Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1400, as amended to strengthen its goals and effect.

The Iranian regime supports terrorism. Iran's President has called for Israel to be, and I quote, ``wiped off the map.'' Iranian special forces are fighting a ``proxy war'' against U.S. troops in Iraq and are training Iraqi Shiite extremists. Iran's uranium enrichment continues to fly in the face of several United Nations resolutions, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, reports that Iran could develop nuclear weapons in as few as 3 years.

A multilateral strategy will most effectively block Iran's dangerous ambitions. The U.N., in particular, must adopt additional, stronger measures to stop this hostile regime dead in its tracks. I am also very encouraged by the recent statements of French President Sarkozy calling on France and the rest of Europe to adopt ``international'' and ``multilateral'' economic sanctions against Iran, in coordination with U.S. efforts.

As I have said on this floor before, I question the effectiveness of unilateral sanctions because they often disturb the very multilateralism that we currently see taking shape against Iran. Careful drafting, however, can alleviate the disruption, and the Ways & Means Committee strengthened H.R. 1400 by inserting provisions that will preserve this growing international coalition.

More specifically, H.R. 1400 maintains the President's discretion under current law not to impose import restrictions, if refraining would best serve the foreign policy purpose. To that end, Section 307 of this bill clarifies that the full ``authorities'' of IEEPA are implicated in Section 6(6) of the Iran Sanctions Act, not just the authority to impose import restrictions. A parallel rule of construction is included in Section 201.

In addition, my Committee was careful to clarify in Section 202 that the bill's import restrictions apply only to the current regulation, so the President retains needed flexibility. Finally, Section 406 of the bill as introduced and reported was stripped and replaced with a new funding source.

For these reasons, I urge support of H.R. 1400, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3375, a bill to extend the Trade Adjustment Assistance program by three months beyond September 30th, when it would otherwise expire.

I introduced this bill to allow Members adequate time to review and carefully consider the range of existing and forthcoming proposals to reform and expand this very complex and important program. As part of this review, our

Committee must consider whether any expansions would create duplicative federal programs and how any such expansions to the TAA program would be covered under the ``pay-go'' rules.

TAA can be a valuable tool for retraining people and helping return them to work quickly, but the program is in need of reform to do that job better. Moreover, TAA is an expensive federal program, costing taxpayers nearly $1 billion each year, but providing assistance only to some 54,000 workers per year, amounting to $18,000 per worker. In light of this, any expansion of TAA must be done in a cost conscious manner focusing on actual results.

At the same time, we must be mindful that TAA is just one tool in a larger policy toolbox to help workers, families, and communities adjust to the new global economy. TAA is not the proper response to all job loss.

Today, billions of dollars are provided annually through various Federal programs, including TAA, to help Americans who lose their jobs so that they can adapt and return to productive jobs. However, TAA and these other decades-old Federal programs need to be reformed to improve the services that they provide to address job loss due to trade, globalization, technology, and other reasons.

I look forward to working with my Republican and Democratic colleagues in an effort to develop an effective, fiscally sound, and comprehensive approach that would help more American workers, regardless of the reason for their job loss, get retrained and re-enter the workforce as quickly as possible so they can better adapt to the changing global economy

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1199, the Drug Endangered Children Act. The Drug Endangered Children program is critically important to my congressional district and others that have been plagued by the meth scourge. Thanks to the outstanding leadership of Susan Webber-Brown, Butte County, California, was one of the first jurisdictions in the country to create a Drug Endangered Children team to focus on the safety and protection of children during law enforcement operations. However, due in part to a lack of federal support, the state of California terminated DEC grant funding in 2003. Since then, Butte and other counties have struggled to keep their programs up and running.

As a former chairman of the House subcommittee dealing with child welfare and foster care issues, I have heard countless heartbreaking stories of children trapped in some of the most awful living conditions imaginable as a result of their parents' or guardians' involvement with illegal drugs. The Drug Endangered Children program helps rescue children from these dangerous environments, provide for their immediate physical and psychological needs, and give them hope for a better life. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting to reauthorize this vitally needed program.

Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 873, I inadvertently voted ``nay.'' I meant to vote ``aye.''

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Biggert

I would like to thank the ranking member for engaging in this colloquy.

As you know, the manager's amendment was released yesterday afternoon, and it contains language concerning section 337 proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

However, this language was not considered by the Committee on Ways and Means, even though it is squarely in our jurisdiction. I am aware that Chairman Rangel and Chairman Conyers have exchanged letters in which Chairman Conyers has acknowledged that this issue is within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means committee. I will support a request for conferees to be named from the Ways and Means committee.

As you know, section 337 proceedings are very complex, and we must ensure that the full ramifications of this language are clearly understood.

As ranking member of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, I hope that you would agree with me that these provisions warrant further analysis and ask that you would work with me and other members of the committee in conference to ensure that these provisions are thoroughly understood as the bill moves through the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, every time I visit with constituents, like most of you here in Congress, I hear about high gas prices. And they're right. Gas prices are too high. Prices in our free market are governed by supply and demand. Record high prices result from, among other things, the fact that we don't produce enough of our own supply domestically and are therefore at the mercy of unpredictable and often unstable foreign producers.

Thirty years ago, when we had our first oil crisis, we were dependent on

foreign sources of oil for only about one-third of our supplies. Today it is roughly two-thirds of our supply. A sure way to fix this situation is to encourage environmentally safe oil exploration and production here in the United States.

But this is the opposite of what today's legislation seeks. In fact, today's bill proposes to raise taxes on domestic oil and gas exploration by nearly $12 billion. This discourages investment in U.S. supplies and will, over time, increase our dependence even more on foreign sources of fossil fuels.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote against higher gas prices and against H.R. 2776, this ill-conceived energy legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the CHAMP Act. The message of this bill is, Washington knows best.

I recently received a letter from one of my over 4,500 seniors in my district who could lose their Medicare Advantage benefits under this bill. Kathleen Lopez of Marysville, California, writes, ``I chose a Medicare Advantage plan because I receive Social Security benefits less than $700 net per month. This plan encourages preventive care, has some vision and dental coverage. This type of plan eliminates costly monthly expenses for health coverage.''

In addition to slashing Medicare Advantage, this bill contains massive expansion of SCHIP that takes kids from middle-class and even upper-class families off private insurance and puts them into a government-paid program.

All of us support reauthorization of SCHIP. Everyone supports health care for low-income children. But what we are debating here today is whether to turn this successful anti-poverty program into an open-ended entitlement with effectively no limits on eligibility.

Mr. Speaker, we have a choice. We can move towards a 21st century patient-centered health care system driven by competition and innovation, or we can go backwards towards a system of socialized medicine like the one that the Canadian doctors come here to escape.

Mr. Speaker, this bill goes in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the ``CHAMP Act.'' I do support averting the 10 percent cut in physician payments scheduled for next year, and I am pleased that the bill reforms the Medicare geographic cost payments index for California and holds rural counties harmless through 2010--although I would have preferred to see a permanent fix so that the physicians I represent do not face the prospect of a 5 to 7 percent cut a few years down the road.

However, I am very troubled by the overall thrust of the CHAMP Act, which is to expand big government health care at the expense of competition and consumer choice. This bill would effectively destroy the Medicare Advantage program, especially in rural areas like the district I represent.

I would like to read to my colleagues from a letter I received just the other day from one of my constituents, Kathleen Lopez of Marysville, California. Kathleen writes, ``I chose a Medicare Advantage plan because I receive Social Security benefits less than $700 net per month; our annual income hovers around $20 thousand. This plan encourages preventive care, has Plan D Medicare, has some vision and dental coverage. . . . This type of plan eliminates costly monthly expenses for health coverage as well as prescription drug coverage.'' Over 4,500 other senior citizens in my district are receiving similar benefits. Most--if not all--of them will lose their benefits under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, not only does this bill sharply reduce incentives for Medicare Advantage plans to offer coverage to low-income rural seniors like Kathleen Lopez, it also imposes new constraints and regulations to prevent Medicare Advantage plans from offering better deals. The message of this bill is ``Washington knows best.'' Instead of promoting competition and choice, we are going to push everybody into a one-size- fits-all plan.

That message is reinforced with the massive expansion of SCHIP that takes kids from middle-class and possibly even upper-class families off private insurance and puts them into a government program. Mr. Speaker, all of us support reauthorizing SCHIP. Everyone supports providing health care for low income children. But let us be clear: That is not the question we are discussing today. What we are debating is whether to turn SCHIP into a massive new entitlement under which every child in America--even if their families are well-off, even if they already have good health coverage--can become eligible for health care provided by the Federal Government.

Don't be fooled--this bill is the first step toward the Federal Government taking over health care. Some members who were closely involved in writing this bill have even openly stated their support for creating a government-run health care system and literally banning market-driven health care providers. We have a decision before us: We can move toward a 21st-century, patient-centered health care system driven by competition, choice, and innovation. Or we can go backwards toward a system of socialized medicine, like the ones that are crumbling in Europe or the one that Canadian doctors come to our country to escape.

Mr. Speaker, this bill goes in the wrong direction, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Ms. Pryce of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this legislation wasted an opportunity to reauthorize a bipartisan health care program for low- income children. I support SCHIP and would welcome its renewal and improvement. But this House is abandoning its mission of providing needed health care coverage for low-income children who otherwise would go without, and instead

enrolling millions of middle class families--even adults--with income upwards of $80,000, some who already have private insurance, in this government-run health care plan.

Why are we pushing our middle class into government health care when there are so many low-income kids who still need help? And why are we asking seniors to pay for it? In Ohio, 70 percent of uninsured children who are currently eligible for SCHIP are not enrolled in the program. Congress should work to cover these children before it pursues this overly ambitious and costly entitlement expansion on the backs of our senior citizens.

In my district, some 13,000 seniors would be dropped from their Medicare plan to pay for this bill. Additionally, many of the services seniors rely on most will be cut under this bill--from cuts to skilled nursing facilities, to oxygen, to wheelchairs, to home health care. This is simply unnecessary and unfair.

I have devoted much of my career in the House to giving a voice to children and promoting programs to help them. It is therefore truly unfortunate and disappointing that the Democrat majority has rushed this bill to the floor, with no Republican input and no chance of improving it through the amendment process. And, I regret, that due to this unnecessary over-reaching, one-sided legislative process, I was compelled to oppose this irresponsible bill. We can do better. Our kids and our seniors deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 957.

On May 23, 2007, the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, reported that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium in blatant defiance of three U.N. resolutions. The IAEA also concluded that Iran could develop nuclear weapons in as few as three years. Iran's President has called for Israel to be, and I quote, ``wiped off the map.'' The prospect of this extreme regime developing nuclear arms represents a grave threat to the United States and its allies in the Middle East, Europe, and globally.

I believe the international community must stand united against Iran. We and our allies must do everything possible on a multilateral basis-- diplomatically, politically, and economically--to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms capability. The United Nations, in particular, must adopt additional, stronger measures to stop this hostile regime dead in its tracks.

Although I question the effectiveness of unilateral sanctions, I believe that drafted correctly, they can occasionally provide a useful supplement to multilateral efforts. H.R. 957 is one such occasion, as it maintains the President's discretion under IEEPA to consider on a situation-by-situation basis whether the imposition of unilateral sanctions would be the wisest course.

For these reasons, I urge support of H.R. 957.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the conference report; however, I want to share my serious concerns over a provision requiring all foreign ports to scan 100 percent of commercial cargo destined for the United States.

First, this policy was not recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Instead, it called for selecting the most practical and cost effective ways of improving security focusing on areas of greatest risk. I believe 100 percent scanning would undermine our current risk based approach as endorsed by the SAFE Port Act last fall, which I supported.

We are also putting the cart before the horse given the ongoing SAFE Port Act pilot project that tasked 100 percent scanning at three foreign ports. This is testing our technological ability to scan all cargo and the effectiveness of doing so. Implementing 100 percent scanning could significantly disrupt trade flows and lead to similar mandates or other actions against U.S. exports in our ports.

Finally, I wonder who will pay for this mandate inside and outside the United States. We must monitor developments leading to the implementation of 100 percent cargo scanning in 5 years and assess if legislative changes are needed.

I also will be watching to see how U.S. shippers, importers, retailers, and our trading partners are able to comply with the mandate.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a very active member of the Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention that the United States is the number one trading Nation in the world. Because of the great trade that we have, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates of any Nation in the world, 4.5 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, a very active member of the Trade Subcommittee (Mr. Brady).

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier).

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

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

I support this short-term extension of the Andean preferences.

U.S. trade preferences for Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia have furthered important economic development and political purposes, including creating incentives that shift from production of illegal drugs to legitimate products, increasing economic growth in these countries and strengthening democracy in the region.

The Andean trade preference expires on June 30. I believe that extending these preferences is very important, but only as a short-term bridge to implementing bilateral free trade agreements with these countries. Such FTAs are reciprocal, open up more trade opportunities, and provide permanent tariff reductions for U.S. interests as compared to the temporary tariff reductions provided to Andean interests by the preferences.

For example, the pending FTAs with Peru and Colombia will greatly enhance our economic and trade ties to the benefit of the Andean and U.S. industries and workers. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, once the Colombia and Peru FTAs are implemented, one, 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods will immediately be duty free, with another 7 percent duty free within 5 years and our remaining tariffs eliminated within 10 years.

Two, a substantial amount of U.S. farm exports will receive immediate duty-free treatment.

Three, Colombia and Peru will provide substantial market access to U.S. service providers with very few exceptions.

Four, all U.S. information technology products will enter duty free.

And five, U.S. investors and intellectual property right holders will receive important protections.

From the perspective of Peru and Colombia, these FTAs will expand their trade opportunities with the United States. The FTAs, with their permanence and, in many cases, immediate tariff reductions will provide more certainty for their own industries and workers.

Moving to FTAs with our Andean trading partners also will greatly build on our growing overall trade relationship with these countries at a time when the EU and other countries are looking to strengthen their own trade ties in the region. We must act now before the EU and other countries pass us by.

At the same time we need to be wary over how Ecuador and Bolivia react over the 8 months. We have been generous with preferences, but I'm very troubled that the response in those countries has been a lack of respect for the rights of U.S. investors. Our generosity has its limits.

Mr. Speaker, I support the extension of the Andean preferences being considered today which will allow these important benefits to continue. At the same time it is important for us to remember that we have the unique opportunity now to go beyond the Andean preferences and expand our economic and trade ties to Peru and Colombia through the pending FTAs. Therefore, I look forward to House consideration of the Peru FTA in July, and then moving through the other pending FTAs.

The time is now to solidify our relationship. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for a colloquy with the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, over the past several years, we have seen the rise of a very disturbing trend on Federal lands: the creation of a billion- dollar international drug trafficking ring. Organized criminal gangs, headquartered in Mexico, have illegally entered our country and have established large scale marijuana growing operations in our national forests and national parks.

Gang members guarding these illegal ``pot gardens'' have been armed with automatic weapons and given orders to shoot to kill anyone who trespasses in the area. Hunters, recreators, and Federal employees in my district and others have been shot at when recreating or working on Federal lands. Eight of the Nation's 10 worst national forests in terms of illegal marijuana production are located in California. Three of those eight problem areas are located in my congressional district of northern California: the Shasta-Trinity, the Klamath, and the Mendocino National Forest.

Our Nation's national parks are also victim to illegal occupation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Regrettably, my home State of California suffers the worst of the infestation on Park Service lands as well. This includes a very serious problem at the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area in my district where illegal marijuana grows have been discovered within a few hundred yards of popular boating and fishing areas.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the chairman and greatly appreciate his efforts and the efforts of Ranking Member Tiahrt to improve public safety on Federal recreation lands.

Is it the committee's intention in granting this increase to ensure that these funds should be used to help dismantle and eradicate Mexican drug trafficking organizations in our national forests and parks?

Again I thank the chairman for that clarification.

Further, while I believe it would be inappropriate for those of us in Congress to micromanage the efforts of law enforcement as they work to dismantle these illegal drug networks by allocating funds only to specific areas, is the chairman able to clarify the committee's intention with regard to the distribution of funds throughout the Nation? Is it the committee's aim to ensure that the funds allocated are targeted to areas of the country that face the highest concentration of drug trafficking activity in the national forests?

Again, I thank the gentleman from Washington and also the ranking member, Mr. Tiahrt.

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. McHugh

Madam Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 485 to H. Amdt. 294, I was recorded as a ``no,'' but it was my strong intention to vote ``aye'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 485, I inadvertently voted ``no,'' when I meant to vote ``aye.''

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Royce

Mr. Speaker, I recently served on the Budget Committee for 8 years, during which time we had the only four balanced budgets in recent history. I am sad to see, however, that today's budget envisions what could amount to the largest tax increase in American history to pay for higher spending.

The budget would increase discretionary spending at roughly three times the inflationary rate while failing to achieve real savings for taxpayers. Taxes will grow by at least $217 billion as pro-growth tax relief is allowed to expire. Even the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief may not be extended. I urge Members to reject this budget.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 518, the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act of 2007. No one can accuse me of shying away from a fight to defend America's rights, including the right to regulate foreign trash that poses legitimate health or safety risks for our citizens. Yet there are right ways to address trade issues and wrong ways. This bill represents the wrong way. The bottom line is that this bill allows States to ban or restrict trash imports in violation of our Congressional prerogatives, Federalist system, and international commitments.

Yesterday, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office sent a letter to the Speaker and Republican Leadership expressing concerns that this bill would enable States to openly violate our international trade obligations--trade rules that we depend on to defend our companies and workers from unfair foreign practices. I would ask that this letter be included in the Record.

At a time when this Congress has called again and again for nations such as China to adhere to trade rules and for these rules to be vigorously enforced, how can we reasonably expect our trading partners to comply with trade obligations with which we do not comply ourselves?

Moreover, this bill is targeted at Canada, our largest trading partner, whose imports of American products impact virtually every corner of our country. Violations of our trade obligations to Canada would allow Canada to choose which products and industries to target for retaliation--exposing virtually every Congressman and Congresswoman here to damaging sanctions against their districts.

This bill would send us back to the Articles of Confederation, under which States setting their own trade policies almost tore our Nation apart. Now, more than 200 years later, we would be abdicating our Congressional responsibility and setting a very dangerous precedent.