Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Central American Free Trade Agreement, also called CAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, I address this House from the perspective of the American worker. Prior to my election to Congress, I had a chance to view the effect of U.S. trade policy at its most basic level, that of the American worker.

Prior to coming to this Congress, I worked for about 20 years as an ironworker and a welder. I worked at the General Motors assembly plant in Framingham, Massachusetts, prior to GM's decision to close the Framingham plant and several Michigan plants and instead expand their plants in Mexico.

I also worked as a welder at the General Dynamics shipyard in Quincy, Massachusetts, before foreign competition and misguided trade policy moved that work overseas.

I worked at the U.S. steel mill in Gary, Indiana, and at the Inland steel plant in East Chicago, Indiana, as an ironworker prior to the steel industry moving to Third World countries in order to escape responsible labor and environmental standards.

I have seen firsthand the effect of anti-worker trade policies on the American workers and their families. I have seen the devastation that occurs in American cities and towns when we adopt trade policies that encourage U.S. companies to relocate jobs overseas. And I have seen what the impact is on our schools and the fabric of our very communities when large employers shut down the largest plants in town.

I have been impressed since coming to Congress with how people talk about job loss. People in Washington talk about job loss like they are talking about the weather or some natural occurrence, like a giant cold front moved through here and took about 3 million American jobs with it.

Well, American job loss is the result of deliberate policies that have been misguided and have encouraged U.S. employers to locate their jobs overseas. It is time to stop these U.S. policies that simply exploit foreign workers by adopting trade agreements and that have no labor or environmental standards.

Our experience with NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, should inform our decision today. At the time of NAFTA's passage in 1993, the U.S. trade deficit was about $39 billion. Since then, it has soared to about $617 billion in 2004. That is a whopping 1,600 percent increase and more than 5 percent of our national GDP.

It is ironic indeed today when we talk so much about exporting democracy because of our situation in Iraq, that what we are doing here is exporting U.S. jobs, and at the same time endorsing the creation of $2-a-day jobs in Central America.

I think we have a fatal flaw in our foreign policy, in our trade policy. First of all, you do not export democracy through the Defense Department, you do it through the U.S. Trade Representative and through our trade agreements; and you do not export democracy by forcing workers to work for $2 a day. For if you follow the path of exploitation fostered by mercenary and winner-take-all trade agreements that set worker against worker in a race to the bottom, in the end you will in those countries see a retrenchment of hope and a rejection of democracy.

I have seen firsthand the effects of an errant trade policy. It is time today to reject this current CAFTA and to ask our U.S. Trade Representative to go back to the drawing board and come up with a CAFTA that is truly good for the American worker and good for the workers in Central America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for yielding. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this very important issue.

I am told that the clinical definition of insanity is the tenancy to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. And this proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement is another example of the United States continuing to enter into these so-called free trade agreements with countries and regions of the world that give carte blanche to corporate America to send our American jobs to other parts of the globe.

The one thing that I have been struck with, after coming here to Congress is, how many people in Washington, D.C. talk about job loss like they are talking about the weather, or a natural disaster like an earthquake. They talk about job loss like it is something that happens beyond the control of Congress, when, in fact, much of the job loss that we see in America today is the result of poor trade policy, and lopsided trade agreements in which we have negotiated away our jobs and failed to protect the American worker.

Now, given the experience that we have had thus far, with our subsequent trade agreements with NAFTA and others, you would think that with our experience of job loss that we have had there that when you find yourself in a hole that you might stop digging. But, that is not the case, because here we are facing another agreement that will definitely ship jobs overseas.

Not only does CAFTA, the Central Free American Trade Agreement shift jobs overseas, but it creates and perpetuates a race to the bottom mentality, and further burdens our current trade deficit.

In 2004, the U.S. trade deficit soared to a record $617 billion, a 25 percent increase over 2003's record deficit, and more than 5 percent of our Nation's GDP.

The Bush Administration and the corporations who profit when America sends their jobs overseas argue that this trade deal will benefit U.S. businesses and workers while helping member countries prosper. But, the fact is from our own experience with NAFTA, that that is very far from the truth.

And tonight I would like to focus my remarks on exposing the real impact of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and what it will do to American workers, and also to Central American workers as well, and our burgeoning trade deficit.

Let us first take a quick look at the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and its impact on our workers and our neighbor's workers and the trade deficit. Those who advocated Congress's passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement often point to NAFTA as a success story in their arguments. I think it is important to take a good hard look, both from economic and policy implications of that model as we consider the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

During the NAFTA debate, the proponents then argued that the measure would, if adopted, would lead to the creation of 170,000 new jobs in the United States. Instead, our country has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since the adoption of NAFTA, in 1994.

And 900,000 of those jobs lost can be directly tied to NAFTA. These jobs were good, high-paying jobs that included benefits. They were manufacturing jobs that have been replaced by service sector jobs that typically pay 25 to 75 percent less, and with few or no benefits. And while some proponents expect the Central American Free Trade Agreement to turn out differently than did NAFTA, it is important to remember that the six Central American countries possess an even larger pool of cheap labor than did Mexico, and what is more, since the implementation of NAFTA, the trade deficit with Mexico has surged from $9 billion to $110 billion last year.

So the deficit with Mexico, the trade imbalance with Mexico, has gone from $9 billion before NAFTA to $110 billion last year.

Additionally, NAFTA did nothing to improve the lives of average Americans; and my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), has talked about that briefly

prior to my remarks. This failure to improve the quality of life for these workers has generated mass opposition and widespread distrust on our southern border.

Amnesty International continues to report that extra judicial tortures and murders continue. This is not democracy that we are exporting to Mexico, and this is certainly not what the Mexican workers signed up for.

Meanwhile, here at home this comparative advantage of subsistent wages and a complete lack of labor and environmental protections have led to the shift of low-wage, labor-intensive jobs from the U.S. to Mexico.

Pursuing unrestricted free trade agreements with lesser developed countries along the NAFTA model will continue to accelerate this race to the bottom where jobs go to countries where the weakest labor standards and environmental protections exist. That is bad for American workers, and it is exploitive of foreign workers and foreign populations.

We hear this administration talk about exporting democracy. You hear that often in the last weeks and months with regard to the situation in Iraq. Well, this is probably the most powerful opportunity we have to export democracy. You do not export democracy through the Defense Department or the Defense Secretary. You do it through trade agreements, through the Department of Commerce and favorable agreements with our friends and neighbors across the globe.

Are we liberating Iraq so we can move American jobs over there and exploit them for wages of about 10 cents an hour? I certainly hope not. And I hope that is not what our men and women are fighting today in Iraq for. We do not express liberation in terms of working 10 to 12 hours a day for 10 cents an hour, but that is what we are proposing for Central America.

As for the expected boon to the Mexican economy, we have seen none of these gains, and instead we have seen NAFTA's detrimental impact on the Mexican workers. Average real wages in Mexican manufacturing are lower than they were 10 years ago, if you can believe that.

As companies look to cut costs further, we see factories now being shifted from Mexico to China and India and Indonesia, always in search of the lowest cost best exemplified by the most exploited worker.

Now on NAFTA's coattails rides CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The American people are expected to buy the same bill of goods at even higher costs. Proponents of CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, insist that the economic gains from this trade agreement for American workers in business will be a windfall. But remember what we are trading for in this case.

The combined purchasing power of all six Central American countries that are affected by this agreement have the identical purchasing power of New Haven, Connecticut. If you combine all of the purchasing power in these nations under the Central American agreement, their entire purchasing power is equal to the city of New Haven, Connecticut. That is what we are talking about here. This is what we are going for.

What they do have is millions of low-wage workers, and that, I think, that is the real object of this agreement. The U.S. economy has $10 trillion in gross domestic product in 2002. It is 170 times larger than the economies of those six nations at about $62 billion combined. And quite simply, the Central American Free Trade Agreement is not about robust markets for export of American goods. It is about access to cheap labor. It is about shipping American jobs overseas so they can sell stuff back to the people who have not been laid off yet.

Like the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), who spoke earlier and who is leading this debate, I worked in my previous life as an iron worker for about 20 years. I worked at the General Motors facility that used to be in Framingham, Massachusetts. It closed shortly before GM made decisions to relocate plants to Mexico. I also worked at the General Dynamics shipyard in Quincy, Massachusetts, as a welder prior to that plant closing because of foreign competition and unfair trade practices. I also worked in the steel mills in Gary, Indiana, and East Chicago, Indiana, for U.S. Steel and Inland Steel. And I understand those plants are now victims of foreign outsourcing as well.

So I know a little bit about the impact of off-shoring and imbalance in our trade agreements. I know what it means to communities and families when those jobs disappear.

Over the last 20 years, our economy has hemorrhaged jobs in the manufacturing sector. Since 2001, 3.3 million jobs were lost. Yet these workers were told not to worry. They were told they would be retrained for another job; they needed more education in our new high-tech economy. How can they not worry when unemployment is at a 10-year high at 5.4 percent, with 80 million Americans out of a job? Personal bankruptcies in my State rose 17 percent between the years 2000 and 2003.

How can we tell these folks not to worry when the administration is signing even more trade agreements to ship away their jobs?

The never-ending pursuit of the lowest-cost labor is spreading, and CAFTA will only just cement this cycle. We need to break the cycle now.

There is a pretty good book that is out there right now. It is called ``The World is Flat'' by Tom Friedman. I suggest my colleagues read it. Mr. Friedman writes about the speed at which our jobs are disappearing and the volume of wealth being taken from regular, average, working- class Americans.

The biggest share of U.S. exports to the six CAFTA nations is not the traditional job-creation kind. These are products that are not consumed in the purchasing nations. What happens is that, for example, textiles here in the United States are shipped to Central America where they are fashioned and furnished into clothing which is then shipped back to the United States and which our people, those that still have jobs, are able to purchase. These are called exports, but in fact it is just a cycle of us exporting raw materials and getting back finished product which was once supplied by U.S.-based factories.

The biggest difference here is that American workers are cut out of the picture. More than 30 percent of U.S. exports to the six CAFTA countries consist of these roundtrip exports that cause American jobs to be outsourced to these countries with lower labor standards.

This trade agreement is bad not only for the American workers but for those in Central America as well.

Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Costa Rica's resistance to the Central American Free Trade Agreement was based on the fact that the agreement itself would be harmful to poor and struggling workers in Costa Rica. Costa Rican President Abel Pacheco has said that he believes that the Central American Free Trade Agreement is bad overall for his country, and he has delayed a vote on that until February of next year.

The reluctance of Costa Rica has surprised the White House and undermines one of its chief arguments for the pact itself, that CAFTA represents an urgently sought benefit for the impoverished region.

Costa Rica's ambivalence and long delay before it votes on this trade agreement indicates its reluctance to endorse this supposed free trade agreement. Protests in Guatemala numbering in the thousands and tens of thousands have also been an indicator that many Central Americans do not see the Central American Free Trade Agreement as a benefit for their nation and for their livelihood.

As you may know, May Day marches in Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras, and El Salvador have featured a myriad of anti-CAFTA signs and slogans. As President Pacheco rightly emphasizes, more trade does not necessarily mean less poverty.

Proponents of the Central America Free Trade Agreement have conveniently ignored this fundamental fact: the effect of trade on incomes in Central America and how to alleviate the adverse consequences of trade liberalization on the poor.

This Washington consensus that opening up markets will help alleviate poverty is just plain wrong. One reason is that the labor in developing countries is not nearly as mobile as trade theorists assume. In Central America, for trade to benefit unskilled workers,

farm laborers, for example, they need to be able to move out of jobs that will face competition from efficient U.S. producers thanks to CAFTA, such as drilling, corn and into exporting industries that are likely to be selling products to the American market.

Unfortunately, there is no job mobility in Central America, and these workers are stuck, and there will be no place for them to turn.

Trade reform has also been linked to increased income disparity as skilled workers have captured more benefits from globalization than their unskilled counterparts. Simply said, CAFTA will make the rich richer in Central America and the poor poorer.

Take Mexico as a perfect example. Since NAFTA was put in place, Mexico has lost 1.9 million jobs and most Mexicans' real wages have fallen. The United States with its unrivaled economic clout is in a unique position to empower workers around the world while promoting economic prosperity here at home.

Unfortunately, the CAFTA agreement does the exact opposite. If we pass CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, we are rewarding Central American countries for their poor labor rights records. We are harming farmers in Central America by opening up their tiny markets to our own cycle of exploitation.

Recently released reports prepared by the Human Rights Watch and National Labor Committees provide overwhelming evidence that CAFTA does almost nothing to protect workers. These Labor Department reports have been suppressed because they demonstrate the Central American workers' rights restrictions.

Thanks to my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the Department of Labor has just recently released these reports.

In these reports, DOL found that the right to collective bargaining and nondiscrimination in the workplace were nonexistent. In Nicaragua, for example, employees can be fired for trying to organize a union, provided they are paid twice the normal severance amount. It is bad enough that these countries do not meet international labor standards, but what is worse is that CAFTA is silent on the need to improve any working conditions in Central American countries.

Instead of trade policy that is beneficial to American businesses and workers as well as our trade partners, we have a flawed trade policy that hurts all parties. Free trade should not mean free labor. Likewise, free trade does not, as evidenced in CAFTA, mean fair trade.

The Central American Free Trade Agreement outlines only one labor and environmental provision, and that is that countries enforce their own labor and environmental laws regardless of how weak those might be.

The labor laws of the six CAFTA nations are a joke. They have been repeatedly criticized by the U.N.'s international labor organization and our own State Department. Violations of core labor laws cannot be taken to dispute resolution. And the commitment to enforce domestic labor laws, which are pathetic to begin with, is subject to remedies that are weaker than those available for commercial disputes.

In a purely technical sense, this violates the negotiating principal of the Trade Promotion Authority Act that equivalent remedies exist for all parts of an agreement.

Another negative effect of the Central American Free Trade Agreement for the Central American laborer will be felt in the agricultural sectors of these countries. Simply put, CAFTA will destroy the Central American small farms. And that is why we see these massive protests.

The final negative impact of the Central American Free Trade Agreement I would like to discuss is what it will do to our trade deficit. The U.S. trade deficit which indicates that our imports exceed exports, has increased by $200 billion per year under this administration. In 2003, the trade deficit reached $497 billion, and U.S. foreign debt has increased dramatically from $1.6 trillion in 2000 to $2.7 trillion at the end of 2003.

Over the past 4 years, a 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion left by President Clinton has become a 10-year deficit of $3 trillion. And now we are working on another plan here to export more American jobs to countries overseas.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the Central American Free Trade Agreement will help the U.S. compete more successfully in a dynamic global economy, but I cannot understand how.

How will these nations be able to help the U.S. come out of its current trade deficit? CAFTA nations are not a robust market for exports. The average wage of a Nicaraguan worker is 50 cents an hour. How much in terms of U.S. exports can a Nicaraguan worker afford? They cannot afford Folgers coffee or Tide laundry detergent. They cannot afford cuts of U.S. prime beef at $13 a pound.

As I noted before, the six Central American nations of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic have the combined purchasing power of New Haven, Connecticut.

They will not add much to the U.S. economy. They will only take American jobs away, and make no mistake, that is what this agreement is all about.

If companies were serious about creating robust markets for ``Made in America'' goods, they would be working to improve the wages and working conditions of these workers. It is only when these laborers can earn enough to buy U.S. goods that this kind of trade agreement will be successful for all the parties and all the countries involved.

If you consider that a typical Central American consumer earns only a small fraction of an average American worker's wages, it becomes clear that CAFTA's true goal is not to the increase U.S. exports. About half the workers in this region work for less than $2 a day, placing them below the global poverty level.

All this agreement does is exploit lowest-wage labor to the detriment of the American worker. The Central American Free Trade Agreement does not benefit America. Let us be honest. CAFTA benefits companies that leave the U.S. or outsource their jobs to Central America, plain and simple. These companies will not only exploit cheap labor with minimal protections, but can import their products back to the U.S. under favorable terms.

There are several simple steps we can take to mitigate the effects that existing trade agreements have on our workers and future trade agreements have on global labor movements.

First, instead of subsidizing large corporations that outsource American jobs, with tax breaks for foreign production and government contracts for companies that ship jobs overseas, we should create financial incentives for companies to keep jobs here in the United States. It sounds simple. It could be revolutionary in this country.

Secondly, we must act now to deal with our increasing national deficit. The U.S. trade deficit has jumped from $70 billion in 1993 to $618 billion in 2004. There should be no new trade agreements until we can negotiate fair terms for our own workers.

Finally, in existing trade agreements, we need to demand and strictly enforce all provisions protecting labor, human rights and environmental standards. All future trade agreements should include these basic rights and all countries should be held accountable to internationally recognized standards.

We need a trade policy that supports domestic manufacturers, while promoting labor standards which are similar to our own overseas. The Central American Free Trade Agreement fails to do either.

In closing, I must say that there is a stark difference between our policy in the United States with respect to Iraq and the policy that is being suggested here in this Central American Free Trade Agreement. I was in Iraq several weeks ago, and there was much talk from the White House and from my colleagues in government about the need to spread democracy, to export democracy. I have heard of that a lot in the recent months and weeks, the talk of empowering people and raising their standards of living and liberating the people of Iraq.

Then I see this Central American Free Trade Agreement and what it does. It endorses oppression. It exploits workers. It turns a blind eye to repressive regimes. It reinforces the complete

lack of hope that these people have, and it does not lift a finger to help them.

Once Iraq is stabilized, is this the way we will treat their workers? Is this why we pumped $200 billion into that country in the last few years? Is that what liberation means for the Iraqi worker? Is that what our sons and daughters are fighting for? Is that the policy that we are going to adopt for Iraq once they are able to stand up on their own feet and control their own country?

We should have the courage and the honesty to tell our men and women in uniform that that is what they are fighting for if that is what we are proposing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a man whose professional life has been dedicated to improving the lives of working men and women in Massachusetts and across our nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to inform the Membership of the House that my dear friend, Joseph W. Nigro, Jr. is retiring from the post of General Agent of the Boston Metropolitan Building Trades Council in Boston, Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, Joe Nigro is a remarkable leader with a long and illustrious career in the American Labor Movement. Joe Nigro was initiated into the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 103 on November 21, 1960 and from the beginning he has been a shining example of dedicated service to his union, his community and his family and for these reasons is entirely worthy of Congressional recognition as well as the appreciation of this nation. Joe's personal integrity, hard work and determination illustrate the best characteristics of those who serve the working men and women of this country.

Over the last 18 years in his position as General Agent of the Boston Metropolitan Building Trades Council, Joe Nigro has made enormous contributions to the men and women of the building trades, not just in Massachusetts but across the country. Under Joe Nigro's leadership, the United States Supreme Court confirmed the legal right to use Project Labor Agreements on public projects creating job opportunities for union construction workers across the nation.

As a member of the Massachusetts State Legislature and Chair of its Commerce and Labor Committee, I witnessed Joe's passionate advocacy on behalf of working families. From securing benefits for workers who had lost their jobs, to training the next generation of America's workers, Joe has worked to ensure that the views and interests of working people are at the forefront of our state and national policy.

Mr. Speaker, Joe Nigro has also been a man committed to his community and has dedicated many hours and much energy to various charities including the South Boston Neighborhood House, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the Boys and Girls Club of Boston, as well as the Fiske Family Inn Foundation.

On a personal note, I believe that one of Joe's greatest accomplishments has been little recognized over the years: that is, his remarkable ability to maintain ``labor peace'' among the building trades during times of enormous challenge within the labor movement. As the former President of the Ironworkers Union in Boston, I can assure you that this was a monumental task.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with Joe's wonderful family, friends, and brothers and sisters in the Labor Movement to thank him for his service and congratulate him on his much-deserved retirement. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Joe Nigro's distinguished career and all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with Armenians throughout the United States, Armenia, and the world in commemorating the 90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, one of the darkest episodes in Europe's recent past. This week, members and friends of the Armenian community gather to remember April 24, 1915, when the arrest and murder of 200 Armenian politicians, academics, and community leaders in Constantinople marked the beginning of an 8-year campaign of extermination against the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire.

Between 1915 and 1923, approximately 1.5 million Armenians were killed and more than 500,000 were exiled to the desert to die of thirst or starvation. The Armenian genocide was the first mass murder of the 20th century, a century that was sadly to be marked by many similar attempts at racial or ethnic extermination, from the Holocaust to the Rwandan genocide and now the ongoing genocide in Darfur, Sudan.

In the 90 years since the beginning of this genocide, we have learned the importance of commemorating these tragic events. In 1939, after invading Poland and relocating most Jews to labor or death camps, Hitler cynically defended his own actions by asking, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' Just a few years later, 6 million Jews were dead. Now is the time when we must answer Hitler's question with a clear voice: We remember the Armenians, and we stand resolved that genocide is a crime against all humanity. We must remember the legacy of the Armenian genocide and we must speak out against such tragedies to ensure that no similar evil occurs again.

While today is the day in which we solemnly remember the victims of the Armenian genocide, I believe it is also a day in which we can celebrate the extraordinary vitality and strength of the Armenian people, who have fought successfully to preserve their culture and identity for over a thousand years. The Armenian people withstood the horrors of genocide, two world wars, and several decades of Soviet dominance in order to establish modern Armenia. Armenia has defiantly rebuilt itself as a nation and a society--a triumph of human spirit in the face of overwhelming adversity.

It is my firm belief that it is only by learning from and commemorating the past can we work toward a future free from racial, ethnic, and religious hate. By acknowledging the Armenian genocide and speaking out against the principles by which it was conducted, we can send a clear message: never again.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the so-called REAL ID Act of 2005.

Mr. Chairman, while I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the full committee, I must take exception to the assertions that have been made by a lot of speakers here today that somehow this bill will prevent or would have prevented the 9/11 attacks from occurring. I just want to point out that regardless of the number of licenses that the terrorists held on September 11, they were all obtained because those individuals were in the country legally on student visas. And student visa holders in the future, even after this act is passed, will still have the opportunity to get licenses. So that argument is indeed bogus.

But I want to talk about the most egregious parts of this bill. Under this bill, it would allow the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to nullify all of our laws while fulfilling his responsibilities under the scope of this act. And putting aside the schizophrenic immigration policy we have heard from the Republican Party, you have a President that wants to have open borders and basically amnesty to allow open borders for low-wage workers to come in, and then you have a Republican House that is saying that all those coming in must not have licenses. They must be pedestrians.

Mr. Chairman, under this act, what this means for American citizens is, our civil rights laws will be set aside under this bill. Our nondiscrimination laws will be set aside under this bill. Our health and safety laws will be set aside under this bill. Our environmental laws will not apply under this bill. And child labor laws will not apply under this bill. Most troubling of all, the public bidding laws of this country will not apply under this bill for this project.

Right now on the committee that I serve with the esteemed chairman, we are investing no-bid contracts that were given to Halliburton. We have millions of dollars in overcharges to the United States taxpayer, we have bribery charges, and we are doing all kinds of investigation on that no-bid.

There is no reason that the civil rights laws and the public bidding laws should be set aside. If that were not the most extreme example, they have removed any opportunity for judicial review under this act. There will be no review of the Secretary's action in setting aside all of those laws, no recourse.

It is ironic, Mr. Chairman, that while we have our soldiers in uniform protecting democracy, we are giving it away under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Analog Devices, Inc., ADI, a Fortune 1000 and S&P500 Company with global headquarters in the 9th Congressional District, in the town of Norwood, MA, which will celebrate its 40th anniversary January 18, 2005.

ADI, which is a world leader in the design, manufacture and marketing of semiconductors with a specialty in high-performance analog, mixed- signal and digital signal processing integrated circuits, was founded in 1965 in Cambridge, MA, by Ray Stata and Matthew Lorber, both graduates of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

During the intervening four decades, Analog Devices has grown to become the world's largest supplier of analog-to-digital and digital- to-analog data converters, and is the world's largest supplier of analog amplifiers, which are used in every conceivable manner of electronic communications, consumer, industrial, automotive, medical, military and aerospace product. The company today has manufacturing and/or technology design centers in 12 countries and 10 States, including Arizona, California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington.

ADI has played a significant role in the sustained development of Massachusetts as a world-class technology region and is a significant economic growth engine within the Massachusetts economy. Analog Devices is:

One of the 20 largest employers among Massachusetts' publicly traded companies;

Among the Top 20 companies in the State measured by annual revenue;

One of the Top 10 companies in the State measured by net earnings.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add may own personal congratulations to Analog Devices on the significant milestone of its 40th year and thank the company for the technological and economic contributions it has made to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have the wonderful honor of representing the city of Boston with my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano). This is a special moment for us. I want to rise here tonight just to remember a couple of great Red Sox fans from this body, a couple of people who just embodied the spirit of loyalty to the Red Sox and who I wish were here to share in this. Those two gentlemen are Silvio Conte who served in this body for such a long time representing western Mass, and also my predecessor, Congressman Joe Moakley. Two finer Red Sox fans there never were. I think Silvio Conte would have the full Red Sox uniform on tonight making his remarks if he were here.

The hour is late. I do want to before this resolution passes congratulate the Boston Red Sox and their superb management team, Larry Lucchino, John Henry, Tom Werner and also Theo Epstein and Terry Francona for putting together a wonderful team of just extraordinary gentlemen who not only carried out their athletic roles with excellence but also did it in a way that young people from Massachusetts and all through New England and through the country can really look up to. They really handled themselves with extreme class. The players of the 2004 World Series champion Red Sox, I do not have to name them tonight because their names as we all know will be forever written in the hearts of the citizens of Boston and of New England and of Red Sox Nation. I join with my colleagues in the House in congratulating them for their wonderful, wonderful accomplishment.

Mr. Chairman, the 9/11 Commission was born of the most brutal attack in this country's history on our soil, and we should remember that the commission was created to investigate our weaknesses and also to make recommendations on strengthening our national security. I think that the commission should be commended and the families that have been involved in making those recommendations at our hearings should be commended for their good work and for remaining above our partisanship.

But what I see here today in this bill is that after that long process of the

commissioners and the involvement of these families, that much of their key recommendations have been set aside, and I think that is a shame. And we should, I think, instead, support the Menendez substitute that agrees with the recommendations made by the other branch which I think properly protects American security and brings accountability to our intelligence systems that were so flawed prior to the attacks.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report for H.R. 4520, the so-called American Jobs Creation Act.

There has been a lot said here tonight, but if I could simply point out three numbers: One, this was intended to fix a $4 billion problem, a real problem of tariffs that were going to be asserted against us by the EU because of violations or noncompliance with international trade agreements. But instead of fixing a $4 billion problem, we now have a bill before this body that costs $140 billion, $42 billion of which go to special interests.

Mr. Speaker, this country really does need a true jobs bill, but this is a snow job bill. This is what we would call in my neighborhood a snow job bill. I cannot believe some of the people getting up on this floor tonight with a straight face and saying that this is good for America. That is truly unbelievable.

Politics is the art of the possible, but tonight it is politics is the art of the unbelievable. It is simply unbelievable, what I am hearing tonight.

Some politicians in Washington claim things are getting better here, but we have got to really ask ourselves, are they really? Just this past August, we had 8 million people unemployed in this country, 40 million people without health insurance, and we have a bunch of companies in this country being convinced to ship their jobs overseas.

While the conference report before us calls itself a ``jobs act,'' in reality it does little to address the unemployment numbers in this country. Instead, we have 276 separate tax breaks for corporations who are being actively encouraged and being encouraged by our Tax Code to ship American jobs overseas. That is the truth. And even worse than that, the conference report strips out language that would have provided incentives to companies for keeping jobs here in the United States. That is the truth. And beyond that, the conference report strips the Harkin amendment, which would have restored overtime pay rights for 6 million Americans. That should have happened in this bill. It has been stripped out.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a man whose professional life has been dedicated to improving the lives of working men and women in Massachusetts and across our nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to inform the Membership of the house that my dear friend, Bob O'Toole is retiring from the post of Business Manager-Financial Secretary Treasurer of the Pipefitter's Local Union 537 in Boston, Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, Bob O'Toole is a remarkable leader with a long and illustrious career in the American Labor Movement. Bob started his career as a pipefitter over 37 years ago and his shining example of dedicated service to his union, his community and his family is worthy of Congressional recognition and deserving of the appreciation of his nation. He will he sorely missed by his union membership and their families who have benefited from Bob's ability to lead by example and quiet dignity. Bob's personal integrity, hard work and determination illustrate the best characteristics of those who serve the working men and women of this country.

As a member of the Massachusetts State Legislature and Chair of its Commerce and Labor Committee, I witnessed Bob's tireless advocacy on behalf of working families. From securing benefits for workers who had lost their jobs, to training the next generation of America's workers, Bob has worked to ensure that the views and interests of working people are at the forefront of our state and national policy.

Mr. Speaker, Bob O'Toole has also been a man committed to his community and has dedicated many hours and much energy to various charities including Julie's Place, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the Family Inn, the St. Francis House for the Homeless, the Special Olympics and the American Red Cross.

And most importantly, Bob has had the enormous pleasure and tremendous good fortune to be married to his wife Marie for over 40 years. Additionally, Bob has been blessed with three children, Terri, Bobby and Kathy, and is the proud and from what I hear doting grandfather to Timothy, Holly, Michael and Kyle.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with Bob's family, friends, and brothers and sisters in the Labor Movement to thank him for his service and congratulate him on his much-deserved retirement. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Bob O'Toole's distinguished career and all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and also the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for their work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about the conference report for H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed that this conference report fails to address the real dangers facing multi-employer pension plans.

When we considered this bill last October, I supported the temporary extension of using a composite of corporate bond index to replace the 30-year Treasury. I think that is a good move. It is good to, I think, adjust in the current climate the funding obligation calculations that we include in this bill. Few of us doubt that this country's retirement system is in desperate need of reform. However, today we are missing an opportunity to meaningfully address the funding struggles that are crippling many of the multi-employer plans in this country.

When the Senate considered H.R. 3108, they recognized this growing crisis, and they included protections for multi-employer plans by an overwhelming vote. Sadly, this good work was undone yesterday by Republican conferees who gutted multi-employer pension relief with a so-called compromise that was strictly conducted on a party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, the real losers today are our Nation's workers. Multi- employer pension plans cover 9.5 million workers and retirees who have put their faith in the retirement security system. Hardworking families should not be forced to pay the price of partisan politics. They deserve this body to comprehensively address this problem facing multi- employer plans. Congress should be taking a fair look at this issue and making a good faith effort to provide meaningful pension reform. The Senate tried to do just that; but sadly, the conference report failed in its similar attempt.

There is a pattern here, Mr. Speaker, of conduct that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has addressed in part; and I, too, find it troubling that unemployment benefits are blocked by the Republican leadership; that overtime pay for our workers is blocked by the Republican leadership; that minimum wage increases are blocked by the Republican leadership. And now, Mr. Speaker, again, because of the obstructions created by the Republican leadership, we are missing an opportunity here to provide real multi-employer pension relief.

I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Andrews) motion to recommit and oppose this conference report.

Mr. Chairman, one day history will judge us and our stewardship of this country. Our children and grandchildren will ask whether we led this country soundly, meeting our challenges forthrightly and honestly, taking care of the most vulnerable among us, and preparing the ground for future generations, so that they may know peace and prosperity.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that instead of judging us as one of the Greatest Generations, we will be known simply as the Greedy Generation.

Once again the Majority has put forth a budget that would place a greater and greater burden of debt onto the next generation, so that we might take our tax cuts now. It's a budget that short-changes the promises we have made to our children's education, to our veterans' health, and to the safety and security of our communities, so that we may take our tax cuts now. During this time when we face some of the greatest challenges this country has ever known--the challenges of two and a half million jobs lost, of 43 million Americans without health insurance, of terrorists who still plot to do us harm--this Congress can apparently muster no more inspiring response than, ``give us our tax cuts now.''

Mr. Chairman, it's not hard to identify the many problems with this budget. Instead of

ensuring that all our children have equal access to education and opportunity, this budget under-funds the No Child Left Behind Act by $8.8 billion. Instead of securing our nation's harbors and waterways, this budget proposes a 63 percent cut in port security grant funding. Under this budget, more than 250,000 families could lose affordable housing. Veterans will face millions of dollars in new enrollment and access fees for health care. The list goes on and on.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to think about how we will be judged in the eyes of history. I urge my colleagues to reject this irresponsible budget resolution and let us work together, from both sides of the aisle, to head this country in a direction that makes us stronger, safer, and more prosperous.

Mr. Speaker, last week this House passed a resolution offering our sincere thanks and this Nation's thanks to our men and women in uniform who have so bravely and brilliantly served the cause of freedom, justice, and democracy in Iraq.

While I fully support that resolution, offering our sincere appreciation to our armed service personnel, I personally wanted to add to those sentiments the great sadness and most profound sense of loss on behalf of the families of those young men and women who have made the supreme sacrifice in the fight against terrorism and tyranny in our time.

It is with such sadness today that I must add the name of Sergeant Danny Londono, from the neighborhood of Dorchester in the city of Boston, which I proudly represent in the Congress, to the list of those who have fought with extreme valor and given their lives for our country.

In my brief time here in the Congress, following the attacks of September 11, I note that we frequently speak of the grandest ideals and the noblest principles on which this country stands; and against the backdrop of world terrorism, it is easy to be persuaded that we are all paying the price equally in some small way to meet the cost of that confrontation between good and evil.

But, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that there are some citizens, like Danny Londono, who are rendering all they have so that others might know freedom; and there are some families, like the Londono family, who are literally carrying this Nation forward on their backs and in their individual grief.

One such citizen soldier is Danny Londono. Sergeant Danny Londono gave his life for his country on the streets of Baghdad about 10 days ago, and one such family who must now bear the terrible grief and sadness is Danny's family.

Danny's family lives on East Cottage Street in Dorchester, Massachusetts, a tightly knit, hard-working neighborhood in Boston. Danny was a graduate of Archbishop Williams High School in Braintree, where he was a member of the track team. He enlisted in the Army straight out of high school and did tours as a foot soldier, as paratrooper, and as sergeant with the 82nd Airborne Division; and at age 22, Danny had served in Kosovo and Afghanistan, as well as Iraq.

Sergeant Londono represents the very best this country has to offer. He was someone who hoped to use his skills and training that he got in the Army to make a better life for himself and his family so he could pay for college and possibly return to his community to serve as a police officer. His tour of duty with the Army would have finished in August.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation is enormously proud of Danny Londono. We mourn his loss as we honor his memory. We are all proud of our Armed Forces and the job they are doing today in Iraq, as well as places like Kosovo and Bosnia, Afghanistan, Haiti and elsewhere; but I think it is important that we never lose sight of the individual stories of the soldiers who have given their lives on behalf of this country. For these families, the sacrifice is overwhelming, the sorrow is unspeakable, and the sacrifice is real.

I join with the Members of the House of Representatives in offering our condolences and prayers to Danny Londono and his family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a man whose professional life has been dedicated to finding a cause--and a

cure--for a devastating disease many of us know little about: scleroderma. Dr. Joseph Korn, Chief of the Rheumatology Section at the Boston University School of Medicine and a Professor at the Boston University School of Medicine, has spent much of his career delving into the mysteries of scleroderma.

Dr. Korn's research into scleroderma has led him to serve on the Medical Advisory Board and the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Scleroderma Foundation, which serves to educate and support scleroderma patients and their families throughout the country, as well as conduct ongoing research into scleroderma. On November 22, 2003, at their inaugural national gala, the Scleroderma Foundation will honor Dr. Korn for his commitment and dedication to scleroderma research and the patients afflicted with the disease.

As a member of the Massachusetts State Legislature, I first became aware of Dr. Korn's incredible work when a cluster of 30 scleroderma patients was discovered near my home in South Boston. Dr. Korn became one of the leaders of a study of this cluster of patients conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Health, for which I had worked to secure state funding. Dr. Korn's dedication to his research and compassion towards those with scleroderma is truly remarkable. It is my distinct honor to join in this celebration recognizing Dr. Korn's important contributions to scleroderma.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the Scleroderma Foundation in thanking Dr. Korn for his dedication to research into scleroderma. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Dr. Korn's distinguished career and future endeavors on behalf of those with scleroderma.

Mr. Speaker, as a co-chairperson along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) of the newly formed Congressional Labor and Working Families Caucus, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, the action that we are recommending today is necessary because the Department of Labor is indeed intending to implement new regulations that will place an undue burden on millions of American workers and their families. These proposed regulations would indeed block as many as 8 million American workers from receiving overtime pay, and we are not talking about CEOs of Fortune 500 companies here.

The exact language of these regulations would hurt the very men and women that are on the front lines of our war against terrorism, our first responders. There is no language in these regulations that would exempt our nurses, our firefighters, or our police officers that dedicate their working lives to protecting the safety of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, under the economic policies of this administration, more than 3.3 million jobs have been lost in this country since 2001; and as a result, unemployment is now at a 10-year high. Millions of additional workers are concerned about their pensions, health benefits, and ability to meet their basic needs such as rent and groceries.

This Congress today must act to protect American workers. If this new regulation is implemented, then millions of American workers will be put in a position where they are forced to work harder for less pay.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his hard work on this; and I want to point out, the gentleman from Georgia just said that there is no effect on firefighters, on nurses or on police officers by this regulation. That is what this motion to instruct requires. If he truly believes that, then he should support this motion to instruct.