrats and give 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses the certainty that they won't face a tax increase on January 1.

Colleagues, Republicans as well as Democrats, sign now--the signal that America needs.

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 79th anniversary of the Ukrainian famine-genocide, a tragedy that claimed the lives of an estimated 7 to 10 million Ukrainians between 1932 and 1933. I rise today to commemorate the lives of those who perished at the hands of Josef Stalin's Soviet Union and to remember the suffering of the Ukrainian people.

Using food as a weapon, Stalin's barbaric regime orchestrated a famine of genocidal proportions, attempting to suppress the Ukrainian nation by systematically starving its people. In 1932, the Soviet government confiscated Ukraine's grain crop as ``social property'' and executed anyone who resisted the seizure. Then, in an action that clearly reveals the murderous motivation behind the Soviet plan, the Red Army closed Ukraine's borders, sealing in the starving people who were trying to flee and shutting out any outside aid.

Unfortunately, the Ukrainian famine, referred to as the Holodomor, remains one of the least known human tragedies, in part because of generations of denial by the Soviet Union. By claiming the famine was the result of drought, food shortages, or other natural causes, the Soviet government engaged in a pernicious type of behavior that Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel has called a ``double killing.'' The Soviet Union carried out a deliberate campaign between 1923 and 1933 to eliminate the Ukrainian nation, killing millions of victims, and in the subsequent years denied that it ever happened, attempted to kill the memories of the victims.

There should be no doubt that the Holodomor was manmade and deliberate, a fact that has been confirmed by evidence gained through the opening of the Soviet archives over the last decade. This evidence will help ensure that the horrors of the Ukrainian famine-genocide are never repeated and the memories of the victims are never forgotten.

Another way we are ensuring that the Holodomor remains in our collective consciousness is the creation of a memorial in our Nation's capital honoring the famine's victims. Set to open next fall, the Ukrainian Famine Memorial is the product of cooperation among the Congress, the Ukrainian Government, and the 1.5 million strong Ukrainian-American community. The memorial will provide a reminder to us all that tyranny must not go unchallenged and that victims of inhumanity must never be forgotten.

I urge my colleagues to join me in remembering the victims of the Holodomor on its 79th anniversary.

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

I want to make a number of points, but first to join with the chairman of

the committee. We have worked hard on this legislation on a bipartisan basis, and also with the Senate.

I think these are the important points, if I might say so. First of all, I urge that we take each trade agreement very much on its own, maybe not completely looking at other agreements but assessing the merits of each particular agreement. And when you look at this agreement on its merits, it's clear, I urge, we should be supportive.

If you look at the flow of trade that will be enhanced by this legislation, it's clear that it will be beneficial to our country. The major exports from our country to Russia are machinery, motor vehicles, and aircraft. These are products made in America by American companies and by American workers. So essentially, this will enhance our ability. Russia, in terms of taking this on its own, is already in the WTO, and the question is whether we will be able to access their markets.

The next point: there is also a question of enforcement. Trade agreements by themselves will not be enough. There has to be built in strong enforcement and a willingness to enforce. And this agreement, with the help of colleagues, some of whom will be here to speak today, this agreement has strengthened enforcement provisions. Those were worked out with the Senate, and I want to thank the Senators for working with us. So there is within this agreement not only a guarantee of more flow, but also a guarantee that we have access to the instrumentalities so that we can hold Russia's feet to the fire, if I might say so, in terms of their meeting their obligations.

The next point is this: we've been working on trade issues for a long time. For some of us, trade is more than the flow of goods; it's the structure within which the flow occurs and looking at the benefits of that flow so that we're sure that the impact is a positive one for our businesses and our workers.

Also, it's important to remember that the rule of law in another country is vital, otherwise investment is perilous. The Magnitsky legislation was added here in part in recognition that when you talk about trade, you have to look at a fuller picture. And I want to salute, if I might say so, especially Jim McGovern for his work on this issue. And I also want to thank Mr. Camp, our chairman. I also want to thank those in the Senate for working with us to make sure that this is in this bill, the chair of our Foreign Relations Committee, and also especially Mr. Cardin, who once served on our committee and is now in the Senate and has made this a dedicated effort on his part.

This is a bipartisan effort. I hope that it will set the stage for a successful effort to deal with trade issues now and beyond on a bipartisan basis.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on Trade.

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

I now yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for a colloquy, a gentleman who has worked so hard on trade issues.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I very much agree with my colleague from Maine that it's vital to monitor and fully enforce our trade agreements, and I will work with USTR to keep you and other Members of Congress informed when Russia has not fulfilled its commitment, regardless of whether or not the administration has taken formal notice.

As my colleague knows, today's legislation includes reporting requirements on all of Russia's commitments they made prior to joining the WTO, including the reduction of tariffs and other commitments related to manufacturing sectors. I will work with my colleague to make certain that USTR's reports include an evaluation of Russia's manufacturing-related commitments.

I very much agree with you that we must enforce our trading partners' commitments so that our American workers can compete on a level playing field, and I really believe that Mr. Camp, our chairman, and others concur in that. I, too, have been concerned about the effect China's trade relations have had on the U.S. economy.

I will work with you to monitor Russia's compliance and to ensure that U.S. manufacturers get the full benefits of Russia's WTO membership, and I can assure you we will continue to work together to address China's violations as well. This administration has been active in that regard.

As for section 301, I wish to note that I and the ranking member on our Trade Subcommittee, Mr. McDermott, exchanged letters with the U.S. trade rep in July, confirming our rights to request action under section 301. Under section 301, USTR is required to respond to our requests within a fixed timeline. That exchange of letters has already been incorporated into the legislative history of the bill before us today.

I want to thank you, Mr. Michaud, for your arduous efforts.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to another Member who's been so active on trade policy, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who has served so long with distinction on our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another member of our committee from the great State of Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is so active on trade issues.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another active member of our committee on trade and every issue that comes before us, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, could you verify how much time there is on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I think I'll proceed.

It's now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another vigorous member of our committee on all issues. We wish your State the best, by the way.

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), with his passion on all issues.

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia who is deeply involved in trade issues, Mr. Moran.

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to a gentleman who has just been sworn in, a colleague of ours from Michigan (Mr. Curson).

This is your maiden speech, and it is my special pleasure to yield to you.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I would ask Mr. Camp if you would yield me an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I wanted Mr. Curson to finish his statement because of his roots in the labor movement and beyond. We're proud to have you here, and we welcome your statement.

As I close, I want to congratulate everybody who worked on this to try to strengthen it. I also want to say just a word about Jackson- Vanik because this terminates that provision that was a part of the trade bill.

I want to salute everybody over the years who worked to implement what Senator Jackson and Congressman Vanik undertook. Many of us, my late wife and myself, and so many others went to Russia to try to make real that amendment. It showed that trade is more than the flow of goods. We have to look at the structure within which trade operates.

So I close again by attributing so much to people who worked so hard to try to make sure that those who wanted to leave Russia, the Jewish community and beyond, had a chance to live elsewhere and to pursue their lives with dignity.

This is an important moment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

First, if I might, let me congratulate Mr. Dreier on your service of many years. You believe in this institution.

I will yield to the gentleman.

You believe in this institution, and I think that's been reflected.

So let me just say a few words--we'll debate it, perhaps, longer tomorrow--why this trade bill should be passed. I think we need to take each trade bill on its own merits. When you look at the need to move here today to grant PNTR, I think the answer is we clearly should.

First of all, Russia is now in the WTO, and it has gone in with certain requirements; for example, no export subsidies are allowed. That's a change, and that's beneficial to those of us who want to trade with them so they don't rig the deck against us and for them. And there are major reductions in tariffs.

Also, now that they're in the WTO, there is a dispute settlement system. So when they violate the requirements, there's a dispute settlement system that can be enforced. If we don't grant PNTR, we can't access that dispute settlement system.

Also, it's so important that there be strong enforcement. A number of my colleagues put forth some legislation that proposed that we beef up the enforcement provisions within this bill, and that's been done. Our staff on the Democratic side worked assiduously with the Senate, and the essence of those provisions are now in this bill. So that's another reason to vote for it, because strong enforcement is critical to good trade legislation.

Also, I would urge everybody to look at what are the exports from this country and the imports from Russia. When you look at those, it's a good reason for us to vote for this legislation, because the top three exports from the U.S. are machinery, motor vehicles, and aircraft--made in America by American workers. And so, in a sense, this is a ``Make It in America'' piece of legislation.

The dominant import from Russia is in petro, in oil, and in that sense, they're not directly competing with our workers. So we have, in terms of what flows, an advantage being a full partner.

But let me say one other thing, because I think those of you who have followed this know I don't believe that trade legislation is only about flow of goods. It also has to be embedded in a structure to make sure that there are benefits for our companies and for our workers and that there is a structure to try to make sure there's a rule of law, because if there isn't a rule of law in another country, it is not beneficial for their citizens or for our companies.

So here I want us to pay attention to the Magnitsky legislation, because no one should think that it's easy to do business in any country where there isn't a rule of law. It isn't easy to do business-- and we should hesitate to simply blindly do business--with a country which really imposes restrictions on the rights of their citizens. That's what Mr. McGovern has done and what Mr. Cardin and others have done. And there has been bipartisan cooperation on this point, strong bipartisan cooperation, to place in this bill the Magnitsky legislation that sends a clear signal to the Russian Government and to everybody in Russia that we care about the rights of the citizens there, and as we do business, we care about the rights of others. That's the strength of this legislation, in addition to opening their markets for goods made in America

So I really urge that everybody look at this legislation on its own merits. Whatever the feelings are about other trade agreements, we need to take each of them on their own, the pluses and the minuses. In this case, I think--especially now that Russia is in the WTO--it works so much to our advantage in terms of the economy here, in terms of jobs here, in terms of our businesses and our workers. And also, I think we can vote for this legislation, if I might say so, with good conscience.

Mr. McGovern, you have led. It's a tribute to your devotion to the human rights of people as we advance trade not only in this legislation, but in other legislation. I think it's also a recognition of our ability to work together.

So I urge passage, and tomorrow we speak together to urge passage of the legislation.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

This bill has one purpose: to provide a fig leaf of credibility for a political attack ad that has no credibility whatsoever. Every independent fact checker has said the attack ad on the President is false. Governor Romney's claim that President Obama is eliminating work requirements for welfare recipients has been called ``a pants on fire'' lie and given four Pinocchios for dishonesty.

The Republican staffer, Ron Haskins, who helped draft the 1996 welfare law says the charge is baseless. I quote:

The idea that the administration is going to overturn

welfare reform is ridiculous.

Here are the facts. Any demonstration project allowed under the guidance announced by HHS would have to be designed to increase the employment of TANF recipients, would be subject to rigorous evaluation, and would be terminated if it failed to meet employment goals.

The whole administration effort is about promoting ``more work, not less,'' as eloquently stated by President Clinton, who led efforts on welfare reform.

The administration heard from State officials that if they're allowed to focus more on outcomes and less on paperwork, they can put more people to work. So HHS said to the States, including Republican Governors who asked for this: Prove it.

We may hear the majority state that HHS does not have the authority to provide waivers, but that's not the conclusion reached by the nonpartisan CRS. In fact, CRS said the current HHS waiver initiative is ``consistent with prior practice.''

And now we've heard Republicans say that TANF waivers have never been provided before now, even when requested. But here's what the GAO said about past requests:

States were not asking for waivers to test new approaches

through experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects, which

would be necessary in order to get a waiver under section

1115.

In other words, in the past, States weren't asking for the waivers that HHS is allowed to provide under the law and is now offering.

At the end of the day this debate isn't about process or even policy. It's about politics, pure politics, indeed, impure politics.

This is the same Republican Party that passed their own much broader versions of welfare waivers in 2002, 2003, and 2005.

Let me read to you what the Congressional Research Service said about those bills:

The legislation would have had the effect of allowing TANF

work participation standards to be waived.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Guess who voted three times for the waiver of the work participation requirement in TANF? Not only the chairman of Ways and Means, but the chairman of the Budget Committee and Governor Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan.

We should be debating today issues that matter in terms of action today, a credible jobs plan.

Instead, House Republicans, who are doing nothing on these issues, are doing something totally political, a disservice to this great institution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, Charles Rangel.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

I hope everybody heard that last statement. It shows someone coming down and essentially endorsing, in a broad way, the 47 percent statement, the horribly misguided statement of the Governor of Massachusetts--former Governor.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Those statements, indeed, are an insult, an insult. That isn't what the administration has in mind. I read a letter from the Governor of Utah to the Secretary of HHS. In discussion with HHS officials, Utah suggested that:

We be evaluated on the basis of the State's success in

placing our customers in employment, while also using a full

participation model. This approach would require some

flexibility at the State level and the granting of a waiver.

That's what this is about. Don't massage the truth.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

It's now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, could you tell us the time that's left for us?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

You know, I think the public should ask why this resolution, why trying to provide some kind of a smokescreen for an ad that has been called a ``pants on fire lie'' and ``four Pinocchio's dishonest,'' why do that? I think the reason is very clear. This is manipulating the truth to try, I think, to appeal to the worst instincts.

I worked with Ron Haskins on welfare reform, and he says this, I quote: ``There is no plausible scenario on which it''--he means this ad--``really constitutes a serious attack on welfare reform.''

He goes on to say, ``the idea''--I repeat this--``that the administration is going to try to overturn welfare reform is ridiculous.''

And then he says, ``Republicans are the ones who talk about giving the States more flexibility. Now, all of a sudden, the States shouldn't get the flexibility because they are going to mess it up? It doesn't make sense.''

But it's worse than nonsense. It's pernicious. The ad is pernicious, and it's beneath the dignity of this House for Republicans in the House who are doing nothing on major issues to do something to try to protect the former Governor of Massachusetts, their candidate for President.

This House deserves much better than becoming a political plaything, a political plaything. It won't happen. Despite this vote, it won't happen.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Well, there's nothing wrong with this bill except the label. If there were a fine, I would say, for House legislative mislabeling, House Republicans would have a very large fine to pay. This bill has nothing--zero--to do with the Buffett rule. It has everything to do with the absolute refusal of Americans to face the basic issue. The present tax laws give an inordinate tax break to the very wealthy. The Buffett rule is provided and proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.

In addition to reducing the deficit by $46 billion, it would address a significant inequity in the Code that allows a quarter of taxpayers earning more than a million a year to pay a lower tax rate than millions of middle class families. One of those taxpayers is the Republican Presidential nominee, Governor Mitt Romney, who paid an effective tax rate lower than 15 percent in 2010 and refuses to let the American public see his tax returns for any earlier years.

Indeed, the so-called tax reform legislation from Republicans would do just the opposite: provide massive tax cuts for the very wealthy, doubling down on the Bush tax cuts that have added billions to the deficit and contributed to growing income inequality.

What's more, their idea of tax reform is to heap new taxes on the backs of middle- and lower-income families to pay for all of this. A recent report found that the so-called tax reform outlined in the Ryan budget would give those making over a million dollars a year an additional average tax cut of $331,000, while those making less than $200,000 would see a tax increase of $4,500.

Taxpayers can do exactly what is provided in this bill if they want to donate some of their taxes on the income they have to deficit reduction.

Republicans, who will recess in 2 days for 2 months with an incredible amount of unfinished business, not the least of which is the extension of the middle class tax cuts and the looming fiscal cliff, we need hard work, not chicanery.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield myself the remaining time.

You know, as I've heard this debate, I've been thinking. This is really mislabeled. Why don't we call it the Mitt Romney Rule Act of 2012? He paid the return he indicated less than 15 percent. He earned many, many, many millions. He knew what the code now says. He could have sent some of the money that was not taxed to the government. He could even use a credit card. But he hasn't done that.

This is mislabeled. This has nothing to do with Mr. Buffett.

There's been some reference here to small business. The very nonpartisan entities indicate that 97 percent of people who are in small business and beyond have income actually around $250,000 or less.

All this bill does is to indicate what's already in the code. So, there's nothing wrong with the bill. What is wrong is this frightful mislabeling to try to cover up a refusal of the Republican Party in this institution to face up to what is really necessary to be done.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does address an issue that needs consideration. Lieutenant Carpenter died serving his Nation. He possessed outstanding student loans. The lender waived repayment by his parents, who were obligated on the loans. Present policy would require his parents to pay taxes on the value of that repayment. The Congress must act to ensure that families of brave men and women do not face undue hardship in the face of tragedy.

Unfortunately, this bill has not been the subject of a single hearing or markup in the committee of jurisdiction, Ways and Means. As a result, this bill has no legislative history to which agencies or taxpayers can turn to answer any questions that should arise.

While technical changes were made in this bill from the bill's introduction to its consideration on the House floor today, the text still leaves many questions unanswered, including deficiencies with respect to definition of terms in the bill and as to scope.

The tax treatment of debt forgiveness is a broad and important issue. And while this bill will cover the tax treatment of one class of debt for one class of taxpayers, I think many in this body might believe that other classes of taxpayers should be able to receive such tax treatment. So, therefore, in the absence of regular order on this bill but recognizing the need to address the impact of our tax laws on those who have served our Nation and their families, I believe we should pass this legislation over to the Senate, with the expectation that it will address outstanding technical and coverage issues.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time and ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time on this bill now be handled by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of our committee.