Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as a Member of the Hellenic Caucus, to celebrate the 183rd anniversary of Greek Independence Day. Today, the Olympic flame was lit in Olympia, Greece marking the day in the Julian calendar that the Modern Games began in Athens in 1896.

It is fitting that the Olympic torch returns to its homeland, as we mark the independence of a nation Thomas Jefferson called ``the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' Ancient Greece sparked many flames of political, social, and artistic innovation--the philosophy of Plato and Socrates, the plays of Sophocles and Aristophanes, and the epic poetry of Homer.

But Ancient Greece's greatest legacy is the establishment of democratic government and the Hellenic belief that the authority to govern derives directly from the people. After 400 years of rule by the Ottoman Empire, independence was especially meaningful to the people who burn with a deep rooted commitment to freedom. Greek ancestors passed on the traditions of liberty and freedom, of hard work and an appreciation of culture to their children and grandchildren, many of whom are proud Greek Americans and continue to provide important contributions to American life.

Today Greece is a true ally of the United States, a valued partner in NATO, and host to the world for the 2004 Olympics in Athens. My district celebrates the Greek heritage as an important part of community providing diversity and culture to our churches, schools, and neighborhoods.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Greece for its contributions past and present, as they continue to light flames of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mount Clemens General Hospital on the opening of their new Radiology Oncology Center and the completion of the first phase of the Ted B. Wahby Cancer Center. I also want to join the staff and trustees of Mount Clemens General in honoring my friend Ted Wahby for his long dedication to providing quality health care and to the service of Macomb County.

Ted currently serves as Macomb County Treasurer and has a long record of dedicated public service. He was voted one of Crain's Detroit Business 25 most influential leaders last year. Prior to his service as Treasurer, he was the long-time mayor of St. Clair Shores and a trustee of the Lakeshore School District Board. Among his many charitable efforts, he serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Mount Clemens General Hospital and has played an active, instrumental role in making this much-needed cancer center a reality.

Macomb County currently experiences a higher cancer rate than its neighboring counties. The county is also growing faster than any other Michigan County. In the next 50 years, the number of Macomb County cancer cases will double and the number of cancer cases among those over 85 will increase four-fold.

The good news is that more and more, we're winning the battle against cancer. The National Institutes of Health estimates that more than 59 percent of those diagnosed with cancer will survive at least five years, and advances in early detection and treatment could soon increase that rate to 75 percent.

The bad news is that it's still a long, hard battle. In Macomb County, it has been made harder by patients having to travel to multiple locations, some of them far away, in order to receive care. In 2001, nearly 70 percent of Macomb County residents were unable to get all the cancer care they needed in their own county.

The new facility will combine state-of-the art medical technology with a warm, welcoming environment for patients and their families. Patients will have access to clinical trials, interdisciplinary teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and dietitians, but will also be able to stay in homelike rooms and visit a healing garden.

Ted Wahby's leadership and dedication were indispensable to the building of this new facility. On behalf of myself and the people I represent in the 12th district of Michigan, I thank him warmly for his efforts and congratulate him on the honor of having this fine facility bear his name. It is indeed well-deserved.

Mr. Speaker, a number of Members have said this resolution is simply about commending the troops and the people of Iraq. If that were truly the case, this measure would enjoy unanimous support. On the contrary, in what it says and what it fails to say, it attempts to speak to the handling of the war. It glosses over the serious intelligence failures and serious misstatements by the Bush administration concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

It papers over the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the war as well as the initial failure to actively seek international support and continued lack of it. It ignores the equipment shortages that need to be addressed to protect our troops. It fails to make any mention of the 565 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq, or the thousands who have been wounded, or the sacrifices of their families.

The resolution before the House today does not bring credit to this institution. It tries a well-used tactic to divide and conquer. Instead, it is a case of dividing and losing: dividing this House when it is a subject that needs unity and losing further credibility for the Republican House that does not even try to act on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Speaker, today my brother, Senator Levin, and I have introduced a bill that would grant unconditional and permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to Ukraine and remove Ukraine, unconditionally and permanently, from the application of the so-called Jackson-Vanik amendment. The legislation would provide an historic update in U.S.- Ukraine trade relations. It would strengthen U.S.-Ukraine relations and reinforce progress Ukraine has made in many areas. Additionally, the legislation would ensure that Congress continues to play an active role--with the Administration and with Ukraine--in confronting trade disputes and negotiating the terms of Ukraine's WTO accession.

This legislation is the culmination of a month's long effort, involving consultations with the Ukrainian Embassy, Ukrainian groups in the United States, other Members of Congress, including some on the Helsinki Commission, and other groups that have expressed an interest in Ukraine's removal from Jackson-Vanik. I think that it addresses many of the concerns that have been raised in a way that will help Ukraine PNTR on its way through Congress.

The legislation expands on a Ukraine PNTR bill that my brother and I introduced a couple of years in the 107th Congress (H.R. 4723/S. 3089). The bill we are introducing today reflects updates and improvements from our previous bill, which we believe will help this one garner the broad support necessary to push the issue along.

I am aware that there are elections in Ukraine later this year, and we all know how important it is that those elections be conducted transparently and fairly, in accordance with international norms. My reasons for supporting PNTR for Ukraine relate to the importance of Ukraine and what PNTR can mean for its economic and democratic development, not to any individual candidacy.

It is useful to recall that the Jackson-Vanik amendment was itself an amendment to Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, a trade statute. In particular, Title IV created a framework for conducting trade relations with non-market economies. The Jackson-Vanik amendment, which has been an effective tool for raising freedom of emigration and human rights concerns, is a key element of Title IV; however, the underlying purpose and function of the statute were and remain the conduct of trade relations.

Accordingly, PNTR legislation must address fundamental trade issues. Consistent congressional practice is to grant PNTR to a country that is subject to Jackson-Vanik only at the time of the country's WTO accession, or when negotiations on accession were effectively completed. In this way, Congress's vote on PNTR has served as a way to signal approval for the country's WTO accession agreement. Under this approach, Congress was able to exercise its constitutional prerogative to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and the American people benefited from the Administration negotiating the strongest possible agreement.

This precedent has led to an important series of successful accessions to the WTO, including most notably for China, on terms that reinforced the WTO rules-based system, and brought great benefits to the people of the United States as well as other WTO countries.

In the case of Ukraine, WTO accession terms are still being negotiated. I believe it is appropriate to depart from that precedent and grant Ukraine PNTR now, so long as Congress retains a meaningful, effective tool to ensure that U.S. interests are fully addressed in those negotiations. And, there are many critical issues that still need to be addressed--Ukraine's protection for intellectual property rights, commitments to open its auto market, commitments in the services and other sectors, to name just a few. Moreover, there have been a number of recent trade tensions with Ukraine--including in the poultry sector. While these appear to have been addressed, they renewed concerns in Congress about trade relationships with Ukraine.

This legislation ensures that Congress will continue to play an active role in addressing trade problems as they emerge and in obtaining a strong WTO accession agreement from Ukraine. While giving up the precedent of using the PNTR vote as a proxy for approval of WTO accession, the legislation allows Congress to consider a resolution directly addressing the terms of agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine on Ukraine's WTO accession. While in its form, this resolution would be non-binding on the Executive, it would provide Congress with an important tool to assure itself continuing oversight over the Executive as it forms the terms of Ukraine's WTO accession.

There are two sides to the PNTR coin--the trade issues and the ``Jackson-Vanik'' issues. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was a historic piece of legislation, aimed at addressing a serious problem in the former Soviet Union. It set forth important criteria related to freedom of emigration necessary for certain countries to obtain normal trade relations with the United States. Even from its inception, however, the Jackson-Vanik amendment was not only concerned with freedom of emigration, but also reflected the American commitment to human rights and freedom of religion. This fact is evident not only in the preamble of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, but also in the operation of U.S. relations with the former Soviet countries for nearly 30 years.

I think it is appropriate, then, that as we consider graduating Ukraine from the Jackson-Vanik amendment, that we place a strong emphasis on American values of freedom of emigration, religious freedom, and human rights issues. These were the issues at the core of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, and continue to be relevant when considering termination of this amendment. I am glad that we were able to craft a bill that addresses these vital issues in a responsible way, rather than giving them ``check-the-box'' cursory treatment or not addressing them at all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to I.J. Campbell, who received

the Community Luminary Award from DTE Energy Foundation for his exemplary volunteerism.

I.J. Campbell's commitment of service ``illuminates'' the community and shines as a selfless example for others to follow. A humble yet enthusiastic man, his infectious passion for helping those in need stretches a lifetime of professional and volunteer experience. While working as the chairman of the United Way Community Services' Macomb Advisory Council and administrator for cities Community Development Block Grant Program, he donates his time off to a number of community organizations, including the Hope Network, a housing provider for people with mental disabilities, and the Macomb Homeless Coalition.

I.J.'s sense of obligation to help those in need motivates him to work on programs such as Macomb's Prescription Resource Network, Metro Detroit's Promise, a national movement to provide services to disadvantaged children, and the Macomb County Warming Center. Dedicated to strengthening the fabric of our community, he supports programs that develop the potential of residents, institutions and infrastructures.

In January, 2002, the Archdiocese of Detroit awarded I.J. with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King ``Keep the Dream Alive'' award for his work with organizations such as Interfaith Center for Racial Injustice and the National Conference for Community and Justice Detroit.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding I.J. Campbell for his efforts to make this world a better place. It is truly fitting that I.J. received the Community Luminary Award, for he serves as a shining example of what a committed community activist can accomplish and a light of hope to all he comes in contact with.

Mr. Chairman, the majority says ``This is not the way'' when you stand in the way. You say, the majority, the jobs are the answer, when under your dominion we have lost 3 million jobs in this country. You talk about this being a political ploy. No. What it is is an effort to force your hand, to lose your iron grip on unemployment compensation.

In the 1991-1992 recession, just 10, 12 years ago, the program ended after the creation of 3 million jobs, so people could find a job. Now you have ended this program when there has been a loss of 2 million jobs.

So you say the READ Act. That $8 billion went to the States to pay regular State 26 weeks of benefits, not to extend the benefits program that is the Federal extended benefit program.

So let me just say to every Member here who votes no on this amendment, it will be interpreted appropriately as a vote ``no'' against the millions of unemployed people in this country, the 375,000 every month who are exhausting their benefits. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I could care less about the moon. I want a job. That was said to me by an electrician during our recess. He is one of 1,200 members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in the metropolitan Detroit area out of work. He is one of 8.9 million Americans, and there are another 4 million Americans not classified as unemployed but who are out of work.

The long-term unemployed in this country reached a 20-year high in November, but this House and the President have refused to extend Federal benefits. They expired December 20.

Ninety thousand people run out of State benefits every week. In this country, America, Americans deserve more than continued silence from the President of the United States. Let us hope he speaks to this issue tonight.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a happy moment. This is not a happy moment. We are forced to come up here and ask that the previous question be defeated so that we can give to people who are unemployed, who need unemployment comp, who are looking for work, an additional 13 weeks. And all we get from the Republican side is reserving the balance of their time.

There are 9 million unemployed in this country; and here is what is going to happen: December 20, if you are laid off, or I should say if you are drawing benefits, you can continue to receive your extended benefits. But, if you exhaust your benefits on December 21, you are out in the cold. That is the holiday message from the majority in this House. It is unconscionable. All kinds of excuses.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has said, Every indicator is better than in 1993. But the job picture is entirely worse. Job creation is entirely, dramatically less.

Then I heard: Leave it to the Senate. They are not going to act.

Where are my colleagues from Michigan on the Republican side? Because of a bipartisan action in Lansing, people who needed it could draw up to 65 weeks; and now, someone laid off on December 21, or I should say who is exhausting their benefits, is out in the cold. Not one more week.

We should not have to be coming here, Mr. Speaker. Times are tough. I talked to building trade leaders an hour ago. Unemployment is going up in the building trades in Michigan and in lots of other places, and there is nothing but a cold shoulder from the leadership of this House. And I say to the Speaker, whom it is now being said about, that he can patrol this floor and get the votes, where is your leadership?

We should not have to be here today, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), myself and others. This should be a bipartisan effort, and I hope in the next 24, no, it is not 24, it is 5 or 6 hours, that you, on the Republican side, will keep faith with the American people, those who are working and those who are not working through no fault of their own. Do not reserve your time. Come here with a bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is with genuine pleasure that I rise to recognize one of my constituents, Jennifer Downey of Clinton Township, Michigan, for her recent promotion to Chief Petty Officer in the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps.

The U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps was established in 1958 to develop an appreciation for the United States' naval history, customs, traditions, and its significant role in national

defense. The goal of the Cadet Corps is to encourage young people to develop an interest in basic seamanship and teach cadets patriotism, courage, confidence and self reliance.

Cadet CPO Downey has been a member of the Naval Sea Cadet Corps Program's Tomcat Squadron for over 5 years. She has completed a large number of advanced training courses over her tenure in the program, including seamanship training aboard the USNSCS Grayfox, Coast Guard training, Master at Arms School, and Petty Officer Leadership Academy. In addition, she has completed sixty-four hours of community service and won numerous citations and ribbons.

Cadet CPO Downey's promotion to Chief Petty Officer was brought to my attention in a letter from her Commanding Officer, LTJG Lisa Stoyanovich, who writes me to say that CPO Downey ``is a very personable young woman who takes pride in herself and her unit. CPO Downey's performance of her duties is always top-notch, her leadership abilities are exceptional, and her ability to motivate other cadets is finely tuned. Through her years of Navy League Cadet and Naval Sea Cadet training, she has earned the respect of her peers, and the officers in the unit.''

The letter from Lieutenant Stoyanovich goes on to say that ``Chief Petty Officer Downey has developed into a mature, solid leader and is a fine example of what the Sea Cadet Corps hopes to develop in young people.''

I ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating Chief Petty Officer Jennifer Downey for her achievements as a member of the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps.

Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and I want to say to the Republicans, do not think this is a procedural vote on the previous question. This is a vote of substance. This is a vote questioning whether my colleagues will agree to bring up an unemployment compensation extension program.

As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) said, the majority leader stated, ``I see no reason to be extending unemployment compensation since every economic indicator is better than in 1993 when the Democrats ended the Federal unemployment program.'' He could not be further from the truth.

If we do not act, 90,000 a week who are out of work, exhausting their benefits, will be out in the cold; 90,000 a week, 350,000 more or less a month, and they will join the 1.4 million long-term unemployed in this country, and the percentage of unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits, contrary to what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has said, will reach an all-time high, almost 44 percent, and even with this modest increase in jobs the last couple of months, the U.S. economy still has 2.4 million fewer jobs today than 2\1/2\ years ago.

I want to refer to Michigan. The unemployment figures just came out: 7.6 is the unemployment rate, a 3-year high, an 11-year high, actually, and higher than when the temporary unemployment program was set up.

So this is not a test on procedure. This is a test whether my colleagues will stand with those who are unemployed, looking for work or turn a cold shoulder to them. There is nothing compassionate about this kind of action, conservatism or anything else.

So I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote no on the previous question and stand up for those millions of Americans, millions who are looking for work, who cannot find it, who want not charity but unemployment compensation that they worked for. Vote no on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the key question: Why not add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare like for physicians and hospital bills? Because Republicans want to force seniors to get their drugs from private insurance companies and HMOs, with no set premium, and insurance companies would decide the benefits and could change them every year.

So again, why not simply add a drug benefit directly to Medicare? Because Republicans want to make sure the government has zero involvement in lowering drug prices for consumers. Indeed, their bill would prohibit Medicare from negotiating lower prices for drugs, and the only thing the government could do would be to keep people

from buying cheaper drugs from Canada.

Again, why not simply add a drug benefit to Medicare? Because the real Republican goal is to use a drug benefit as a vehicle for fundamentally changing and undermining Medicare.

The President's Medicare administrator called Medicare a dumb system. Under this bill, there would be a global cap on the size of the Medicare program and a voucher to buy private health insurance instead of getting regular Medicare, with the deck loaded against Medicare, $14 billion to HMOs.

Republican reforms are Medicare's destruction. Vote ``no'' on this Republican bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I want to, though, at the beginning talk about process and then I will discuss the substance of the bill.

There have been some process issues. One of them relates to the Senate. The bill here has some provisions that have been over in the Senate and they have been held up by the action, as I understand it, of one Member of the Senate. It relates to a labelling requirement and essentially would, if that effort succeeded, roll back a provision that we have favored. And I just want everyone to understand that I think trade issues should not be handled that way.

Secondly, I want to say a word about the Armenia PNTR. We have been discussing this, but not directly in the committee or the Subcommittee on Trade for a number of months. A bill was introduced to grant Armenia PNTR, and I very much have favored that happening. Unfortunately, the bill was not sent through the subcommittee or the full committee, and I think that really deprived us of a chance to add to this bill some references to certain issues that Armenia has faced and that we think other countries should confront, especially as they are going to accede to the WTO which has already happened in the case of Armenia and receive the extension of PNTR by the United States.

For example, we have been trying to introduce into this bill references to the implementation by Armenia of some important aspect of the Helsinki Act, citing that some progress, although not full, has been made in the area of human rights. This would include treatment of minorities, religious minorities and others, providing protection to minorities from violence based on discrimination of any kind, hostility or hatred, including anti-Semitism. Also, reference to the fact that Armenia has demonstrated a commitment to enforcing internationally recognized core labor standards and has been working to improve its enforcement of those laws, as well as implementing some important market reforms.

Well, this bill suddenly included the Armenia PNTR, which I have favored, but there is resistance from some on

the majority to allow us to insert into this bill these references to progress by Armenia in important areas that had reference, and should have reference, to other countries; and so I very much regret that.

But as said, this bill has some important provisions including the PNTR, provisions that extend important aspects of our tax laws. The extension of the work opportunity tax credits, the welfare-to-work tax credits, the AMT provision that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) mentioned, as well as several others including tax incentives for the District of Columbia.

Also in this bill are some pension-related provisions. One of them relates to the 30-year Treasury rate. This is an important provision for large numbers of companies and their workers, and we needed to find a way to introduce this into legislation and to implement it, and this bill does exactly that. And is another reason to favor this bill.

There is also, as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) mentioned, a provision relating to airlines and a 2-year provision to help them out. So this is a bill that has some miscellaneous provisions in it, but some of them are not very miscellaneous. Some of them are very important provisions. Some that are called technical, for example, would suspend or reduce import duties on numerous items for which there are no American competitors. And it would correct instances where Customs has overcharged for import duties. These are provisions that are important for domestic manufacturers and for their employees and for consumers.

One other provision that I should mention, since I have been so much involved with it with others, is the Reverse Customs Program at the northern border. This bill has references to that. These references are essentially relating to jurisdiction of committees. They do not change the basic provisions and do not in any way disturb the pace by which Customs will implement this important experiment in Reverse Customs Programs so that we can expedite the transportation of goods and passengers across the northern border, keeping in mind security considerations.

So, all in all, I believe this is a bill that deserves support with the caveats I mentioned. I have discussed earlier today, and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, did with the chairman of the committee, the issue of Armenia and the need not for anybody to consider it a precedent either in terms of how PNTR is handled, other countries are handled, or the provisions relating to them. And we have received those verbal reassurances that the way the Armenia PNTR has been handled, it will not be a precedent in terms of committee or subcommittee consideration.

When my turn next comes I am going to yield many minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) who is going to talk about one issue that is not in this bill where there is an opportunity to place it and is so critical to hundreds of thousands of the citizens of the United States of America, and that is unemployment compensation, and I will do that at the appropriate time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Delegate, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make two points. First of all, this bill is not paid for, $7 billion, and I hope that the Senate will rectify that. It is our understanding that they will. And I think that gives people on our side some reassurance that this will not be a further addition to an already escalating atrociously high deficit.

Secondly, I simply want to reinforce, on the issue of unemployment compensation, that when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, ``I see no reason to be extending unemployment compensation since every economic indicator is better than in 1993, when the Democrats ended the Federal unemployment program,'' that, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) pointed out, that is really an inaccurate statement.

If we do not extend this program, every week after Christmas about 90,000 people are going to be out on the street without any benefits. Now, we went through this the last Christmas. If my colleagues want us to come back here this Christmas, the three of us who came last time, and object, we will do that, but we should not have to do that. The unemployment program should be extended, period. And I hope that the majority in this House will step up to the plate on what is if not life and death, it is survival decently for tens of thousands of our fellow and sister citizens.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce Johanna's Law: The Gynecologic Cancer Education and Awareness Act.

Every hour, approximately 10 women in the U.S. are diagnosed with a gynecologic cancer like ovarian, cervical, or uterine cancer. Every year, 26,000 women die of a gynecologic cancer.

This is a tragedy. What makes it still more tragic is that many of those deaths could be prevented if more women knew the risk factors and recognized the early symptoms of gynecologic cancers so that they could discuss them with their doctors. As we worked on this bill, we heard story after story of women who did not recognize their early symptoms or wasted precious months waiting for appointments with the wrong kind of specialists because they and their doctors did not recognize their symptoms as gynecologic.

For ovarian cancer, the most deadly of the gynecologic cancers, the five-year survival rate for women whose cancer is detected in Stage 1 is 90 percent. In Stage 2, the survival rate is still 80 percent. But if the cancer proceeds to Stage 3 or 4, the survival rate drops dramatically, to 20 percent or less.

Unfortunately, not all gynecologic cancers have a screening test accurate enough to be used routinely on asymptomatic women. That doesn't mean they can't be detected and diagnosed early in many cases. A recent study found that almost 90 percent of women with early stage ovarian cancer had symptoms before being diagnosed. That's why public education is key--if women and their doctors know the risk factors and early signs, a specialist can use diagnostic tools to rule out cancer or detect it in the early stages.

Johanna's Law would create a federal campaign to increase early detection of these deadly cancers, and, when possible, help women reduce their risk of ever contracting them. The legislation takes a two-pronged approach, combining a national Public Service Announcement directed at all women with targeted grants to local and national organizations.

We named the legislation ``Johanna's Law'' after Johanna Silver Gordon, who was a long-time public school teacher in my congressional district and who died of ovarian cancer after being diagnosed in a later stage. Unfortunately, Johanna's story is all too common. I owe a special thanks to Johanna's sister, Sheryl Silver, and her family for telling Johanna's story so eloquently and working so tirelessly to ensure a better outcome for other women and their families.

I look forward to working with my cosponsor, Representative Kay Granger, and all of my colleagues to enact this important legislation into law.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a weak resolution. It does not suggest any specific actions, and this is consistent with the way that this administration, the Bush administration, has approached trade issues with China.

It is not as if these issues suddenly appeared. They have existed, they have persisted for several years. And there have been some specific tools available for the administration to use. They have not used some of these tools, and others they have not used well.

These are the tools. First, the annual review process within WTO, this annual review process was called for in the U.S. PNTR resolution. It was specifically called for. It was worked for within the WTO, and it was in the final agreement with China when they acceded to the WTO. But the U.S., in this process, did not press China to act on major issues. China said that they did not need to respond in writing to the issues that were raised in the annual WTO review. This has diminished the importance of this significant mechanism.

Secondly, the PNTR legislation that we passed also required an annual report by the administration on China's compliance with its WTO commitments. That report was weak, and it did not press China on the key issues of trade.

Third, the USTR has not used, at any point, formal consultations in any of the sectors or on any outstanding problem, either through use of section 301 or directly in the WTO, whether the outstanding issues related to agriculture, for example, corn or cotton or fertilizers; in the manufacturing sector, whether it was semiconductors, heating and air conditioning, auto or auto parts; or whether it was services, including financial services. There was really little effort, in fact none, in formal consultations relating to the distribution requirements that were clearly laid out in China's WTO accession. And there has not been use of the formal consultation process relating to China's undervalued currency, and there has been none relating to intellectual property.

This administration has not used the specific China safeguard that we worked so hard to place in the China PNTR legislation. Instead, the administration turned down the first two cases that were brought before it. So in a word, instead of taking the lead, getting out in front of the rising concern

about China, the Bush administration left a vacuum, and this vacuum has been filled by rhetoric, including that coming from the administration.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is essentially rhetorical. It does not call for any specific action. It talks instead about commending the administration when I think that there were serious omissions of opportunity, and then it says it encourages in the second paragraph. And then as to currency, it says the Chinese economy would benefit. In the fourth, it says the House of Representatives will continue to monitor. In the fifth it says the House of Representatives urges the administration to continue intensive discussions. So as I said, this resolution does not call for special or specific action.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), and especially to the administration, that no one should interpret a vote for this resolution as an endorsement of the way this administration has handled the growing issues with China.

I hope there will be other resolutions. We are going to have a hearing in the Committee on Ways and Means beginning tomorrow on China, and I guess it will continue over to Friday. This will be an opportunity for us to probe the places where there have been missed opportunities, the places where there need to be specific actions, the place where we can substitute, for rhetoric, something very specific which will lead, I hope, to actions relating to the trade relationships between our two large and important economies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a gentleman who is very active on these issues as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and its Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from California.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I listened to the two gentlemen from Wisconsin, and one said it is a dire situation, and the other said that rhetoric is not a substitute for specific steps. And that is the shortcoming in this resolution. It is a weak one.

I want to emphasize, there are specific steps that the administration should have taken and some that it can still take. I want to be very clear about that. First, the annual review, WTO, I believe it is now going on. The administration should use that as an opportunity to press China on its shortcomings as to its commitments when it went into the WTO. It did not press last time. It needs to this time.

Secondly, the annual report. It was weak. It should have been much stronger.

And there are also specific steps under our statutes that can be taken and under WTO regulations when China does not live up to its obligations. We

can use section 301 to start an inquiry, or we can go directly into the

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion, and I hope that everybody on both sides of the aisle will take it seriously. This issue was debated in the House and our effort was turned down. It was also debated in the Senate and the issue of a loan was thoroughly examined and the Senate voted in favor of this approach.

In the Senate, even more so in the House, we heard all the arguments against it, that there is no government to sign it. They already have a debt. It would make it clear that we were interested in oil from the beginning. That is one of the arguments that is given and also that it would diminish efforts from others. But I think these arguments were effectively answered within the Senate.

There is a governing council, an entity that is now working. It is hard to believe that in the next months, if we do our job well and we get some help from others, that they would not be in a position to handle this issue. As to their already having a debt, it is possible, I think, for a loan to be put together to take that into account and remember the Senate version.

The Senate version would trigger an event if other nations forgave their debt. In terms of participation of others, I do not see how this would affect it. What this would bring about if adopted would be that the Senate would be encouraged to persist in their approach. And the reason to consider this is it could be amended, perhaps somewhat differently than the Senate put it together, but it would still be there. There would be participation more fully by the Iraqis. They would have greater investment in their own future. And also they would share the cost of this with the American public.

So I urge that there be support for this motion. This loan provision needs to be continued in terms of discussion and not simply thrown aside by an administration that has been headstrong from the very beginning. We should not allow it to be headstrong about this loan provision.