Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this phony tax extender bill. After months of negotiations, the Senate finally reached an agreement on extending critical tax relief for individuals, businesses, and energy security. The Senate passed that agreement 3 days ago by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 93-2. With Congress preparing to adjourn, time is of the essence.

And yet here we are back at square one considering a proposal that the Senate has already rejected on four separate occasions.

I am especially disappointed that the legislation before us today drops a provision to extend the Secure Rural Schools Program through 2011. This program is vital to small counties in my district and across the West.

Madam Speaker, my counties depend on these payments to provide the most basic services like education for their kids. I would like to insert in the Record a letter from the National Education Association emphasizing the importance of including Secure Rural Schools in this legislation.

Several of us from the West have been working all year to get this program reauthorized, and we finally got a 93-2 vote in the Senate for a bill that would get it done. But now we have blown up a good bill and rural counties are getting lost in the shuffle.

I understand that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle feel that the Senate bill doesn't raise taxes enough. And, frankly, there are some things in the Senate bill that I don't like either. It is a compromise. But taking this approach virtually guarantees that we won't get this tax relief done at all.

No more R&D credit, no more tax relief for higher education expenses, no more incentives for renewable energy production.

I urge a resounding ``no'' vote on this futile exercise, and I urge this House to pass the Senate's bipartisan compromise and get this done.

September 24, 2008.

Hon. Charles Rangel,

Chair, Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rangel: On behalf of the National Education

Association's (NEA) 3.2 million members, we strongly urge you

to include in tax extenders legislation provisions to extend

the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination

Act. These issues are critically important to children and

public education. NEA members across the country will be

watching congressional actions closely.

We are very disappointed that provisions to extend the

Secure Rural Schools program are not included in current

House-drafted tax extender bill drafts, despite inclusion of

such provisions in the Senate-passed bill. The program is

absolutely essential to the survivability of over 800 rural

counties and 4,400 schools near national forests in 42 states

across the country. It has made a real difference for schools

in rural, timber-dependent counties, by ensuring them a

consistent funding stream. Since its creation in 2000, the

program has been an enormous success. Prior to implementation

of this program, schools in forest counties were in crisis,

experiencing dramatic reductions in funding. The program has

restored critical educational services for students in rural

schools and prevented the closure of numerous isolated rural

schools.

Unfortunately, the program has expired. Failure to

reauthorize and fund it immediately will result in a

substantial and devastating funding cut for rural counties

across the country. In fact, a number of counties around the

country have already sent out pink slips notifying employees

of potential layoffs.

We urge your immediate attention to this critical matter.

Sincerely,

Diane Shust,

Director of Government Relations.

Randall Moody,

Manager of Federal Advocacy.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 625, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, Democrats are wasting more time on a no- energy solution for our energy crisis. This bill says ``no'' to actually increasing American-made energy and relieving energy costs for the American people. No new refineries, no provisions to cut redtape and increase American refining capacity of American-made energy. No lawsuit reform to prevent frivolous lawsuits from radical environmental groups intent on playing political games.

The only thing they're saying ``yes'' to is an $85 billion tax increase. It would include unfair penalties for States that simply can't adjust to federally mandated one-size-fits-all renewable electricity standards.

America deserves an all-of-the-above energy solution. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote down this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6560. This bill extends the existing Generalized System of Preferences for 1 year, provides additional benefits to sub-Saharan African beneficiary countries, and improves U.S. implementation of the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement.

The GSP program is an important development tool for poor countries and allows U.S. manufacturers and consumers to obtain products at competitive prices. The additional benefit for the African countries will help spur job creation in these countries at a time of significant economic uncertainty. Most importantly, the improvements to CAFTA demonstrate how fair trade agreements benefit American workers.

Three years ago, many Members of Congress opposed CAFTA, fearing that it would result in outsourcing of U.S. jobs. We now know that those fears were greatly misplaced, and instead, CAFTA has been a tremendous success for American workers. CAFTA leveled the playing field for American-made products by going from a one-way preference to reciprocal, two-way free trade.

The CAFTA countries already had access to our market, but we did not have access to their markets. CAFTA opened these growing markets to exports of American-made products. As a result, U.S. exports of manufacturing products to CAFTA increased by 33 percent since 2004.

In 2007, the United States had a manufacturing product trade surplus of $1.1 billion with CAFTA, moving us away from the pre-CAFTA deficit that we had with these same countries. This agreement has become an important example of how American workers benefit from fair trade agreements. As of May of this year, the United States had a trade surplus in manufactured products with all our agreement partners combined, including Canada and Mexico.

This legislation before us today will create further incentives for U.S. manufacturing exports to the region. It is completely noncontroversial and supported strongly by the U.S. textile industry.

However, Congress should not stop here. We can create even more opportunities to expand exports of American-made products by passing the U.S.-Colombia Fair Trade Agreement. Like CAFTA, the Colombia Fair Trade Agreement would level the playing field for U.S. workers by giving the products they make the same access to the Colombian market that Colombian exporters already have to the U.S. market.

According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, U.S. exports of manufactured products and the American workers who produce them would be among the biggest beneficiaries of the Colombia Fair Trade Agreement. According to the ITC, U.S. exports of paper products would increase by 28 percent; chemical and plastic exports would increase by 23 percent; metal products by 56 percent; motor vehicles exports would increase to these countries by 44 percent, and machinery and equipment exports to these same countries by 15 percent. The growth in these exports would support good-paying American manufacturing jobs.

CAFTA provided American workers an advantage over their competitors in other countries. If Congress doesn't act on the Colombian agreement, American workers will be even further disadvantaged than they are now. Canada has already completed a trade agreement with Colombia, and the EU is negotiating an agreement at this moment. If these agreements go into effect before the U.S.-Colombia Fair Trade Agreement, American workers will lose out to their competitors in Canada and the EU.

Madam Speaker, passing this bill today will help American workers, but Congress must also take the next step and pass the U.S.-Colombia Fair Trade Agreement to create even more opportunities for American workers.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield so much time as he may use to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a very active member of the Ways and Means Committee and the Trade Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I don't have any further speakers, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 6309, the Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2008, designed to address the serious health hazards that high levels of lead have on children in their home environment.

In 1992 the Congress passed the landmark residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act to address what was at the time an epidemic of childhood lead poisoning. In conjunction with Federal efforts to limit the use of leaded gasoline and lead in food and juice cans and in drinking water pipes, this law has been remarkably effective in reducing the incidence of childhood lead poisoning. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report, Healthy People 2010, the decline in childhood lead poisoning in the United States represents a major public health success.

The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act directed HUD to establish regulations for the evaluation of lead hazards. In its regulation, referred to as the Lead-Safe Housing Rule, HUD established an environmental intervention blood level of 20 micrograms per deciliter for a single test or 15 to 19 micrograms per deciliter for two tests taken at least 3 months apart.

H.R. 6309 will require HUD to issue new regulations that adopt the level of 10 micrograms per deciliter. Eliminating lead exposure greater than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood among children by the year 2010 is one of the national health objectives established by the Department of Health and Human Resources.

Mr. Ellison is to be commended for his commitment to strengthen the definition of a child's elevated blood lead level, and I recommend my colleagues support this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the strongest opposition to this dangerously irresponsible resolution.

For over 40 years, millions of seniors across America have enjoyed longer and healthier lives as a result of the health care provided through the Medicare program. Yet as a result of demographic changes and rising health care costs, Medicare is now in dire financial straits. The numbers are absolutely staggering. According to the most recent report by Medicare's Board of Trustees, Medicare's unfunded obligations have surpassed $85 trillion. That's more than six times the annual output of our entire economy, and more than fifteen times the current federal debt held by the public.

We have a choice to make: Are we going to take action now to save Medicare for the future? Or are we going to ignore the problem and hope that it just goes away? I understand that many members might prefer not to deal with this issue in an election year. But the Medicare funding warning trigger was designed precisely to force Congress to confront an issue that many would rather ignore. And that's what the American people sent us here to do: confront the tough challenges facing our country's future. Even when that means taking some political risks.

The President has proposed some fairly modest reforms to begin shoring up Medicare's future. I personally thought his suggestions made sense. But under the trigger rules, the Majority was entirely free to reject the President's ideas and develop their own proposal for reining in the growth of Medicare. Instead, the Majority has chosen to take the easy way out and do nothing. Today, we are sending a message to the American people that this Congress is simply not up to the task of solving our nation's problems.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, we are gambling with our future. I believe we have an obligation to do our best to leave America better off for the generations that will follow us. I urge every member of Congress who feels the same way to join me in voting ``no'' on this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 93, to extend import sanctions against Burma for another year. Conditions are getting worse, not better, in Burma.

This past year has been particularly repugnant on all fronts. The U.N. General Assembly expressed grave concern with the ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Burma.

In response to peaceful civic protests in August and September of 2007, the regime killed 30 people, according to U.N. estimates. Other sources reported hundreds of deaths. Harassment, beatings and other violent attacks on demonstrators were routine.

The U.N. Human Rights Council strongly deplored these mindless acts, and the U.N. Security Council, which includes China, unanimously condemned them as well. The ASEAN countries, Burma's neighbors, proclaimed their revulsion.

As for promoting democracy, there too Burma went in the wrong direction, ignoring the requests of the U.N. special adviser to release opposition political prisoners. The regime imposed on its people a smoke-and-mirrors democratic process, criminalizing criticism of its sham constitution and forcing an unfair referendum on communities devastated by the cyclone. This is not the scorecard of a country for which we should lift sanctions.

I must say, however, that I seriously question the usefulness of unilateral action. Our Burma import sanctions have been in place for 5 years. During that time, the repressive ruling regime has shown no progress toward democracy and respect for human rights.

That said, in light of the events of the past year, I believe that we have no choice but to continue these sanctions, not only to remind Burma's leaders that their actions are inexcusable, but also to communicate to the impoverished Burmese people that we have not abandoned their cause.

While I am an admitted skeptic when it comes to import sanctions, the Burma sanctions are structured to epitomize their effectiveness. They require the administration to report annually on whether conditions in Burma are improving, and whether U.S. national security, economic and foreign policy interests are being served.

The President may waive the sanctions in the national interest. Finally, they are not self-executing. The sanctions will sunset next July unless Congress votes to extend them. Most importantly, our sanctions, which this Chamber voted last week to strengthen even further, are driving other countries to take a tougher stance.

This past year, Canada imposed new export, import and investment restrictions on Burma. Australia instituted new financial measures, and the EU sharpened its import sanctions, targeting Burma's profitable extractive industries.

We still need to see much more from China, the ASEAN nations and India. For us to force change in Burma, the action must be multilateral, and continued efforts to build international pressure are critical to my future support for these import sanctions. In the meantime, Madam Speaker, I support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House of Representatives on July 17, 2008, because I was invited to accompany the President of the United States on a tour of communities in my Northern California Congressional District that have been devastated by wildfires. For this reason, I missed rollcall votes 509, 510, and 511. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall 509, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1350-- ``nay''; rollcall 510, on agreeing to H. Res. 1350, providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules--``no''; rollcall 511, on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 6515, the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act of 2008--``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, we all know this bill is purely a political exercise. Congress will eventually pass an AMT patch that does not contain permanent tax increases. All we are doing today is postponing final action and risking a repeat of last year's delay that created major headaches for taxpayers.

I believe we shouldn't be expanding the federal government's share of the economy by pairing temporary extensions of tax relief with permanent tax increases. I've heard a number of concerns from small businesses about one of these offsets, a new reporting requirement for credit card transactions. Last week, when the Ways and Means Committee considered this bill, we were told by the Treasury Department that they have not done a cost-benefit analysis on this proposal. I fear we are going

down the same road as we did two years ago with the 3 percent withholding requirement, which we've now learned will cost the government far more than it will raise in revenue.

On top of that, this bill raises taxes on American energy producers. This does nothing to reduce gas prices--in fact, it will only make them higher. And there's simply no justification for a provision that penalizes U.S. producers but doesn't affect subsidiaries of foreign- owned firms. This legislation just doesn't make sense. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 78th anniversary of perhaps the most disastrous economic legislation in our Nation's history, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1928. It set off a chain reaction of retaliatory tariffs that caused a sharp decline in global trade. Modern economists largely agree that it deepened the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, today this lesson seems to have gone largely unnoticed, judging by the isolationist course the Democrat House leadership is currently embracing. Expanded trade is critical to job creation and economic growth, it levels the playing field for U.S. workers, and is crucial to keeping our Nation as the world's number one economic trading powerhouse.

Mr. Speaker, the United States must reject the rising tide of economic isolationism and lead the world toward open markets.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle want to help U.S. workers during this period of economic uncertainty. Yet, the question has always been: How do we best provide this assistance?

Under the proposal before us today, workers in States with historically low levels of unemployment would receive 13 weeks of Federal unemployment benefits, on top of their current 26 weeks of regular State unemployment benefits. This means that workers in States like Iowa, that have a documented labor shortage, would receive 39 weeks of unemployment benefits. This makes no sense.

Instead of creating an untargeted expansion of unemployment benefits, we should be focusing on growing the economy. We want to see every State have a job surplus, not a surplus of extended unemployment benefits.

Today's legislation will result in higher taxes on our small businesses, resulting in slower job creation. This won't help U.S. workers.

The best way to help our workers is to foster economic growth that creates jobs. We can do that by passing pro-growth tax policies that keep our businesses competitive globally, and provide them with certainty to make important investments in our economy with our work, without worrying about a massive tax increase.

We can also help our workers by passing our fair trade agreements, which would create tens of thousands of jobs here in the United States.

And if we really want to help workers, we also need to be confronting rising gas prices so people can afford to get to work. We should remove our self-imposed embargo on domestic energy production, which will make energy more affordable and create more jobs.

These are the policies that Congress should be talking about here today. These are the types of policies that are going to create a strong and growing economy that will provide our workers with the jobs they need to support their families.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is the wrong approach. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, like everyone else in this Chamber, I'm concerned about rising unemployment, but this legitimate concern does not justify Congress making poor policy.

I'm concerned that H.R. 5749 significantly departs from the long- standing Federal policy that workers should have meaningful employment before collecting extended unemployment benefits. By excluding the minimum 20 weeks of work requirement, this legislation would allow someone with as little as 2 weeks of work to qualify for up to 52 weeks of unemployment benefits. This moves away from the core purpose of unemployment benefits and towards a welfare-like system.

In addition, such expansive benefits may force States to raise payroll taxes, resulting in slower job creation and further squeezing workers' wages. This won't help current workers or unemployed workers in search of new jobs.

I believe expecting at least 20 weeks of work in exchange for 52 weeks of unemployment benefit is fair to U.S. workers and would limit any negative impact on job growth and workers' income.

Unfortunately, today's legislation doesn't include this common-sense requirement, even though Democratic Members were nearly unanimous in supporting this requirement in the legislation creating the 2002-2004 temporary extended benefits program.

As a result, while I'm concerned for workers in my district and across the Nation during this period of economic uncertainty, I must oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' so we can bring this bill back to the floor in a form that all Members can support.

Madam Speaker, on May 21, 2008, I inadvertently missed rollcall vote No. 347, which was on consideration of the Veterans Emergency Care Fairness Act of 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, counties and schools in my district need a lifeline. They don't need partisanship. They don't need a talking point. They need leadership, which will result in an actual law being passed to help them.

Secure rural schools has rested on hard work by grassroots supporters and bipartisan efforts in Congress. So why are we moving a bill that divides our coalition by removing PILT and tying secure rural schools to a controversial offset that we know will fail in the Senate?

This bill does nothing to help our counties and schools because it has no chance of becoming law. Yesterday, there was an effort to rescue this legislation with a compromise that would extend a lifeline to rural counties and every American through new domestic oil production and lower gas prices. That proposal was rejected because we were told the majority will not allow consideration of any bill that increases domestic oil supplies.

America and our counties and schools deserve better. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. I would have voted ``yea.''