Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that, in accordance with the recommendation of the United States Judicial Conference, would authorize the creation of three additional judgeships for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, as well as convert a temporary judgeship into a permanent judgeship.

There is no question that these additional judgeships are needed. The average weighted caseload per judge in the Eastern District is 733, as compared to 649 a year ago, an increase of almost 12 percent. This is extremely significant, as the national average for weighted caseloads per judge is 524, and an average weighted caseload in excess of 430 is the United States Judicial Conference's standard for determining if additional permanent judgeships are required. The Eastern District's average weighted caseload of 733 exceeds this standard by 70 percent. In addition, the Eastern District's average weighted caseload surpasses the national average by more than 39 percent and has exceeded 430 since 1994.

In 2003, there was a significant increase in the total number of filings in the Eastern District; in fact, total filings in 2003 rose 11.7 percent to 5,523. Criminal case filings, for which our Constitution guarantees an individual the right to have a speedy trial, rose 12.7 percent. In addition, there are now a total of 6,343 cases pending before the Eastern District; an increase of 11.5 percent in 2003 and an 18.5 percent increase over the past five years.

Moreover, as the temporary judgeship expired in February 2002, upon a permanent judge's decision to take senior status, this situation will be exacerbated because the President will be unable to appoint a replacement unless Congress acts to convert the temporary judgeship into a permanent judgeship before that time.

Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to work with me to enact this legislation and thereby improve the administration of our Nation's laws in the Eastern District of California.

Mr. Speaker, China is now a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO is not a club that just anyone can join--a country must be deemed ready and economically mature. China's accession signifies that it is expected to meet the obligations that come with its stronger presence within the global economy. It is our role, as one of China's major trading partners, to make sure that china fulfills its WTO commitments. However, I am concerned that many of China's commitments have not yet been implemented or implementation has been inadequate. I join the many cosponsors of this resolution in urging the Administration to continue to engage China on compliance, as well as use the dispute settlement mechanism where necessary to enforce our rights.

In addition to seeking WTO compliance, I support the Administration's efforts to encourage China to establish a more flexible exchange rate. At the same time, China's financial system is in desperate need of modernization. I urge the Administration to continue to work with China to modernize its fiscal structure and relax its capital controls.

On Thursday and Friday of this week, the Committee on Ways and Means is holding a hearing to explore China's expanding role in the global economy, its currency management and its progress in meeting its new trade commitments. The insights we will gain in this hearing will give us more guidance as we develop a tough policy to promote a healthy and strong trade relationship with China.

Finally, today's resolution is yet another foray in the battle to support U.S. manufacturers. We must create more jobs at home and preserve existing jobs by promoting innovation, reducing costs and making U.S. companies more competitive. Yesterday, the Ways and Means Committee approved the American Jobs Creation Act, legislation to foster job creation through comprehensive tax relief for domestic manufacturers, small businesses and other employers. It is my hope that the House will take swift action on this legislation. American workers need help now.

Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, my understanding is the next motion is a motion to instruct conferees, and my understanding is motions to instruct conferees are nonbinding; is that correct?

And the motion to instruct is to request that we retain language in the bill the House passed; is that correct?

I appreciate that.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I take the floor because I was off doing other business but listening to testimony that has been presented on this floor; and if something

gets repeated often enough and loud enough, people may begin to think that it is true.

In depicting the proposal that has been offered for seniors and prescription drugs, much has been made of the fact that when you have limited dollar amounts and you want to write a program that benefits the greatest number of people, the logical way to write the program is to provide reasonable benefits so that most people who have small drug costs have a decent shared payment structure. In the House plan, that happens to be 80 percent government payment and, 20 percent individual. And for those who, through no fault of their own, have extremely high drug costs, above a certain point, 100 percent of those costs are assumed by the government, or the taxpayers. That is called typically a catastrophic plan.

The question is, how much would it cost to provide sliding coverage throughout an entire range?

Many drug programs are set up where they have a period at which the individual pays the full cost. It has been depicted over and over again and, most recently, just a few minutes ago, that this is a program we are trying to provide to seniors which we do not have as Members of Congress. That is flat-out not true.

If, in fact, Members of Congress can take their insurance from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which is where we get it, if anyone would take the time, instead of preparing demagogic speeches for the floor of the House, and study the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, they will find there are programs offered to Federal employees that have what is called, in a pejorative way, a doughnut hole. Why? Because it makes sense to build insurance plans at a dollar amount with a doughnut hole.

The program that we have built makes sense. Programs in the private sector do the same. Programs that are offered to Federal employees, including Members of Congress, do the same thing. This is not some unique concept that we have dreamed up. It is a common practice in insurance.

So I fully expect, if this is not done just for show, if someone really did not know, and if in fact they are now pleased to have the facts, I do not expect another Member to take the floor and say we ought to give to seniors what we give to Congress and other members of the Federal Government and that they don't have a doughnut, so we shouldn't have a doughnut for seniors. The fact of the matter is, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program has plans that are actually chosen by Federal employees that have doughnuts. Why? Because it makes sense. It provides you the maximum minimum payment when your drug costs are low and it provides you the maximum coverage at the top end when your drug costs are high.

But remember what I said, if you are dealing with a fixed cost. The Congress said you have $400 billion to build a prescription drug program in a modernized Medicare. That is a fixed cost. For some people who do not believe the taxpayers' money should be accounted for or you should cater to groups so that you can give people whatever they want regardless of what it costs, I can understand why a sensible program, to give maximum benefits to the greatest number of people, would be a puzzlement. But for people who live on budgets and for people who are cognizant of taxpayers' dollars, building a plan for a given amount that brings the maximum benefits to the greatest number of people makes all kinds of sense. That is why, even in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, they have insurance programs that have doughnuts.

I am quite sure now we will never hear another word about saying we are trying to give seniors something that the Federal employees do not have, because it is not true.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a public servant, a devoted family man, and a close friend. Clarence Medders was born in Mississippi on December 7, 1927. Clarence served in the Army Signal Corps and graduated from teaching school, beginning a lifelong pursuit to promote the education of young people.

After moving to Bakersfield, California with his wife, Billie Jo, and their two children, Clarence worked for the Bakersfield City School District in various capacities for three decades. As a teacher, Clarence made sure his students received a quality education and understood the fundamentals. As a principal, Clarence was passionate about ensuring that his students were well-educated, and relentlessly worked with teachers, parents, and students to create an environment where his students could excel, both in the classroom and as young people. While Clarence received great recognition for his work, he did not measure his body of work by the accolades and awards he received; he measured it by the success of the students he taught, embraced, and advocated for.

Clarence devoted himself to the lives of Bakersfield's youth, but he also found time to serve the community he so loved. He served as Bakersfield City Councilman, held a leadership role in the League of California Cities, and was elected Mayor of Bakersfield in 1989. As Chairman of the Kern County Republican Central Committee, Clarence also worked to raise awareness of local and national issues with the community and involved his peers and neighbors in politics. In these different capacities, Clarence served with integrity, a plain-spoken straight-shooter that counseled and led with the convictions and strength of his heart. The enthusiasm to serve others is a quality shared by Clarence's family. His wife Billie Jo has been on my staff for the length of my career in the House, and I have always been grateful to Clarence for sharing her with me and with the thousands she has helped.

Bakersfield will miss this wonderful man who shared a rich legacy of accomplishment with his neighbors and students. More personally, I will miss Clarence. Clarence Medders was first and foremost a family man. He leaves behind his wife, his two loving daughters, Emily and Pam, and a large family that grieves an extraordinary loss.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I join many of my neighbors in mourning the loss of a close friend, Clarence Medders. A patriotic American, he embodied our country's best ideals: love for family and a dedication to public service.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I call up the bill (H.R. 7) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for charitable contributions by individuals and businesses, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

First of all, I want to compliment the cosponsors of the bill, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford). The fact that they decided on a bipartisan approach, I think set the tone for the changes that result in the bill we have before us.

The President had indicated that one of his top priorities, as he said, to rally the armies of compassion, to help the underprivileged in the United States is, in fact, to a certain extent a uniquely American structure dealing with the creation of foundations, charitable trusts and other structures to assist those in need in a private plan from those who have wealth.

These plans, approaches and foundations are governed, especially in terms of a privileged position, under the tax code as those who, when they conduct these activities, are exempt from various taxable consequences. Periodically, we really do need to review the structure, the relationships and the way in which these foundations and other structures relate to the tax code.

In addition to that, there is nothing wrong with this society, through the tax code, influencing in a positive way a people's willingness to carry on contributions and charitable acts. That really is the core of H.R. 7, and I am pleased to say, notwithstanding the fact that the minority will offer a substitute for the bill, those portions that I have just discussed are identical between H.R. 7 and the substitute that will be offered.

The difference is about other actions, other money, other funding arguments. Those will be examined in terms of the substitute versus the underlying bill, but I want to underscore, this bill came out of the Committee on Ways and Means by a voice vote. What that means is that, basically, it was supported by all of the Members. The compromise that was achieved that produced this result is an excellent example of people who are going to be governed working with those people who are empowered to do the governing and resolving differences.

I do believe the core portion of H.R. 7 is not controversial and should be passed.

Mr. Speaker, last week H.R. 7, the Charitable Giving Act of 2003 passed the Committee on Ways and Means, as amended, by voice vote.

The Charitable Giving Act is one of President Bush's top priorities, and will--as he has said--``rally the armies of compassion'' to help the underprivileged in the United States. The bill encourages charitable contributions by individuals, businesses and foundations, while improving the effectiveness and efficacy of the government's delivery program for these important donations. The tax incentives in H.R. 7 will encourage and promote philanthropic donations by removing barriers that restrict giving.

H.R. 7 allows those taxpayers who do not itemize, which accounts for roughly two-thirds of returns, the opportunity to deduct a portion of their charitable contributions.

The bill provides an exclusion from gross income for otherwise taxable withdrawals from traditional or Roth IRAs that are made for charitable purposes. IRAs represent a major untapped source of charitable contributions, and it is estimated that Americans have used these plans to save roughly $2.3 trillion. By allowing taxpayers who have reached age 70\1/2\ to make tax-free transfers of IRA assets for charitable purposes, this provision represents a key source of increased charitable giving while also providing safeguards to ensure that IRA owners have ample assets for retirement.

H.R. 7 increases incentives that encourage benevolent contributions by corporations and other business. The bill increases the cap on corporate charitable contributions from 10 to 20 percent of modified taxable income and allows all businesses, rather than just C corporations, to take advantage of an extension of enhanced deductions for donations of food inventory. In addition, H.R. 7 better allows corporations to donate scientific property, computer technology and equipment to enhance research, and allows a shareholder in an S corporation to receive the benefit of a full charitable deduction for charitable contributions made by the S corporation.

In addition, this bill includes legislation to authorize a new compassion capital fund to support propitious social programs while extending and strengthening current efforts that urge low-income families to save in hopes to pay for school, start a business, or purchase a home. Furthermore, the enhanced State flexibility outlined in H.R. 7 allows States to transfer 10 percent of annual Federal cash welfare funds to the Social Services Block Grant in order to better help low-income families.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important for two reasons: (1) it will help Americans help those who need it the most--whether it is through initiatives to end substance abuse and gang related violence, or to improve the health of the neediest; and (2) it will ensure uniformity exists in how charitable foundations operate. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 7.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and ask unanimous consent that he control the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should address the gentleman from Maryland's last point first. This is not about the date of enactment. Pick any date one wants. What normally happens is that if we now say something that was legitimate is no longer legitimate, we do it on what we say is a prospective basis. From now on, you are put on notice; you cannot do this any more. That is not what his amendment, or his substitute, says.

What his substitute says is that it is applicable to taxable years beginning before, on, or after the date of enactment. It is not the date of enactment that we are concerned about; it is the fact that if this language is adopted in the substitute it means that when it does become effective, behavior that has already taken place, which was legitimate at the time that it took place, is now no longer allowed. That is called retroactive. As a matter of fact, if it were in the area of criminal law, it would be unconstitutional. But since it is in the area of civil law, it may be immoral, it may be unfair, it may be wrong, but the government can do that.

I personally think in the area of tax law, we should never have a retroactive procedure. It is one of the primary reasons I voted against the 1986 tax bill. It had a number of retroactive provisions.

How in the world are citizens supposed to trust the actions of government if when they conduct perhaps an irrevocable decision of a financial nature under the Tax Code, the time at which it was carried out was legal, several years later the Congress says it is no longer permissible, and we can go back and deal with it retroactively? How more fundamentally unfair can government be than that?

That is what is in here. It is not over the date; it is over what happens when the date becomes effective. Prospectively, we can go to the substance of what the amendment contains, which is unacceptable, but the fact that it can reach back and deal negatively with behavior which was acceptable at the time that it was carried out on its face should be rejected.

In addition to that, there is much discussion about how we need to make sure that these various lifesavers are available to the States in carrying out very useful and needed purposes dealing with those individuals who are in need. So if we are talking about lifesavers, the question is this: are we talking about lifesavers or are we talking about orange lifesavers, or perhaps cherry lifesavers, or perhaps lime lifesavers? I think we have to really visit what we have done in this year alone.

In the tax bill, we have already passed at the insistence of the Senate a tax bill which contains $20 billion of gifts distributed to the States. Half of it, $10 billion, was to go to Medicaid. The other half, $10 billion, was totally flexible. It is available for social services block grants or any other services that States might want to use it for within their jurisdiction. They got $5 billion of it in July, they are getting another $5 billion this month.

But in addition to that, earlier money that we had provided, almost $6 billion, is still unspent in Federal TANF money that is available for welfare, child care, other social services. And to make sure that it would be available and could be used, we did not limit ourselves to the modest percentage under the appropriations bill, we passed a welfare bill that said you get the full 10 percent. The welfare bill may hit rocky shoals in the Senate; we are providing it here again. Not a 4 percent, not a 5 percent, but a full 10 percent transfer capability. If, in fact, what we are now doing is not arguing that the States need lifesavers, they want a particular flavor of lifesaver; Members have to ask themselves is it really something that we need to do when there is more than enough money in the system, transferability is not a question; it is just that they want a particular flavor of lifesaver their way. And, if, in fact, they are going to fund it under a structure which reaches back and penalizes taxpayers when at the time they conducted the behavior it was legal, I would say, boy, that is overreaching, especially when the underlying bill, the key part that we are looking at, not welfare payments or social services block grants, but the charitable giving which is at the heart of the bill, is the same in both bills.

The stuff they are adding is really beyond the narrow focus of what this bill is all about and that is charitable giving.

So for all those reasons, I would urge Members, notwithstanding the appeals that are going to be made to tell you that there is more than enough money in the system, underscoring more than $6 billion in TANF money that still has not been spent by the States available to be transferred for the very purposes, they argue they want to force more money on the States.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of the time, and I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the cosponsor of the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman referring to the effective date on page 76 of his substitute?

Might I respond or was the gentleman simply making a statement while the gentleman from California stood? The gentleman indicated in his opening statement that he would yield time for colloquy.

I tell the gentleman that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) rose and said he would yield to me on his time. That tells you about the way they operate.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts for structuring this motion to recommit actually as a motion to recommit, rather than one which cannot be honored. So what we do is we look at the content of the motion to recommit, rather than the key words that determine whether or not he is serious. The gentleman from Massachusetts, by the way he has structured his motion to recommit, is serious.

If in fact the House is judged on what we do, rather than what we say, all you have to do is go back to last March when this House passed the provisions which deal directly with this issue. Way before hurricane season, the House of Representatives said a child credit should be $1,000 and it should stay at $1,000 for the rest of the decade. If the Senate bill is better, why does the Senate bill contain a snap-back to $700 in December of 2004, right after the election?

If the Senate bill is better, the House bill said marriage penalty, now, for the rest of the decade. The Senate bill says marriage penalty eliminated in 2010. They say, therefore, helping the military. The bill we passed last March offers more help dollar-wise and substance-wise to the military than the one they are proposing now.

So I think it is fairly ironic that they are asking us to do what we have done.

The argument that the conference on this bill has not met should not be directed to the House; it should be directed to the other body, because the other body chairs that conference. No call has been made.

What we need to do for the rest of the afternoon is simple: vote ``no'' for 15 minutes, vote ``yes'' for 5 minutes, and we can beat the hurricane home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of the time on this side until the gentleman is down to his last speaker.

Yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do want to indicate that as to the statements that were made in terms of not understanding some third category as to why certain things have not been done, the gentleman really needs to simply examine the Congressional Record.

On June 12 of this year, the House passed a tax relief measure providing tax relief for astronauts, suspending the tax exempt status of designated terrorist organizations, providing tax relief and enhancing tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces. That has passed this House. It passed it in June. But it not only did that, it accelerated the increase in the refundable child credit. The provision that passed on June 12 cost $3.5 billion over 11 years.

As the very point of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis) where he said he cannot understand why it has not been addressed, we have addressed it. I do not happen to know how he voted on the measure, but clearly enough Members of the House were concerned about that child credit provision, were concerned about the members of the Armed Forces, that that measure passed.

It is now over in the Senate. The Senate is the body that has not responded to these concerns.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about entreaties, as was indicated in the quote from the other body, first of all, the other body is the Chair of the conference on the tax credit. All the other body has to do is simply call for a conference. They can moan, they can groan, they can complain. All they have to do is call for a conference. That call has not been made.

In terms of the reference to the 18th time that we have dealt with this issue, Mr. Speaker, I refer to my statement on the floor in regard to the nonbinding nature of this motion to instruct and the tax applicability argument offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) on page H5340 and H5341 of the Congressional Record of June 12, 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the statement I made on the floor in response to the motion to instruct offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) on page H6828 of the Congressional Record of June 2003. Repeatedly, this motion has failed.

I do want to indicate so that everyone understands that on the 18th try or the 19th try or the 20th try, every page in the Congressional Record cost the taxpayers $575. Quite a sum in terms of showing how many times they are willing to refuse to admit this House passed tax relief for child credit on the amount they stated and aid to armed services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I imagine some people watching this debate are a bit confused about what is going on. You need to understand the underlying concern of our friends on the other side of the aisle. That is why they take the well and say someone who is no longer with us, he is passed, voted no in 1965. Or other people 30 years ago took a position. What about the people today?

The Democrats really believe this is their issue and, if they do not demonize the fact that Republicans are out to destroy Medicare, they do not have a bumper sticker they have used for years. Let us not talk about the noes that occurred in 1965, let us talk about the noes that occurred in 1995. Let us talk about the noes that occurred in 1997, or the noes that occurred this year.

The Democrats had 30 years to put prescription drugs in Medicare. Did they, no. Republicans are trying to put prescription drugs in Medicare. They will say anything to not let that happen because then, of course, Republicans are not trying to destroy Medicare. Their arguments are gone.

This year in the bill that passed this House, we voted to give every senior who becomes Medicare eligible a physical. They voted no. We voted to provide screening and education and early treatment for diabetes so we do not have an increase in end-stage renal disease. They voted no. We voted to have osteoporosis screening. They voted no. We voted for more digital mammography. They voted no.

Every time they voted no on a Medicare bill that we have passed, it is stopping new, progressive preventive measures that Republicans are adding to Medicare. How is that killing Medicare?

The fact of the matter is we have to go back to 1965 for your arguments about Medicare. We want to talk about today and tomorrow. One of the reasons Medicare is better off in the Part A trust fund is because a recent Democratic President transferred the fastest growing portion of Medicare, home health care, from A, a defined payroll trust fund to the general fund that can suck up every penny in the general fund the way it is structured, every penny. That is why it is more solvent than it has been in a long time.

If the other side of the aisle wants to solve the problems of Medicare, get off their demagoguery hobbyhorse, get serious about trying to make Medicare workable, more progressive, better preventive care, quit voting no and quit playing games. These kinds of motions to instruct are destructive, not positive.

Let us work together. We are going to make a better Medicare. We are going to bring a conference report back and we are going to have every senior get a physical. Will the other side of the aisle vote no on that? We have better digital mammography. Will the other side of the aisle vote no on that? And we, Republicans, are going to put prescription drugs in Medicare. That is what this is all about. They cannot stand it.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 329, I call up the bill (H.R. 2738) to implement the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2738 and the companion bill, which we will discuss immediately following, H.R. 2739. These are the first fruits of the passage of the Free Trade Act implementing for the United States its ability to negotiate agreements with countries, with regions, and with multilateral organizations.

We have been out of the arena for a long time. To show you how long we have been out and how much the world has changed in a very positive way, when you look at H.R. 2738, the Free Trade Agreement with Chile, there are a number of firsts in trade agreements with the United States that are racked up by this particular agreement.

One, it is the first true bilateral agreement that we have had in 15 years. It is the first free trade agreement with a South American country. It is the first free trade agreement using a negative list approach in services, a significant step forward where you say where you do not want to play, but everything else is open. That stands on its head the historical free trade agreement arrangement.

This is the first free trade agreement requiring our trading partner to apply the TRIPS Plus Intellectual Property protections which go beyond the WTO protections. This is the first FTA allowing the use of monetary assessments for commercial disputes as a means to avoid collateral damage caused by import sanctions. It is the first FTA treating labor and environment obligations enforceable on a par with commercial disputes.

It is the first FTA requiring our trading partner to utilize transparent rule-making procedures following U.S. standards. It is the first free trade agreement covering e-commerce.

You can go on and on because there are so many firsts in these agreements. The idea is that once we are back in the field, we have leap-frogged across a decade and a half. These are world-class free trade agreements, and one of the things that I think we can say is, it is about time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

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

There is no question that we should rightly be concerned about traditional industries, manufacturing and the changing world and the United States relationship to that changing world. And I do believe that there will be some free trade agreements that will come before us when the concern about manufacturing is front and center. But one of the important things about the agreement that is in front of us today, the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement is, first of all, I consider this agreement old business, not new business.

Secondly, I just have to tell you, as someone who represents California and, more particularly, the great Central Valley of California in which when I am back home, and I am greatly anticipating that in less than a week, in the morning the sun comes up over the snowy Sierra Nevadas.

As most of you know, Mount Whitney at 14,500 feet is the highest mountain in the continental 48 States. The Central Valley is the single richest agricultural area in the world. When the sun goes down, it goes down over the Pacific Ocean. If you have the opportunity, as I have, to be able to go to Chile, you will find that the geography, the topography is literally exactly the same.

One of the things that is important about this agreement is that it is a world-class agreement in the area of agriculture. Where many times people use nontariff barriers, argue sanitary or phytosanitary reasons for not allowing the free movement of agricultural products, what we have here is an opportunity to show the rest of the world how it ought to be done.

What I am hearing from people is, why should we enter into this agreement? I guess my response is, why not? It is true that we are trading the entire internal market of the United States for a market about the size of L.A. County.

But the fact of the matter is, Chile has not waited for us, no matter how close our friendship is. They have moved on in the world. They have free trade agreements with other countries who are more than willing to supply the products that we would love to supply, and no matter how close the friendship, if the price is not right, if the structure is not right, they are going to trade with people who are smart enough and wise enough to create a more comfortable trading arrangement.

We are doing this for us, not for Chile. But let me tell you, the U.S. consumer has benefited from this relationship.

Just as I described the geography of California and the geography of Chile, they may be the same, but when you look at them on the globe, they are on opposite sides of the equator, which means we are able to produce the same agricultural products but at a different time of the year. There is a seasonal complementariness to the agriculture on what would otherwise be directly competing products that creates a positive for the American consumer. Just one product, table grapes, currently if you go down to your market, you will find fresh table grapes and especially the new varieties that are seedless and they will be in a bag which says ``Product of USA.'' But if you go to that same market in November or December or January or February, you will find what looks like exactly the same product in a bag and it will say ``Product of Chile.''

What we used to do in the old days was when the growing season was over, we would throw the grapes in cold storage, 4 months later we would drag them out and, as you might expect, consumer demand and interest was pretty low. Today, we can supply 12 months out of the year a fresh product where there is not the kind of conflict that would otherwise occur.

We benefit, the Chileans benefit from the primary focus of agriculture in an agreement that is world class, but beyond that, allows us to go to the market in Chile and offer a product in competition with other countries. But this time we do so under a free trade agreement. And when you have an opportunity to trade under the same economic relationship, then the question is, if there is no difference in terms of economics, why not trade with a friend rather than someone else? That is what this free trade agreement is all about.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), but prior to that, I yield my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, and ask unanimous consent that he have the ability to disburse the time as he may see fit.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the short answer can be quickly dealt with, but I think a longer one is necessary for people to fully appreciate.

The integrated sourcing initiative, or the ISI, the products on this list currently have no duty or restrictions when they enter the United States, regardless of where they come from or what country they pass through. The Singapore agreement identifies these goods and deems them to be of Singaporean origin for certain carefully delineated, limited purposes when they do move through Singapore for the administrative convenience of businesses and our own Customs Service. However, they are still considered of third-country origin for purposes of applying the global safeguard.

Many people are alarmed by, I think, the word ``transshipment,'' because they think it would be an illegal movement or smuggling of goods. But that is simply not true here. These are legal goods that under current law can enter the U.S. without restriction. In this case, the Chinese goods on the ISI list could come directly to the United States without duty or restriction currently. So what difference does it make if it goes through Singapore or any number of other countries along the way?

I have heard concerns from Members about the nature and impact of this provision. As a result, I think it is prudent to ask the International Trade Commission to monitor Singapore trade in certain ISI goods and associated downstream products. If there is a significant change in the level of trade, the commission then will be asked to investigate further and report to us.

Frankly, I do not anticipate significant changes in trade in these goods as a result of the ISI provisions, but I do not think it does any harm to monitor it either. This provision makes it marginally easier on businesses, but I do not believe enough to change trade flows very much. But I want to underscore, notwithstanding that, I think it is prudent to monitor.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in the measure before us the very short and direct answer is ``no.'' Whatever may have occurred in the process of developing this legislation or whatever was a desired result really is the past.

The measure in front of us says the list that is in this bill is the list, period. If Congress wants to address it, if Congress wants to expand or shrink the list, that is within the congressional prerogative. No other group, administration or otherwise, can change the list. Of course, the administration could be offering a proposal to Congress to consider, but it will be Congress' decision to modify the list that is in front of us in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that although that list of items is contained in this bill, which is being handled under the trade promotion authority, the so-called fast track with no amendments, if the administration or a Member introduced a piece of legislation which was to expand or contract that list, it would not be handled under the trade promotion structure; it would be handled as an ordinary piece of legislation, open to amendment and modification.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his continued interest in these very important pieces of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of personal privilege.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have always considered the time spent in this institution, the people's House, as one of the highest honors a person can be provided by this country. Each of us is elected by the people to be a Member. Each of us has an equal right to be here. But what we do here, what position or responsibilities that we have, we owe to each other.

Last Friday in the Ways and Means Committee while conducting a markup of a bill as a result of decisions made by members of the committee and by me as chairman, there was a breakdown of order and decorum. To reestablish order in the committee, I requested that staff place a call to the Sergeant at Arms. That decision, in my opinion, was proper and appropriate. A second decision to instruct staff to see if the Democrats that had occupied the library would go to room 1129, which is a room reserved for the Democrats for meetings and caucuses, and to enlist the support of the Capitol Police to do so if necessary, that decision, in the words of Norm Ornstein in a column today in Roll Call, was described as ``just plain stupid.'' I agree with him.

Every Member has as much right to be here and to be heard as any other. In hindsight, calling the Sergeant at Arms for help in the committee room, I still believe, was good judgment. My instruction to use the Capitol Police, if necessary, in the library was not. I learned a very painful lesson on Friday. As Members, you deserve better judgment from me, and you will get it. Because of my poor judgment, those outside the House who want to trivialize, marginalize, and debase this institution were given an opportunity to do so. Because of my poor judgment, the stewardship of my party as the majority party in this House has been unfairly criticized.

Because of my poor judgment, I became the focus of examination rather than the issues. The visions that each of us have for a better America, different as though they may be but equally entitled to be heard, were not focused on.

It has been said that our strengths are our weaknesses. Or as my mother would have put it, ``When they were passing out moderation, you were hiding behind the door.'' I believe my intensity has served useful purposes, fixing problems and passing laws that otherwise may not have made it. But when one is charged and entrusted with responsibilities by you, my colleagues, as I have been, you deserve better. Moderation is required.

For the remainder of my time in this, the people's House, I want to rededicate my efforts to strengthening this institution as the embodiment of what is best about us. I need your help and I invite it.

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

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

The gentlewoman is correct. This is exactly the motion that was offered some time ago. She focuses on the fact that it passed 205 to 201. If they are to take some credence in a vote on a motion which is nonbinding, perhaps we will provide her with a different vote this time so the argument that it passed would not be available to her.

People who may be watching and do not understand this process need to understand that the motion in front of us has no standing in terms of influencing a conference. It is a motion to instruct, not a motion to bind, not a motion to carry out required language in a bill, for example; and so it has, in essence, no enforcement power.

The argument that there are people who are needful and should be provided with resources is, I think, a statement that we ought to examine. The legislation that we voted on was an attempt to make a change in the Internal Revenue Code which deals with income taxes.

Her argument that there are some who perhaps do not pay income taxes but who nevertheless pay some kind of tax would lead us to additional motions to instruct of not only dealing with a payroll tax or an HI Medicare tax or perhaps a sales tax or a property tax or an excise tax or some tax that someone pays who should therefore share in the redistribution of wealth under the Internal Revenue Code. I think when we begin examining that argument on its face, it begins to fall apart.

If the Members really want to know what this is all about, I would urge someone to review the debate that took place on the floor of the Senate, or the other body, in which someone who is up for reelection in November of 2004 was pleading to provide this relief between now and, do not be surprised, December 31, 2004, i.e., between the period of now and when they stand for reelection. This plea to assist these folk in receiving a $1,000 child tax credit is only of interest between now and the election.

What the House did was examine that proposal offered by the Senate, and what we said was, gee, if in fact we did that and this particular individual was elected to the other body's 6-year term, how would that person vote in 2005, in 2006, in 2007, in 2008, in 2009? Chances are they would vote no. Why? Because they got what they wanted, coverage until the election.

We thought that perhaps, instead of the politics of using children and families, we ought to deal with the policy of helping children and families. And what we did, we said we ought to take care of the valley created by the legislation to make sure that every year, not just the time between now and the next election, but for the rest of the decade, if we committed to providing $1,000 per child, we ought to provide it for the whole decade. That is policy, not politics.

We debated that on the floor of the House. We passed it. We sent it to the other body. We also included the military assistance, a measure which, by the way, we passed twice in the year 2002; and the Senate neglected it. We felt that by combining it with this additional policy for those in need, as outlined by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, would perhaps induce the other body to do the right thing on a piece of legislation they have refused to move for now more than a year.

We have moved substantive legislation to address the problem. The Senate has refused to take up the House legislation. We will meet in conference. The two committees assigned to reconcile the difference between the other body's political bill and the House's policy bill are exactly the two same committees that just today convened a conference on Medicare. We will move forward in an attempt to get the other body to understand that if it is good between now and the election, it ought to be good between now and the rest of the decade.

That will be our goal. We believe we will be successful. The folks you are concerned about we believe will be taken care of, not just between now and the next election but for the rest of the decade. I am wondering why you are not willing to join us in ensuring that the Senate adopt sound policy instead of short-term politics.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as we indicated earlier, the motion to instruct is not binding in any way. It does, however, afford our colleagues on the other side of the aisle an opportunity to talk about how someone who pays Federal taxes or State taxes or local taxes or dog license taxes, should be privileged to have part of the redistribution of the income taxes. We understand their position.

But I look only to the language in the motion to instruct to determine whether or not they are really serious about what they want. And all one has to do is look at the last paragraph which, after delineating what must be done under the conditions in which they say it must be done; remember, these are the people who lost on the formal real legislation, all of the requirements that have to be met, and then the last paragraph says, the House conferees shall, as soon as practicable, after the adoption of this motion, meet in open session with the Senate conferees and the House conferees, shall file a conference report consistent with the preceding provisions of this instruction, not later than Friday, July 18, 2003. Three days to complete this assignment.

I understand they believe that it is overdue in being completed, but when we put that kind of a time line on these specific instructions, I do believe it is fairly evident to anyone who understands what is going on that this would otherwise be known as the political hour.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, I am more than willing to be generous with the time to my colleague, but I believe the gentleman from Maryland is going to be recognized on their time to make his points.

Mr. Speaker, who has the time?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say, the gentleman's question was: Did the President support what the gentlewoman from Connecticut is advocating, a motion to instruct, a multi-part motion to instruct with a drop-dead date? The President in no way intended to support what the gentlewoman from Connecticut is now advocating. The answer simply is no.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

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

Mr. Speaker, apparently it is necessary to repeat once again the House has acted. We are on record to send a check out to these people, not just between now and the next election but every year this decade, every year this decade. Someone may wonder why we are saying that this also should go out to people who make $150,000 a year. That was in the Senate measure that they are asking us to support. Of course, if you read the fine print it turns out it only goes out to families making $150,000 in 2010. So when you combine sending it out to families who make $150,000 in one year, 2010, and you provide $1,000 only between now and the next election, you realize exactly what is going on.

What we did in this House was say to those people who we think are entitled to a check should have a check every year for the rest of this decade. And if it is worthy of giving someone $150,000 in 2010, it is worthy to do it this year and every year. After all, $150,000, if you are an elementary school teacher in New York and your husband is a fireman who responded on 9-11, $150,000 is about what they earn. It is not the rich.

You will hear repeated over and over again, we built a tax program for the rich. An elementary school teacher in New York City and a fireman in New York City, ask them if they are rich. Ask them if offering the $150,000 only in the last year, 2010, and offering the child credit only between now and the next election is not politics. Let them decide who is offering policy.

Our position, every year for the rest of the decade; $150,000 for the rest of the decade; $150,000 in 2010; the thousand dollar child credit between now and the next election. I think that family will sit around the kitchen table and say, we know who is playing politics.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for purposes of control.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think if you look at the historical context in which Members were allowed to vote, if you go back to the earliest House building, the Cannon Building, you will find that they went to the extreme position of having two sets of buttons, one with which the elevators operate exclusively when Members are to vote.

Clearly, in today's kind of relationship with people who visit, we do not want to impose our desire to move around the Capitol at our pleasure. But during the vote period, it seems to me that either we have people on the elevators, or we use modern technology to allow us to utilize those elevators.

Historically, they had people on them and separate buttons. You are just asking for a fair shot to get to the floor to cast your vote. I do not think that is unreasonable at all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act, which would provide math, science, and special education teachers with up to $17,500 in Federal student loan forgiveness if they teach for 5 consecutive years in a Title I school.

Classrooms in poor areas are facing a crisis. A lack of qualified teachers in math, science, and special education is leaving schools without options and students without the educational opportunities they deserve. The shortage affects children both in urban and rural schools, and while the demand for teachers remains very high, the number of them entering classrooms remains low, particularly in depressed areas. There is an obvious need to provide incentives for educators to teach these subjects in lower-income neighborhoods.

If signed into law, the legislation before us will benefit children in nearly every part of my congressional district. The Bakersfield City School District, for example, has 41 eligible schools, the fifth-most of any district in California. Sixteen of the eighteen schools in the Lancaster Unified School District are eligible. The bill will also benefit schools in Atascadero, Mojave, California City, Taft, San Luis Obispo, and Ridgecrest, CA.

Our President said that, ``when it comes to educating our children, failure is not an option.'' As such, the goal of the Federal Government with regard to education should be to help bring good teachers to schools that desperately need them, and that is why I am a cosponsor of and look forward to voting for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 299, I call up the bill (H.R. 2596) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction to individuals for amounts contributed to health savings security accounts and health savings accounts, to provide for the disposition of unused health benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

This is an important day regarding all Americans' health care needs. Most people are focused on our seniors and the Medicare legislation, which will be before us shortly. We have before us now the Health Savings and Affordability Act, and I first want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for working with us in producing a bipartisan piece of legislation, which is extremely important to seniors accompanying the Medicare legislation, but really to all Americans, and especially those Americans who, through no fault of their own, today have no health insurance available to them.

This legislation creates two new savings accounts, a health savings account and a health savings security account. The basic idea is that people ought to be able to put their own money away, individuals, relatives, or otherwise who wish to help them put money away, and in particular instances, employers who adopt particular kinds of health care plans for their employees assist in putting money away for health care needs. These accounts will accumulate tax free and can be expended for any health needs.

Here is the really exciting and important new twist. There is no age limit at

which you have to make all of the contributions paid out of the health savings account. It is literally lifetime assistance. Why is that important? Because today, as we pass the new Medicare modernization with prescription drug program, we will add tremendous new benefits, but there are other costs associated with the bill, both in acquiring prescription drugs and in making sure that seniors can pay for those additional costs.

It is not right to say that every additional benefit provided to seniors should be paid for by taxpayers. We are already in the midst of the greatest intergenerational transfer of wealth in the history of the world. But it is also not fair to say to hardworking Americans that when they retire they should pay out of their own pockets if we have not provided an easily affordable method to accumulate those dollars.

That is exactly what we have in front of us today: A health savings account that has a multiple number of ways in which money can be placed in to be paid for health needs not only while you are working but when you retire. There is no absolute payout. And if there is money in it when the senior passes, then it becomes part of an estate and that money, in its transfer, is taxable. There is no possibility of gimmicking the system.

The real concern is that we have told Americans oftentimes that they have to pay for particular costs, and yet we do not provide an easy and affordable way for them to do so. One of the big concerns we have today is chronic or long-term care costs for seniors. Time value of money is the best way to address a problem that is going to face most Americans. That is exactly what health savings accounts allow you to do. It is clearly an affordable health care cost if you have planned for it.

Unfortunately, too often today's seniors did not plan. There was not a program convenient and easy for them to plan. This allows them, in a prudent way, to put money away. Oftentimes we may want to help our parents, senior children. This is a way, through a health savings account, that they can place money available for seniors to be readily used for health savings accounts that provide a positive, tax-free environment for accumulating those dollars.

In so many ways, Mr. Speaker, this particular program will blend not only with the Medicare changes that we are going to be making but in terms of meeting the needs of today's workers as well. It is completely portable, it is a fund that accumulates tax free, and it belongs to the individual. They can take it with them wherever they may want to work.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the control of the balance of my time be by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).