Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, allow me to recite from explanatory material prepared for H.R. 6111, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, Don Talley, who was both a nationally recognized leader in the agriculture industry as well as a local community leader. Sadly, Don passed away on Saturday, December 2, 2006, at the age of 66, and I extend my heartfelt sympathy to Don's wife, Rosemary, his son, Brian, and the rest of his family for their loss.

Don was president and a coowner of Talley Farms, a specialty crop operation in the Arroyo Grande area, which I represent. Founded in 1948, under Don's auspices, Talley Farms grew to encompass more than 1,150 acres. In 1982, he established Talley Vineyards, which produces a collection of fine wines. Over his lifetime, Don successfully worked to build Talley Farms and Vineyards into nationally respected entities. Talley Farms grew a variety of specialty crops and was especially renowned for growing the best bell peppers.

As president of Talley Farms, Don established and implemented environmentally sound farming practices, developed innovative agricultural techniques for growing, harvesting, and packaging produce, and was noted for treating his employees well. Moreover, Don served in leadership positions with the Western Growers Association, Ag Box, the Council of California Growers, the California Agriculture Leadership Foundation, and Farm Credit West.

One of Don's hallmark legacies was his strong personal leadership efforts to improve relations between the California agriculture industry and local communities. Notably Don was named Agriculturist of the Year in 1992 by the County of San Luis Obispo Farm Bureau and was voted Grower of the Year in 2004 by the Western Growers Association. In addition to Don's leadership in the agricultural industry, he served on the Arroyo Grande City Council and as mayor from 1974 to 1976. He also was a commissioner for the Parks and Recreation Commission and a member of the Cuesta College Board of Trustees.

Don will be remembered not only for his leadership and achievements, but also for his community service, selflessness, and compassion for his employees. California agriculture suffered a significant loss with the death of Don Talley.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1099, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6111) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while such claims are pending, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1099, I offer a motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, to make sure that Members understand what we are doing, and, quite frankly, why we are doing it today rather than yesterday, is that we are considering H.R. 6111. H.R. 6111 is a bill that passed the House on suspension by voice vote on December 5. It then passed the Senate by unanimous consent with an amendment yesterday, December 7.

We are doing this as the House of Representatives to assist the Senate under its rules to facilitate the handling of the amendment we are now discussing, and we are doing this because given the Senate rules, they

would require a 2-day layover, two cloture votes and a number of other procedures. By doing this this way, we will save them a day and a cloture vote. Once again, the courtesy and kindness of the House is assisting the Senate in accomplishing the work of the Congress.

So, if you will please understand, the gentleman from New York and I will lead a discussion on the amendment to H.R. 6111. In fact, the amendment is as though the entire text of H.R. 4608, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, is before us. In addition to that, there are several other provisions that accompany the Tax and Health Care Relief Act.

So, notwithstanding the merits of H.R. 6111, the discussion will be on the so-called tax extenders bill; the energy extenders bill; Medicare, the so-called doctors fix; the health care provisions; certain wilderness designations; some tariff procedures and other items which will in fact be the subject of the debate we are about to be engaged in.

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

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

Perhaps again it is necessary to underscore the fact that the procedure we are going through is not the choice of the House. The current minority leader, to be the majority leader, and I know I am violating the rules when I say the gentleman from Nevada, personally called and asked that we engage in this procedure to assist the Senate. I do hope the gentleman from New York, when he assumes his majority rule, will see fit to accommodate even Members of the other party in making sure that the people's work is done in the most reasonable fashion possible.

So, yes, it seems a little bit complicated, but it is in large part because both the Democratic and the Republican leadership of the Senate asked for our assistance in doing it this way.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, so that people again understand the process, notwithstanding the fact we are dealing with what amounts to a tax bill, because of the unusual procedure of using H.R. 6111 as a vehicle, asked for by the bipartisan leadership of the Senate and provided by us as a courtesy, there would be no motion to recommit available to the minority. This is a substantive amendment which is functioning as a substitute for the motion to recommit.

It has been indicated to me directly by that bipartisan leadership and those individuals I mentioned that if what was to be a motion to recommit and which will now be a substantive amendment passes, in their opinion, this bill will not be able to move through the Senate.

It may surprise the gentleman from Massachusetts to know that I agree with virtually everything he said and would like to add additional items in terms of the OCS provision. In fact, an Outer Continental Shelf measure passed the House. The measure that is currently carried in this amendment is totally isomorphic, exactly the same as the Outer Continental Shelf legislation that passed the Senate, that the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, that the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, and others supported 71-25. Need I say, this is an additional courtesy that the House is providing.

If, in fact, Mr. Markey's amendment passes, everything we will be talking about for the rest of the time on this amendment will be moot.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), an extremely valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate people and their passion getting a bit carried away.

This bill was signed into law by the last Democratic President, Mr. Clinton. It was on your watch. To stand in the well and tell us what is in the amendment that is going to be offered in a short time, after being criticized that they have only had 2 days on the content of our amendment, is absolutely unbelievable.

We made this amendment in order because you didn't have the right to the motion to recommit. The Rules Committee out of courtesy asked you, could we have a copy of your amendment? You told the Rules Committee ``No, you couldn't have a copy of the amendment.''

Mr. Markey earlier described your amendment as having more than one item. Mr. Hinchey talked about it being OCS. Mr. Markey said it was OCS and it was AMT and it may be something else.

What amazes me is that they can stand there with a straight face and criticize us because they only got the copy, the absolute legislative language, 2 days ago on our bill, and they have the audacity to go to the well and describe their amendment and what it is when they won't even give us a copy of it. Now, this is a preview of the coming majority in terms of their saying one thing and doing another. Buckle your seat belts. The piety and the arguments about how correct they are and how unfair it is was just said. This was done by this Congress, it was signed by President Clinton, and we have no idea what is in your amendment because you didn't even offer the courtesy of giving us the language of your amendment notwithstanding the fact that we gave you the privilege of offering an amendment. Now, that is what this is about. Okay?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third Member on the other side of the aisle who spoke passionately about an amendment that apparently they have had time to write, circulate and read. We have not been presented with that amendment. Obviously, with some fervor, I indicated that I didn't think that probably was the fair thing to do. They now know how the majority feels, having given them the right to offer an amendment. My assumption is that continued refusal to provide us with a copy of the amendment is willful.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

That was 2 days ago. What are you doing for me lately?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts for providing the majority with the amendment.

Frankly, I was rather baffled why my friend from New York would yield half their time to the gentleman from Massachusetts since he has time under his own amendment. Having now seen the amendment, I find it interesting that it is an 11-page amendment, a portion of a page is on research credits, a portion of a page is on the alternative minimum tax. The Outer Continental Shelf portion of the 11-page bill, which has been the sole focus of my friends on the other side of the aisle, is six lines. Not six pages, six lines.

What in the world is in the rest of the 11-page bill: Eight pages address putting back into this, over the objections of the Democratic leader on the Senate side, the New York railroad bond provision. I now understand why Mr. Markey got his 15 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chairman of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on my time?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman because I do appreciate the remarks that he just made. And we probably had not planned on highlighting it, but as the gentleman from Louisiana well knows, another portion of the changes that we are making in this package is to take what was known as the Katrina GO Zone, a benefit, and, after the time has passed, focus the money on those counties that still remain devastated by a high percentage of destruction. Rather than simply having money go where it may not be necessary, a portion of this bill focuses the money where it is absolutely necessary. And as the gentleman from Louisiana well knows, there are still major areas of his State and other States that can easily be defined as devastated.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I will place a letter in the Record which is a clarification sought by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) to me.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, December 8, 2006.

Representative J. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker: We would like to clarify the intent of

certain provisions in Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006,

Mr. Speaker, at this time the Chair would recognize the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Chair appreciates the vigor of the gentleman from Ohio on 6 lines out of an 11-page amendment.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, would you indicate the time remaining for each manager?

And would the Speaker indicate who has the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, the chairman reserves the time.

I would tell the gentleman that I have the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Is the gentleman indicating that the gentleman from New York is the last speaker under his time control?

I thank the gentleman.

Does the gentleman from Massachusetts indicate that he is the last speaker under his time? I thank the gentleman.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refocus our Members. We are not on the Markey amendment. The Markey amendment will be presented following the conclusion of the discussion on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public a technical explanation of the bill. This technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public a technical explanation of the bill. This technical explanation expresses the Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the spirit of H. Res. 1000, which the House passed this year to reform the legislative process, I note that the Joint Committee on Taxation has identified 2 provisions of H.R. 6408, introduced yesterday, as ``earmarks'' under the terms of that resolution. These provisions also appear in the amendment to H.R. 6111 which the House will consider today. A copy of the Joint Committee on Taxation's opinion letter is available for Members to review if they wish.

The identified provisions are Title I's Section 414. Modification of special arbitrage rule for certain funds made permanent, and Section 211 of Division C, Certain related persons and successors in interest relieved of liability if premiums prepaid. Section 414 was requested by Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX). Section 211 is part of a comprehensive mining reform proposal requested by Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Max Baucus (D-MT).

H.R. 6408's Division B--Medicare and Other Health Provisions, contains an earmark. Section 111, Clarification of hospice satellite designation, was requested by Senator Reid (D-NV). The amendment also contains this provision.

In addition, Division C, Title I, Gulf of Mexico Energy Security requested by Congressman Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Title III, White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development requested by Senator Harry

Reid (D-NV) have been identified as containing probable earmarks.

December 8, 2006.

Hon. William M. Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 1102 Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thomas: House Resolution 1000 provides that

the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation identify any tax

earmark in a bill carrying a tax measure reported by the Ways

and Means Committee or in a conference report to accompany a

bill carrying a tax measure. You requested that we review the

language of H.R. 6408, the ``Tax Relief and Health Care Act

of 2006'' as introduced in the House of Representatives on

December 7, 2006, and the House Amendment to the Senate

amendment to H.R. 6111 (``An Act to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review

claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend

the running on the period of limitations while such claims

are pending'') scheduled for consideration by the House on

December 8, 2006, to identify any provisions which would

satisfy the tax earmark standard of House Resolution 1000, if

applicable.

In response to your request, the staff of the Joint

Committee on Taxation has identified two provisions in each

piece of legislation that would qualify as tax earmarks under

House Resolution 1000, were they included in a bill reported

by the Ways and Means Committee or contained in a conference

report. The two provisions, which are the same in both bills,

are: (1) the provision to make permanent the modification of

special arbitrage rules for the Texas Permanent University

Fund (sec. 414 of Division A of each bill); and (2) the

provision of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

Amendments of 2006 allowing release of joint and several

liability in the case of prepayment of liabilities to the

Combined Benefit Fund, section 9711 individual employer plan,

or 1992 UMWA benefit plan and modifying of the definition of

successor in interest (sec. 211 of Division C of each bill).

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Barthold,

Acting Chief of Staff.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York for the kind comments that he made. I would like to reference his statement about the other side. For those of you who may not have understood what he meant, the other side is not the other side of Jordan. It is the other side of the Capitol. Oftentimes in dealing with the other side of the Capitol, it feels like you have crossed over the other side of Jordan in trying to make sure various things happen.

There are a number of items, and I guess at some point, your entire presentation oftentimes in dealing with Congress was woulda, coulda, shoulda. And that is fine to debate woulda, coulda, shoulda, which is basically process.

We have reached a point where, through great difficulty, the House and Senate have agreed on a number of important measures to extend benefits and to at least keep open the opportunity to do additional items.

We happened to reach agreement at the very end of the session. The point I want to underscore is, we have reached agreement. The question will be on whether we decide to support that agreement or not support the agreement. I do appreciate all the time consumed in complaining about how we got there.

I have counseled my friends on this side that when they become the minority, I will provide them with all the yellow pages and the copies of the other side while they have been in the minority about the ``woulda coulda shoulda.'' Right now, it is about substance, it is about doing something, and we will have the vote on this measure following the debate on the Markey amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I believe perhaps we ought to proceed in the reading of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I do think it is important to note there are a number of items in the bill, not just the Outer Continental Shelf. As was indicated by the gentleman from Massachusetts and indicated by the gentleman from New York, there is an alternative minimum tax provision in this amendment. One of the things that the Democratic leadership has said, since prior to the election is, that if they were elected, if they were chosen, if they were going to be dealing with items that cost money, they were going to submit themselves to the so-called PAYGO rules. PAYGO rules are exactly what it sounds like: you pay as you go.

I find it ironic that there is this great pressure to move this amendment now before they do come into the majority, because the alternative minimum tax provisions of this amendment have no PAYGO requirement.

What, in fact, they have is spend without covering the costs, and so I understand the urgency to get this done right now so that they don't have to follow the commitment that they have made.

Boy, is that typical. In terms of the railroad bonds, I will repeat, in a personal conversation with the Democratic leader of the Senate, he asked me to make sure, not withstanding previous support and structure that we were dealing with, in this extremely fragile measure, being carried in an unusual way to make sure that we can send it to the President, notwithstanding whether you believe the railroad bond provision has merit or doesn't have merit, it cannot be added at this time or you will lose the measure. I personally will put my trust in the judgment of the Democratic leader of the Senate.

Finally, on OCS. As I said to the gentleman from Massachusetts, in another time, in another place, in another circumstance for largely the same reason that I mentioned, we have to correct this. I appreciate it has been going on for 10 years. We do understand it was signed into law by President Clinton. I guess my question to you is, if it has been going on for 10 years, and you take over this place in less than a month, and you have 100-day priority structure, 100-hour structure, excuse me, were you not able to find room on the 100-hour structure to do this? It sounds to me, based upon the strength and the merit of your arguments, this would be number 1, 2 or 3 on the 100 hours.

Because in that same conversation that I had with the Democratic leader in the Senate, he said, Bill, please, we cannot have this added to the measure. It will split the Senate. We are very fragile, trying to hold ourselves together, notwithstanding the merits of this. Please, don't put it on this measure.

Time, place, manner, it is 10 years overdue. Can we make it 10 years and 20 days overdue so that you don't destroy all of the stuff that is in this bill so that we can get this done and then we turn the floor over to you in the first 100 hours? I am sure this would be number 1, 2 or 3 based upon the outrage that I think you justifiably present on this particular issue.

For all those reasons, unwillingness to follow their own rules they say they are going to follow on PAYGO for an alternative minimum tax, the fact that we looked at the railroad bonds, there was a bipartisan bicameral agreement, it was too sensitive at this time, and the fact that OCS will blow up everything else in this bill, I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment so we can vote ``yes'' on everything else.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1100, I call up the bill (H.R. 6406) to modify temporarily certain rates of duty and make other technical amendments to the trade laws, to extend certain trade preference programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 6406. This is the companion bill which will be combined with the tax and trade bill to be sent back to the Senate. It was originally structured as H.R. 6406, and it approves several trade measures that really are important to the livelihoods of millions of people, both in developing countries and in the U.S. and affects the global marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering H.R. 6406 to approve several trade measures that are vitally important to the livelihoods of millions of people in developing countries or are necessary to keep U.S. manufacturers and exporters competitive in the global marketplace.

This bill would extend several existing trade preferences for developing countries. The

longstanding Generalized System of Preferences, or GSP, which expires at the end of this year, provides duty-free treatment to non-sensitive products from developing countries. This bill extends GSP, adjusting it to ensure that benefits are targeted toward countries that are not competitive. It's important to note that the GSP extension applies the same rules to all countries equally.

The bill would also extend and enhance the African Growth and Opportunities Act, or AGOA, which provides trade preferences to sub- Saharan Africa. This bill would extend the current duty-free benefits on African apparel using third-country fabric through 2012.

The bill grants a six-month extension of preferences to the Andean countries, and allows another six-month extension for each country if a trade promotion agreement with that country is approved. This approach keeps our democratic allies whole while creating an incentive to complete the transition to a mature trading relationship by implementing the trade agreements that have been negotiated and concluding agreements with the other Andean countries.

The bill would also provide modest new trade preferences for Haiti to create jobs in that desperately poor country by encouraging Haiti to use more U.S. and hemispheric inputs. Haiti's poverty is equivalent to the poorest countries in Africa, and yet Haiti has never received U.S. trade preferences like the AGOA benefits.

The second major component of the bill grants permanent normal trade relations, or PNTR, to Vietnam. The bill also creates a mechanism to ensure that Vietnam abides by its obligations to end all prohibited subsidies to its textile sector. Vietnam has completed all the steps necessary to become a member of the World Trade Organization. The Vietnamese National Assembly ratified the implementing package, and the country will officially become a member at the end of the month. A majority of House members supported identical language granting PNTR to Vietnam last month.

Lastly, the bill includes 500 Miscellaneous Trade Bill provisions that went through the usual rigorous vetting process to ensure they are noncontroversial. These provisions suspend duties on products that are not produced in the United States and are usually traded in small volumes. This bill helps lower costs for U.S. manufacturers, retailers, and consumers.

This bill is responsible, bipartisan legislation that deserves support. Providing assistance to these poor countries not only helps to create stronger trading partners in the future but is also our responsibility as one of the world's strongest economies to create humanitarian opportunities through trade. I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time until I reclaim my time be provided to the gentleman from Florida who I would usually describe as the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee. Mr. Shaw, however, deserves a bit fuller description.

He came to Congress in 1981. He joined the Ways and Means Committee in the 100th Congress. He joined in 1988 and then became chairman of the Trade Subcommittee in January of 2005. He is the author of the Haiti Economic Opportunity Act. He was chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee from 1995 until 1998, and one of his major achievements, as far as I am concerned, was the 1996 welfare reform bill, historic and unprecedented. He was chairman and is chairman of the Florida delegation since 1996. And as the proud grandfather of two, I am amazed to say he is the father of four and the grandfather of 15; and I cannot imagine if my two were 15. And so it is my pleasure to turn the time over to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Speaker, unaccustomedly, the gentleman from Florida has handled the substance of the bill, so I am not going to talk about the substance, which means I normally don't have very much to talk about if I don't talk about the substance.

This is kind of unique, because normally at the end of a session and at the end of a committee's legislative responsibilities, one or two people may be retiring, but, frankly, six members of the Ways and Means Committee will not be in the 110th Congress. Some have left willingly, some unwillingly. Here we are with three of us at the end of this particular bill, which will be the last legislative responsibility of the committee.

I, too, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland. Based upon my knowing him and the extremely difficult position he found himself in, moving over to the Senate, if anyone is walking close to him, I wouldn't be surprised to hear him humming, ``free at last, free at last.'' He is going to be able to go over and completely exercise his legislative beliefs and structure. I know how difficult it has been for him in this constraint, because he has been, in words that I think are significant compliments, a legislator, as best he could be in the environment. I look forward to watching him continue his career over in the Senate.

My colleague from Florida, who became the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, I was on the Trade Subcommittee for a long time but I was never chair, so I envied him in that role, has a number of opportunities in front of him.

It is always customary to thank those people that everyone sees, obviously Angela Ellard, chief counsel on the Trade Subcommittee, and Alex Brill, chief counsel for the committee. But I want to just take a minute, because people don't realize that there are a lot of people who even a lot of the Members never see, who are absolutely essential to make this place work.

One of them is in Leg Counsel. His name is Ed Grossman. He has made it possible for this committee to work, year after year after year. Ed Grossman told his wife-to-be that they would have their honeymoon after he finished a Ways and Means bill, and she still married him.

Tom Barthold over at the Joint Committee on Taxation, Reggie Greene, who helps the Ways and Means Committee work, and a long list of others. I just want to indicate that the people who are in front of the cameras and who do the talking could not do the job without all those people that you can't see.

So, it comes to a point now where I say this willingly, but I do say it with mixed emotions:

Mr. Speaker, I relinquish my time, forever.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule XX, I move a call of the House.

A call of the House was ordered.

The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members responded to their names:

[Roll No. 538]

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Aderholt

Akin

Alexander

Allen

Andrews

Baca

Baird

Baldwin

Barrett (SC)

Barrow

Bartlett (MD)

Barton (TX)

Bass

Bean

Beauprez

Berkley

Berry

Biggert

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bishop (GA)

Bishop (NY)

Blackburn

Blunt

Boehlert

Boehner

Bonilla

Bonner

Bono

Boozman

Boren

Boswell

Boustany

Boyd

Bradley (NH)

Brady (PA)

Brady (TX)

Brown (OH)

Brown (SC)

Brown, Corrine

Brown-Waite, Ginny

Burgess

Butterfield

Buyer

Calvert

Camp (MI)

Campbell (CA)

Cannon

Cantor

Capito

Capps

Capuano

Cardin

Cardoza

Carnahan

Carter

Case

Castle

Chabot

Chandler

Chocola

Cleaver

Clyburn

Coble

Cole (OK)

Conaway

Conyers

Cooper

Costa

Costello

Cramer

Crenshaw

Crowley

Cuellar

Culberson

Cummings

Davis (AL)

Davis (CA)

Davis (FL)

Davis (IL)

Davis (KY)

Davis (TN)

Davis, Tom

Deal (GA)

DeGette

DeLauro

Dent

Diaz-Balart, L.

Diaz-Balart, M.

Dicks

Dingell

Doggett

Doolittle

Doyle

Drake

Dreier

Duncan

Ehlers

Emanuel

Emerson

Engel

English (PA)

Etheridge

Farr

Feeney

Ferguson

Filner

Fitzpatrick (PA)

Flake

Forbes

Fortenberry

Fossella

Foxx

Franks (AZ)

Frelinghuysen

Garrett (NJ)

Gerlach

Gilchrest

Gingrey

Gohmert

Gonzalez

Goode

Goodlatte

Gordon

Granger

Graves

Green (WI)

Green, Al

Green, Gene

Gutierrez

Gutknecht

Hall

Harman

Harris

Hart

Hastings (FL)

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Hensarling

Herger

Herseth

Higgins

Hinchey

Hinojosa

Hobson

Hoekstra

Holden

Holt

Honda

Hooley

Hostettler

Hoyer

Hulshof

Hunter

Hyde

Inglis (SC)

Inslee

Israel

Issa

Istook

Jackson (IL)

Jackson-Lee (TX)

Jenkins

Jindal

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, E. B.

Jones (OH)

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Keller

Kelly

Kennedy (MN)

Kennedy (RI)

Kildee

Kilpatrick (MI)

Kind

King (IA)

King (NY)

Kingston

Kirk

Kline

Knollenberg

Kucinich

Kuhl (NY)

LaHood

Langevin

Lantos

Larsen (WA)

Latham

LaTourette

Leach

Lee

Levin

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (GA)

Lewis (KY)

Linder

Lipinski

LoBiondo

Lowey

Lucas

Lungren, Daniel E.

Lynch

Mack

Maloney

Manzullo

Marchant

Marshall

Matheson

Matsui

McCarthy

McCaul (TX)

McCollum (MN)

McCotter

McDermott

McGovern

McHenry

McHugh

McIntyre

McKeon

McKinney

McMorris Rodgers

McNulty

Meehan

Meek (FL)

Meeks (NY)

Melancon

Mica

Michaud

Millender-McDonald

Miller (FL)

Miller (MI)

Miller (NC)

Miller, George

Mollohan

Moore (KS)

Moore (WI)

Moran (KS)

Murtha

Musgrave

Myrick

Nadler

Napolitano

Neal (MA)

Neugebauer

Northup

Nunes

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Osborne

Pallone

Pascrell

Pastor

Payne

Pearce

Pelosi

Pence

Peterson (MN)

Peterson (PA)

Petri

Pickering

Pitts

Platts

Poe

Pombo

Pomeroy

Porter

Price (GA)

Price (NC)

Pryce (OH)

Putnam

Radanovich

Rahall

Ramstad

Rangel

Regula

Rehberg

Reichert

Renzi

Reyes

Reynolds

Rogers (AL)

Rogers (KY)

Rogers (MI)

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Ross

Rothman

Roybal-Allard

Royce

Ruppersberger

Rush

Ryan (OH)

Ryan (WI)

Ryun (KS)

Sabo

Salazar

Sanchez, Linda T.

Sanders

Saxton

Schakowsky

Schiff

Schmidt

Schwartz (PA)

Schwarz (MI)

Scott (GA)

Scott (VA)

Sekula Gibbs

Serrano

Sessions

Shadegg

Shaw

Shays

Sherman

Sherwood

Shimkus

Shuster

Simmons

Sires

Slaughter

Smith (NJ)

Smith (WA)

Snyder

Sodrel

Solis

Spratt

Stearns

Stupak

Sullivan

Tanner

Tauscher

Taylor (MS)

Terry

Thomas

Thompson (CA)

Thompson (MS)

Thornberry

Tiahrt

Tierney

Towns

Turner

Udall (CO)

Udall (NM)

Upton

Van Hollen

Velazquez

Visclosky

Walden (OR)

Walsh

Wamp

Wasserman Schultz

Waters

Watt

Weiner

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

Westmoreland

Wexler

Wicker

Wilson (NM)

Wilson (SC)

Wolf

Woolsey

Wu

Wynn

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 6429) to treat payments by charitable organizations with respect to certain firefighters as exempt payments, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 4091) to provide authority for restoration of the Social Security Trust Funds from the effects of a clerical error, and for others purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

That is boilerplate language that is used. This is something that we do virtually every year because there are always accounting errors, and this allows for the correcting of the accounting errors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from

California, and I also want to thank Congressman Radanovich and Congresswoman Bordallo for the work that the Resources Committee has done, especially Chairman Pombo, and again salute my colleagues Mike Honda and Doris Matsui, Devin Nunes, also a member of the committee, and, as was indicated, Senators assisting us in moving this in a reasonable fashion, Senators Domenici, Thomas, Akaka and Inouye.

This legislation is, in essence, a modest effort to provide the structure and resources necessary for citizens, schools, communities and others to undertake projects in the actual locales in which the so- called internment camps were located. For more than a decade, I represented one of those camps in Inyo County, Manzanar. I also came into the Congress with Bob Matsui.

The understanding of this period in our history is essential. It has to do with fundamental rights, even of native-born citizens in time of war.

The ability to preserve the actual sites and provide, if you will, an on-the-ground understanding was rapidly slipping away from us because of the simple distance of time from when this occurred and what has been happening in what were once very remote areas of Utah and California and other States.

So I am very, very pleased that both the House and the Senate has responded in a reasonable time frame to provide some monetary resources, matched by those who are committed to maintain the memory, not for the purpose of rubbing in what happened, but to remember it so that it does not happen again.

I thank the gentleman

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5602) to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Vietnam, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5602 was a bill that was introduced in June of this year by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and principally the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson). This is the culmination of a long and sometimes very difficult process.

The relationships between the United States and Vietnam have been difficult. When I was a member of the committee as a member of the minority and the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee was the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons, we traveled to Vietnam as the first official United States Delegation on Trade. That was a number of years ago. So we arrive today after an 11-year effort in working with Vietnam to enjoy the announcement that Vietnam is on the verge of joining the World Trade Organization.

Vietnam joining the WTO will bring substantial economic benefits obviously to the Vietnamese and to the United States, because Vietnam has agreed to open its markets to U.S. goods and services. However, to fully benefit from this move on the part of Vietnam to the World Trade Organization, the United States must first extend the so-called permanent normal trade relationship to Vietnam, and that is what this bill does.

I asked to take it up with the ``as amended'' phrase attached because we have been able to come to an agreement. One of the real concerns with an increase in trade between the United States and Vietnam is the textile industry. We have concerns about those areas in the United States that still have an ability to provide and afford the production of textiles and the relationship we are going to continue to grow with Central America with the free trade agreement there and with the pending free trade agreements with Andean countries that will provide us with an excellent opportunity to move our raw and partially finished textile products to an area that will both advance those countries and the United States.

Vietnam will be a major player in the textile industry. The concern we have is in balancing the concerns of those who are on the retail side and those who are on the production side, and we believe that the amendment that we have offered will go a long way toward resolving those concerns.

There is still concern as far as the chairman is concerned and, I know, of other Members on Vietnam's record on human rights and religious freedom. Just because it decides to join the World Trade Organization doesn't mean that it has decided in all aspects to join the world's civilized nations in its behavior not only to its people and to others. However, I do firmly believe that if Vietnam lives up to its commitment in its membership in the World Trade Organization, it will encourage and accelerate the opportunity for needed reforms in a tangible way that impacts the Vietnamese people's lives daily. So although I have a number of reservations in that regard, I do support going forward.

This is a regime that is not a democracy. I do hope as we examine trade relationships that may be presented to this Congress before we adjourn sine die, that we take cognizance of the fact that we have an opportunity to enter into free trade agreements with growing and vibrant democracies in this hemisphere, and if we are anxious to move a trade agreement with a country that is not democratic, that we extend that same courtesy to those in the Western Hemisphere, specifically Peru, that have made significant sacrifices to come to a free trade agreement. They are, after all, a deserving people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I turn the balance of my time over to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, and that he be allowed to yield said time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3525, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006. This legislation reflects a bipartisan agreement developed by the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to reauthorize and improve important child welfare programs under our jurisdictions.

Other bills might attract more media attention, but few are more important. This agreement reflects our mutual interest in doing more to ensure children are protected from harm. To achieve this goal, the bill increases resources for activities and services that will help prevent child abuse and neglect from occurring. But it also involves spending more intelligently and with greater accountability the money we have previously committed for these purposes.

For example, we know from numerous reports and simple common sense that when caseworkers visit children in foster care, children are safer and more quickly placed in permanent homes. While most States agree that children in foster care should be visited at least once per month, there currently is no consequence for States that fail to meet that standard. Moreover, data suggest that most States can't even tell which foster children are visited and how often. Very simply, these children and the Federal taxpayers who support these programs deserve much better.

The Child and Family Services Improvement Act is designed to address this shortcoming by requiring additional accountability. Specifically, the legislation will require States to ensure that, within 5 years, they can document caseworker visits once a month to at least 900 percent of foster children.

This is a significant step in the right direction. This legislation requires States to increase child protection funding or risk losing Federal funds. That's the right structure--continue today's generous level of Federal support, but insist that States that don't make the grade contribute more of their own funds to improve these programs.

This agreement will also target $145 million over the next 5 years for preventing and treating parental substance abuse, including involving methamphetamines. This is an issue of great concern to me because the State of California, its Central Valley region, and Kern County, which I represent, unfortunately have significant levels of methamphetamine production, use, and distribution.

The Child and Family Services Improvement Act is good policy; it not only targets increased resources for prevention, it also is fully paid for, which protects taxpayers. Thus, it is not surprising that numerous groups including Catholic Charities, the Center for Law and Social Policy, Lutheran Social Services, and the National Congress of American Indians, have endorsed this important legislation.

Finally, I would like to thank Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Wally Herger and Ranking Member Jim McDermott, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley and Ranking Member Max Baucus for their hard work on this legislation. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and send it to the President's desk without delay.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to advance this important legislation. A few weeks ago, Presidnt Bush gave a speech in which he stated that our intelligence shows that al-Qaeda has two main goals--to destroy our nation physically through attacks such as 9/11; and to pursue a ``death by bleeding'' strategy in which terrorists destroy us economically. We could protect against al-Qaeda's first goal by shutting down our borders--but by cutting off America's life blood of trade, we would actually be helping al-Qaeda achieve its second goal.

This bill is the right way to protect both our borders and our economy. It utilizes innovative systems to protect our citizens, and it provides new resources along our borders. Through programs such as the Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism, we bring the energy and experience of the trade community into our fight against terrorism. These programs, together with the bill's provisions modernizing our international trade data systems, also show that we can facilitate legitimate trade while at the same time providing information to our law enforcement officials to identify and stop threats.

To defeat al-Qaeda and prevent it from achieving its goals of destroying America physically and economically, the Administration, Congress, our citizens in the private sector, and our international partners must work together--and trade cannot be seen as the enemy of security.

I have made it a priority in this bill to ensure that through consultation and cooperative programs, all of these key partners are brought together so that we have the most effective and unified effort we can against terror and for trade.

I congratulate all the Members of this Conference on this bill and look forward to its quick passage.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 430, which recognizes the 40th anniversary of the American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL) and commends it for the work it has done over the past 40 years to prepare young political leaders for leadership roles in international relations and world affairs. As an alumnus of an ACYPL program and the sponsor of H. Con. Res. 430, I appreciate the House's consideration of this resolution as well as Chairman Hyde's efforts to bring it to the floor today.

When ACYPL began during the Cold War, it initially focused its efforts on improving young leaders' understanding of Western Europe. In fact, when I participated in an ACYPL program in the 1970s, I traveled to the former Soviet Union. However, as geopolitical conditions have changed over the past 40 years, ACYPL has expanded its bipartisan programs to include over 90 nations throughout the world, including the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the Western Hemisphere, East Asia, and the Pacific Rim.

As technology and trade continue to advance, the world will likely become even more interconnected. Thus, the need for our young leaders to better understand foreign governments and cultures will continue to be important, along with the bipartisan international exchange programs, educational forums, and leadership training ACYPL provides to prepare young political leaders for future positions of responsibility in local, state, and federal government. Accordingly, I congratulate ACYPL on its 40th anniversary, commend it for its important work, and wish it continued success.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Costa, Mr. Nunes and myself, I would like to advise the House that this past week an individual passed away, a former Member of the House of Representatives.

Some of you didn't have the privilege of knowing him in person, but all of you knew of him. Bob Mathias as a 17-year-old high school student went to London and came home with a gold medal in the decathlon. Four years later, he went to Helsinki and came home with a gold medal in the decathlon. Bob Mathias was a member of this House from 1966 to 1974.

Bob Mathias thought of himself as an ordinary person. Could we please, in recognition of an extraordinary human being, offer a moment of silence?

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 966, I call up the bill (H.R. 4) to provide economic security for all Americans, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill, as we indicated, is the Pension Protection Act of 2006; but it is much more than that. Within the bill also are tax items, trade items, charitable provisions.

One of the reasons I am pleased to bring this to the floor is that it is in essence the combination of more than 5 months of working on a very important area of public law that affects tens of millions of Americans. It is about the agreement workers have with their employers as to what they are going to be able to earn, not for the time they are working but for the time they are retired.

Our current pension system is, frankly, broken. It moved rapidly into a known broken situation, and we have responded, not as quickly as perhaps we would have liked, but I think we have responded in a way that, as we discussed, this bill I think you will find there is, at least there was on the conference committee and there should be in this House, broad bipartisan support.

For example, on this side of the aisle, I could say I hold a letter from the General Motors Corporation endorsing the changes we are making in pension law. And someone would say, aha. But then I would pick up a letter and say, I hold a letter from the United Auto Workers who are supportive of this pension change. And I could do that for industry after industry showing that you not only have the corporate structure in support but you have the workers in support.

This is a bill that makes fundamental changes in transparency, in payment arrangements, which means the promise made from employers to employees and employees to employers has a greater chance than a long, long time of being honored. It is important legislation. The Ways and Means Committee will spend some time on the text, trade, and charitable provisions, but I want to say that I am very proud of the product that has been produced. It will move off this floor, it will move through the Senate, and it will be signed by the President. And the time line in doing that will save many employees from what would have been a certain failure to have pensions if we did not act before we adjourned for our summer district work period.

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

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

It is times like these that you have to resist the temptation of saying, okay, let's just go home and not pass this bill. But the gentleman from Washington, from Seattle, perhaps wouldn't be able to get back if he were flying Northwest Airlines, and so the fervor of his speech not to act would in fact have to bump into reality sooner than I think he might like.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the remainder of the time to be controlled by the gentleman of Michigan, a fellow conferee on the pension conference (Mr. Camp).

I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Speaker, of necessity, this bill, H.R. 4, governing pension rules is very complex. A detailed, plain-English explanation is available from the Joint Committee on Taxation and will be a key resource in understanding the intent underlying the bill's provisions and, therefore, obviously of the legislative intent behind the bill.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I know some people complained about having only a number of hours to read the bill, but this was just handed to me, and I am tempted to say that perhaps 30 seconds ought to be allowed, because it could have been handed anytime during the debate. But I know you were very busy over there, so you were only able to get it to us at the close of debate. We appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I have in high regard those Members who focus on issues which they are concerned about in the pension bill, and I know that there are a number of sections that people could focus on in terms of their concern about the bill. And I know it is absolutely, totally a coincidence that one Member on this side of the aisle spoke against the bill.

Yet, as I am going through this particular motion to recommit, page after page after page refers to, you got it, the airline provisions. So I am quite sure on the basis of wanting to go through a 1,000-page bill to create a motion to recommit, that the fact that the one area that appears to be a bit sensitive on this side of the aisle is what the motion to recommit is all about.

I guess in that regard I hold in minimum high regard, on something as important as this legislation, to get it on the books as quickly as we can, that this motion to recommit is focused in a way, in my opinion, to advance political interests rather than policy interests.

I guess I am just a little bit bewildered when the gentleman from Ohio, the majority leader, handed me a letter, because as a conferee I received a letter that said we want you in the areas of key concern to be supportive of what we do in this pension bill.

There were two signatures on that letter. One was the majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio. The other one was the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, urging us to make sure key provisions in the pension bill are preserved, because we want to preserve those, and not the whole bill, or in fact send the Senate the whole bill because Senator Kennedy will be supportive of this bill once it is received in the Senate.

The idea that members of the conference don't know what is in it and aren't supportive is absolutely and totally refuted by the signature of the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the bill just passed.