Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House today is intelligence reform more in name than in reality. In fact, the Republican Leadership's bill, H.R. 10, ignores most of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. Of the 41 recommendations made by the Commission, H.R. 10 fully implements only 11 of them.

On October 2, the Family Steering Committee, which is made up of the families of 9/11 victims, issued a statement that said, ``House of Representatives bill H.R. 10, drafted in response to the 9/11 Commission recommendations, is flawed because it does not provide for a strong National Intelligence Director. It also contains controversial, divisive provisions which may have merit but warrant separate debate.'' The Family Steering Committee's statement called on the House to adopt the bipartisan Senate bill, which has been championed in the House by Representatives Shays, Maloney and Menendez.

It should come as a surprise to no one that the Republican Leadership, which long opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission, turned a deaf ear to the views of the Commission and the 9/11 families. The more than 50 extraneous provisions that were not recommended by the 9/11 Commission remain in the bill. Some of these provisions are very controversial. To add insult to injury, the House Leadership restricted the opportunity of Members to amend and strengthen the bill.

There have been two distinctly different approaches followed in the House and Senate on the critical issue of implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In the Senate, there has been an open and bipartisan process used to develop a bill that truly reflects the recommendations of the Commission. The Collins-Lieberman legislation in the Senate has been endorsed by the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, and even the White House. The Senate bill, which was adopted on a vote of 96 to 2, was the product of extensive deliberation and bipartisan cooperation.

The Republican Leadership in the House took a different road. They introduced a bill

that was developed in secret with no meaningful input from Democrats. This partisan process has produced a weak bill that does not reflect the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. For all these reasons, I voted for the Menendez substitute, which is based on the bipartisan Senate bill and fully implements the reforms recommended by the 9/11 Commission. The Menendez substitute is supported by the 9/11 families. I regret that the House narrowly defeated this proposal last night.

By supporting the Menendez substitute, and opposing the flawed and wholly insufficient underlying bill, I hope we can send a clear message that we stand with the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 families in supporting genuine, meaningful intelligence reform. I hope this message will be heard by the House and Senate conferees as they work to reconcile the House and Senate bills.

Madam Speaker, I want to spend just 30 seconds on process. It has been covered well.

If I can lift this bill, here it is. No speed reader can read this, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), nobody.

On partisanship, this bill was handled in this House without a stitch of effort at bipartisanship. The two of us who were conferees and our Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means never had a chance to participate in the creation of the House bill.

I want to talk about the substance. This is a $5 billion problem with a solution that is three times that in terms of the 10 year result. Five times ten is 50. This bill is $150 billion.

Who are going to be the main beneficiaries? Not the workers who are going to lose their overtime, because the House Republicans stripped the overtime provision that had been passed by the Senate, stripped it on a partisan basis. Not the kids who are going to end up smoking and the families who will also suffer with them. Why? Because the House Republicans stripped the FDA provision out of this bill that was part of the Senate bill. And not the workers in communities who are going to lose because of jobs going overseas.

I want to say a word to the gentleman from New York about some of the provisions he mentioned. Small business, the sales tax provision, these are sunsetted. It is dishonest budgeting, because we know they will not be sunsetted, and when you take all the sunsets out, the bill is really not revenue-neutral; there is an $80 billion deficit.

Madam Speaker, this continues to the pattern of Republicans talking one

way and acting another. I think you can call it flip-flopping.

Let me read the letter from Secretary Snow that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) referred to. This is his letter a couple days ago: ``The administration believes a conference report to replace FSC- ETI should be budget neutral. Both the House and Senate-passed bill include a myriad of special interest tax provisions that benefit few taxpayers and increase the complexity of the Tax Code. Legislation taking up more than 1,000 pages of statutory language or even 400 pages goes far beyond the bill's core objective of replacing the FSC-ETI tax provisions with broadbased tax relief that is WTO compliant. The administration will work with the conferees to eliminate these narrowly-crafted provisions.''

Madam Speaker, that has not happened. The administration essentially has flip-flopped, has caved in. So all of these special interest provisions that have been mentioned have stayed in--for railroads, for shipbuilders, for bow-and-arrow manufacturers, for importers of Chinese ceiling fans, for the horse- and dog-racing industries.

Madam Speaker, we could have done better. We needed to replace FSC with a bill that the four of us introduced relating to manufacturing. Instead, we have this huge monstrosity of a bill. We should go back to the original purpose.

I urge we turn down this provision here of martial law and then turn down the rule and then turn down the conference report, and come back quickly and do the work that is necessary to preserve manufacturing in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, we needed to replace FSC, and the chairman knows that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I introduced a bill over a year ago. It was before it was loaded up by this House with bills that have nothing to do with this issue. And I read from the letter of Secretary Snow of October 4: ``Both the House and Senate-passed bills include a myriad of special interest tax provisions that benefit few taxpayers and increase the complexity of the Tax Code.'' That is his letter: special interest tax provisions.

We have heard laudatory comments about major provisions, the small business expensing, the ethanol excise tax credit, that is agriculture; the State and local sales tax. I want to ask any Republican who signed the conference report, because these three provisions are sunsetted, will you come to the well and tell the people of this country that you will let the sunset occur. You will not do that.

What is really happening here is that these provisions are sunsetted in order to bring down the cost of this bill. In a real sense, it is not revenue-neutral. Do not say it. Those three provisions alone, $35 billion, $5.9 billion, $25 billion, that is $66 billion more are sure to continue. You laud them; you should have included the cost.

Let me say a word about another way that you brought down the cost, and that is you deferred the effectiveness of several of these provisions, including the interest allocation and the basket provisions. The effect of deferring them is that companies will keep their profits overseas longer, not bring them back home in order to gain the benefit of those tax provisions. In that respect as well as others, you are creating incentives for companies to invest overseas instead of the United States of America. This is a form of outsourcing.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) said that there are proportionately more monies here for U.S. producers. That is not true. The provision of proportionality was stricken from the Senate bill.

Also, when you put together the benefit under the so-called manufacturing provision, $27 billion versus $42 billion for overseas activities, even if that is what you mean by proportionality, there is an incentive here for operations overseas. In a real sense, not only special interest wins, so does outsourcing of U.S. jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we need to go back and do this right.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Moscone family, as they receive the 2004 Donna Greco Issa ``Family of the Year'' Award from the March of Dimes. The Moscone Family continues the distinguished tradition of strong and passionate enthusiasm for family, friends, and community that has been a hallmark of this award.

Serafino Moscone was born in 1930; Iolanda Vitelli in 1934, both from the little town of Casalvieri, Italy. The two met as children and were married in 1949. Surrounded by family in Detroit, they began their new life together. Being blessed with two children; Antonio and Onorio, the young couple realized the value of family. Serafino worked three jobs to help provide a better life for his wife and sons. In the 1960s, he started a construction company that helped to instill a strong and devoted work ethic in their children. Today, due largely to the virtues of discipline and hard-work passed along to them by their parents, they have become one of Macomb County's leading developers and builders. Antonio and his wife Iolanda have three children. Sam, 25, graduated from Michigan State University with a Bachelor's degree in Finance. Michelle, 23, graduated from Wayne State with her Bachelor's degree in Science of Dance and Christina, 20, is on the Dean's List at Wayne State with plans of pursuing an Education degree. Onorio and his wife Carla have two children. Nino, 13, has started at De La Salle this fall and Michael, 10, is currently attending St. Lawrence School.

The families continually support numerous charities and foundations such as St. Joseph's Mercy of Macomb Hospital, Italian American Delegates, Children's Charities at Adios, and the Italian Chamber of Commerce. The Moscone's devotion to their community has a broad impact on individuals and organizations throughout the County.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Moscone family for their extraordinary commitment to their family, their friends, and their community. They are well deserving of the Donna Greco Issa Family of the Year Award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mr. Bob Milewski, as he receives the 2004 Alexander Macomb ``Man of the Year'' Award from the March of Dimes.

Bob Milewski's business card reads: President and CEO, Mount Clemens General Hospital. Yet his influence stretches even further beyond the hospital campus, and his title doesn't capture his devotion to Macomb County and its citizens. For Bob Milewski, his vocation is an opportunity to serve the community he loves.

Bob Milewski was born and raised in Center Line, Michigan. He married his high school sweetheart, Nancy, and they have been married for 33 years. All three of their children, Amy, Jeff and Amanda, were born at Mount Clemens General. They are the proud grandparents of Gavin, Garrett, and Grant.

Bob Milewski has worked at both Children's Hospital of Michigan and Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak. He came to Mount Clemens General as Chief Operating Office (COO) in September, 1993 and was promoted to Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in September, 1997.

Since 1997, Bob Milewski has strongly and enthusiastically led Mount Clemens General, which has seen a 50 percent growth in inpatient admissions and 300 percent growth in outpatient activity during his tenure. Of course, Mr. Milewski would say that those numbers only have meaning if you know the people behind the statistics: his neighbors, church members, professionals, associates, friends and family who have long trusted Mount Clemens General for their healthcare.

Community linkage is of the utmost importance to Bob Milewski. Not only does he believe the hospital should offer outstanding healthcare to its residents, but that it should support the community by having its staff involved in community organizations. Mr. Milewski himself is heavily involved in many local organizations, including Leadership Macomb, Mount Clemens Lions Club, Rockpointe Community Church, Selfridge Air National Guard Base Council, Greater Detroit Area Health Council, Michigan Healthcare Executive Group and Associates, Michigan Health and Hospital Association, American College of Healthcare Executives, and the American Osteopathic Association.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing a terrific individual, an outstanding leader, and a worthy recipient of this annual Macomb County recognition by the March of Dimes.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and congratulate a good friend and fellow public servant, Jacqueline Noonan, as she receives the 2004 Alexander Macomb ``Woman of the Year'' Award from the March of Dimes.

Jacqueline Noonan was raised in Avon Township, now Rochester Hills. She graduated from Rochester High School and graduated from Oakland University with a Bachelor's degree in Secondary Education. Jackie began teaching after graduating while continuing to work on her Master's degree at Oakland University. She and her husband, Jerry, became part of Utica, where they thoroughly enjoyed ``small'' town life with their five children: Christopher, Jbrome, Catherine, Melissa and Tracy.

In 1968, Jackie and Jerry turned their attention to owning and operating a family business, Noonan's Inc., which they did for 21 years. As their children entered Utica Community Schools, Jackie began her 24-year tenure as a volunteer in the school system and served in almost every imaginable position from Enrollment Advisory Board member to Picture Lady.

Jackie Noonan was elected to Utica's City Council in 1981 and was named Businesswoman of the Year by the Utica Business and Professional Women's Club. She also returned to Oakland University and earned a Master's Degree in Public Administration in 1988.

Jackie Noonan was elected to the position of Mayor of Utica in 1987. In Utica, a city of some 5000 residents, the Mayor is also the Chief Executive Officer and is ultimately responsible for all services and functions of city government. During her tenure, Ms. Noonan researched and developed the famous 425 agreement; this intergovernmental agreement saved Utica from dissolution and brought about a sharing of resources and services between several communities.

In 1989, Ms. Noonan assumed the role of spokesperson for Macomb County Traffic Safety Association's school level ``Don't Drink and Drive'' alcohol education program, and in 1991, she returned to the role of educator with the Utica Community Schools. Certified to teach all levels of French and social studies, she is currently a full time faculty member at Eisenhower High School.

Jackie Noonan is currently serving her ninth consecutive term as Mayor of Utica, is the past chair of the Macomb County Mayors' Association, and serves on a variety of boards and commissions locally and statewide.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing a terrific public servant, a wonderful community activist, Jackie Noonan, for her devotion to her community and her achievements as a positive and accomplished role model to her family, friends, and neighbors. It has been my pleasure to work with Mayor Noonan on numerous local issues, especially those related to M 59, and call her a friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I think we have the right to close, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is not here, and I am not sure he will be here. We would have divided the balance of the time. He is not here because of the memorial service for our distinguished, and if I might say, beloved former colleague Frank Horton. So, therefore, under those circumstances, I reserve the balance of the time and I will close.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Well, my Republican friend from Louisiana talks about the 21st century market and the chairman talks about modernization. So far, under those mantras, what has happened is more poverty in America, stagnant income for families in America under this administration, and millions of fewer jobs, almost 3 million fewer jobs in manufacturing. And if you call modernization their Republican tax bills, or if this is the 21st century market, just reading from the Detroit News, a rather conservative newspaper, summing up material from the CBO, in 2004 the average tax cut for the middle-income family is $1,090 and for the richest 1 percent it is $78,460.

I am for a 21st century market, Mr. Speaker, but not for that kind of a market. We are for modernization, but not for that kind of modernization. We cannot go backwards. We need to move forward. And here is what the bill did that came through here and is reflected in the dilemma that we have.

We had a $50 billion problem. The WTO ruled FSC inappropriate under WTO rules. What happened was, instead of passing a bill that was a bipartisan bill that addressed the manufacturing sector as FSC did, we ended up with about a $140 billion bill. Three times as large. And it is really larger than that because some of the provisions were to expire when they are unlikely to, and there was a delayed phase-in.

So, essentially, once again we are adding to a deficit because so much of this is not paid for. So we had a $50 billion problem. We now have a bill three times as large, and it is going to increase the deficit.

Now, let me point out quickly some of the provisions in this motion to instruct, because we need to look at the whole document. It says that we should accede to the Senate amendment so there is a deduction rather than a corporate rate reduction. That is of importance to many manufacturing companies in this country. The Senate bill is preferable.

Also, we say that this tax amendment should relate to all the businesses, not simply limited as in the House bill. We also indicate that we should accede to the Senate approach so that the rate reduction really reflects the amount of business done in the United States and not overseas.

And then we go on to provide a remedy for corporations that move their businesses in form overseas, called inversions, and say that we should accept the provisions in the Senate amendment. And we also say that we should drop the provision in the House bill that provides for private collection of Federal tax liabilities, a horrendous idea that I do not think most Americans will accept.

Now, let me say just a few words about the issue of outsourcing, of moving businesses overseas. The House bill had in it a number of provisions that will stimulate movement of operations overseas. One of them is not in the Senate bill. These are complicated provisions, but they have a simple clear-cut impact. The provision, for example, relating to tax credit baskets, the House would move it from 9 to 2. Essentially, this is going to stimulate the investment of companies in tax havens instead of bringing back the monies to the United States. It cost $8 billion. It is not in the Senate bill.

Then there are the so-called look-through provisions that are in both bills. Do not say that this will not stimulate movement of jobs overseas, because essentially, for a multinational, there will be encouragement instead of bringing the profits back here and investing them here to move those profits into a third country, often a tax haven country. That will stimulate the movement of jobs from here overseas.

When the Senate voted, they voted for this provision as part of a much larger bill that came to include a provision on overtime. So members of the Senate were faced with the dilemma of how we attack this problem of the elimination of FSC. And we need to do that, but focused on manufacturing. Do we look at the problem of overtime? And because they did not control the proceedings in the Senate, they were faced with a dilemma.

So let us be clear. You mentioned furniture. Go to North Carolina. Go there. China has been taking furniture business away from the United States unfairly. Overseas movement is a problem. Outsourcing is a problem. Vote for this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly review the history of welfare reform, not to finger point, but to have us understand what this is all about.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said, pointing to 1996, that the third time around, the President agreed to it. What he forgot to say was that there were three bills and that they changed from bill to bill. Many Democrats worked to change those bills so that they would be acceptable. The third time around it was different because it included more adequate health care and also more adequate day care. Neither was taken care of appropriately in the first two times around. That is point one.

So it was a bipartisan product. The President, President Clinton, had kicked off the effort years before, and eventually we worked together to produce a product.

My next point, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has so clearly pointed out, it has been different this time around in terms of this product that came through the House. It has not been a bipartisan product whatsoever. Instead, what the majority has been trying to do is really to rewrite the 1996 welfare reform bill, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has pointed out, to turn the clock back on provisions of that bill, and to do so despite the fact that the research that has been undertaken since passage in 1996 indicates that what is in the House-passed bill is wrong in important respects, and that is why the Senate has failed to act.

First of all, in terms of people moving up the economic ladder, the evidence is clear that a majority of people who have moved from welfare to work earn less than 42 percent of the median average wage in their States. And also these studies make clear that the most successful programs focus on getting people better jobs and increasing their earnings. Former welfare recipients with higher starting wages were 40 percent more likely to still be working 2 years later and those with child assistance were twice as likely to work for 2 years.

So that is why the National Governors Association, when they canvassed the welfare directors, found that 40 of them said that the fundamental changes in the Republican bill were wrong; or to put it another way, that the Republican bill would force fundamental changes in the successful welfare programs. And the researcher who has done so much of the federally funded research on welfare-to-work strategies said that the House Bush administration plan would force the most successful programs to change substantially. So that is what this is all about.

We passed a bill that would, instead of emphasizing people moving off of welfare into work and as they moved, moved up the ladder, would emphasize people on welfare working. The whole point is to help people and get them to move off of welfare and to stay off of welfare.

So in our bill the Democrats proposed a very different approach than the Republicans here in the House. In our bill, States would be rewarded for helping recipients move off of welfare and to get into good-paying jobs, and also trying to fix the transitional Medicaid program, to try to get more health care available for people so when they moved off of welfare, they did not lose it, they would instead continue it for 6 months or a year. Also we proposed in our bill full funding to the social services block grant program.

Let me finish by saying I support the extension. It is better than a bad bill that passed the House, but on child care, the record should be straight: We proposed $11 billion more, the Senate $7 billion, and the House Republican bill won. If child care is not provided, it is going to be difficult for people to move off of welfare into productive work that will move them and help move up the ladder, and that is the true test of welfare reform, people moving off welfare out of poverty and into work.

The gentleman from Maryland has led the effort to emphasize that with the support of Democrats. I am proud to be part of that. We need a bipartisan effort in this House, not ramming or cramming through a bill without ever there being an effort within our subcommittee to produce a bipartisan product. There is hope, but not the Republican bill. Let us vote for the extension and do much better after November 2.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the chairman of the subcommittee, if he persists in distorting the record, he is going to continue to make less likely improvement of welfare reform. I am sorry he is not listening, but I will say this for the record.

When welfare reform bills were considered, there were differences. But at important places we proposed alternatives and Democrats voted for them. March 24, 1995, 205 Democrats supported essentially a substitute that was proposed by someone who was then a member of the Democratic Caucus. That was March of 1995. Then if you go over to later on, there was in July 1996 when welfare reform was considered on the floor an alternative proposed by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). It received 168 votes.

His attempt to really grab the welfare reform flag and deny the involvement of President Clinton who suggested we end welfare as we then knew it, I think he is now suggesting that we change welfare reform backwards. That effort of his I think only diminishes the chances that we can move welfare reform ahead. His trying to make this

into a partisan issue instead of a chance for bipartisan working together is really antithetical to the needs of the people of this country for further welfare reform. I hope the next time around, he does not sing the same song.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 24, 2004 the Sterling Heights Fire Fighters Union will host their Annual Dinner-Dance, honoring their 2004 retirees. This yearly event, honors Sterling Heights firefighters for their dedication to their community and recognizes their commendable contributions to the city. I am pleased to be associated with this fine organization and to call many of them my friends.

I am proud to rise today to pay tribute to the careers of two retiring firefighters.

Inspector Dennis Witulski, discharged from the U.S. Navy in 1973, was appointed as a Sterling Heights firefighter on July 20, 1981. He was promoted to FEO in 1992 and then promoted again to Lieutenant in 1996. Mr. Witulski was deemed Firefighter of the Year in 2001 by the city of Sterling Heights and American Legion Post 151. He twice received Perfect Attendance awards in 1996 and 2002. Mr. Witulski received various merits and awards throughout his tenure with the fire department, and retired on July 20, 2004.

Bio-Operations Chief Anthony Maltese was born in Detroit, Michigan, on June 6, 1950. He was appointed to the position of firefighter January 29, 1973. He received commendation for responding to a house fire in 1974 and a Meritorious Unit Citation for a lifesaving incident in 1986. Mr. Maltese was promoted to Lieutenant in July of 1992, and promoted again to Captain in October of 1995. He received his Associates Degree, Cum Laude, in 1994 and was appointed Battalion Chief in 1997. Mr. Maltese retired as Operations Chief on November 19, 2003.

Many of us embark on a profession that does not call for us to put our lives in danger each day we go into work. These men chose to dedicate their careers and their lives to helping people in their community stay safe and secure, and putting their lives in harm's way to save a life, a family, a home.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing these two heroes, who have dedicated themselves to Sterling Heights and the community at large in a way that few can; with valor, commitment and honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Tom Violante, founder and owner of Holiday Market in Royal Oak, Michigan in a celebration of the Market's fifty years as a community landmark.

When Holiday Market opened in 1954, it was a small store up the street from its present location and in some respects it was like many other small grocers so common in those days. It sold the basics and had a meat counter with a very few employees.

But there was from the beginning a major difference: the owner, Tom Violante. He took a personal interest in every customer who walked through the door. He wanted every customer to be satisfied with service, price, and quality. Those who stopped at that small business place can remember Tom at the meat counter, friendly and eager to meet a customer's wishes. In these efforts he was actively joined by his wife Janet.

He also possessed a strong business acumen. When opportunities arose to move down the street and expand into much larger quarters, he took the leap. Today Holiday Market provides an adventure in shopping for an imaginative variety of quality products.

The next generation of his family has taken an increased interest. They have sustained the Violante touch of warm friendliness and superior service.

As busy as Tom Violante was, whether as the cog in a small operation and later as his enterprise grew, and no matter how involved he and his wife Janet were in raising their growing family, Tom and Janet have possessed a strong community and civic involvement.

Tom's community interest was exemplified in his service on the Oak Park Board of Education, the Oak Park Citizens School Finance Committee, President of the Frost Elementary School PTA, and the Oak Park Boosters Club. Many have been the beneficiaries of Tom and Janet Violante's civic interest. Their support of local charitable organizations include the Royal Oak Lions Club, the Royal Oak Boys and Girls Club, William Beaumont Hospital's Speech Therapy Program and Leader Dogs for the Blind and Hearing Impaired, among others.

Mr. Speaker, as Tom Violante is ``roasted'' at the celebration on September 23, in Royal Oak, Michigan, I add my personal gratitude to a remarkable man who has given so much to make his community a better place for all of us. I ask my colleagues to join in congratulating Holiday Market on its golden anniversary and in wishing Tom Violante, his wife Janet, their five children and fourteen grandchildren good health and happiness, and continued success.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, several colleagues and I introduced legislation that would create a comprehensive plan to address the impending crisis in the U.S. textiles and apparel industry. An explanation of this bill for the Record follows.

Summary

H.R. 5026, the Textiles and Apparel China Safeguard Act,

creates a comprehensive program to respond to the WTO-

mandated expiration of textiles and apparel quotas at the end

of 2004. Foreseeing within the expanded trade resulting from

China's WTO accession the potential negative impact on the

U.S. and world markets from quota expiration, the Clinton

Administration negotiated the right for the United States to

use a special safeguard against imports of textiles and

apparel products from China. Despite 345,000 U.S. jobs lost

in the textiles and apparel industry since 2001, and

estimates of hundreds of thousands more after quotas expire,

the Bush Administration has failed to actively implement the

special safeguard or to create a comprehensive approach to

the issue.

The Textiles and Apparel China Safeguard Act is critical

for the U.S. textiles and apparel industry and the 700,000

U.S. jobs it supports. The Act ensures active enforcement of

the special safeguard against imports from China and creates

a comprehensive approach to the impending crisis. The Act has

three key elements. Specifically, it would:

(1) direct the President to make two changes to the overly

restrictive rules issued by the Bush Administration to

implement the China safeguard so that the safeguard will be

meaningful for the U.S. textiles and apparel industry;

(2) direct the President to use the special China safeguard

to negotiate a comprehensive agreement by immediately

entering into formal consultations with China over textiles

and apparel imports that threaten to disrupt the American

market; and

(3) enforce aggressively U.S. rights under the special

China safeguard by imposing restraints on imports if China

does not agree on a mutually acceptable solution.

Background and Explanation

On January 1, 2005, quotas on textiles and apparel products

are scheduled to expire for WTO Members. Textiles and apparel

industry analysts predict that China will dominate global

textiles and apparel production when that happens. In the

United States, some analysts expect China to capture over

two-thirds of the U.S. market and, according to the World

Bank, capture as much as 50 percent of total global

production--a dramatic increase from its current 17 percent

share.

China's dominance in the U.S. market will have serious

direct adverse consequences domestically. It will also be

devastating for many poorer developing countries that will

lose their U.S. market share to China, including U.S.

preference partners in Central America and sub-Saharan

Africa. The impact on these countries will be another blow to

the U.S. industry because many of the U.S. preference

partners are heavily integrated with the U.S. industry,

including use of significant amounts of U.S. textiles in the

apparel they export.

The textiles and apparel industry is among the largest U.S.

manufacturing industry (in terms of employment, with a total

of around 700,0000 workers), yet to date the Bush

Administration has failed to take any significant steps to

address this major trade event.

As part of China's WTO accession package, the Clinton

Administration created a special safeguard applicable to

imports of textiles and apparel products from China. This

special China safeguard gives the United States the right (1)

to enter into consultations with China to create a more

stable market, (2) to negotiate restraints on textiles and

apparel imports with China, and (3) to impose restraints on

an annual basis if China does not agree and the imports are

causing or threatening market disruption.

Changing Overly Restrictive Regulations

The Bush Administration issued regulations in May 2003

implementing the special safeguard. Those rules, however, are

overly restrictive, severely constraining the safeguard and

making it effectively unavailable for large segments of the

U.S. industry and its workers. First, the regulations do not

clearly provide the right to bring a ``threat'' case. In

other words, the U.S. industry and its workers will have to

wait until after imports from China have already caused

injury--often irreparable injury--before they can bring a

successful case. Second, the regulations are written in a way

that significantly constrains the U.S. right to respond to

market disruption from China. In many cases, Chinese imports

cause market disruption not by competing directly with U.S.

production, but because they supplant production that would

have used inputs made by U.S. industry. In both cases, the

injury to the U.S. industry and its workers is the same--lost

orders and lost jobs--yet the current regulations do not

provide clearly a right to use the safeguard to prevent the

second kind of market disruption.

The Textiles and Apparel China Safeguard Act directs the

President to rescind the restrictive interpretation of the

textiles and apparel safeguard implementing regulations and

replace them with regulations that:

(A) make clear that the U.S. industry and workers will not

have to wait until after Chinese textiles and apparel imports

have caused injury, but may use a threat case to preempt

injury; and

(B) make clear that a safeguard may be imposed for market

disruption that harms the U.S. industry and workers when

Chinese imports displace production that uses inputs made by

the U.S. industry.

In this way, the Textiles and Apparel China Safeguard Act

will allow the United States to take full advantage of its

rights under the special China textiles safeguard and make

this safeguard a more useful tool for the U.S. industry and

its 700,000 workers.

Creating a Comprehensive Approach for Import-Sensitive Products

Given the significant adverse impact expected on the U.S.

textiles and apparel industry and its workers from immediate

and wholesale elimination of textiles and apparel quotas--

some estimates predict hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs

will be lost if nothing is done--a more comprehensive

approach is needed. The Textiles and Apparel China Safeguard

Act provides this comprehensive approach.

The Act directs the President, in effect, to negotiate a

comprehensive bilateral textiles and apparel agreement with

China, as allowed under the terms of China's WTO accession

agreement. The special China safeguard allows China and any

WTO Member to negotiate bilaterally ways to address market

disruption caused by Chinese textiles and apparel.

Significantly, the accession agreement does not place any

limitations on the content of such settlements. The open-

ended nature of the settlement provision in the safeguard

provides the basis of negotiating a comprehensive textiles

and apparel agreement with China. The Textiles and Apparel

China Safeguard Act directs the President to negotiate such a

comprehensive agreement on all products still subject to

quotas.

If China is not willing to come to terms on a comprehensive

agreement, the Act directs the President to invoke the import

restraints provided for under the safeguard across the board

for all products eligible for the safeguard, as the United

States has the right to do under the terms of China's WTO

accession agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a distinguished member of the Michigan education community, Dr. James D. Edoff, upon his retirement as Superintendent from the Fitzgerald Public Schools in the City of Warren. He has served in this capacity for twelve of the thirty-five years he has been associated with the district.

Dr. Edoff's exceptional career in education spans a broad range of positions, including teacher in the disciplines of science and mathematics at the elementary, middle and high school levels, high school debate coach, adult education instructor, computer coordinator, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Assistant Superintendent, and Superintendent.

Dr. Edoff's international experiences include studying, teaching and participating in seminars and symposiums in Wales, the Netherlands, Peoples Republic of China, Germany, Japan, England and Austria. His work has been recognized both locally by the City of Warren in the ``Exceptional Service to the Community'' award and internationally through the Fulbright Memorial Award to study the Japanese educational school system in Japan as a guest of the government of Japan, and the Netherlands Study Fellowship.

His leadership involvement in the community has been extensive and is exemplified by his chairmanship of Creating a Healthier Macomb, an organization dedicated to the medical, economic and spiritual improvement of the community. His interest in career training for students within four public school districts is shown in the position he holds as Chairperson of the South Macomb Technical Education Consortium.

Jim Edoff has been a forceful, persuasive advocate for an equal public education for all students. He has been instrumental in endeavors to meet that goal in a school district that does not possess the fiscal resources that make it easy to achieve. I have been pleased to join him at the numerous noteworthy events including the dedication of the Automotive and Pre-Engineering Technology Institute and the Communication Arts Wing of the High School. His achievements, as well as his leadership approach, have been an inspiration to parents and students, and to me personally.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this fine individual and thanking him for his dedication to our public education system. He has made a difference in the lives of numerous children and families, and we will miss his regular involvement in our local education community. I wish him good health and happiness in his retirement and much success as he sets out on his next path which I am confident will build on the good deeds of the one which draws to a close at Fitzgerald.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. However, I want to make it clear that we do not want this as a precedent that on trade agreements only 2 hours of debate always are allowed. In this case I think 2 hours will be satisfactory. That will not always be true.

There are good reasons to support this FTA, and I do so. There is the historical relationship between our two countries, as mentioned. There are the present realities in our relationship, Morocco's important role in its area and beyond that. Also, there are some important provisions in this agreement; for example, relating to manufacturing goods outside of the textile area. Ninety-five percent of them will become duty-free. There are strong services commitments, strong IPR commitments. So there are good reasons to be supportive of this.

I do want to put in perspective, though, several issues that have come up in our discussion, and these issues really were raised by us on the minority side. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) likes to talk about raising issues as if it is a reflection of economic isolationism. That is the rubric, the mantra, the propaganda of the majority. They try to pin it on Democrats, including John Kerry. It is absurd. We raised several issues because they were legitimate ones, not because we opposed expanded trade, but because we want expanded trade to work for everybody. We want expanded trade to be shaped. We do not think it is some magic bullet that we simply have to shoot and everything will work out. We do not think trade policy should be on automatic pilot. We do not think that what is necessarily appropriate in one trade agreement is appropriate in another. These cookie cutter approaches of this administration are wrong, and surely we do not support this agreement because we think that the economic record of this administration is worthy of support by anybody in this country.

So we raised a couple of issues. And the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) referred to the prescription medicine provision, and I want to talk about it. Before I do that, a brief word and we will have more discussion during the 2 hours about the core labor standard provisions. The gentleman from California said we should not impose U.S. wages, identical laws on other countries. That is not what we are talking about. That again is propaganda from the majority side. What we are talking about are basic core international standards, and countries, including ours, have signed on to a declaration that says that people should have the right to associate, to bargain, to be free from discrimination, there should be no child or forced labor. That is what we are talking about when we say they should be incorporated into free trade agreements.

We asked the question, an important one, where is Morocco? Where is Morocco today in terms of their laws and their enforcement of these core labor standards? And the majority, because of their view that trade always works out for the best, it is always win-win, did not raise any questions about that. In fact, as to the reforms of 2003 in Morocco, there was not even within our government an English translation of these laws. And we asked for one and we looked at them. We talked to the Moroccan government about these laws, and I am pleased to say that we had a very useful discussion, which we initiated and the Moroccan government responded to, regarding the status of these core labor standards in Moroccan law and in Moroccan practice.

The reforms that were inaugurated last year were a major step forward. The Moroccan society has some history of some freedom for workers, and the independent union in Morocco supports this agreement, I think, as a result. But there were issues raised as to the ability of people to associate, to bargain, and to strike, and so we asked the Moroccan government to give us in writing the status, and I want to quote from their letter and I will place that letter in the Record. The letter read this way:

``The government of Morocco is committed to protecting the right to strike in conformance with ILO, International Labor Organization's core principles. In particular, the government will not use Article 288 of our penal code against lawful strikers.''

So I very much disagree with the administration's approach in general. They have in the agreements enforce their own laws. They put these in the agreements regardless of whether the laws incorporate the standards and whether there is implementation of them. And when we have a chance, when we take over, that will change. But in the meanwhile, the question is, is there conformance, is there conformance basically in Morocco with the core labor standards? And I think the realities as we were able to dig them out indicate that they are basically in conformance with the core labor standards.

Now a few words about prescription medicines. Why did we inquire? First of all, there is the same provision here as there is in the previous agreement, including Australia, the general patent provision that could be applied to reimportation of prescription medicines. It turns out in the case of Morocco that that provision is not going to have any potential effect. All of the legislation that has been introduced regarding reimportation does not include Morocco. They have a very small pharmaceutical industry. So I do not think, though I do not like this provision as a general rule, that we should vote against Morocco because of it, but we should make clear that we do not believe these provisions or this provision should be in trade agreements.

Now what about the impact of these provisions not on our important health needs but the important health needs of the people of Morocco? And we were concerned about that. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talked about AIDS. Look, if we are really concerned, and I think we all are, we need to look at these agreements to see what is the potential impact on the availability of medicines to people in Morocco who are suffering from AIDS and where there is in other cases as well some kind of a health emergency? And there were several provisions in this agreement that raised questions about the accessibility of the people of Morocco in these cases to necessary pharmaceuticals and the ability of the government of Morocco to take the steps necessary to make these drugs available. And these are fairly technical provisions, but they relate to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. One relates to so-called parallel imports and the other to test data protections.

So I will make a long story short, and, if necessary, we can talk more about this when we have the debate of 2 hours. We entered into discussions with USTR. We on the Democratic side sent a letter to USTR, and they responded. And I include those two letters in the Record. And we said, in a few words, would the provisions in these two cases prevent accessibility to necessary drugs in a real case of emergency or necessity? And essentially what USTR has said: The agreement in the side letters, when read together, would not prohibit action by the Moroccan government to provide access to these drugs. And these side letters do have effect. The USTR has told us the

following, and I want to read them so there is clarity. This is from page 8 of the mentioned letter to me:

``As stated in the side letter, the letter constitutes a formal agreement between the parties. It is thus a significant part of the interpretive context for this agreement and not merely rhetorical.'' And they also then earlier have said: ``Therefore, if circumstances ever arise in which a drug is produced under compulsory license,'' meaning the government of Morocco has given that license to make these drugs available, ``and it is necessary to approve that drug to protect public health or effectively utilize the TRIPS/health solution, the data protection provisions in the FTA would not stand in the way.'' And they say the same as to the parallel import issue.

So I just finish by saying this to make it very clear: We were concerned. There is an AIDS epidemic. There are other health issues of serious import for the lives of children and other citizens of Morocco, and we took the initiative to be sure that this agreement would not prevent the availability of medicines in these circumstances. The Declaration, the language that was worked out in Doha, made it clear as to WTO that countries could protect themselves and their citizens when there was an overriding health need, and we wanted to make sure that nothing in this FTA would override that ability. And I am satisfied because of the exchange of letters. I am satisfied because of what was written to us by USTR. I am now satisfied by their categorical statement at our hearing just a few days ago that there would be nothing that would prevent access to these medicines in the circumstances I mentioned because of the FTA.

For all of those reasons, I believe that the issue for Morocco has been addressed. But I want to make it very clear that when we negotiate these agreements in the first place, as is true for core labor standards, as is true for health needs, as is true for anything else, we should be sensitive to what the possible impact would be. We should not be using cookie cutter approaches when the lives and the livelihoods of people in our country and in other countries are involved.

So I support this agreement. I urge passage of the rule. But I think this has been a healthy process, and I think we have both clarified the meaning of this agreement, and also I think what we have done is to serve notice as to how these agreements should be negotiated in the future.

Embassy of the

Kingdom of Morocco,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2004.

Hon. Sandy Levin,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Levin: I have deeply appreciated the

continuing opportunity to work with you on the U.S. Morocco

Free Trade Agreement. In particular, I welcome your interest

in our nation's labor law, specifically the comprehensive

reforms, passed last year.

I want to address through this letter some of the issues

that have been highlighted in conversations with you and your

staff. Under Moroccan law, it is illegal to fire an

individual because they are a member of a labor organization

or have engaged in labor organizing. To fire someone on these

grounds would be arbitrary under the 2003 law and would make

available the full remedies provided under that law.

Under Moroccan law, it is illegal to refuse to hire an

individual because they are a member of a labor organization

or have engaged in labor organizing. It is also illegal to

refuse to rehire or extend the contract of an individual for

these reasons.

Section 473 is a provision in the 2003 Labor Law and the

provision's intent is to ensure that labor representatives do

not undermine the traditional labor organizations. The

government intends to implement this provision to achieve

that goal, consistent with the core provisions of the ILO.

The right to strike is protected in the Moroccan

constitution. Further clarification of these rights is

underway. The government of Morocco is committed to

protecting the right to strike in conformance with the

International Labor Organization's core principles. In

particular, the government of Morocco will not use Article

288 of our penal code against lawful strikers.

Concerning the questions regarding Labor Representatives,

employers have the obligation to organize the elections for

the labor representatives. Employers cannot vote in these

elections and are not able to choose labor representatives.

Only employees can vote and elect freely the labor

representatives.

Employees can join freely the Union of their own choice.

Unions designate their representatives within the companies.

On the ILO involvement, Morocco has always worked with ILO.

For instance, ILO assisted Morocco to write the Labor Code of

2003 and the new law on child labor. Morocco, as in the past,

will continue to ask the support of ILO and work with this

organization in all labor issues such as new laws and will

ask its help in providing assistance for the implementation

of the current rules.

I look forward to continuing to work with you on these

issues and any others of potential concern. Nevertheless, I

wanted to get back to you in a timely manner on the key

issues addressed in this letter.

Sincerely,

Aziz Mekouar,

Ambassador.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a colleague and friend from the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), another distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

When we discussed the rule, I went over some of the benefits of this agreement, those relating to manufacturing goods, and we have been deeply hurt in the manufacturing area in the United States these last 3 years. This agreement should open up Morocco to more goods made in America. I referred to the agricultural area. This agreement does open up the Moroccan market to agricultural goods produced in the United States of America. It will also liberalize the service areas that are important for our development. And there is reference to intellectual property safeguards.

I want to spend a few minutes now talking about the broader perspective here, the perspective, I think, with which we must look at trade agreements and expanded trade.

First, there has been some reference here to bipartisanship, and it is true that this will pass with bipartisan support. Not complete. But I want it clear that there has been these last 3 years no basic bipartisan consensus on trade. That has been true of the big issues. We fought out TPA here, and it passed narrowly. CAFTA was negotiated on a narrow basis without adequate bipartisan participation. The same has been true today of the FTAA.

The failure of this administration to build a bipartisan consensus, a strong bipartisan foundation, to renew that foundation that once existed here, I think, has handicapped discussions within the WTO. We cannot make the tough decisions relating to negotiations in the WTO that affect American workers, businesses, farmers and others except on the basis of a strong bipartisan foundation. We do not have it.

Secondly, we on the Democratic side together, all of us, reject the use of one agreement as a model for others. For example, we have discussed core labor standards. Where labor laws in a country are essentially adequate, as was true of Jordan, the standard enforce-your- own-laws, which was the basic standard in Jordan, can work; but it will not work in cases where laws are very inadequate. So that is why we Dems essentially in unison reject the CAFTA that was negotiated. We support a Central American Free Trade Agreement, but one that is different than was negotiated.

So the basic issue, therefore, is not, as some in the majority have stated, whether one is for or against free trade, for or against expanded trade. It is whether the terms of expanded trade will be shaped to benefit all and not just a few. We do not assume that expanded trade is automatically positive all around.

That is why when this agreement came up, we raised two issues. One of them related to core labor standards. There was reform. We wanted to know the facts about those reforms. We wanted to know the realities within Morocco. We wanted to know whether it was more or less like Jordan and not more or less like Central America.

And so we dug into the facts. We made it clear to the Moroccan government that we cared, and I must say I think it is because Democrats have been raising these issues perhaps more than any other factor that the Moroccan government undertook some reforms, and we received back a communication from the government of Morocco. I submit for printing in the Record the letter that was sent to us and the three other letters referred to during the debate on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put in perspective why I support the rule and why I will vote for this agreement. It is a somewhat different perspective than the gentleman from California's (Mr. Dreier).

There are some very strong provisions in this legislation, and we will talk about it more during the 2 hours, on manufactured goods, on agriculture, on services. These are solid provisions that work to the advantage of American workers and businesses.

As to prescription medicines, USTR did try to get Australia, through these negotiations, to consider changes within their structure. We sent a letter, a number of us, to USTR saying we did not consider that to be a legitimate effort, and they dropped it.

What is left here are two provisions, one regarding transparency, which will not affect U.S. law, and the other relates to reimportation. The fact is, in this agreement there is incorporated the general law protecting U.S. patent holders. It is put in this agreement; and I suppose theoretically, it could lead to someone saying that if we pass the reimportation law it would violate that agreement.

It does not become operational. As mentioned here, the laws of Australia prohibit exports to the United States. So, in essence, we have a provision here that can have no operational effect on the effort here, and I totally support it, to allow reimportation of medicines.

So what do we do as a result? We have the same dilemma when it comes to a nation enforcing its own laws when it comes to labor standards. I very much object to the use of that standard in general. In Australia, it does not matter because their labor laws are essentially the same as ours. So we have two provisions here, and how do we send a message?

My own judgment is, where the agreement is otherwise strong in terms of expanded trade for the benefit of our workers and businesses, for the American public, the consumers, to say, okay, but two things, do not dare put this provision relating to patents in any agreement which would affect reimportation of drugs, do not dare do it, and if they did, it would bring down the bill. As to the core labor standards, do not dare try it in an agreement where the conditions are the opposite of or very different from Australia.

Well, CAFTA is exactly what they did with labor standards, and that is why we very much oppose CAFTA. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talks about bipartisanship. There has been zero real bipartisanship when it comes to the negotiation of CAFTA, and that is why it is going to fail. That is why it will not be brought up on this floor because it would lose. Bipartisanship has to be more than consulting with us when they think we will agree but not when there is a legitimate disagreement between the parties in an effort to work it out.

So my suggestion is to vote for this FTA; but in our debate make it very clear, when it comes to prescription medicines, do not put this kind of a provision in a bill with a country that does not prohibit exportation, and number two, when it comes to using the standard for labor and the environment, do not put it in agreements with different nations or we will fight it to the end, and that is what we are doing.

I favor a CAFTA, not this one. So I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the effort to consult, the effort for a bipartisan approach to trade, that has failed under this administration mainly. We do not have the same bipartisan base that we once had. With Australia, all right; but in other cases, no.

So I think we need to send a signal to this administration as to our disagreements in terms of our opposition to CAFTA, their failure to actively enforce the laws that we have, their approach to China; but I do not think these differences should force us to vote against an expansion of trade that is basically positive; and for that reason, I urge support for the rule, support for this bill, but with those strong, strong caveats and messages that I have just enunciated.