Floor Statements

Thank you to my friend from Ohio for yielding.

Bills that come up on suspension are often thought to be of less importance. That surely is not true here today. Tax equity has been a major principle in our efforts this year. And this legislation is an important aspect of that, a response to the subprime mortgage crisis.

The data just released by Fannie Mae show that our State of Michigan leads the Nation in losses on bad mortgages. Other rankings have Michigan at second in the Nation in delinquencies and third in foreclosure inventory. Ohio is next in some respects, but many States, really, all States show immense numbers of people who are suffering.

And nothing would seem more unfair than when someone loses their home to a foreclosure, if the bank sells their house for less than they owe, the IRS says ``pay taxes,'' and this remedies it. Also, as mentioned, this bill provides a 3-year extension of the deduction for mortgage insurance premiums, another vital part of this legislation.

By leveling the playing field among mortgage products, we will make homeownership more affordable, especially at a time when so-called ``piggy back'' loans are becoming more expensive, and in some cases difficult, to obtain at any price.

And I close with this remark, ``we pay for it.'' We pay for it. That's also been an important principle, tax equity, but not deepening the hole of fiscal irresponsibility. And this bill lives up to both, equity and fiscal responsibility, and we're proud to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening, as I hope everybody has, and I think the comments from the minority are the height of fiscal irresponsibility and fiscal irrationality. Both.

You simply say because it was unintended. But no, in 2002 and 2001 when you passed the tax bill, you knew that the AMT was going to take away some of the effect. You knew that. You've known all along that this was coming down the track. And essentially what you said was borrow, borrow, borrow.

And now you are carrying that to a ridiculous extreme by saying don't act

and pay for it by closing a loophole that gives people in our country who try to escape taxation by going overseas, don't act. That's irrational as well as irresponsible.

So what we are saying to the Senate is we are giving you another chance. It has been blocked in the Senate by the Republican minority and by the President of the United States. We have to act on the AMT. You have to act at long last responsibly, and so do Senate Republicans and so does the President of the United States of America.

Vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4341) to extend the trade adjustment assistance program under the Trade Act of 1974 for 3 months.

TAA will run out very soon, and it's essential that that not happen. This is a vital program for workers in this country, for the firms for which they work, for farmers, and for their entire communities.

We've been trying to not only extend TAA, but we've been trying to reform it and to improve it. We have passed legislation in this House, legislation that, indeed, reformed and enhanced and expanded TAA, and it passed this House with some considerable bipartisan support. It addressed issues like this:

Expands TAA to service workers;

Improves funding, because a number of States have essentially run out of funds;

Streamlines the process for application for TAA because an unfriendly regimen of rules has too often made it difficult for people to access it;

Modernizes the unemployment system, which badly needs it;

Provides assistance to manufacturing communities hard hit by trade.

Unfortunately, though this bill passed comfortably in this House and was an important landmark supported by our Speaker, by the majority leader, by Chairman Rangel, by others, many of us on the Ways and Means Committee and, as I said, with some considerable bipartisan support, but unfortunately, the bill has essentially not moved in the other body. And it has been blocked, I think, by a position in the other body that it should be linked to something else.

Also, the administration essentially has opposed this legislation. And it was really rather startling that that occurred. After all, earlier this fall the President said this about TAA: ``I understand that if you're forced to change a job halfway through a career it can be painful for your family. I know that. And that is why I'm a big believer in trade adjustment assistance that helps Americans make the transition from one job to the next.''

Unfortunately, it was only a few weeks after that that we received, on the eve of the markup of the bill in the Ways and Means Committee, a letter from the Secretary of Labor opposing the bill that was before the committee. And in the letter the Secretary said, ``negative impacts with trade that are borne by the few,'' that this does not warrant the changes we make in the legislation. Unfortunate language, indeed, because there has been an impact of trade very substantially across the board, not only in the manufacturing industries, but in the service industries and beyond, and that that impact has been borne by many, many more than a few.

So, what has happened is that we passed this legislation with some bipartisan support, legislation that, as I say, expanded and reformed TAA and also addressed overdue issues of unemployment counts. We're just stuck because of the opposition of the administration, and also because of inaction in the Senate.

So, here's what this legislation does:

It extends TAA for 3 months. Why 3 months? Three months because it's the intention the majority, after we return after the holidays, if we adjourn for the holidays, and I assume we will, to get moving quickly to take up this vital reform of TAA within the first few months, to make it a high priority in this House, and we hope in the entire Congress, and we hope in the White House.

So I come today on behalf of many of us viewing the importance of this legislation and asking that this House vote for a 3-month extension until March 31, 2008.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to have any lengthy debate about trade nor, I think, about TAA. But before I yield back my time, since this is going to be a 3-month extension, and that means there needs to be quick action and we intend to undertake it as soon as we come back, I do want to emphasize a few points. Number one, the bill that passed here addressed the issue of service workers. Essentially, what Mr. Herger has referred to in his bill left the status quo and left out virtually all service workers, and that is simply inadequate and inappropriate.

It also did not touch the issue of funding. It did not streamline the processes so many people today in the manufacturing field for example when they lose their job because of trade simply can't work their way through all of the red tape. Also it doesn't address the issues within the unemployment compensation system and also doesn't refer to the needs of communities especially hard hit in manufacturing areas.

So we should pass this bill with notice that we here on the majority side intend to move quickly next year. I hope there can be a lot of bipartisan discussion. We need to do it quickly.

Let me say one last thing about the gentleman from California's statement about trade bills. We need to reform trade policy. We also need to pass trade adjustment assistance, and the attempt to link the two in terms of legislation simply will not work, and I don't think should or will happen.

TAA can stand on its own feet. TAA is necessary for those thrown out of work through no fault of their own because of the impact of trade. And to try to use TAA as an instrumentality to push particular trade bills simply shortchanges people in this country who lose their jobs, communities that lose their base, firms that are left out because of trade. Trade is not the only cause of dislocation in this country, but it is a substantial cause that needs to be addressed by reforming trade policy, number one, and we took major steps to begin to do that this year on the majority side, and also to pass TAA.

So I hope Mr. Herger and the Republicans will join with us the first 3 months of next year, and let's get busy and pass TAA. I hope also that the administration will drop its resistance and also stop trying to use TAA as a bargaining tool. That is not fair to people who are hurting economically through no fault of their own.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4341.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and urge the House to adopt the Energy Independence and Security Act.

The basic issue before us is whether we are going to take action to address energy security in this country, or are we going to sit on the sidelines and let American consumers and businesses fend for themselves. All of us know that we can't continue business as usual. The price of oil stands near $90 a barrel. In my home State of Michigan, gas costs over $3 a gallon. Families are struggling with persistently high home heating costs. At the same time, the effects of climate change are becoming more and more pronounced, yet the United States remains the only industrialized nation in the world that has no plan to address global warming.

The package before the House strengthens our energy security, lowers energy costs, grows our economy, creates jobs, and begins to address global warming. It also bolsters our national security. Today we import more than 60 percent of the oil we use. It is simply not in our long- term security interests to continue to rely on oil imports from the Middle East and other volatile regions of the world. We can't drill our way out way out of this situation, so we need to try another approach.

Many of the provisions of this legislation are common sense and will achieve significant energy savings with little or no cost. For example, the bill sets new energy efficiency standards for appliances, lighting, and buildings. Doing so will save consumers and businesses hundreds of billions of dollars over time. This legislation also includes incentives for manufacturers to produce washing machines, refrigerators and dishwashers that push the boundaries of energy and water efficiency, and to build them in the United States. Reducing the energy or water usage of a washing machine may seem like a small thing, but over time and across millions of households, these incentives will produce remarkable reductions in energy and water usage, and consumers will save money on their utility bills.

Other sections of this bill will challenge key sectors of our economy. In particular, the legislation calls for a 40 percent increase in vehicle fuel economy by 2020. The compromise that has been reached is ambitious, but it has the support of auto manufacturers, the United Auto Workers, consumers groups, and the environmental community. We also reform the existing CAFE mechanism, which for years has discriminated against manufactures, including Ford, GM and Chrysler, that produce a full line of vehicle sizes. The agreement contains anti- backsliding language to help keep small car production here in the United States and protect the jobs of American workers. I am pleased that this bill also begins the work of helping industry reach the higher mileage standards through retooling assistance and incentives such as a new plug-in hybrid tax credit.

I also strongly support the renewable electricity portfolio provisions of this bill that require utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Obviously, this provision will pay environmental dividends. Moving towards renewable energy will help keep mercury out of the Great Lakes and greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere, but it also will help create new industries and jobs here in the United States. There is no reason in the world why the U.S.

should not lead the world in the production of wind turbines and solar panels. This bill will help ensure that these jobs are created here in the United States.

Our work in this House is about priorities, and the difference in priorities on this bill could not be more clear. I urge all of my colleagues to support this responsible legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise to mark the 75th anniversary of one of the worst crimes committed against our common humanity, and to remember the victims of the manmade famine that killed millions of Ukrainians in 1932-33.

During the Famine-Genocide of 1932-33, 7 to 10 million Ukrainians were deliberately and systematically starved to death. We are familiar with the terrible suffering caused by famines that are the result of natural forces. But this period is all the more tragic because it resulted from criminal acts and deliberate, criminal decisions by political officials. Yet it is also one of the least known of human tragedies. Despite efforts by the Soviet government at the time and afterward to hide the planned and systematic nature of this famine- genocide, the Ukrainian Diaspora has struggled to preserve its memory.

I am proud that Congress has supported these efforts. Last year, Congress approved legislation to authorize the Government of Ukraine to donate a memorial in the District of Columbia honoring the victims of the Famine-Genocide. Today, the Ukrainian Government, the Ukrainian- American Community, and the Department of Interior are working to identify a site for this memorial where all Americans can come to remember the victims of these acts and to contemplate their meaning and consequences.

This memorial is very important to the 1.5 million Ukrainian- Americans throughout the United States, and indeed to all humanity. It will not only honor their memory but serve as a tangible reminder to all of us that we must work together to prevent such tragedies in the future.

It is critical to ensure that this tragedy is never forgotten. This is an important lesson because the Soviet Union proved during this period that food can be a weapon. By introducing unrealistically high quotas on grain and other agricultural products, which were strictly enforced by Red Army troops, the Soviet government deliberately starved 7 to 10 million Ukrainians. The harvest of 1932 was only 12 percent below 1926-1930 average, but millions of Ukrainians died a slow, agonizing death of hunger.

This effort was systematic and premeditated. Having sealed the borders of Ukraine to prevent any outward migration or outside relief efforts, the Soviet Union proceeded to confiscate grain and summarily execute anyone found taking even a handful of grain that was considered ``social property.'' The result was devastating, and exactly what the Soviet government intended. Materials now being found in KGB archives have shown the pre-meditated, political nature of the famine.

The United States and its people must stand with those living under oppressive and tyrannical regimes as they struggle for their freedom. Part of this struggle is to remember the brutal acts of these regimes and their victims. Preventing the recurrence of crimes against humanity such as the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide begins with remembering the tragedies of the past.

I urge all of my colleagues to join the Ukrainian-American Community today in remembering the victims of this tragedy and renewing our commitment to ensure that it is never repeated.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent during rollcall votes 1093 through 1105. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 1093, ``yea'' on rollcall 1094, ``nay'' on rollcall 1095, ``yea'' on rollcall 1096, ``yea'' on rollcall 1097, ``yea'' on rollcall 1098, ``yea'' on rollcall 1099, ``nay'' on rollcall 1100, ``nay'' on rollcall 1101, ``yea'' on rollcall 1102, ``yea'' on rollcall 1103, ``yea'' on rollcall 1104, and ``yea'' on rollcall 1105.

Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today is straightforward. Do we think the President's Iraq policy is working so well that we should give him another $200 billion to continue it, or do we need a fundamental change in direction?

I truly believe we need to change an Iraq policy that is simply not working. From the beginning, the Bush administration has been wrong about the war in Iraq. If you set aside the administration's rhetoric, the reality is that the surge has not worked. The goal of the surge was to give the Iraqi Government breathing space to make the political decisions necessary to reduce the violence that is tearing Iraq apart. But 11 months into the troop surge, progress on political reconciliation continues to be all but nonexistent. Meanwhile, 2007 has already been the deadliest year for American troops since the start of the war in Iraq.

There is a clear choice before us. If you are satisfied with how the Bush administration has been conducting the war for the last 4\1/2\ years, you should oppose this bill. If, on the other hand, you believe the administration's strategy isn't working and want to require the President to change course, you should vote for this legislation.

Whatever small chance there is of the Iraqi factions coming together, it will not happen as long as the U.S. military commitment in Iraq remains open-ended. We need to change course.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, I was unavoidably absent during rollcall votes 1061 through 1076. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 1061, ``yea'' on rollcall 1062, ``yea'' on rollcall 1063, ``yea'' on rollcall 1064, ``yea'' on rollcall 1065, ``yea'' on rollcall 1066, ``yea'' on rollcall 1067, ``yea'' on rollcall 1068, ``nay'' on rollcall 1069, ``nay'' on rollcall 1070, ``nay'' on rollcall 1071, ``nay'' on rollcall 1072, ``nay'' on rollcall 1073, ``yea'' on rollcall 1074, ``yea'' on rollcall 1075, and ``nay'' on rollcall 1076.

I was also unavoidably absent on October 30 for rollcalls 1018, 1019 and 1020. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all three rollcalls.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation reflects the priorities of the new majority in Congress: middle-class tax relief, fiscal discipline, and tax equity.

Income inequality is dramatically increasing in our country. Between 2004 and 2005, the average annual income of the top 1 percent increased by $120,000, while the average income for all the other 90 percent of households increased by just $550.

In the face of this, we need to be able to look our constituents in the eye and tell them we are working to make the Tax Code fair and equitable.

The principle in taxing private investment fund managers or ``carried interest'' is basic.

If you are investing your own money, you should receive the capital gains tax rate; if you are providing the service of managing other people's money, you should pay the ordinary income tax rate.

Some argue that fund managers deserve capital gains treatment to align their interests with investors or because ``carried interest'' is risky. Many other forms of compensation are risky, and they are taxed at the ordinary income tax rate. When a company gives its CEO stock options, he or she pays ordinary income tax rates when they exercise those options. Real estate agents only make money if they actually sell a house. Authors receive a portion of their book's profits. Waiters get tips based on the quality of the service they provide. All of these people pay ordinary income tax rates on their compensation.

Estimates are that there is currently around $130 billion in carried interest at stake. Investment managers currently take home $110 billion and when we close the tax advantage, they will take home $85 billion--a pretty significant reward for their services.

A fund manager's paying a more appropriate tax rate will not curtail economic activity, innovation, or real estate development. Since investors are not affected, there is no reason to believe that the amount of capital available for investments in real estate development or start-up companies would be reduced.

This bill has the right priorities: It brings tax relief to tens of millions of middle-class families, it's paid for, and it makes our Tax Code more equitable. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Madam Speaker, as I understand it, Mr. McCrery is going to use their time. Mr. Michaud is going to use his 5 minutes. Mr. Rangel on our side is going to do the closing. I now have 4 minutes remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am from Michigan. I have seen firsthand the dislocation from globalization. That's why we have been fighting for a new trade policy, a trade policy that shapes globalization. It shapes trade to expand the benefits and to address the down sides.

Enforceable worker rights and environmental standards have been at the core of this struggle. Worker rights in the trade equation fundamentally alters the power dynamics in developing countries, just as it has in our own. This is important for those workers, for Peru, who needs a middle class, for our workers who should not compete with workers who are suppressed, and our businesses and their workers who need more middle classes to sell to.

Let me close by saying a word about enforcement. The core labor standards and the environmental obligations are on a par with every other provision in this bill, every other. Any person can file a petition if there is a failure to enforce. We have the power of oversight, including subpoena power, if this administration fails to enforce.

We have worked with Peru to bring their legal structure into compliance with ILO standards. There has been reference to a recent mining strike, and we worked with the Peru Government to change their rules regarding what it takes to have a strike. Also, they are working now to determine who is, within ILO rules, the proper authority to declare a strike legal or not.

This Peru FTA is a victory. It's a breakthrough. It's a first step in a new trade policy. Our job is to lead, to build on that history, not to retreat from it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would yield 2 minutes to our very, very distinguished leader, Mr. Clyburn.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Rangel control the rest of our time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Employment Non- Discrimination Act.

This day is long overdue. Freedom from discrimination in the workplace. A simple concept

really. One should be judged by the quality of their work, not by the color of their skin, not by their age, not by their disability, and of course, not by their sexual orientation.

Thirty States continue to permit employers to discriminate against employees based solely on their sexual orientation. It is vital that we adopt federal protections to end this unjust discrimination that affects millions of Americans. The bill before the House today would extend the basic protections of the Civil Rights Act by prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

For all of my life, this country has been grappling with the issue of how to extend fundamental rights to every individual in our society. We all know the profound impact of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, deny promotions or otherwise discriminate against employees based on race. While the Civil Rights Act was controversial in the years leading up to its enactment, one of our country's proudest moments was the day President Johnson signed it into law.

I very much regret that the Bush Administration is threatening to veto this legislation. Back in 1990, the first President Bush signed the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act, which barred workplace discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. It is unfortunate that the current Bush Administration has chosen not to build on this progress.

But today is about progress. Today we stand up for gay Americans and say it is long overdue that you have the protections needed in our Nation's employment laws. Tomorrow we continue to educate and outreach around the need to also prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

As the Speaker and the majority leader made clear months ago, and Mr. Rangel and myself, what we are talking about today is about Peru, not Colombia, not Panama, not Korea. We are talking about a basic issue, and that is in terms of liberalization, do you try to shape its course or let it happen willy-nilly?

The crucible in terms of that issue has been core labor standards and environmental standards. That was the basis of the fight over NAFTA, over CAFTA and over the trade bill of 2001. The basic fact is that in this agreement, not in the preamble, in this agreement, ILO core labor standards are there, enforceable like everything else, and so are environmental standards. So it's a question of whether you shape trade agreements or just let it happen. And we say shape them.

Again, the crucible has been initially labor standards and environmental standards. So this is the antithesis of CAFTA. This is a historic breakthrough. This is the first step towards a new trade agreement. We should not turn our back on it. We should build on it.

I now yield 2 minutes to our caucus Chair, and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the very distinguished Member from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Tanner.

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

How much time is there?

I yield to the gentlelady from New York for a unanimous consent.

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I just want to say to our distinguished colleague from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who raised the Social Security issue, it's simply not accurate. If you look at the language within the FTA, there is no basis for these claims regarding the inability of Peru to unprivatize its Social Security system.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio.

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and I would ask unanimous consent that our very distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee control the rest of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act. Reform of this 135-year-old law is long overdue, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this needed legislation.

In 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed the General Mining Law. The intention of the law was to promote the settlement of the American West. Under the 1872 law, mining companies do not pay any royalties for the publicly-owned ``hardrock'' minerals mined on federal lands. Over the years, mining companies have been able to extract hundreds of billions of dollars in gold, silver, platinum, copper, and uranium without paying royalties.

It is time to overhaul this archaic law. Let me be clear that this bill does not affect privately-owned land, but rather federal lands that belong to all Americans. The American people deserve a fair return for the minerals extracted from the lands they own. By comparison, the coal, oil, and gas companies already pay royalties for their operations on federal lands. Why should hardrock mining be any different? Virtually every other nation that allows mining on public lands imposes some form of royalty.

Opponents of this bill claim that charging an 8 percent royalty on new hardrock mines and setting some basic environmental standards will devastate the domestic mining industry and send mining jobs overseas. I read in the paper this morning that the price of gold hit just hit a 27-year high of $800 an ounce. Platinum is now selling for $1,447 an ounce. The worldwide demand for copper is so high that thieves have taken to stealing phone lines in some areas so they can sell the copper at recycling yards. Yet, in the face of these facts, opponents of the bill implausibly argue that the mining industry in this country will collapse if we don't continue to give away publicly-owned minerals for free.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting to bring this 19th century mining law into the 21st century.

First, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3920.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

I would like today to talk about the facts, and next week we will talk about the facts on trade legislation. I think the approval of the U.S.-Peru FTA that came out unanimously from Ways and Means is the antithesis of CAFTA. Let me talk about the facts on TAA, which relates to those who are dislocated.

We received a letter dated October 23, 2007, from the Secretary of Labor, and she said it is important, and I quote, ``that the negative impacts that are borne by a few are offset in the form of assistance to persons and firms that may be adversely affected.''

I just want to say the facts are very different. It isn't a few. Trade isn't the only source of dislocation, but it is one of those and a substantial source. It's not a few. It's hundreds of thousands of people. We have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs in this country in recent years.

The President, or at least the administration, has sent a letter indicating their strong opposition, and I want to go over the facts quickly. It says, and I quote, that this legislation converts TAA from a trade-related program to a universal income support and training program. That is simply not true, and I will come back to that when I talk about services.

Number two, it says the increased duration of income support under this bill would result in some workers remaining out of the workforce and on assistance for 3 full years. That's really not accurate because the first 26 weeks are usually taken up by unemployment compensation when people are not using TAA directly. And then there are 2 years. In order to receive income support, they have to be in a training program. Now, there is a provision for an additional 6 months, but it applies to a relatively few people. So these facts don't support the strong opposition of the administration.

I am still hoping for bipartisan support. We did accept, voted for three amendments from the minority side in the Ways and Means Committee. We had three votes from the minority side, and I hope for very, very many more here on the House floor.

Next, the administration statement talks about industry-wide eligibility determinations and says that it would include workers not demonstrably affected by trade. It's the Department of Labor that has the ability to determine this, and so that sweeping statement is simply not true. As to the service sector, the administration letter says the bill does not clearly articulate any separation of such workers from their employment, must be attributable to trade. I just ask they read the language in the bill because it talks about articles or services like or directly competitive with articles that are produced

or services that are provided by such firm that relate to overseas competition.

Lastly, I want to say a word about health care. Look, we increased it from 65 to 85 percent because 65 percent doesn't work. Only 10 percent of those eligible for TAA now receive health care. We have an obligation in this institution for people who are laid off, who are dislocated, to receive health care for themselves and their family, and 65 to 70 percent isn't going to work. We know it. We know it.

It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a colleague of mine and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McDermott from Washington.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to our very, very distinguished colleague from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, now I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of this Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Neal from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Becerra from California.

I would now like to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon.

How much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another very active member of our committee, the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Pascrell from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of that to the original sponsor of this legislation going back a number of years, Mr. Smith of Washington.

(Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the time in opposition be controlled by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

The choice is clear. We have heard your rebuttal. Your bill does really nothing about the problem for people in manufacturing. If there is an outsourcing to China, the workers are out in the cold. That is cold, not like you. But it is cold.

Service employees, why distinguish? It is an increasing part of our economy. You do nothing.

In health care you put a little patch on a big problem, and that is not good health care.

Essentially what you are trying to do with your substitute is to minimize the problem rather than maximizing an effective response. The 3 percent figure as to the impact of trade is really out of thin air. It is surely not true of manufacturing. Not at all true. Some who served in Republican administrations say it has been much more than that.

In the capping of training, we heard the response from the representative of the administration. That $3,000 figure at best is an average, and even that is indefensible. Mr. McDermott read to you the number of States where training is much higher, so you essentially cut the worker off halfway. That's what you are going to do in terms of training.

Seven States ran out of resources in 2007, nine in 2006; you do nothing. We need a new trade policy. We need a new, vigorous TAA. We need more than a pat on the back.

Our bill does what needs to be done. I am afraid the substitute at best is a

pat on the back. Let's vote it down. Let's have a bipartisan vote for this TAA. Bipartisan, as we did in the Ways and Means Committee. Bipartisan.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore