Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage every Member of Congress to ask their constituents one simple question: Are your health insurance premiums high enough yet? Because this bill will make them even higher. We all want to improve access to mental health treatment. But the legislation before us could force some employers to drop mental health benefits altogether. Under this bill, plans are actually prohibited from covering treatment for depression, or potentially even a program to help someone quit smoking, unless they agree to cover literally everything in the book.

I am especially concerned by the offset that effectively bans physician investment in hospitals. I am concerned that this provision could have a devastating impact on access to high quality health care. For example, there are just two hospitals in the city of Redding, California, in my northern California district. One of them nearly shut down a few years ago. It was bought by a company that specializes in turning around failing hospitals.

Part of their strategy was to give the physicians who work at the hospital a partial ownership stake. They were successful. As a result, a vital community hospital is still open in a largely underserved area. This so-called ``offset'' would subject it to crippling new regulations, and it could doom other struggling hospitals to closure.

Vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today's bill is eerily reminiscent of legislation we saw back in August, modest renewable energy tax incentives, which I have long supported, mixed with a reformulation of billions of dollars in new taxes on America's predominant energy manufacturers.

Apparently the majority is more interested in scoring political points than in providing anything close to an energy plan. The Democrats even make sure to preserve a carveout that will enable Hugo Chavez's Venezuela state-owned oil company to claim a U.S. tax deduction.

When our constituents ask us to do something about gas prices, they don't want us to raise them. Yet by increasing taxes on U.S. energy manufacturers by more than $17 billion, this bill creates a significant disincentive for domestic production, decreasing our energy security and increasing our overreliance on uncertain foreign supplies.

Expanding the diversity of our domestic supplies is one step. That will be accomplished over time through tax incentives such as the energy investment and production tax credit for resources like forest, biomass, geothermal and solar energy.

But we can't possibly hope to meet demand by raising taxes and making

U.S. production even more costly. While it may make a nice talking point, taxes won't help our constituents or make energy less costly.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

With the carveout, I noticed that we are taxing those American companies producing in the United States.

But it leaves a carveout because it doesn't touch or affect Hugo Chavez.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this short-term extension of the Andean trade preferences. This extension will provide a necessary bridge to provide time for the implementation of the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement and for Congress to consider the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.

The short duration of the extension signifies that Congress is concerned with the deteriorating investment climate for U.S. investors in Ecuador and Bolivia and that these countries must quickly and completely comply with all their international obligations with regard to investment disputes. While the Andean trade preference program provides important economic benefits to exporters in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, it is not a substitute for moving toward a reciprocal arrangement that also provides benefits to U.S. exporters. Congress has already taken the first step in this process by passing the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Now Congress must take the next step to pass the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), an active member of the Ways and Means Committee and very active in trade, particularly in Central and South America.

Madam Speaker, I yield now at this time 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), again an active member of Ways and Means and the Trade Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, can I inquire of the other side how many speakers they have remaining.

We have three more speakers on our side, and then I will close.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Royce.

Madam Speaker, I yield at this time 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, someone who has long been active in the area of trade.

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

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

Madam Speaker, today we are voting on the Andean Preferences, but the U.S.-Colombia TPA is far superior to the Andean Trade Preferences in several very important ways. The Andean trade preferences program provides duty-free access for imports from Colombia, but not for U.S. exports to Colombia, which face an average duty of over 11 percent. As a result, U.S. exporters are at a major disadvantage.

Here are just a few of the examples in which imports from Colombia receive duty-free access to the U.S. markets and the significant tariffs U.S. exporters currently face which would be eliminated upon implementation of the U.S.-Colombia TPA: U.S. wheat, fruits and vegetables; soybean meal; paper products; aircraft; turbines; diesel engines; and tractors.

Passing the U.S.-Colombian TPA would level the playing field for U.S. exporters. However, the longer we wait, the worse the situation becomes. Currently, several countries, including Argentina, Brazil and Chile, have preferential access into the Colombian market. Canada and the EEU are close to completing trade agreements with Colombia that would provide their businesses with a competitive advantage in the Colombian market. All of these countries are major competitors with U.S. exporters.

Failure of Congress to pass the U.S.-Colombia TPA does not preserve the status quo. It exacerbates and magnifies disadvantages already faced by U.S. exporters.

Madam Speaker, the facts are clear: The U.S.-Colombian TPA is far superior in every way to the Andean Trade Preferences program, and Congress should use the next 10 months to pass the agreement for the benefit of U.S. businesses and U.S. workers.

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

Madam Speaker, employers across our country contribute a portion of their payroll on a per employee basis to pay for the potential future unemployment benefits of their workers. In a very real sense, this payment--required by law--represents a trade-off for workers, where the tax is paid at the expense of workers today, who would otherwise currently be receiving higher wages or more opportunities for work. If paid to workers directly, they could spend or save it as they wished. Still, our government has decided that this tax is an important investment that must be made on behalf of an employee in case the business falls on hard times and resorts to layoffs.

It works like this: under the provisions of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), employers pay an extra 0.6 percent on the first $7,000 of payroll per employee in Federal unemployment taxes. Depending on the size of a company and the number of workers on payroll, these extra taxes can add up and affect decisions to invest in new equipment, hire workers, retain employees or even pay more in wages. Back in the 1970s, Congress faced an unusual shortfall in the trust funds that hold unemployment taxes, so it decided to levy an additional 0.2 percent surtax on employers, known as the FUTA surtax. Again, as employers paid more in non-wage benefits, the wages of employees suffered by this same amount. This meant that the previous payroll tax contribution for Federal unemployment was raised from 0.6 percent to 0.8 percent. While 0.2 percent may not seem like a significant imposition, over the decade this 25 percent increase in the overall unemployment tax restored a sound financial footing to the trust funds.

But the surtax didn't go away. Since it was no longer needed, after the 1980s, the FUTA surtax has been repeatedly extended--most recently in December 2007--and used as an extra source of tax revenue for Congress to spend on other unrelated programs. In other words, as the House and Senate expand Federal programs, the American wage payer is literally picking up the tab in a form that conveniently doesn't show up as an increased income tax burden. Today, the Federal unemployment insurance trust funds have about $35 billion more than they need, making the additional $1.5 billion per year brought in through the FUTA surtax totally unnecessary. Even without the surtax, the standard unemployment tax on employers brings in more than enough money to support the current Federal responsibilities, without even tapping the $35 billion in the trust funds. In fact, the outstanding balances in the Federal accounts are about six to seven times the annual cost of the unemployment program, leaving plenty of room for a ``rainy day'' reserve.

My legislation would repeal the FUTA surtax for once and for all. As our Nation's economy and workers face uncertain times, rolling back the FUTA surtax would provide new flexibility to employers at just the right time--enabling a stronger and more prosperous workforce.

Madam Speaker, I wish I could share the enthusiasm of my colleagues about tonight's bill. I truly do. But right now Americans need to know their jobs will be around tomorrow. Regrettably, this evening's bill doesn't have much in the way of tax relief to spur job creation and should have gone much further.

What concerns me more is the expanded redistribution of money through tax rebates that will, I believe, have next to zero positive effect on our economy in the short or long term. And, unfortunately, at more than $100 billion, it can hardly be called ``free money.'' In Congress's hurry to act in reaction to negative economic news, we have truly missed a golden opportunity to enact lasting, pro-growth tax relief. Such relief would benefit all Americans, create new jobs, and drive economic prosperity.

I support tonight's legislation, but I believe we can and must do more as a Congress to foster economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, unless Congress acts, in 3 short years capital gains taxes will jump from 15 percent to 20 percent. Tax increases, as Democrats would allow, send the wrong messages to businesses facing economic uncertainty.

But what does this mean for working Americans? Simply put, fewer jobs as employers make tough decisions about hiring and retention. Some say tax relief costs too much, but history since 2002 shows otherwise. Lower rates have unlocked billions in gains, boosting Federal revenues far beyond Congress' projections which were made based on higher tax rates.

Lower taxes, higher revenues, and greater growth for our economy and for the American workers, Congress should keep the capital gains rates constant.

I thank the gentleman.

I commend the House leaders for coming together in a bipartisan way on today's tax relief bill. But I believe we must do much more to truly foster business certainty, economic expansion, and a prosperous America for workers and their families.

The doubled small business expensing and bonus depreciation tax relief in this bill will help employers invest in their businesses, retain the workers they already have, and hire new employees in 2008.

It would be even more beneficial if we were focused on permanent relief. Even today, U.S. industry is looking 2 and 3 years down the road and making investment plans based on the expectations of the massive Democrat tax increases. Absent predictable, low rates on capital formation, tax increases will take a toll on economic activity and growth, meaning fewer jobs, lower wages and tougher times for families in the future.

Such a hit to our economy would far outweigh any static revenue loss we would see from enacting big-picture tax relief.

Mr. Speaker, we should also focus on putting our employers on an even tax footing with countries around the globe. Currently, the United States has the second highest business tax rates among world market economies.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to encourage a sound and prosperous American economy tomorrow, we have to begin by planting the seeds of prosperity and growth today.

Madam Speaker, today's economic debate should focus on big picture tax policies that emphasize sustained prosperity for American workers and their families.

A one-time, consumption-driven stimulus may be popular, but what we really need is tax relief that will energize economic growth. We need certainty for our industry which is currently making tomorrow's business plans today based on the assumption that taxes are going to increase dramatically.

We should also reduce tax rates on our companies from the highest tax rates in the world to instead placing American employers on an even tax footing globally.

Madam Speaker, today's economy didn't happen overnight, and tomorrow's growth and prosperity will depend on our commitment to bold, forward-looking tax policies now.

Madam Speaker, in Congress's rush to enact some manner of short-term economic stimulus, we should not lose sight of the bigger picture, that is, that the long-run prosperity of the American worker and his or her family depends on sustained and not one-time economic growth. In general, while economic growth is dependent on many

factors, one of its chief determinants is certainty and predictability. It is for this reason that I believe we must act now to extend the critical tax relief of the last 6 years. Industry is already making operational decisions today based on the business environment of tomorrow, and it is troubling to think that, absent any signals from Washington to the contrary, they are expecting tax increases. It is also time to focus our attention on other elements of our long-term economic prosperity, and that includes America's competitive position relative to our largest global competitors. I am concerned that we have some of the highest business taxes among the top economies in the world. This is something that we must work to change if we hope to compete in the 21st century.

One of our country's most valuable assets is our workforce, and fostering the continued competitiveness of this asset is a growing challenge. This is one of the reasons I support small business expensing, both as a short-term and long-term tax policy. Workers grow and learn on the job, underscoring the critical importance of businesses keeping their doors open and expanding. Nearly two-thirds of all new job creation in the U.S. comes from small businesses. In the context of an economic stimulus, increasing small business expensing limits would help keep workers employed and even create new jobs as our country weathers an uncertain economic time.

How does small business expensing help? Second, when facing slower economic growth, and the potential for job loss, expensing frees up potentially affected businesses from spending so much of their cash flow on overhead, therefore enabling them to retain existing workers, hire new workers, and focus on expansion rather than just staying afloat. Expensing makes this possible by allowing companies to write- off 100 percent of new, otherwise depreciable assets immediately.

While my legislation would grant a short-term increase in the current law expensing limits, expensing makes for good long-term investment- focused tax policy as well. I look forward to working with others in the House and Senate to approve this measure, and continue the debate over long-term tax policies that really get at the bedrock of America's economic growth.

Madam Speaker, the alternative minimum tax was never meant to reach down and ensnare middle-class taxpayers. It does so because it was never indexed for inflation. The AMT was created in 1969 to capture 155 of the wealthiest taxpayers in America. If we don't pass this legislation today, it will increase taxes on not 155, but 23 million mostly middle-income families this year. A clean AMT patch is the right policy for taxpayers. There are no new taxes in this bill to comply with the so-called PAYGO tax increase budgeting. PAYGO can't control spending, and it really only makes tax relief virtually impossible. So I'm pleased that we're not falling for the PAYGO trap on this temporary patch.

No new taxes also means that we're not dipping into the economy for revenue. This is good, since we're facing rough economic waters due to the mortgage situation. Although I'm concerned our delay in passing this patch could result in added waiting time for tax returns from the IRS, this inconvenience is minor compared to the alternative, tens of billions in new taxes to offset temporary tax relief.

I strongly support House passage of this clean AMT patch and urge an ``aye'' vote.

Madam Speaker, today the House considered H.R. 6, new tax and energy legislation. I strongly opposed the bill because I believe it will contribute to higher gasoline and diesel prices. Though there are a few worthwhile provisions in the legislation, its failure to effectively address the fact that families and small businesses are spending more and more of their hard-earned income on gasoline, diesel, and other energy costs warrants its defeat. Unfortunately this bill is a case of one step forward and many steps back.

H.R. 6 would extend tax credits for renewable electricity production from wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. Increasing the diversity of our energy supply is important to meeting our Nation's future energy needs and is something I've long supported. But any benefits America would gain from new renewable production would be seemingly lost because of the bill's steep tax increases on petroleum and natural gas production. Petroleum and natural gas currently supply roughly 63 percent of America's energy needs. Renewable sources account for only 7 percent. A truly balanced bill would provide incentives for environmentally responsible production of all energy sources, including fossil fuels, which energy forecasters predict will continue to provide for the vast majority of energy uses in our country. Not only does H.R. 6 not provide incentives for new American oil and gas production, the bill could actually make the cost of producing these important energy resources more expensive because of the new multibillion dollar tax increase that is the centerpiece of this legislation. These tax increases will likely be passed on to consumers in the form of higher gasoline and diesel and home heating and cooling costs.

Singling out American energy companies for new taxes also runs directly counter to our goal of reducing the Nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil by encouraging more domestic production. At the time of America's first ``energy crisis'' in the 1970s, approximately 30 percent of our petroleum needs were met by oil imported from foreign countries. Today that number is over 62 percent. With petroleum use expected to increase over the next several decades, this number will only continue to grow unless steps are taken to reverse the trend. Continued reliance on hostile regions of the world for our energy needs threatens America's national and economic security. Such a serious problem is deserving of an equally serious response rather than the hollow gestures of energy independence within H.R. 6. While it's reasonable to expect that some percentage of our oil supply will continue to come from overseas, America can increase her energy independence through environmentally responsible oil and gas production here at home. We have resources in Alaska and deep ocean areas and, importantly, the state-of-the-art technology needed to develop these resources while preserving a healthy environment.

This legislation's completely unbalanced approach to energy policy could not come at a worse time for northern California. Gasoline and diesel prices in our area are hovering around record levels despite the fact we are now in the driving ``off-season''--a time when fuel demand, and consequently fuel prices, are historically at their lowest levels of the year. One can only imagine how high prices will rise in the spring, when driving season begins and the state's fuel refiners take facilities offline to prepare them for production of California's special summertime boutique fuel blends.

H.R. 6 would also increase the Nation's ``CAFE'' or fuel efficiency standards for cars, light trucks, and SUVs. Fuel efficiency is an important attribute in any car. The emergence of new ``hybrid'' vehicles is an example of consumer preference in the free marketplace forcing automakers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. But developing the know-how to build a car with better gas mileage takes time. I'm concerned that when faced with a federal mandate to meet such high efficiency standards in a relatively short amount of time, automakers may be forced to choose the path of least resistance by simply reducing vehicle size and weight, thereby making the cars people drive less safe in collisions. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in a 2002 study that smaller vehicle sizes have caused traffic fatalities to increase anywhere from 1,300 to 2,600 lives per year.

An increase in the Nation's ethanol mandate is also in the bill. While striving to develop new sources of fuel should remain a significant goal, it is important to point out the unintended consequences that have come with mandating ethanol use throughout the Nation. For instance, the ethanol mandate has contributed to higher gasoline prices for California motorists. Ethanol cannot be shipped by pipeline. Instead, it must be transported from the Midwest by rail or truck. This process not only adds to the fuel's cost, it can, in some cases, contribute to California's notorious refining bottleneck if there are delays in its delivery to our State.

The current ethanol mandate has also caused corn prices to roughly double over the last 2 years. While this has been good news for corn farmers, the result has had a slightly different outcome for everyone else. Prices for food products dependent upon corn and other grains, such as beef and dairy, have increased along with the price of corn. H.R. 6 seeks to raise the current ethanol requirement by a factor of five. Such a dramatic increase,

combined with growing demand for corn-fed meat products the world over, will likely result in even higher food prices for U.S. consumers.

Some have suggested that the shipping problems and price inflation associated with corn ethanol can be overcome if biofuels are made locally with material native to our area. Cellulosic forest residue left over from thinning or restorative forestry projects has been at the top of this list. Although the technology to make this fuel in a cost-effective manner is still being developed, California's 18 National Forests could serve as a ready supply of material to meet future biofuel needs. But this legislation expressly forbids any forest materials from our National Forests--not even a single pine needle--to be used as feedstock for biofuels manufacturing. The vast majority of the National Forest land in our congressional district has been rated as ``Condition Class III'' by forest researchers and scientists, meaning that the forests face an extraordinarily high risk of catastrophic fire. There is no scientific dispute of the fact that forest materials must be removed in order to protect communities and wildlife from severe fire and to generally restore forest health. Using forest residue for biofuels would arguably contribute both to forest recovery and to the Nation's fuel supply. But for reasons that can only be explained by environmental politics, the Democrat leadership has again labeled California's National Forests ``off-limits'' to commonsense forest management and a new and important source of a future renewable fuels supply.

Finally, H.R. 6 seeks to mandate a new national ``Renewable Portfolio Standard'' or ``RPS.'' The RPS would require all private electricity supply companies to generate 15 percent of the electricity they produce with renewable sources, such as wind, solar power, or biomass. California already has such a mandate so the proposed federal standard is not new policy for our State's electricity providers. But other States, particularly those that lack the abundant natural resources we have, will likely struggle to meet the requirements of the RPS. Energy companies in these areas will have to purchase high cost power or renewable energy ``credits'' from other regions of the country. These costs will also be passed on to families and small businesses. Higher energy costs, no matter where they occur, harm U.S. economic competitiveness and will likely serve as a drag on an already uneasy economy.

But even California, with its own renewable electricity requirement, would not come out ahead if the proposed federal RPS mandate in H.R. 6 becomes law. Just as the bill inexplicably limits the use of National Forest materials for cellulosic ethanol production, it also places unworkable limits on the use of forest resources for electricity production. Again, one step forward and several steps back.

A truly balanced energy bill would begin with the serious problem of record gas prices and reducing America's dependence on foreign sources of energy and then proceed with creating incentives that would unleash the power of American inventiveness and creativity in order to develop the next generation of energy technology and supplies. H.R. 6 relies on an outdated and failed belief that Washington knows best. Over 1,000 pages of legislative text contains little in the way of broad-based incentives, but is chock-full of new regulations and a higher tax burden, which will do little, if anything, for consumers. A better approach would get Washington out of the way and allow market-oriented solutions to provide for an affordable, diverse, and secure energy supply for America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of extending additional import sanctions against the repressive Burmese military junta. This regime has steadfastly refused to make progress--not only with respect to its abhorrent and inexcusable human rights record, but also in preventing democracy to take root in Burma.

This past July, the House and Senate passed a bill which renewed our import ban against all Burmese products. Unfortunately, shortly after our renewal of the ban, the situation in Burma took a grave turn for the worse. As we all know, in September 2007, Buddhist monks led demonstrations in Burma, which ultimately culminated in an estimated 100,000 people marching through Rangoon. The peaceful protestors called for improvements in human rights, democratic processes, and the release of opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who still lives under unjustified house arrest.

The Burmese regime responded to these peaceful demonstrations with a violent crackdown that led to deaths and hundreds more injuries. In addition, according to human rights groups, thousands of individuals have been arrested, tortured, or otherwise intimidated based on the regime's belief that these individuals participated in the protests.

These recent events make clear that it is time to strengthen our sanctions by putting a full stop on trade in Burmese rubies and jadeite, the sales of which finance the Burmese regime. While we need to act unilaterally, we also need to structure our strengthened import ban in a way that encourages and paves the way for multilateral pressure on the military regime. A multilateral effort that truly squeezes the junta is the only way sanctions will lead to real, lasting reform.

The Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over import matters, has done just that. Working with the Foreign Affairs Committee, my committee was able to refine provisions so that all Burmese rubies and jadeite--and jewelry containing these Burmese stones--could fall under the purview of the current ban, even if the jewelry was made in, and exported from, a third country.

While we believe the changes the Ways and Means Committee made to this legislation maximize our compliance with U.S. international obligations, the added provisions also open the door to building a multilateral consensus at the United Nations and World Trade Organization to prevent trade in Burmese rubies and jadeite. Modeled after the successful conflict diamonds legislation, the provisions my committee added are proven and administrable.

At the same time, however, I am concerned about the provisions relating to the Generalized System of Preferences. While I understand the need to avoid unduly harming third countries affected by this ban, I believe that the approach outlined in this bill creates a number of problems and doesn't create a solid basis for holding these countries harmless. It is our expectation that there will be continued work with Chairman Rangel and the other body to solve these problems as this bill moves forward.

For these reasons, I urge support of H.R. 3890, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, an important provision of the HEART Act would help veterans in my home State achieve the American Dream of homeownership. In our pursuit of this provision, I join with my California colleague, Susan Davis, to introduce a stand-alone legislation on this issue, and I thank her for her leadership.

Currently, several States are allowed to issue what are called Qualified Veteran Mortgage Bonds, which are tax-exempt bonds. In California, the CalVet Home Loan Program uses the proceeds from these bonds to help pay for low-cost mortgages for our Nation's heroes returning from war. For our State and Texas, however, until this provision today, only veterans who ended their military service before 1977 were allowed to receive these low-cost home loans using proceeds from qualified veterans mortgage bonds. Now all veterans, regardless of when they serve, will be eligible under the QVMB-financed program. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his administration deserve credit for their unwavering support of this change.

This provision has been several years in coming. I am very pleased to say that it will help many recent California servicemen and women purchase their own home, regardless of when they served.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the wrong policy for tax-paying families. PAYGO budgeting has put Congress in a straitjacket even on this temporary fix to the alternative minimum tax which was never intended to ensnare 23 million middle-income workers.

In reality, PAYGO fails to rein in out-of-control spending and results in permanent tax increases making tax relief next to impossible.

The other body agrees, going so far as to call this nonoffset AMT patch the ``Tax Increase Prevention Act.'' Insisting on PAYGO brings us down the path of massive tax increases over the next decade. We need to stop this PAYGO charade and pass AMT relief without burdensome new taxes on the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back myself so much time as I may require.

I rise in support of this extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA program, for 3 months beyond its expiration of December 31. The TAA program provides important training,

health care, and other benefits to American workers adversely affected by trade. While this bill will continue the program for 3 months, I believe 6 months would be better and would allow the Senate sufficient time to pass the TAA reauthorization bill.

Also, the Senate and House must work together to develop what I hope will be truly bipartisan legislation that helps workers affected by trade and globalization get retrained and back to work sooner. Unfortunately, the House-passed Democrat bill was not the product of a bipartisan approach as I had hoped and did not include key Republican reform proposals.

In light of this, an overwhelming majority of the Republicans did not support it, and the bill drew a veto threat from the administration. In contrast, a TAA reauthorization bill that committee Republicans offered in an alternative on the floor was supported by 95 percent of all House Republicans and 11 Democrats. This strong support reflects the meaningful reforms in our 5-year TAA reauthorization, such as an increased health coverage tax credit.

As debate moves forward, I hope that at least some of the key TAA reforms in our bill will be considered and adopted. Several critical reforms in the House Republican TAA bill were not included with the House-passed language. They include providing more flexible training options to get people back to work sooner, such as training before layoffs, part-time training, and providing training scholarship for workers to use over 4 years, provisions to enhance the capacity of training providers, primarily community colleges to provide effective training programs, new accountability measures for TAA program funds, an extension and modernization of the Workforce Investment Act that will better integrate it with TAA to expand services to all workers and additional flexibility for States to operate UI programs that would help workers get back on the job faster.

I also want to reiterate my opposition to how the majority paid for the House-passed bill, and I hope we can revisit this issue as the process moves ahead.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should discuss TAA expansion in the context of initiatives that would expand trade opportunities for U.S. workers, farmers, and producers. We must pass all of our pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea and reauthorize trade promotion authority that allows the President a stronger hand to negotiate these beneficial agreements in the first place.

I yield back the balance of my time.