Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding me this time. To the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), and others who have worked on this, I am pleased to join them in supporting this legislation to end a form of tax fraud called SUTA. I think everybody should understand it is State Unemployment Tax Account dumping.

I am proud that a company in my home State of Michigan, Kelly Services, was one of the first to blow the whistle on this abusive practice. Really, Kelly Services and their leadership played an indispensable role, and I think it is good for the free enterprise system of this country when people within the business community step up and say, Something is wrong; some others are not playing by the rules.

One of the fundamental principles of the unemployment compensation system is that each employer pays their fair share based on their company's layoff patterns. Employers who frequently lay off workers pay higher taxes. This ensures, first of all, fairness; and also it creates a financial incentive for employers to avoid layoffs whenever possible.

But in recent years, some companies, aided by unscrupulous accounting firms, used loopholes in the law to make it appear that their layoff rates were much lower than they actually were. We are told that these practices are not technically illegal, but they should be; and this bill will ensure that they are.

In Michigan alone, SUTA dumping costs the trust fund 50 to $100 million a year at a time when pressure on our trust fund is already great. Employers who dump make it more difficult for Michigan to increase benefits or help the long-term unemployed, and they drive up the tax rate for honest employers, making it difficult for them to hire new workers.

There is never a good time for employers to avoid paying their fair share, but this is a particularly bad time to cheat the unemployment trust fund. Unemployment is 5.6, nearly double the unemployment rate at the end of 2000. The economy has 1.8 million fewer private sector jobs and 2.7 million fewer manufacturing jobs than it had in 2000. The number of job openings in the Midwest is down by 44 percent since the end of 2000. People in Michigan and across the country are out of work through no fault of their own and have nowhere else to turn except State unemployment programs.

State unemployment trust funds have taken a beating. Thirty-one State unemployment trust funds do not currently have enough funds to withstand another recession. Four States, Minnesota, New York, Missouri and North Carolina, currently do not have enough funds in their State trust funds and have borrowed from the Federal trust fund.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to strengthen our State unemployment trust funds, help workers, and maintain fairness in the system.

I want to say one other thing. On an earlier bill, there was much talk about bipartisanship, and we have heard it again today on this bill. There was bipartisanship on this bill. It is sad there was not when it came to extension of Federal unemployment benefits. There was none. The Republicans, this majority, in essence, they collaborate with us when they think we will agree with them; but if they think we will disagree, there is no bipartisanship in a meaningful sense.

The extended program, the failure to continue it, has had a major impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of families in the United States of America. I salute the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for his tireless efforts over these months to try to get the Republicans to work with us on this. The highest number of people have exhausted all of their benefits on record in this country. I got this figure, and I want everybody to understand it, the number who have exhausted their benefits without finding work since December of last year, 1.7 million people.

My plea is, if we are going to be bipartisan on SUTA, and it is good that we are going to do so and, I hope, pass this overwhelmingly, I urge that the majority here take another look and think about some bipartisanship, about the lives of millions of people in this country who are unemployed through no fault of their own and cannot find a job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. It cannot do any harm. But I am not at all sure how much good it can possibly do.

I want to review very briefly what has happened with this issue over the years. We had a system in place. It was ruled illegal under GATT. We then decided we would replace it with what became known as FSC, a famous term now. That resulted from a series of negotiations or discussions with the Europeans, and we thought everybody understood that, that new system that we had incorporated would go without challenge. And it did so for a number of years. Then the European Union decided to challenge our FSC system, I think contrary to the mutual understanding that we had.

I had always believed, and there is some evidence to support, that the reason they did so was really to gain leverage on other issues. But, be that as it may, the FSC system, as we all know, was ruled contrary to the rules of the WTO, and then they authorized sanctions, and those are now in effect.

When the WTO ruling came up, it was the feeling of many of us, actually, before that, that the best answer to this was to have negotiations within the WTO. And we urged the USTR Rep, our Ambassador, to try to resolve this through WTO negotiations rather than the litigation that occurred. I am not sure that effort ever was taken very seriously, and the WTO ruling and the sanctions did occur.

We also urged the USTR on several occasions, as I remember it, to try to put forth a proposal for discussion in the Doha Round that would resolve this issue, and there seemed to be some resistance to this. Eventually, the U.S. Government did table a provision, a proposal, within the WTO. As far as I have read, it has not been very vigorously pursued, and it is essentially, as I understand, if not dormant, not very much on the front burner.

So here we are. I think there has been a failure of sufficient aggressiveness by the USTR over these years to really try to adequately protect the FSC system. Now it said let us have a report. Let us have a report with a mandated time for submission. And I guess, as I said at the beginning, that cannot do any harm and maybe will do a bit of good.

However, I want it to be clear that in supporting this resolution that we are not giving our imprimatur to any particular alternative that is named in this resolution. The assessment of the impact of corporate tax rates, I am all in favor of that. I do not want any implication as to what we might do. A system based on the principle of territoriality, the administration has had over 3 years to propose such a system. It is very controversial, and they never have formally come up with this, although there have been hints of this. And a border adjustment for exports such as already allowed by the WTO for indirect taxes, I think that is worthy of study.

So, in a word, I think support of this is okay. I think, though, what we are going to need in the days and years ahead is not simply reports but some real action.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This is the third bill in a row where there has been talk again about bipartisanship, and I suppose that is supposed to be the mantra of the day. As I said earlier on those two bills, the problem in this institution has been bipartisanship if it suited the majority and they felt we would agree with their proposal. But when it comes to issues where there is some legitimate disagreement or different points of view, that bipartisanship does not prevail.

Mr. Speaker, on this issue there was a bipartisan effort to address the FSC issue. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), who is on the floor; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo); the gentleman from New York Mr. Rangel; and I had a bipartisan proposal. And here we are many, many months later. All that this House has done is to pass a bill that really was not a bipartisan bill, and many of us had many objections to it. So there we had a wonderful chance to be bipartisan to address a problem in our tax structure and to do it to try to help manufacturing in this country.

Instead, that opportunity was squandered; and here we are many, many months later without a bill that will replace FSC.

So in a word, I just want to say words of bipartisanship are fine. Concrete efforts to achieve it are really what is necessary, and this resolution is not going to have much impact unless we try to rebuild the bipartisan basis for trade policy that has been undermined these last 3 years.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just say something briefly. Look, I am all in favor of this study, but I do not want to make this unduly complicated. We had a chance going back many, many months to pass some legislation here that would address the specific problem facing us because of the WTO decision on FSC. We had the concrete opportunity to do something very specific on a bipartisan basis. That never was given a really fair chance on the floor of this House. I do not think that this resolution should mask the fact that here we are so many, many months later and that issue is not resolved.

We have an obligation not only to ask for studies, but to act, and this institution has not acted. The President had a chance very early on to come out in support of the bill that the four of us introduced that would have resolved the FSC problem within WTO rules and would have assisted manufacturing in the United States of America. That opportunity was lost, and we are just now in the quagmire of a bill that does not cost $4 billion a year, but has a price tag of, what, $150 billion over the time period.

So, let us study. Let us also act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a distinguished member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is on suspension today. There has been on each occasion on these trade bills references to bipartisanship, and I simply want to express my regret to the chairman that this bill was placed on suspension. I do not think that it is a useful way to proceed on a bill of this nature. I am not sure that it has been done traditionally on this bill.

I am going to support it.

But we did raise in the committee several amendments. They were discussed, they were voted on, they were voted down, but we should have had the opportunity to raise these issues, or at least try, with the Committee on Rules to obtain a rule that allowed us to bring up these amendments.

One was an amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) that related to penalties from fines that were being levied against China, anti-dumping countervailing duty levies. We have a serious problem, and that is we have these orders, we have fines, but they are not being collected. The amount involved is over $100 million, perhaps as high as $130 million. What has been happening is, as the government has tried to implement the anti-dumping countervailing duties, was to allow people to post bonds instead of some amount of cash. These bonds, I guess in most cases, turned out to be worthless. So essentially, we are left holding an empty bag. And it is really our manufacturers who are left without redress, because under legislation passed by this Congress, there would be redress directly for the injured party.

Well, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) raised this issue; and, actually, I guess in full committee, there was a decision to postpone action on it, with the hope that there could be something worked out. But when it is put on suspension, it essentially snuffs out any chance for us to raise the issue through an amendment.

But, secondly, there is the issue of the additional $2 million for USTR. And the reason we had discussion within the committee and before that in the subcommittee was this: In our judgment, the judgment of many of us, there has not been vigorous enforcement of our laws. We pass trade laws, we enter into trade agreements, but they require, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has pointed out, active, vigorous enforcement by the executive. And that has not been true. It has been lacking, though there has been a spurt these last 5 or 6 or 7 months.

So there was offered in the subcommittee, and then again in the committee, an amendment to be sure that part of the $2 million that we were adding to USTR in this authorization would be spent for enforcement. The $2 million, the way it is written in the bill, goes to the General Counsel and the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement. None of this has to go to the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement, the way it is written. That is true. None of it has to. All of it could go to the General Counsel, at least as I read it, or maybe $1 could go to the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement.

Anyway, we proposed an amendment to be sure that some of the funds would be used for various purposes of enforcement. That was called an earmark. I am not sure that is an appropriate term. Why money, extra money going to two offices is not an earmark, but including how they might spend it is one, I do not quite get that, especially in view of the fact that there has been such a need for the enforcement of our laws.

I referred earlier to China. We have a huge deficit with China, and enforcement has been a major problem. We need to do better, and what our amendment proposed was to be certain that some of the monies, and we did not specify for each of the purposes, but that some of the monies would be used for the purposes of enforcement. That was voted down.

Now the problem with putting this on suspension is that we do not even have a chance to go to the Committee on Rules and ask for a rule that would allow us to raise this amendment on the floor. There has been a lot of talk about bipartisanship here, and I admired the majority for sticking to a message and repeating it time and time again, but the test is not in the words but in the actions. And the test is whether you let us raise issues on the floor of the House if you disagree with our position so we can have a full airing of these issues and, if we want to, vote, and maybe even win.

We objected to this being placed on suspension, but here we are with the alternative of voting it down or passing it when it is for a purpose that is an important one.

I also understand that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) is going to raise an issue regarding the new provisions regarding boats that apply to fishing boats, and I think he will speak regarding that.

So in a word, I am going to vote for this. I hope my colleagues will vote for it. However, it is important, I think, that we realize that placing a bill on suspension of this nature does limit our ability to try to have a debate and action in a vote on important amendments, and I hope very much that this will not be repeated. One thing I can assure my colleagues of, if we take back the House, this bill will not be put on suspension.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), a very distinguished, active gentleman from Washington; and then I will respond to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) a bit later.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have made my points. I will not repeat them. In terms of a vote that is unanimous in committee, I hope that is not the precedent for putting bills on suspension, especially bills of major import. This relates to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Bureau of Customs Enforcement of the Department, and customs enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security, the office of USTR and for ITC.

So we did, I think, clearly say to the majority we did not want this bill on suspension, and it was placed on suspension anyway. I do not think that is a bipartisan way to proceed, and there has been use of much of the term ``bipartisanship'' here today, and I want to make it clear the test is not in rhetoric but in actual performance.

And let me just say a word to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and I want to repeat this because I hope USTR gets the message about enforcement. I do not know if all the money went to General Counsel, whether it would be considered a violation of this language. I think maybe so, but maybe not; but as I said in my remarks, if they gave a dollar to the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement and the rest to General Counsel, I think it will meet the terms of this provision.

And the reason we have raised it is not to be picky or not to fly- speck, but because the issue of enforcement of our trade laws is a vital one. We have worked to pass trade laws. We worked to place some major provisions in the

China PNTR. We have worked to try to maintain our antidumping and countervailing duty laws. We have worked to have some strong trade laws; but if they are not vigorously enforced, it does not do much good.

And so we wanted to be sure the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) addressed this, and we raised it in committee. We wanted to make sure that if there were going to be adequate or additional funding, that some portion of it in a meaningful way would go for enforcement of our laws. And we named three areas in which we needed more vigorous enforcement. That is what this is all about. Those of us who favor expanded trade want to do so first of all so that the terms of trade are shaped so that there is widespread benefit; and, number two, we want to make sure that the laws that we support and help to shape are implemented, are enforced. And the record of this administration, in my judgment, has been unsatisfactory, to put it mildly.

And that is why we raised the issue, and that is why it would have been better to have this bill not on suspension, but in the normal course. That is what this is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I see that another gentleman is here to speak, but I will reserve the balance of my time, with the understanding I probably will not speak again if the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is ready to wrap up.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Mr. Bordallo), a very capable Congresswoman.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished colleague of mine, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention right at the beginning that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) wished to be here. We share a very similar approach to this issue. But he had to leave to go to New York for a funeral, so he could not be with us.

This administration's economic policy, in a few words, has been a miserable failure. I have joined with others in opposing key parts of their approach to trade. I helped lead the fight against their Trade Promotion Authority and for our own alternative, and we have helped to point out time after time their lackluster record on enforcement.

In a word, we have opposed the administration for using a one-size- fits-all, a blind, a cookie-cutter approach to trade policy. I do not think it works for us to respond with our own cookie-cutter approach to trade.

So we have before us a specific agreement. It has some very important, positive features to it. For manufacturing, right now, 93 percent of the total value of goods that we send over to Australia are in manufacturing, and duties on more than 99 percent on these goods will be eliminated. This has real implications for autos and auto parts, for construction equipment, for electrical equipment, for appliances, for furniture, for information technology, for medical and scientific equipment. Also, there are important provisions here for agriculture. Australia will eliminate immediately all of their tariffs on food and on agriculture.

Let me say, though, despite these provisions, and there are some important provisions regarding services, I would vote against this bill if I thought it either undermined our position, our efforts, our commitment on core labor standards, or our firm commitment on the reimportation of drugs.

As to labor standards, Australia uses the standard ``enforce your own laws.'' That can work for countries that have solid laws that meet ILO standards and enforce them. That was the standard, ``enforce your own laws,'' in Jordan; and it worked because those standards are in their laws and they enforce them. It is the case in Australia.

I think the best approach is to say what will work for Australia will not work for nations with very different conditions. We will never agree to one-size-fits-all, to a blind application of provisions; and that is clearly true in terms of labor standards in Central American nations.

We on this side overwhelmingly, and I hope the same is true of many over there, will not vote for a CAFTA with a standard that would ratify very unsatisfactory conditions for their workers, for their nations, for our workers and our Nation, and can only lead to a race to the bottom.

As to prescription medicines, we were very concerned about this issue. A number of us, led by the leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and others, as I look at the letter, opened up this question with our USTR in our letter of January 15.

Here is what we said: ``We are writing as members of the Democratic leadership of the House and senior members of the Committee on Ways and Means to express serious concerns about the administration's effort to modify Australia's National Pharmaceutical Reimbursement Program as part of the negotiations of a free trade agreement with Australia.''

We said in conclusion, ``Given these concerns, we urge you,'' this was a letter to the President, to the USTR, to Mr. Zoellick, ``to withdraw the proposal that would, in essence, interfere with their structure and would replace it with one that is derived after a meaningful dialogue with Congress.''

Australia resisted this effort by USTR. We supported Australia's resistance. That approach was, in essence, withdrawn; and it is not in this agreement.

Then as to prescription medicines, there is the issue of whether it forces changes in the law of Australia. We asked the ambassador from Australia to tell it straight, and here is what he said. We wrote it down. It reiterated today what he said earlier: ``In neither case with respect to listing or pricing decisions will we be changing Australian legislation. We are not changing the methodology for evaluating the effectiveness and the pricing of drugs. We are making changes to the process to allow greater consultation and transparency, to make the process more timely and to allow an independent review of the decision by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The final decision to list a drug, including the price, remains with the Minister for Health. Let me also refer briefly to the issue of whether it will force any other changes, and I think the answer is basically no.

Mr. Speaker, let me address the issue of reimportation for just a minute.

Australian law, as has been mentioned, prohibits the export of any drug that is subsidized by their system. That is 90 percent of their drugs. What was placed in this FTA was the laws of this country that relate to patents, including pharmaceutical drugs, but all other patents. I think it was a mistake to include it in this FTA. However, it has no practical effect in terms of reimportation because of the Australian system and their prohibition on the export of any drug that is subsidized. They do not want their subsidization to benefit us here in the United States.

So if we follow the principle that we will look at each agreement on its own, if we follow that principle, I think we will then approve Australia, we will approve this FTA, but we will make it very clear that if that provision is placed in another FTA where the conditions are very different and it could affect, practically speaking, reimportation of drugs to the U.S., we will do the same vis-a-vis such effort as we are going to do as to CAFTA, strongly oppose it, because we do not want provisions in one agreement placed in another where the conditions are very, very different and where there would be injury to the interests of the United States.

So, in a word, I do think, because of the positive provisions in this FTA relating to manufacturing, agriculture services, that we should approve this agreement. However, in doing so, it has to be absolutely clear: Do not use the standard as to core labor standards elsewhere where the conditions are different, and do not dare for a minute use this in any fair trade agreement which would actually inhibit our changes in law on reimportation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself \1/2\ minute.

Two quick comments. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) says that U.S. law will always trump a trade agreement, but it could create a violation of the trade agreement. In this case a violation is theoretical, but do not try the approach in a very different case.

Secondly, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), a race to the bottom does not help the people in developing nations or this Nation. That is why we want different agreements for different situations.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) enforcing your own laws in a situation where the laws are inferior and unenforced will lead to a race to the bottom.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have the privilege of being a member of this committee, so maybe I can be blunt, though, I have affection for the Chair and my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). But when I look at these figures on the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP), I think it is pretty clear what is happening here, and that is, we have an election-year conversion by the House majority to really cover a President who is still asleep at the switch on manufacturing.

We have lost, as has been said here, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs; but while this was happening, what did the House do and the Congress do last year? It cut the MEP by almost 63 percent, almost 63 percent. Now the majority comes back here and says let us restore the cut. That is the conversion.

As to where the President is, despite this mammoth loss of jobs, he proposed in 2003, $12.9 million essentially to phase out MEP. He repeats that in 2004, phase it out essentially. Then 2005, with all of this loss of manufacturing, the President's request is $39 million for MEP. That shows a lack of concern about what has been happening to manufacturing in my State and in this Nation.

Then the suggestion was, have an assistant Secretary for manufacturing. We said it was shuffling chairs. They did nothing to fill that shuffling of chairs for 6 months, and then they appoint somebody else who cannot be confirmed, and now they appoint somebody else and we are still waiting for confirmation.

No, this country needs leadership that is committed to manufacturing in the United States. I hope we will adopt the Gordon amendment. It would be a step forward.

Mr. Speaker, on June 26, 2004, the Ukrainian American community will be celebrating the 40th jubilee commemoration of the unveiling of the monument to Taras Shevchenko, known as the bard of Ukraine for his exquisite lyric poetry and numerous novels, as well as his many works of art.

Taras Shevchenko was born in the Kyiv region in 1814 to a childhood of servitude and a life of hardship. He first worked as a houseboy until his owner realized his artistic talent, after which he was apprenticed to a painter. His freedom was purchased in 1838 by another painter who appreciated Mr. Shevchenko's work.

An ardent champion of freedom and Ukrainian independence, Taras Shevchenko saw George Washington as a symbol and liberator of the American people from the colonial rule of a foreign power. Mr. Shevchenko's works played a key role in the awakening and drive for national liberation of the Ukrainian people. In his poems, he attacked tyrants, oppressors and all enemies of human freedom and decency.

Mr. Shevchenko's love of freedom and criticism of the czars resulted in his arrest in 1847. He was first sentenced to forced military duty, and later imprisonment, where he remained in Russian custody until his release in 1857, two years after the death of Czar Nicholas. He was arrested again in 1859 and remained under police surveillance until his death in 1861.

Years of harsh punishment did nothing to curtail his fight against the imperialist and colonial occupation of his native land. Mr. Shevchenko secretly produced numerous

works of poetry and art throughout his term of imprisonment which inspired the Ukrainian people.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that a statue honoring a man who fully embraced the ideals of personal freedom and human dignity, cornerstones of our country, should stand in the United States. I congratulate the Ukrainian American community on celebrating the 40th anniversary of the dedication of the Taras Shevchenko monument.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Mildred ``Millie'' Jeffrey, a pioneer who was at the forefront of our country's most powerful social and political movements. Millie passed away in March, and on Saturday she will be honored at her beloved Wayne State University in Detroit.

Millie once said, ``the secret to change, that is change for the better, starts with involvement.'' No one lived that mantra more than Millie. She was a powerful voice for our Nation's workers, fighting for their right to organize and to ensure fair treatment in the workplace. Millie marched in the South with Dr. King, and trained other civil rights activists as they worked to break down racial barriers. As a leading feminist, Millie worked tirelessly to open the doors for equality of future women leaders. She was the guiding force in the effort to nominate Geraldine Ferraro as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984. Four years ago, President Clinton awarded Millie the Medal of Freedom, our Nation's highest civilian honor.

The Reuther family brought Millie to Michigan, and it is the place she called home for over 5 decades. Many people don't know this, but Millie was, in fact, an elected official in our State, serving 16 years on the Wayne State Board of Governors. She loved living on campus, showing visitors ``her neighborhood'' and interacting with the students. She took great pride in watching the election of the first woman Senator from Michigan, Debbie Stabenow, and the first woman Governor, Jennifer Granholm. Many of today's leaders count Mildred ``Millie'' Jeffrey as their mentor and friend. I was personally enriched by her example, her endless energy, and her friendship.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering Millie and her contributions to Michigan and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the choices we make define us, our priorities, and our values. The Obey resolution before the House today gives members of Congress the clearest choice possible. Our vote on this measure today will speak volumes about our priorities and values and what we stand for as representatives in the People's House.

Four years ago, the President came before Congress and proposed a sweeping tax cut. Citing a large projected surplus in the budget over ten years, the President said that he was here to claim a refund on behalf of the American people. I voted against the President's proposal for two key reasons: The lion's share of tax relief in the President's plan goes to the very richest households in America, instead of the middle-income families I represent. Indeed, millionaires receive annual tax cuts averaging over $120,000, while middle-income families receive annual tax cuts averaging somewhere between $317 and $1,186 a year.

The other reason I voted against the President's tax plan is because it relied on improbable blue-sky economic forecasts that left no margin for error. As we have seen, the economy has not performed as well as the Administration predicted. The tax plan has left this nation with insufficient resources to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the improvements needed in this country's homeland security in the aftermath of 9-11. This has led the Majority Party in Congress to short-change fundamental commitments we have made in the areas of education, veterans health care, medical research, public health, homeland security, and protecting our environment.

The resolution before the House presents us with a clear choice. We can stay on the path we are on and continue to underfund the most basic needs of our children, veterans and communities, or we can make a small adjustment in the tax code and ask the very richest among us--those with incomes exceeding $1 million a year--to accept a smaller tax cut next year than they currently receive. The taxpayers affected by this resolution would still receive tax cuts that average thousands of dollars--even tens of thousands of dollars--more than most other American families receive.

This small adjustment in revenue would generate $18.9 billion. This resolution would redirect a quarter of this, $4.7 billion, to deficit reduction. The balance would go to fulfill basic needs that this Congress and the Bush Administration have underfunded. It would invest $3 billion to bolster homeland security and ensure that first responders have the equipment and training they need. The resolution would also provide $1.3 billion to keep our promise to fund veterans' health care. It also provides $5.7 billion for key education programs and help our community schools meet the requirements Congress imposed on them in the No Child Left Behind Act. In addition, it provides additional funds for Pell Grants to help families afford college. It would also invest in critically needed medical research at the National Institutes of Health and help control infectious diseases and expand immunizations.

Mr. Speaker, the answer to every problem is not to throw money at it. But we must acknowledge that some problems won't be addressed without spending money. As I said, this Congress faces a defining choice today. Do we stay the course we set four years ago, or do we act to address the most pressing needs confronting this country? For me, this is not a difficult choice. Vote for the Obey resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I favor this legislation. I want, though, the record to be clear as to why we are where we are today.

Way back, it seems like many years ago, we passed welfare reform. It was not an easy journey. There were differences of opinion. President Clinton had urged that we reform welfare. There were differing views as to how to do that. We did work on a bipartisan basis. It was not easy. President Clinton vetoed, in essence, the first two because of inadequate attention to child care and to health care, and that pressured us to continue to find a bipartisan answer.

And I mean bipartisan in the sense that there was strong adequate support from both sides of the aisle, even though there remained some differences. And it became law. And I think the record is that it basically worked. It was a positive step forward. It worked in the sense that many, many millions of people moved off of welfare into work. And that was good for them, it was good for their families, and it was really good for the country.

However, the fact remained, and we do not have all the data, in part because the Congress did not provide enough money to follow this, despite our efforts to do so, but I think the data are pretty clear that while millions moved off of welfare, a very substantial number of them, while working, remained in poverty. So the question became: What next with welfare reform? How do we make it even more effective for the people on welfare who want to move off? How do we make it even more effective for their families?

Here, there was a misstep. And the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has painted that misstep, and others of us who have joined him in this. There were two problems: Number one, substantively, instead of moving on into the next phase of welfare reform so that people who move from welfare to work would move up the ladder, would move out of poverty, there was, instead, a proposal that did not really help people do that; inadequate attention to child care and really inadequate attention to transitional health care through Medicaid.

There was, instead, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has described, a kind of tying the hands of the States, instead of continuing to give them the flexibility that helped people move from welfare to work. As a result, the majority of the State directors in the welfare field opposed what was being suggested by the majority here.

So I think substantively there was some real problems with it. There also was a second flaw, and that was a failure to try to work this out in a bipartisan way. And that became typical, or was typical of the way the Republican majority in the House looked at matters. It was not only welfare reform, but virtually everything else. Instead of sitting down with those of us who wanted to work with them on the subcommittee and on the full committee, essentially the majority crafted its bill, found a small number of Democrats, very small, to support it, and did not look for the bipartisan basis that was true of the original Act.

And so it went over to the Senate. It got off on the wrong foot here. And so what has the answer been? Blame the Senate, though it is controlled by the same party as controls this House. But there were differing views in the Senate, including among Republicans, some of whom we had worked with when they were in the House before, and some of the Democrats.

Well, anyway, so there has been this stymie of the process and here we are again with a short-term extension. It is better, obviously, than nothing, and I think a short-term extension is better than if the Senate had simply adopted the House bill, which it never was going to do.

So I really want to join with the gentleman from Maryland and with others to say to our colleagues on the Republican side, maybe it is not too late to go back and try to do this together. If you fail to do so, we will have missed the chance to have gone to welfare reform phase two. I cannot emphasize how important it is for us to undertake that effort, because welfare reform did help people move from welfare to work. But as I said, too many of them remain in poverty. People are working, but they have joined the working poor. And we can help them who want to do better. That is our challenge, and that is where the House majority has failed.

So let us be bipartisan as best we can today by supporting the extension, but let us do even better. Go back and see if we can write a bill that can pass this House on a bipartisan basis, go over to the Senate so it can work on a bipartisan basis, and we can have further meaningful welfare reform in our country.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, no one is afraid of anything. Here is the problem. You started on the wrong foot here. You started with a bill that the States opposed. You did not sit down with us and try to work out these issues. And so, essentially, you threw it to the Senate to try to do so.

At some point, I thought that the Senate might be able to overcome the wrong start that was made here. There was no, zero, excuse for the failure to sit down with us, those of us who had worked together in 1995 and 1996 and see how we would shape a welfare reform bill that moved this process ahead. Instead, you got the States into total turmoil. Most of the directors opposed your bill. Governors came in and said that you were tying their hands.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), with due respect, that is the answer. The House has used the process, passed something that is far out and then left it to the Senate.

Do it right here in the first place.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Let me take back my time. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the rest of us spelled out the problems with the bill: inadequate child care moneys, and that is a problem over in the Senate; allowing waivers, essentially saying to Washington, you will decree the nature of welfare reform instead of leaving it to the States.

Those were the problems. And also having prescriptive provisions regarding hours of work that the States opposed, preventing States, including my State of Michigan under John Engler, to continue the process that they had started. They would have canceled out

that State discretion. That was the trouble.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida misdescribed 1995 and 1996. I do not think it does any credit for him to describe it that way. There was a major effort, there were differences; but we worked together. There were differences. We worked together on a bipartisan basis. He misdescribed President Clinton's position, also, who, before he became President, talked about reform of welfare and who worked as President to make sure it happened in the right way.

Mr. Speaker, well, here they go again. The Republican Leadership in the House is once again attempting to sneak through a back-door increase in the federal debt limit. Hidden within the resolution before the House is a provision that would allow the debt limit to rise without even requiring Members to have an up-or-down vote on it. This is the same procedural sleight-of-hand the Majority attempted last month in the budget resolution.

Actions have consequences. What it is it about the consequences of their economic policy that members of the Majority Party are afraid to confront? When the Bush Administration took office, the federal government was looking at a projected ten-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. In less than four years, the Majority's economic policies have turned that record surplus into a projected deficit of nearly $2.9 trillion. That's a fiscal reversal of over eight trillion dollars.

Instead of gradually paying down the public debt as we were during the Clinton Administration, the policies of the current Administration have resulted in record budget deficits that require Congress to once again raise the limit on the nation's credit card and pass even more red ink along to our children.

To all my colleague who voted to adopt these unsustainable budget- busting policies over the last four years, I would ask why you are so reluctant to face up to the consequences of your actions. You should at least have the courage to hold a separate up-or-down vote to raise the ceiling on the debt you helped create. Instead, you try to sneak the debt increase into the defense budget without a vote. The defense bill should be about protecting our troops on the battlefield, not protecting politicians from the consequences of their votes. This is the height of fiscal irresponsibility and I urge my colleagues to vote down this rule.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is called the American Jobs Creation Act. Because of specific provisions in it under truth-in- packaging, it should be called the Overseas Job Creation Act. I point to three provisions. They are technical. They matter.

One, reducing nine foreign tax credit baskets to two, costing $8 billion. And what it would do is make it more profitable, and I urge you to listen to this, to invest in a tax haven overseas than in the U.S. It was President Reagan who put it this way some years ago: this kind of provision ``gives U.S. taxpayers with operations in a high-tax country an incentive to invest in low-tax countries overseas. Low-tax country investments may be more attractive than investments in the United States.''

Secondly, the look-through provisions for payments between related corporations, $3\1/2\ billion. What it tells the U.S. multinational is invest your overseas profit other than in the United States and get benefits.

Thirdly, the repatriation provision, $5 billion. It says those profits coming back need to be invested in the United States. There is no definition of what an investment is. They could use the money to close down a factory.

Last year, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), and I introduced a bill to replace FSC that related to manufacturing with

provisions that related to manufacturing, 40 billion for 40 billion. Instead, we have 150 billion, and monies for so-called manufacturing can be used for entities that process hamburgers. This bill makes mincemeat out of good, sound policy. Reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is unwise to waste energy. It is also wrong to waste time. But somehow the House Leadership has found a way to waste both time and energy by bringing this misguided bill before the House.

We have a problem with energy in this country today. We import more than half the oil we use. The price of gasoline has soared with the rapid run up in oil prices over the last year. These energy price hikes hurt consumers and threaten to reignite inflation and lead to higher interest rates. In addition, our electricity transmission system is antiquated and prone to failure. Just last summer, the largest power blackout in U.S. history plunged tens of millions of Americans into darkness. We need to take immediate action on electricity reliability legislation to prevent this from happening again.

And what is the response of the House of Representatives? Today we are taking up the same flawed legislation the House passed last year that met with bipartisan opposition in the Senate because the bill was loaded with special interest provisions and billions of dollars of industry subsidies. It would be one thing if all these subsidies resulted in dramatically increased U.S. energy production or reduced energy consumption, but according to a recent analysis by the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration, this is not the case. The EIA analysis concluded that passage of this legislation would likely result in ``negligible'' changes in U.S. energy production, consumption, imports and prices.

If the House of Representatives is serious about dealing effectively with energy policy, passing this flawed retread energy bill is not the way to get the job done. We can do much better than this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I regret that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who has been a lead sponsor for many years, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) cannot be here, that there was not able to be worked out accommodations so that they and others who have worked together on a bipartisan bill could be present.

When I talk about the efforts of these gentlemen on a bipartisan basis, I really mean it. The bill was signed originally into law in 2000. It was after years of work and years when it was not at all clear that there could be an agreement regarding trade with African nations. So let me proceed, if I might; and my hope remains that others will still be able to make it. I think under the circumstances, it is going to be exceedingly difficult for them to participate, and I want to express again my regret.

The history of this bill, as I mentioned, is one of effort over the years. And if one looks at what has happened since then, I think one will come to

this conclusion: that this has been a useful endeavor, that we needed to open up our relationships with African nations; that we needed to do so on many bases, economic trade being one but an important one, and that there had been for a long time an ignoring of the importance of our relationship with African nations.

I think the last few years have shown that this was an important idea. In terms of our economic relationships, there has been an improvement. There has been a greater flow back and forth. And in trade issues it is important to look at the flow both ways, and in this case there has been an increased amount of activity both from here to Africa and from African nations back to the United States in the billions of dollars.

So this has not been a cure-all, and no one would pretend that it has been or really could be. This has not brought an absolutely new day within African nations or in our relationship. But it has helped; and as a result, a number of countries in Africa have found their exports to the U.S. increasing, and I think that has fortified activities within those countries. And I think there has been mutual benefit. No one should think in trade it is always win-win on all sides. There are impacts both positive and negative; but I think if we look over the general trend, AGOA has been an important step in the right direction.

If we do not pass this legislation, what would happen is that all of a sudden this experiment, this endeavor, this step forward in our relationship would cease. It would mean in the important area of apparel and textiles that African nations would be at a more serious disadvantage with other countries than they might otherwise be. And I think when we look at the overall picture, that would be bad for Africa; and that would be bad for the United States. The quotas come off on apparel and textiles at the end of this year. We need to get ready for that event. I think it is important that we continue this relationship with African countries.

So I urge support for this. It is not wise or prudent for us in this country after these years of AGOA to say that it should end. It is not wise after these years of increasing relationships economically that we say essentially we are turning our back. Again, this is only one factor in relationship to Africa and to African countries. It is only one factor in building up the ties between our two continents that are so important now and for the future. But it has on balance been, I think, an important building block, and I do not think it is wise at all to remove it at this point, and that is what is threatened here.

So I urge support for this. I do so on behalf of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I do so on behalf of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who also could not be here quite yet, and on behalf of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). And while I do not speak for those on the other side, I do want to say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and others who have worked so hard on this that I think it is important that we continue this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

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

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I am glad the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) described the general structure of AGOA. I think that is sometimes lost. It operates within essentially the GSP system. So there are provisions and there are safeguards, as mentioned, relating to human rights, and the same is true if our country pursues them relating to core labor standards.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I also believe that a more multilateral approach is in order. I also think as we discuss Burma, we should look at the experience that international bodies are having, including the ILO and the inability of the ILO, as it is presently structured, to proceed with any real teeth. I think that emphasizes why the United States, as we put forth and put together trade agreements, should incorporate into these trade agreements provisions that relate to the work, for example, of the ILO and core labor standards.

I support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished ranking member, and I ask unanimous consent that he control the balance of the time on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a dear friend and selfless public servant, Ralph Liberto. Ralph's dedication to working families spanned a lifetime, from his early days as a Marine Raider in World War II, through his service as a union leader, and finally as a trusted County Commissioner representing southwest Warren for the past 14 years. Ralph died on March 15th at the age of 80, after quietly battling leukemia.

For more than 30 years, Ralph played a major role in defining and changing Macomb County. Ralph Liberato distinguished himself as a friend to the working families and senior citizens in Macomb County, a friend to military veterans, and as an honest, dedicated and respected public servant.

After proudly serving his beloved country from 1940-1946 in the United States Marine Corps, he began working at a Chevrolet Gear and Axle plant. He quickly earned the respect of his fellow union employees, who elected him to the highest UAW office in the plant, shop chairman. He continued to champion labor rights as UAW Local 160's first president, then union leader for the AFL-CIO, and government relations director for AFSCME.

Ralph Liberato saw public service as a way to continue his deep sense of duty to the community and to his fellow citizens. A spirited political leader, he began cooking spaghetti for countless political and charitable fund raisers, providing his famous pasta at events from the shores of Lake St. Clair to Lansing.

In 1990 he was elected to Macomb County's Board of Commissioners, where he served on a variety of committees. His colleagues relied on his negotiation and debate skills, eventually electing him Vice Chair of the Board from 1996-2001. As a member of the Parks and Recreation Board and a fan of big band music, he started senior citizen swing dances held at the Freedom Hill Park and Metro Beach. To honor Commissioner Liberato's legacy, Independence Hall at Freedom Hill County Park was recently renamed `` Ralph A. Liberato Independence Hall.''

Later in life, Ralph continued to fight for causes he believed in. He diligently worked to raise funds for Washington D.C.'s World War II Memorial honoring his fellow veterans.

Whatever endeavor or job Ralph took on, he did it with his whole heart and a deep sense of duty for serving those around him. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Ralph Liberto for all his tireless work on behalf of our community and citizens.