Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are bringing this bill, rather than a final conference report, for one reason and one reason only--to prevent the inclusion of long-overdue provisions to extend important business tax credits that reward things like research and development and efforts to hire low-wage workers. Those credits expired 7 months ago and are now hostage to the Republican quest to pass tax cuts for a tiny number of incredibly wealthy families. That is an outrage.

However much I deplore the process by which this bill was rushed to the floor, and however flawed it may be, it does include some critically important and very time-sensitive provisions, and its worst elements have been significantly improved since the original Bush administration proposal. For that reason, I have decided to vote in favor of this bill.

The bill includes provisions which must be enacted quickly if we hope to save pension benefits for large numbers of workers in the airline industry and in the building trades and other industries with multi- employer pension plans.

Without a provision in this bill which would give airlines more time to fully fund their pension plans, Northwest Airlines has said it will have to terminate its pension plan and turn it over to the Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. That's a bad outcome for everyone. It's a bad outcome for Northwest employees, because many of them will not receive their full earned pensions if that happens. It's a bad outcome for taxpayers, because we will assume Northwest's debt, even though the company is eager to pay it, given time.

The bill also includes long-overdue reforms to multi-employer pension plan law. These long-overdue reforms will allow multi-employer pension plans to address what for some plans is a short-term funding crisis, and will give all plans flexibility they didn't have before to advance fund and guard against a future crisis. Republican leaders unfairly dropped multi-employer pension plan reform from the pension reform bill that addressed similar problems for single-employer plans several years ago.

This final bill also represents a substantial improvement over the original proposal put forth by the Bush administration, and the bills that passed the House and Senate. Under the improved bill:

Companies will be spared the extreme funding unpredictability proposed by the Bush administration, which advocated forcing companies to respond to every short-term fluctuation in interest rates and workforce composition, without any ``smoothing'' of interest rates at all.

A provision which would have unfairly classified pension plans as ``at risk'' and subject to penalty if the company had a poor credit rating, even if the plan itself was well-funded, has been removed. That provision might have forced companies like General Motors to divert resources from addressing business challenges and into an already well- funded pension plan.

Plans will be allowed to amortize both gains and losses in their pension plans over time, and will be able to use accurate assumptions about early retirement to predict future liabilities so that the plans are properly funded.

The flawed Bush administration proposal to deny all workers plant shutdown benefits was mitigated, though not removed, and the conferees adopted provisions from the Senate bill which we hope will prevent employers from using pension plan underfunding as a tactic to cut retirement benefits negotiated in collective bargaining.

Despite my decision to support the bill and address immediate needs, I must admit I continue to have deep reservations about this bill's long-term impact on our defined benefit pension system, which provides guaranteed retirement income for millions of Americans. Knowing how committed President Bush and his allies in the House are to Social Security privatization increases my concerns, especially given the way this bill came to the House floor.

The final bill includes fundamental changes to the way companies determine their contributions to pension plans. The new ``yield curve'' methodology proposed by the Bush administration is completely untested, and is likely to make required pension obligations much more unpredictable. Many companies have suggested that this new unpredictability may be the final straw that leads them to terminate their guaranteed pension plans.

The final bill includes a requirement that companies subtract credit balances they earned by making advance pension contributions before calculating their plan funding level, a change which will provide a strong disincentive to advance fund, since advance contributions will be treated as if they don't exist in the future. Advance funding is critical if companies are to balance the need to fully fund retirement benefits with the need to direct resources to current operations in difficult times.

The final bill included provisions which may make workers pay the price when companies don't fund their pensions, including provisions

which restrict benefits for workers when plants shut down and a dangerous provision which would allow deeply underfunded multiemployer pension plans to cut benefits that workers have already earned. The bill also misses a real opportunity to enact better protections for workers whose companies declare bankruptcy and terminate their pension plans.

I regret that this bill was not crafted in a Congress that genuinely believed in guaranteed retirement benefits and preserving them for the future. There is much bad with the good, and much of the effort that went into this bill was directed toward mitigating problems with the original bill, rather than addressing real problems with retirement security. I hope that in the next Congress, we will be in a position to pass legislation that will strengthen retirement security for all workers.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier and I wasn't going to speak again so others could, but listening to the Republicans here, I felt compelled to come over.

In all my years here, this is the height of hypocrisy. You have sat here year after year failing to raise the minimum wage, refusing to come here and sign a discharge petition, doing nothing. And now, because you are worried you are going to lose an election, you are here. And you tie it to a proposal that will give the very, very wealthy many more times than would be benefiting the workers with a rise in the minimum wage.

If you really cared, you would have acted long ago. This isn't on your part even an election-year conversion. It is an election-year trick. It won't work.

Mr. Speaker, Oman is a small nation, but there are some large issues here. It is an important place, and I would like to support an FTA with Oman, as I and many others did with Bahrain.

There is an important issue that relates to the path of globalization. Globalization has become increasingly controversial. Expanded trade, that I favor, has been hitting road bump after road bump. One major reason is because too many people within countries are not sharing in the benefits. Too many people are being left out. And that is why we have to care.

Among those who are being left out are workers. And how do we make sure that workers participate, are part of the process? By making sure in free trade agreements that they have their basic international rights. These are the basic ILO core labor standards, not American standards, especially the right to associate and to bargain.

In Oman, workers do not have those rights. There are no worker organizations today in Oman. There are only labor management committees, representative committees. In a document that the Department of Labor gave to us a few weeks ago, it stated that management holds 70 to 75 percent of the leadership positions in those committees. There is an umbrella committee of these RCs, and management holds all of the positions on the executive committee.

So, look, we need to have a free trade agreement that meets the basic ILO standards in practice and in law. In Bahrain, they were there in practice and they made commitments to do so in law. In Oman, Mr. Moran and others, there is no semblance, semblance, of workers having their rights. There are no worker organizations.

Oman said to us they could not do anything until November because the Sultan had to consult. Then in the last few weeks, actually the last few days, we have a kind of statement of decrees of the Sultan. I guess he did not have to consult with the legislature. But so many of those have to be implemented by ministerial decree.

Mr. Moran said the Sultan is willing to agree to anything. Let us see laws in place, with meaning as to what they imply.

I want to close with this. The Trade Representative has said this, our new Trade Representative, Ambassador Schwab: ``Erosion of America's traditional bipartisan support is the most pressing problem we face in trade today.''

How true. And it affects the WTO negotiations. Proceeding like this today is another nail in what is a near coffin of bipartisan trade foundations in this country. It is unnecessary.

We could take the time to see what these decrees mean, whether they are beginning to meet basic ILO standards, so that more and more people will participate in the benefits of globalization. If that doesn't happen, globalization will continue to be in deep trouble. It will lose ground when it should not.

That is one of the major reasons to oppose this agreement at this time, to oppose it. You are turning your back on any chance of bipartisanship.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

So does that mean that those provisions are not in Omani law today?

But they are not in law, right, until there is action?

First of all, there are no worker organizations today. But let me ask you this: Is there any other provision in this agreement that is based on a promise, just a promise, rather than having it in the agreement in the law between the two countries? Is there any other, like the tariff reductions, or anything else?

It is not that they promised to do something, it says ``they will be.'' And we could, instead of saying enforce your own laws, say that within a reasonable period of time that these laws shall be in place and enforceable under the agreement.

But there is no enforceability, is there? If they do not do this, if the legislature does not act, there is no ability to enforce it except to consultation, and that is it? Is there any other place in the agreement that says enforce your own laws instead of saying what they will be with enforcement?

Mr. Speaker, this institution is often called the people's House and today I ask my colleagues to stand in the shoes of the millions of people dealing with incurable or debilitating diseases. Diseases such as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, or cancer. Diseases that impact them every day . . . their plans for the future.

Let us stand with them today and vote to override the President's veto of the medical research that holds the potential to find a treatment to improve their lives, or, over time, a cure.

The U.S. House has approved this legislation. The Senate has approved this legislation. The reason the American people--72 percent of them in public surveys--support the Federal Government proceeding with this legislation is because in virtually every family there is a life experience with the need for medical breakthroughs.

We can never guarantee the results of scientific research, but without it we guarantee there can be no results.

The President's stem cell policy is not working. Of the 78 existing stem cell lines permitted for use in federally funded research, only 22 of these lines are currently used for research, and many have raised concerns that these lines are genetically unstable, contaminated, and harder to work with than newer lines. Research is practically at a standstill in this country.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is a well-crafted, bipartisan approach. It is opposed with false arguments that divide Americans when what is involved is an expansion of research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from surplus embryos that were originally created for fertility treatments purposes, are in excess of clinical need and would otherwise be discarded, and have been donated by the individuals seeking fertility treatment through written consent and without any financial involvement.

Let us override the President's veto and take these vitals steps to tap into the promise of research that has the potential to change the face of modern medicine as we know it today. That is a human value that should not be undermined by the people's representatives.

Mr. Speaker, the majority says they want to recognize the past. What you are doing in this resolution is to twist it. So let me say again what the facts were.

The bill was vetoed by Mr. Clinton, by the President, because of inadequate child support and inadequate health care provisions. He so stated. He had started this effort to reform welfare, but the inadequacies in the bills that came before him required a veto.

What was the result of the veto, of the two vetoes? Money was put in for child care and for health care. It is ironic that this resolution brags about the amount of money for child care. Without those vetoes, a lot of those moneys never would have been in welfare reform.

The same is true of transitional Medicaid.

So come here, but don't, for totally partisan electoral purposes twist the history of this. You are twisting it. Maybe you think it will gain you a few votes, but you lose your credibility and you lose any chance of proceeding on a bipartisan basis.

You did the same thing in the bill that was passed just some months ago on welfare reform. You cut child support. This resolution talks about child support collections increasing; but in the bill that was passed recently, you made arrangements for a reduction in child support estimated by CBO to be $8.4 billion over the next 10 years.

You talk in this resolution about giving States ``great flexibility in the use of Federal funds.'' That was one of the advantages of the 1996 legislation and that is one reason why a good number of Democrats voted for it.

In the 2006 legislation, you reduced the flexibility of the States. I want to just refer to some of the programs that the States have used that would probably be disentangled by this 2006 legislation:

The Portland Program, that has some strategies so that people can upgrade their skills and get out of poverty. The Corpus Christi Employment, Retention and Advance Program. The Maine Program, that does rely on some higher education, including a 4-year degree. And also the Utah Program, that was very advanced in terms of addressing substance abuse and mental health. So you essentially have reduced the flexibility of the States.

Let me talk for a moment about poverty and what was the main problem with the 2006 legislation. The data that we have show this, more or less, that 60 to 70 percent of the people who have moved from welfare to work have been earning less than 42 percent of the median average wage in their States.

We were hopeful in the 2006 legislation that we would take a further step in welfare reform, that we would help people not only move from welfare to work, but from welfare to work that would take them out of poverty.

You, on a strictly partisan basis, did not even bother to talk to us. You made no effort. You would not even work with us to try to provide a law that would help people move from welfare to work.

So I regret your spurning any effort to make this resolution bipartisan. I think instead of recognizing the past, you are mainly twisting it; and there has been a failure of this Congress to take the next steps in welfare reform so people move from poverty into something beyond it when they move from welfare to work.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.

We stand here today with a historic opportunity to improve and renew one of the greatest advancements in the history of our American Democracy.

In 1965, in a direct response to evidence of pervasive discrimination taking place across the country, including the use of literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation, threats and violence, Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act. Since 1965, we have come a long way towards breaking down the many entrenched barriers to minority participation, but exhaustive hearings and testimony have clearly indicated that more can and must be done.

Opponents of this legislation make the false presumption that the Voting Rights Act has accomplished its goals and is therefore no longer necessary. Yet since its last reauthorization in 1982, the Department of Justice--under the Voting Rights Act--has objected to over 1,000 proposed changes to voting laws because they would have denied equal access to the political process.

Other Members would eliminate Section 203, which provides voters with language assistance at the ballot box. The current law requiring bilingual voting assistance was enacted because Congress found evidence of blatant discrimination against non-English-speaking voters. Many American citizens are proficient in English, but may not be able to fully comprehend the complex legal wording in ballot initiatives. It is important to remember that there are American citizens who can speak English, but not read it. Bilingual assistance is necessary to ensure that these citizens are not left out of the political process.

Today four amendments have been offered which seek to severely weaken and undermine the Voting Rights Act. These amendments seek to turn back the clock on the advancements made since 1965 in the enfranchisement and participation of minority voters. Let me be clear, I oppose any attempt to water down the Voting Rights Act, and will oppose each and every one of these damaging amendments.

Back in the early 1970s, I worked together with Congressman John Lewis--who was one of thousands to risk his life to challenge the discriminatory voting practices of the time--registering voters in Mississippi. Since then, our country has made substantial strides in expanding and ensuring the right to vote for all American citizens, yet discrimination still exists. Cases remain where absentee votes are deliberately ignored, voters continue to be unjustly purged from voter rolls, and problems with electronic voting machines persist.

Reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act is absolutely essential as we continue to work for complete equality in the voting process. I truly believe that the Voting Rights Act is the most effective civil rights law ever enacted, and I strongly support its passage without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Macomb County Clerk's office and the Mt. Clemens Regional Social Security office for an innovative new partnership which is expected to improve customer service, reduce unnecessary administrative work, and save Social Security over $257,000 over the next 5 years alone.

As you know, the Immigration Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act required the Social Security Administration to verify all birth records before issuing Social Security cards. In most offices, that means Social Security staff have to go in person to the county clerk's office with stacks of birth records, which the clerk's staff then manually verify. The process is time-consuming and labor-intensive for both offices, and sometimes results in unnecessary delays for people waiting for new or replacement Social Security cards.

Macomb County Clerk Carmela Sabaugh, in cooperation with Social Security Administration District Manager William Seaman, has implemented a very different system. Under Macomb County's system, Social Security employees are able to instantly verify birth record authenticity using a secure Internet page available only to Social Security employees with federal security clearance. The first-in-the nation Macomb County process builds on the digital imaging for vital records that Sabaugh implemented last year. It's faster and easier, but no less effective and secure than the old way.

I'm proud that our local offices took the initiative and came up with a better way to implement this new requirement. Thanks to their innovation, staff will spend more time serving the public and less time processing paperwork. That's better for Social Security, better for the Clerk's office, and best of all, better for all the Macomb County residents they serve.

I rise to point out a serious shortcoming in the FY07 Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations bill. Manufacturing has a proud history in this country as the engine that created our middle class--a source of good jobs, steady benefits, and quality products for consumers. While I will support the overall bill, I am concerned that it does not provide adequate resources for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP.

MEP is a small, but proven program that helps small manufacturers compete globally by giving them access to technologies and processes that improve their productivity and their products.

By proposing to cut MEP by more than 50 percent, the President has again demonstrated his upside-down priorities and refused to acknowledge the manufacturing jobs crisis in this country. Since 2001, manufacturing states like Michigan have lost a median 17 percent of their manufacturing jobs--an average of more than 75,000 jobs per state. Yet the Bush Administration has ignored the importance of preserving our manufacturing base at every turn--refusing to enforce U.S. trading rights here and overseas, failing to take advantage of opportunities to create new markets for American goods, and repeatedly proposing funding cuts for programs that spur innovation and forward progress here at home.

I understand that the Subcommittee has tried to do its best with inadequate resources, and I appreciate that the $92 million provided for MEP in the bill is a significant improvement over the President's request. But we have to do more than turn a 50 percent cut into a 15 percent cut.

I hope that as this bill moves forward, we will be able to restore funding for MEP to the current level of $106 million. The consequences of not doing so are serious: 2,100 fewer manufacturers would receive MEP's valuable services, resulting in 5,760 fewer manufacturing jobs in this country. By way of comparison, last year in Michigan alone, MEP helped create or retain almost 2,000 jobs and almost $190 million in sales.

In a word, fully restoring funding for MEP to the current level is critical. It is critical to our small manufacturers and to the workers and families that rely on them.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment. It is important that the record here today reflects that FEMA is proposing to revise base flood elevations using flawed methods and old data.

In my home state of Michigan, FEMA has proposed raising the base flood elevation, significantly in some areas. While FEMA should work to keep flood maps up-to-date, indeed updating these maps is one of the purposes of

this bill, it must do so in a responsible manner, utilizing accurate data. Unfortunately, that has not been true in this case.

FEMA's proposal for base flood elevations in Michigan is based on a study that is 18 years old. More to the point, the last year of data included in this 1988 study of Great Lakes water levels is the same year that the Great Lakes hit historic highs. Since then, water levels in the Great Lakes have fallen to historic lows. These elevations, which determine who is required to purchase flood insurance, need to reflect the actual risk of flooding. Commonsense, let alone science, should tell us very clearly that the risk of flooding is lower today that it was 18 years ago when this study was completed.

Right now, the International Joint Commission, or IJC, is conducting a comprehensive study of Great Lakes water levels that will be completed in 2010 or 2011. This study will take a more realistic view of factors affecting lake levels, including increased population, water consumption, environmental changes and higher flow through the Great Lakes system.

This amendment would require FEMA to use the more up-to-date and accurate data that the IJC study will provide. I am not arguing that Great Lakes states like Michigan should not have their flood maps updated, or that there should be some fixed ratio between premiums paid and damage claims received. What I am saying is that the revised flood maps should use the best data available, rather than 20-year old data that does not reflect the true flood risk.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is about reforming and improving the National Flood Insurance Program. In doing so, we must signal to FEMA that they must be responsible in setting these flood elevations. In Michigan, FEMA is proceeding on the basis of bad data, and that's going to lead to bad policy.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President transmitted legislation to implement the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. The Senate Finance Committee will mark up this legislation tomorrow, and the word is the Senate is going to try to rush this through on the floor of the Senate in the afternoon. And the House Ways and Mean Committee will take up this bill on Thursday.

This agreement is a test of globalization. Globalization is under major pressure today, in part because as it has spread, the benefits of increased trade between nations too often have not been widely shared among people within the nation. Workers rights matter, especially the ability of workers to represent themselves in the workplace because they are an important economic tool to spread more widely the benefits of expanded trade.

To help make globalization work, a view widely held by House Democrats is that trade agreements should include squarely within the text of the agreement a requirement that there be adherence to basic ILO standards within a reasonable transition period.

We have strongly opposed the standard that USTR has tabled for worker rights, and the environment, in FTAs, which requires that a nation must only enforce its own laws. It is a standard that USTR does not propose for any other provision of an FTA and would never dream of using for other economic issues, whether intellectual property or investment rules or any other.

Where an FTA has been negotiated with a nation using that standard, but at the time of the FTA vote the basic ILO rights were in operation in practice and in law, many of us have voted for the agreement despite opposition to the standard. That was the case in Chile, Singapore and Morocco.

With the Bahrain FTA, there was clear evidence that the ILO standards were there in practice so that there was a foundation for assurances that the laws would be swiftly brought into conformity with existing ILO-compliant practices. In accordance with law, unions in Bahrain enjoyed autonomous status, independent of the employer, beyond interference. In addition, as long as the union existed under law in an enterprise, the law provided that an employer must recognize it and engage with it in collective bargaining. So many of us voted to approve the U.S.-Bahrain FTA.

The conditions in Oman are very different than those prevailing in Bahrain and in those other countries where we have supported FTAs.

As one approaches consideration of the U.S-Oman FTA, there are some clear truths. Oman is a nation in the volatile Middle East with good relations with the U.S.

Secondly, the amount of trade is small. It would likely grow under an FTA, but remain small, and thus any economic negative dislocations for either side would be small.

In practice and law, thirdly, realities in Oman today do not remotely meet the five basic ILO standards, including the right of workers to associate and bargain collectively.

Workers cannot be represented in the workplace unless they have their own representatives and their own organizations. This basic condition is not close to being true in Oman today.

Where there is an organization in an establishment, a representative committee, representatives of the employer belong as well as employees. There is an umbrella committee of representatives committees called the Main Representative Committee. From available information, of the 13 members currently on the MRC, the vast majority are high-echelon officials of companies.

For 8 months our staffs have been in touch with Omani and U.S. Government officials simply to get the facts on the table. We have put together two documents trying to obtain basic information. When the response to the first detailed inquiry came back incomplete, we took the time to send a second document, still without a response in detail. I ask that the second document be entered into the Record.

Any fair reading of these documents leads to one conclusion.

From all available information, there are no organizations of workers in Oman today. There are no organizations representing workers and bargaining on their behalf, so it is not surprising that there is not a single collective bargaining agreement today.

In reality, there are organizations made up of management and workers who operate mainly like joint committees to discuss labor management relations and problems.

The recent communication from the U.S. ambassador glosses over this basic fact.

It says: ``Although the MOM recognizes the potentially problematic participation of senior officers in some of the committees, a move away from this tendency will take some time, given deeply ingrained cultural traditions that still place importance on tribal affiliations and highly value an individual's personal influence with decision-makers (termed ``wasta''). Historically speaking, workers with issues have generally approached human resource representatives or committee members with problems because of these individuals known connections and ability to get things done. The MOM, as well as the committees, believes that it is more important to now raise awareness about the MRC and the RC's roles and promote membership rather than focus on technical limitations of the law.''

There are two serious problems with this approach. First, no matter how it is spun, the organizations today representing workers are not organizations of and led by workers. They do not begin to meet the basic worker rights of association and bargaining.

Second, according to the Ambassador's own document, today 70 percent of the workers in Oman are foreign nationals. Of these 80 percent are from the Indian subcontinent (60 percent from India).

Present Omani laws say that members of an RC must be persons who have been there for a year and speak Arabic to be a leader. The Omani government says that the law is not enforced. It is difficult to tell what this means since people do not apply for membership in an RC or pay dues and since there have not been full responses to our questions. But in any event, if foreign workers are active participants in RCs, the vast majority comes

from nations where the laws and cultural conditions have given workers rights to form labor unions for decades.

Since Oman's practices are not in conformity with the basic ILO standards--most noticeably that workers lack the basic right to join worker organizations that are free from employer and government interference--it is vital that the changes in law be in place before we vote on the FTA. The Government of Oman has stated that it could not make these changes before October 31, 2006. If the Government acts before then--and the changes conform to basic ILO standards--we would be faced with circumstances similar to those that existed where we have supported free trade agreements.

The Ambassador says in his letter that Oman is ``already complying with ILO core labor standards in practice, if not yet in law,'' and it is a matter of bringing technical limitations ``of the law'' into conformity with practice. This is simply not true. Neither practices nor the laws come close to meeting basic international standards. To say otherwise twists both standards and reality. Doing so does not serve the purpose of carrying out cordial relationships between our nations. It does not represent an effective path for globalization.

May 24, 2006.

To: Andy Olson, Cynthia Plath.

From: Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Minority Staff.

Re Follow-Up Questions Concerning Current Practices With

Respect to Labor Rights in Oman.

Thank you for providing information relating to our

questions of May 12, 2006, in the cable from the U.S. Embassy

in Muscat dated May 17, 2006. The information was responsive

to some, but not other, questions. Thus, we have a number of

follow-up questions. The following is a list questions that

were not answered in the cable, either in whole or in part,

as well as questions seeking further clarification of

information provided in the cable.

I. Worker Representation

1. What kinds of organizations are there representing

workers?

c. In what industries or occupations in the public sector?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``There are no committees in the

public sector, which is covered by Civil Service Law.''

Unclassified Cable dated May 17, 2006 from U.S. Embassy,

Muscat (UC) at para.4.

Follow-up Question: Does the Civil Service Law provide for

the formation of representative committees? If so, what is

the extent of any exception (e.g. ``essential services'' such

as firefighters or police)?

d. How many workers do they cover in each sector? What is

the percentage of represented workers compared with the

overall workforce? As a percentage by sector? Please verify

how this information is collected.

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``Since committees do not yet

require applications for membership, and do not have

established procedures to collect dues, RCs currently

represent de facto the entire workforce of a company,

including those who have been employed less than a year.

A February statistical bulletin confirmed the current

private workforce of Oman to be 102,455 Omanis and 438,531

expatriates, meaning that approximately nine percent of

the workforce is now represented by a union.'' UC at para.

5.

Follow-up Questions: Since there are no applications for

membership and no dues, how do workers, comprising the entire

workforce of a company where a representative committee is

established, know that they are members of such an

organization or represented by it? By what methods does the

RC notify the workforce? Why does the Ministerial Decree set

forth criteria for membership if every worker is a member? Do

any of these committees have by-laws, if so how are they

written and who votes for them?

e. Are there categories of workers that are not allowed to

have organizations representing them? If so, what are they?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: `` * * * the labor law does not

prohibit any category of worker from establishing worker

committees.'' UC at para. 4.

Follow-up Question: This statement appears to conflict with

another statement in para. 4 which states that ``there are no

committees in the public sector.'' Please explain whether

public sector workers are able to form representative

committees.

12. How do workers form such organizations, what procedures

must they follow?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``As there are no official MOM

application forms for establishing committees, employees

wishing to establish a committee simply notify the MOM with a

letter of intent and a list of elected officials comprising

their leadership board.'' UC at para. 3.

Follow-up Question: Based on the above response, what would

happen if two different groups wished to form a committee?

Are there any minimum threshold requirements?

3. Are employers/managers members in these organizations?

a. If so, in how many of the organizations are they? Which

ones? Are they allowed to be officers? What offices do they

hold?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``Of the committees established,

company management holds officer positions of Saud Bahwan

Group, Omantel, Port Services, and Suhail Sahwan Group

committees.'' UC at para. 4.

Follow-up Questions: Are these the only representative

committees where employers/managers are members? Do

employers/managers hold offices in the RCs established at

Petroleum Development Oman, Intercontinental Hotel, and El

Hassan Co. Group? If so, what positions do they hold? Of the

representative committees listed in the cable, what offices

do the company management officers hold?

4. Is membership in these organizations limited to those

workers who have been employed for more than a year? Are

there any members of such organizations who have been

employed less than a year? If so, which ones and how many?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

6. Are leadership positions in these committees limited to

those who:

a. Have ``good spoken and written Arabic language''?

b. Are permanent workers?

c. Have not been suspended from work for committing grave

misconduct in the government or private sector?

d. Are there any leaders who do not meet the criteria

listed above? If so, which criteria do these leaders fail to

fulfill? How many such leaders are there? If there are non-

Arabic speakers, where are they from?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to the above questions: ``While Ministerial Decree

135/2004 delineates qualifications for leadership, such as

the ability to speak and write Arabic . . . and not have been

convicted of a felony, the MOM has not denied candidacy to

anyone failing to meet these regulations, and, in fact, has

encouraged people to participate regardless of

proscriptions.'' UC at para. 5.

Partially Answered: Please indicate whether there are any

current leaders who do not meet the criteria listed above.

How many such leaders are there? If there are non-Arabic

speakers, who are they and where are they from? Can you

provide evidence that the MOM has ``encouraged people to

participate regardless of proscriptions''? Are the workers

informed that they should disregard the Ministerial

Decree? If so, how has this been done in specific

instances?

9. Has the government issued specific rules for the

formation and functioning of these organizations, or

otherwise participated in their activities? If so, what are

these rules and in what way does the government participate?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to the above questions: ``Labor committee members

and government officials assert that, in practice, the

government neither interferes with nor unduly involves itself

in committee activities, but continues actively to support

establishment of labor committees through private sector

outreach and educational awareness.'' UC at para. 1.

``The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) asserts that it is not

intrusively overseeing labor union representative committee

(RC) activities as permitted in Ministerial Decisions 125/

2004, and claims that the actual application of the labor law

is already ILO-consistent.'' UC at para. 2.

Follow-up Question: Please provide examples of how the MOM

``actively supports the establishment of'' representative

committees. How involved has the MOM's activity been with

respect to outreach and public awareness? Is the term ``labor

committee'' anywhere found in communications from the MOM?

c. Does the MOM restrict the right of these organizations

to belong to any organization or authority with headquarters

outside the Sultanate or receive delegations?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

d. Does the MOM ban these organizations from holding public

festivities or presenting public lectures without prior

approval?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

10. Is there an umbrella organization or larger federation

for these organizations? If so, how many are there?

a. Are all workers' organizations required to be members of

an umbrella organization or federation? If so, can they

select among several or must they join one mandatory

organization?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``All established committees may

participate in the national federation of unions, referred to

as the Main Representative Committee (MRC). The MRC is

currently the only umbrella organization to represent

Omani unions internally and abroad, and members are chosen

through secret ballot elections.'' UC at para. 6.

Follow-up Questions: You indicate that established

representative committees ``may participate in the national

federation of unions,'' but it is our understanding that

participation is mandatory. Please clarify what is provided

for in law and current practice, for example, how many

representative committees currently are members of the Main

Representative Committee? Also, have secret ballot elections

been held? If not, have elections been scheduled?

b. Are employers/managers allowed to be members of such

umbrella organizations? If not, are employers/managers in

fact members?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

c. Does the government participate in the selection of

members of this umbrella organization including establishing

the eligibility criteria? Has the government established the

grounds for termination of these

members? Has the government terminated any members?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

d. Is this umbrella organization required to seek approval

from the government (i.e. MOM) for administrative decisions,

such as the approval of a logo? Does this organization

provide notice to or send agendas (including other documents

and papers) to the MOM in advance of meetings?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to the above questions: ``Similar to the situation

of the representative committees, members of the MRC do not

give notice to MOM prior to general meetings; nor do they

provide the MOM with a copy of their agendas or meeting

minutes.'' UC at para. 6.

Follow-Up Question: Has the MOM ever requested that the MRC

give advance notice of its meetings or provide related

documents? Has the MOM asked to review a logo being prepared

by the MRC?

e. Does the MOM send a delegate to the meetings of this

umbrella organization? If so, how frequently?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to the above questions: ``Moreover, no MOM official

has ever attended any committee meetings or banned the MRC

from meeting without prior approval. Members of the MRC

maintain open relations with the MOM to discuss ongoing

changes in the labor law and possible means to strengthen the

labor unions.'' UC at para. 6.

Follow-up Question: Please explain the nature of the ``open

relations with MOM'' to discuss the labor law and means to

strengthen unions.

f. Does the MOM restrict the right of this umbrella

organization to belong to any organization or authority with

headquarters outside the Sultanate?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

g. Does the MOM ban this umbrella organization from holding

public festivals or presenting public lecturers without prior

approval?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

h. Where are the meetings of the umbrella organization

held?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

i. Who are the current members of this umbrella

organization? Please provide names and positions they hold

within the umbrella organization, as well as the positions

that they hold at the enterprise level(s).

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``. . . recent personnel changes

at establishments have meant the addition of Issam al-

Sheibany of Oman Oil Refinery and Aida al-Hashmy of the Al-

Bustan Palace Hotel to the MRC, bringing the total number of

MRC representatives to 13.'' UC at para. 7.

``As part of its outreach and organization, the MRC

recently established four sub-committees to focus on specific

areas of concern:

--External Relations--This committee manages conferences

and is headed by mid-level officer Saud al-Jabri of Petroleum

Development Oman;

--Rights and Duties--This committee is headed by Oman's

busiest labor advocate, Nahhan al-Battashi, of the Grand

Hyatt Hotel Muscat;

--Articles of Association and Membership--Abdullah al-

Araimi heads this committee, which serves as a resource for

newly established committees; and

--Women's Issues--New MRC member Aida al-Hashmy of the Al-

Bustan Palace Hotel heads up this important committee

promoting women in the workforce.'' UC at para. 8.

Partially Answered: Please provide a complete and current

list of all MRC members. Please include their names and the

positions they hold within the MRC (including positions in

any executive committee), as well as the positions that they

hold at the enterprise or company level(s).

II. Collective Bargaining Agreements

1. Are there any?

a. If so, in what sectors?

b. Covering how many workers?

c. Covering what areas (i.e. wages, hours, working

conditions, terms of employment, etc.)?

d. Are there areas that are outside the scope of

bargaining? If so, what are they?

2. Have employers refused a workers' organization's request

to negotiate collectively? If so, when and with what

recourse?

3. Are there individual contracts between employers and

non-managerial employees? If so, of what nature and to what

extent?

Not Answered: The cable did not contain any information

relevant to this section. Please provide a response.

III. Anti-Union Discrimination

1. What protections are provided to workers for exercising

their rights to participate in organizing activities?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

2. What penalties are available to be assessed against

employers who violate these rights?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``Although there are no penalties

yet for anti-union discrimination (still under discussion),

as evident by the Salalah example, the MOM and Oman's labor

courts do not tolerate wrongful termination.'' UC at para.

12.

Follow-up Question: Are there any examples of cases where

court action was taken against employers who have engaged in

wrongful termination? If so, please provide details of the

action taken.

3. How are workers informed of their rights?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

a. Have there been any reports that workers are reluctant

to assert their rights because they fear being dismissed or

otherwise retaliated against because they are unsure of their

rights?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``While the MOM does keep a

variety of labor statistics, there have been no reported

cases of workers suffering retaliation for participating in

worker committee activities.'' UC at para. 13.

Follow-up Question: What type of labor statistics does the

MOM keep? Does it specifically track instances or cases of

retaliation taken against workers for forming or engaging in

representative committee activities? If so, please provide

these data and/or examples. Is it possible that there are

cases involving worker retaliation of which the MOM is

unaware?

b. Are there any activities related to organizing workers

or forming a worker organization that are grounds for

dismissal or arrest? If so, what are they?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

c. Do employers or managers challenge the right of workers

to have or form workers' organizations? If so, on what

grounds do they challenge this right? What is the process for

doing so and what methods of challenging the right to form a

worker organization are permissible?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to the above questions: ``Neither employers nor

managers have challenged the right of workers to form a

representative committee, moreover, labor organizing is not

grounds for dismissal or arrest.'' UC at para. 13.

Follow-up Question: Does the MOM keep specific records to

verify the statement that ``neither employers nor managers

have challenged the right of workers to form a representative

committee''? How can the MOM be certain that it is aware of

all pertinent instances involving an effort to form a

representative committee or to engage in specific activities?

4. Does the MOM keep records of how many workers have been

dismissed or otherwise retaliated against for participating

in worker organization activities and what sanctions have

been imposed against the employer and what remedies have been

awarded the affected workers? If so, please provide these

data.

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``To date, there has been only one

case of an individual terminated who was also a member of a

representative committee (reftel).'' UC at para. 13.

Partially Answered: Please provide additional details

regarding this individual's termination. For example, did the

worker challenge his or her termination? If so, what remedies

were provided to the worker? What penalties imposed against

the employer? Was this case documented through any records?

5. What are the processes available to workers who believe

they have been dismissed or otherwise retaliated against for

engaging in organizing activities?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``As with any labor dispute,

workers are encouraged to submit complaints to the MOM and

may sue employers for wrongful dismissal. Labor courts favor

the worker in the majority of cases, regardless of the reason

for termination.'' UC at para. 13.

Follow-up Questions: Can you provide examples of labor

courts rendering favorable determinations to workers who have

been wrongfully dismissed? How many cases have there been?

Can you provide evidence to support the assertion that

``labor courts favor the worker in the majority of cases . .

.''?

IV. Right To Strike

1. Does the law explicitly permit workers to strike?

a. If so, is the right available to all workers or only to

specific categories of workers?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

b. Have workers exercised this right? If so, on what

specific occasions?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``While the law does not

explicitly permit workers the right to strike (to be amended

by October 31), there were 33 strikes involving 6,000 workers

in 2004 and 4 strikes involving 1,083 workers in 2005.'' UC

at para. 12.

Follow-up Questions: What were the outcomes of these

strikes? Per the question below, were they considered legal?

2. Are there specific procedures that workers must follow

to declare a legal strike? Have any strikes been declared

illegal? If so, on what grounds?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

4. Is there a practice or a requirement for arbitration to

settle disputes? If so, under what circumstances and under

what procedures?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

5. Did a strike occur at the Port of Salalah? If so, was

any participant disciplined? If so, was there subsequent

reinstatement and when?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``In 2005, there was one reported

collective complaint that occurred during one of Oman's most

widely publicized strikes. As reported in reftel, workers at

Salalah Port closed Oman's largest seaport for two days while

the MRC and the MOM negotiated the reinstatement of a

committee representative

who had been fired. In addition to the strike, workers took

the opportunity to successfully renegotiate working hours and

split-shift schedules.'' UC at para. 12.

Follow-up Question: When was the worker reinstated? Was

this worker also a representative committee leader? Please

provide corroborating evidence. Also, what is ``reftel''?

V. Foreign Workers

1. What approximate percentage of Oman's labor force is

comprised of foreign workers in key sectors? Please identify

the key sectors.

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``Foreign workers in Oman make up

roughly 50 percent of the labor force and are concentrated in

the following sectors:

Construction--28.2 percent; wholesale/retail--20.1 percent;

domestic servants--13.4 percent; manufacturing--11.8 percent;

agriculture--10.7 percent; hotels/restaurants--5.9 percent;

and health/education/community/real estate, misc.--10

percent'' UC at para. 14.

Follow-up Question: Does the 50 percent figure representing

the number of foreign worker in Oman pertain to both public

and private sectors? Based on information provided in para. 5

of the cable, it appears that approximately 80 percent of the

private sector is comprised of foreign workers. Please

confirm that these figures are consistent.

2. Are foreign workers participating in workers'

organizations?

a. If so, what percentage of workers' organization members

are foreign? What countries are they from (if possible,

please provide an approximate break down of percentages)?

With what companies are these foreign workers affiliated?

Not Answered: Please provide a response. Please also

indicate whether the information provided as an attachment to

e-mail correspondence of May 9, 2006 (specifically, the Table

with Members of the General Assemblies of Representative

Committees and the Number of Workers (Omanis and Expatriates)

in Establishments Which Have Representative Committees) is

accurate. Please also explain how the information in this

chart compares or relates to information provided in the

cable at para. 5, which states that ``approximately nine

percent of the workforce is not represented by a union.''

b. How many foreigners or non-Arabic speaking workers hold

leadership positions? Who are they? What countries are they

from? What companies do they represent?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

3. Do employers withhold foreign workers' legal documents,

including employment contracts, employment letters, passports

or visas?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``While some employers have

reportedly held passports of foreign workers, the MOM asserts

that this practice is illegal and that legislation

formalizing that will be forthcoming.'' UC at para. 15.

Follow-up Question: Through what accounts or by what means

is it known that employers ``reportedly'' are holding

passports? Does the MOM keep statistics? Have any instances

been reported through the 24-hour hotline? Can you provide

reports/accounts of any action taken against an employer for

illegally holding a passport or other foreign workers legal

documents?

VI. Forced Labor

2. Have there been any circumstances where forced labor has

been exacted for public purposes in circumstances other than

those enumerated in ILO Convention 29?

Not Answered: Please provide a response.

VII. Worst Forms of Child Labor

3. Does Oman's labor law specifically prohibit harmful

child labor? If so, what provision?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``Forced or compulsory labor by

children is specifically prohibited by law.'' UC at para. 17.

Follow-up Question: Please provide the citation to the

specific relevant law, either in the Basic Statue or the 2003

Labor Law, or elsewhere. In addition, please also note where

Oman's labor law specifically prohibits the following forms

of harmful (or worst forms of) child labor: (a) all forms of

slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and

trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom, including

forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed

conflict; (b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for

prostitution, for the production of pornography or for

pornographic performances; (c) the use, procuring or

offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular

for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in

the relevant international treaties; (d) work which, by

its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried

out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of

children.

VIII. Inspections and Reporting of Working Conditions

1. Is there a government-level organization charged with

inspecting conditions of labor? If so, what is the number of

personnel charged with this task? What enterprises do they

cover? In what sectors? In what regions? What is the size of

their budget?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``The Labor Care Directorate of

the MOM is responsible for enforcement of, and compliance

with, workplace laws and regulations. Its responsibilities

include: occupational safety and health, labor inspections,

dispute settlement, female employment, liaising with the Main

Representative Committee, issues related to child labor and

forced labor, and resolution of individual and collective

labor disputes.'' UC at para. 19.

Partially Answered: What is the size of the Labor Care

Directorate's budget?

2. Please provide additional information about the extent

and nature of inspections into conditions of labor, such as

number of total inspections, number of random inspections, in

what areas, in what regions, number of enterprises and

workers involved. Please also provide a relevant universe to

serve as a point of comparison.

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``{t}he MOM employed approximately

82 labor inspectors who conducted 4,541 workplace

inspections, including an unknown number of random

inspections, in 2005 that represented 19 percent of the

workforce. Labor inspectors are spread throughout the

Sultantate.'' UC at para. 19.

Follow-up Question: Can you provide an estimate or

percentage of the number of random inspections? If not, are

there any criteria by which the Labor Care Directorate

considers when conducting random inspections? Are they more

prevalent in any particular sector or area? How many workers

were involved in the 4,541 workplace inspections?

3. Is there communication channel or other type of means

for workers to contact the government to report labor-related

complaints or grievances?

a. If so, by what means?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``The MOM operates a 24-hour

hotline (English and Arabic) for workers throughout Oman to

report complaints, offer suggestions or seek responses to

questions about the labor law.'' UC at para. 19.

Follow-up Question: Are the majority of foreign workers in

Oman English-speaking or from English-speaking or Arabic-

speaking countries? Has the MOM given any thought to

including other languages?

b. Do workers utilize this means? If so, what statistics

are available with respect to use, types of complaints and

number of resolutions?

The cable provides the following information that is

relevant to this question: ``The MOM estimates that while it

takes thousands of general inquiries a year on the hotline,

it only receives about 150 complaints that require formal

processing and action.'' UC at para. 19.

Follow-up Question: Does the MOM keep official statistics

of complaints? Please provide examples of the types of

complaints that have been made that require formal processing

and action.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a test whose side are you on: The 300 million Americans who will be alive in the year 2009 or the 7,500 families whose estates would be taxed according to 2009 law and figures. That is a Joint Tax Committee statement. It is 300 million versus 7,500 families.

This is not a compromise. This is a sellout, a sellout of 300 million people.

It is at a time that you will not even bring up a minimum-wage bill. At a time when middle-income families are under pressure. I read from The Economist, not a very liberal magazine: In the late 1990s everybody shared in this boom, but after 2000 something changed. After you adjust for inflation, the wages of the typical American worker have risen less than 1 percent since 2000. In the previous 5 years, they rose over 6 percent.

Yes, there is class warfare by you on 300 million Americans, not on the family farmer, the small business person. Under our approach, 99- plus of people with estates would not be taxed at all.

Essentially, you are saying to 300 million, you pay the $800 billion the cost of this bill in the full 10 years. That is the accurate figure.

This bill is irresponsible fiscally, and it is immoral in terms of values.

Let us have a resounding ``no'' vote on this irresponsible legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the valuable service of Dr. Charles M. Chambers, Chancellor of Lawrence Technical University, and an advocate of higher education in Michigan and around the world.

Appointed Chancellor on February 1, 2006, Dr. Chambers had served as the president of Lawrence Tech since 1993. He will conclude his tenure July 1, leaving behind an impressive legacy.

During his career at Lawrence Tech, Dr. Chambers spurred an expansion of campus facilities, garnered significant financial support from the community, and spearheaded Lawrence Tech's emergence as one of Michigan's preeminent private research universities. Indeed, just a few years ago I was privileged to have had the opportunity to attend the groundbreaking of the Alfred Taubman Student Services Center, which offers a one-stop center for students combining admissions, academic advising, computer and career services.

Under the stewardship of Dr. Chambers, Lawrence Tech has seen large expansions in research and academic offerings, including the launch of dozens of new degrees and Lawrence Tech's first doctoral programs. He has also overseen a considerable increase in student scholarships and community outreach.

Under his leadership, Lawrence Tech became Michigan's first wireless laptop campus. Exhibiting similar innovation and foresight, Dr. Chambers helped pioneer the creation of learning centers and higher education partnerships in southeastern and northern Michigan, as well as in Canada, Germany, Mexico, and throughout Asia. Recognizing the value of economic expansion and diversification to Michigan, he assured that the University was a founding partner in Automation Alley and the Great Lakes Interchange, an Automation Alley SmartZone.

Dr. Chambers is a life-long advocate of higher education, and has proven a capable steward of an impressive institution. As he returns to teaching at the institution he so vigorously led, I look forward to continuing my friendship with him.

Mr. Speaker, the rationale for the Bush administration's going to war in Iraq has been one of shifting sands.

The first reason given for the action in Iraq was that it was necessary because Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be wrong. Then the rationale was the threat of nuclear weapons from Iraq's alleged purchase of uranium from Africa, which also was not true and was seriously questioned within the Bush administration before the military action.

Then it was said that there was a linkage between the Iraqi regime and the perpetrators of 9/11, a claim that has never been found to be true. The evidence is that al Qaeda did not have a presence in Iraq until after the President ordered military action in Iraq.

The Republicans try to paint Democratic opposition to the administration's Iraq policies as a reflection of refusal to use force. That is absolutely not true. It is a question of under what conditions and circumstances. That was at the heart of the debate over Iraq before the action was taken.

In 2002, a majority of Democrats voted for an alternative resolution allowing the President to undertake military force in Iraq, but only after first attempting a multilateral approach to dealing with Saddam Hussein through the Security Council, just as the first President Bush did in 1991. What Democrats rejected was implementation of an approach emphasizing the use of unilateral, pre-emptive military action by the

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a leader in the field of education, James McCann, who is retiring after 20 years as the Superintendent of Lamphere Schools in Madison Heights, Michigan and a total of 40 years in education. I have been pleased to work with Jim McCann and know him as an active and passionate advocate for the public education system and the students it serves.

Mr. McCann graduated from Eastern Michigan University in 1966 and worked as a teacher and administrator for the Archdiocese of Detroit from 1966-1971. Joining the Lamphere School District, Mr. McCann was a high school teacher from 1971-1972, and then went on to serve as an Administrative Assistant, Assistant Principal, Middle School Principal and High School Principal before becoming Lamphere Schools' Superintendent in 1986.

Although Mr. McCann has many accomplishments in his 20 years as Superintendent, his success in the use of technology as a teaching tool is perhaps the most significant. He was inspired to focus on technology in the classroom in 1980 when he attended a summer institute sponsored by Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Under Mr. McCann's leadership, Lamphere became the first district in the State of Michigan to have Internet access in the classroom, and in 1996 became the JASON Project Primary Internet site for the State of Michigan, helping students from across the state experience real time scientific adventures. For the past 8 years, he served as the Chairman of the Oakland County Superintendents' Committee for Instructional Technology. He was recognized for these and other accomplishments when he became the winner of the first-ever ``Tech-Savvy Superintendent Award,'' given for leadership and vision in the area of educational technology.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. McCann, a genuine leader in the field of education. He has worked tirelessly to improve the Lamphere School District and public education throughout Michigan. I have been privileged to work with him in many endeavors and to witness his devotion firsthand. To Jim and Karen, many, many thanks from the community at large and my best personal regards, as you enter the next chapter in your lives.

Mr. Speaker, no one should be fooled by the inventive title of the legislation pending before the House today. The sponsor of this measure calls his bill the ``American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act.'' A better title would be the ``Big Oil Give-Away and Accountability Evasion Act.''

The plain truth is that what we have here is an old proposal dressed up with a fancy, new title. Since 1995, Congress has voted again and again on the question of whether or not to open up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Just last December, the Alaska Delegation tried to force drilling in ANWR through the Congress by attaching it in the dead of night to a must-pass defense bill. The Senate refused, and so here we are today debating yet another bill to turn the Arctic Refuge over to the oil companies.

Drilling in ANWR will not bring down gasoline prices--not today and not tomorrow. No one knows how much economically recoverable oil lies underneath the Refuge. We do know that even if the Refuge were opened to oil exploration tomorrow, it would take nearly a decade for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market. Even if the estimates of economically recoverable oil in ANWR panned out, oil from ANWR would account for only about 3 percent of domestic oil use in 2025.

Of the many actions we could be voting on today to help consumers at the pump, it speaks volumes that opening up the Refuge to oil drilling is the first choice of the Leadership of the House.

For the last 6 years, the Majority leadership and the President have set the energy policy for the United States. The Bush Administration unveiled its energy plan in 2001. Although over 95 percent of the recommendations in that plan have been implemented, our Nation still confronts sky-high gas prices, growing dependence on foreign sources of energy, and record profits for the oil industry. In 2005, the six largest oil companies reported $110 billion in profits. These profits will likely set a new record this year. The Majority's philosophy is that what's good for ExxonMobile is good for American consumers, but we have learned that this is not the case.

So essentially what the House Leadership is offering the country is more of the same. If they were serious about dealing with energy, the Majority would schedule a debate and a vote on H.R. 4479, the Energy Consumer Relief Act, which would roll back billions of dollars in tax breaks, royalty holidays and subsidies to oil and gas companies and make that funding available to bring down home heating costs through the LIHEAP program, as well as provide relief from high energy costs to farmers and small businesses.

Yesterday, Representative Visclosky sought to offer a far-sighted amendment to the Energy and Water bill to provide $750 million to move the United States towards energy independence. This amendment would have made important investments in alternative energy, including ethanol and biofuels; renewable energy research and development, and energy efficiency. Yet, the Majority blocked the House from even considering this proposal.

I realize that the House will likely repeat its previous votes on this issue today, but I strongly encourage the House to take more meaningful action to deal with our country's energy problems soon.