William Jefferson

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the folks at home must be really confused about this debate today. A few years ago we heard the Republican leadership come to the floor with a tax bill saying we were awash in cash and we needed to give the people back their money. And the government should not have the money, the people should have it. The trouble is before we could give the folks their money back, the government spent the money. Now we are back telling them the same thing, it is the people's money, we ought to give them back their money, but the only way to give them back the money this time is to borrow the money. This does not make any sense. It is about like a businessperson saying I do not have any money, do not have any cash, do not have any profits, but I want to give my folks a distribution. I am going to go borrow money at the bank, give it back and give folks a distribution and pay for it later somehow, some way. This is called a stimulus package but a stimulus package ought to be temporary in effect. It ought to stimulate consumption. The only stimulus package we can have to make any sense is have consumption on the part of States, on individuals or on the part of business. We leave the folks out of this package who could probably provide the stimulus that we are looking for. The folks who are in the 10 and 15 percent bracket do not get a break under this deal. The folks who work every day and who do not pay income taxes, who pay payroll taxes through the nose, do not get a break under this bill. These folks would actually consume something in this economy if we put the money back in their hands. This is a wrong-headed bill. I urge it be voted down.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding to me and for the wonderful work that she is doing in this area and for the Special Order that she has taken out this evening to explain to the American taxpayers and to the American people just what is at risk by these Republican policies. I know she has covered a great deal of territory already, but I want to just talk about things perhaps that have not yet been discussed or, if they have been, discussed tangentially. And that is the issue of what the government ought to be doing with respect to tax policy. I had the good fortune, the gentlewoman might remember, of doing a great deal of work on this tax policy. Having spent time in school to work on it and having gotten a master's of laws in taxation and having studied the issues of what tax policy ought to be involved with, what I found out was this: that there is a legitimate concern on the part of government to have a tax policy that is fair in the first place, to have a tax policy that is simple in the second place, to have one that does not intrude into the private sector decisionmaking of people in the third place; and perhaps if we find a social policy we all agree on, we found it legitimate to use the Tax Code sometimes to encourage certain behavior on the part of the public. The one thing on the fairness I think the gentlewoman has spoken very well about how this policy violates the Federal standard of fairness any number of ways, and I want to talk about one last way it does a little later; but the one thing that I think it does that people ought to recognize, and it has effects for the deficit, for the interest burden, all the rest, is that it puts the government into a position where it is going to compete with the private sector for money. It is going to drive up demand for money because we are going to have to borrow money. There is only so much of it out there. We have to borrow money to fund the government's operations. When we do that, we drive up the demand for money; and when we do that, we drive up interest costs. No question about it. And so this government is going to compete with the private sector. It has to because there is not enough money to fund this tax policy. We are going to put a tax policy together and borrow money to pay for it. It does not make any sense at all. But the biggest problem is that it is inescapable that it is going to drive up demand for money out of this economy, and we are going to borrow money from our banks here and make it tough on our country, and we can also borrow money from foreign governments and make it tough for steel. So this is an antitax policy, logically thinking, when we go this route. The second thing, there has been a debate for many years about whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to tax capital gains or a bad idea or a good idea to tax dividends, dividend income. All of this has been the subject of debate for many years. And one of the reasons why people have avoided dealing with it is because it is so expensive to fix it, to deal with it, to try to come up with a solution for it. So every time we have a tax reform session, people gripe one side or the other about these questions; but they never deal with it because they are so horrendously expensive. Here we have now a President in the middle of a recession, certainly in a huge downturn in our economy, talking about restructuring the Tax Code, essentially is what is happening here, in the middle of a recession. This is not about stimulus for the economy. This is not about giving people jobs. It really is all about restructuring the system that some people think penalizes rich people more than it should, and there are all sorts of debates, as I said, about that and we can come down a lot of different ways on the question. But this is no time to do tax reform when we need a stimulus package for the government and for our people. This is no time to take these issues that we fought over for many years, not new issues, and bring them to the floor now under the cloak of a stimulus package and of job creation. This is not what it is. And the last question I have that I want to just raise with the American people is this one: everybody at the upper levels gets a tax break from this President's proposal. The folks at the very highest level, 38.6 percent, get a 3.6 percent tax break and down the line to those who are at around the 25 percent rate; and they all get a 2 percent tax breakdown to 25. The folks who are on the bottom, the 15 percent tax rate, that bracket, and the 10 percent bracket get nothing. They get no help. They get no break under this President's plan. They are not touched at all. So those folks do not have any unearned income to speak of, very little, minimal, 7 percent, less than that of income, the whole group, and almost all of it, 2 percent of the folks, are getting that in that little bracket. They are just a handful of people in that bracket. So what we are doing is moving from a system where we are taxing unearned income one way and to a system where we are only going to tax wages of working people. So as we lower the capital gains taxation from 20 to 15 and the upper brackets by 2 percent in some cases, 3 percent in one case, we do nothing for the folks at the very end. So my question is if we are going to give a tax break, why not give it to everyone, an income tax break? Then there are other folks who do not pay income taxes. In my district there are 35 percent of the folks who work every day, 40 hours a week or more, who never make enough to pay income taxes; but they are paying the payroll tax through the nose, and the difficulty is we do not touch that issue either. These folks get no break under the President's system. It is just unfair for them not to get a break, but beyond that, it is nonsensical for a stimulus package not to include these people because, as the Members know, these are the ones who actually would spend their money if they got the money from the government, got something back from the refundable credit on the payroll taxes or refundable credit in some other cases. They would use their money to buy the refrigerator they need or the child's clothes for school or something that is a household need that they cannot now meet because they do not have much money. So if we really wanted to stimulate the economy and we wanted to stimulate consumption, which is what this is all about, either consumption by the State governments or local governments or by individuals or businesses, in this case individuals, we would put money in the hands of the people who actually spend it and consume some of the goods and services out there in the country that they need to consume. So apart from all of the issues that the gentlewoman has raised, and they are wonderful issues and ones that we have heard a great deal about in our caucus and in our debates in the Congress, and they are the central ones in this debate, but I wanted to bring these other issues out to discuss them because I cannot find one way that this deal makes any sense for the American people, and I do not understand, frankly, how the other side can put these proposals forward with a straight face. On every level I have been able to examine, it does not make any sense, and I hope that when the American people have the time to examine this argument that we are making here, examine the issues here, that they will come to the same conclusion that the gentlewoman and I have come to, that this policy is a bad policy for America. It does not stimulate the economy. It is a terrible intrusion into the tax system that is going to end up with the private sector competing with the government or the other way around, and it is going to drive up the cost of interest in the long term, and of course it is an issue of getting involved in a structural tax debate that we have had on the table for I do not know how long and we are now trying to fix under the cloak of a stimulus package. So I want to again thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for what she has done this evening in giving us a chance to talk about these issues, and I want to implore the American people to really examine this very closely because it is a critical point in the history of our country. We are about to make decisions now that are going to saddle our children and grandchildren for years to come, and people really ought to pay attention to what is happening in this House.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, of course not. It is not mentioned in the package, and as most of the experts have said, this is the greatest multiplier effect of most of the things we can put on the table to do, and that is to put money into the hands of people again who have been out of work, who have been strapped, who do not have enough money to pay for the things that they need to take care of in their households, who we know will consume if they get the money. Stimulating the economy is all about stimulating consumption. It is not about anything else. And if we are not smart enough to give people money they can use now, and these are not people who are sitting around looking for welfare, looking for a handout from the government; these are hard- working people who have worked for many years, in most cases, who now because of economic hard times and down turns in the economy, layoffs all over the place, have ended up without a job. These are folks who are actively seeking work, going out looking for a job every day, going to the unemployment offices, unemployment services, looking for help, looking for a job, and they have not been able to find work because this economy has lost 2.6 million jobs in the last couple of years. So it is just hard to find a job out there. This ought to be in this package. If the other side were serious about stimulating the economy, this is the best way to stimulate consumption, and the fact that it is not in the bill argues that they are not really serious about getting this done.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, one of the smartest things we did in this Congress was to pass the EITC and the next smartest thing we did was to expand it in the last few years to make sure we had more people covered. And it is a way to reward people for working. It was always designed to take low-income people and encourage them to stay on jobs that did not pay much because the welfare was competing quite handsomely with folks who were making such a low income until they might as well have stayed home if they were just looking at it on the basis of what is the better thing to do, stay home with the children, stay home and do whatever, or go to work. EITC is a conservative idea.

Mr. JEFFERSON. The earned income tax credit is a conservative idea. It is an idea to reward people for working, to award poor people staying on the job instead of choosing welfare. It ought to be embraced by the Republicans full throttle, and it ought to be as simple as it is to do anything else under the tax regime. Not that things are all that simple, but one of the major tenets of tax policy is to keep it as simple or to make it as simple as we can. The fewer resources one has, and we know poor people have fewer resources than the people who are wealthier, the simpler we ought to make it for them. That is why we invented this short form of tax reporting; that is why you have this easy way to do your standard deduction, because you figure that these are the people who are not going to have a lot of money for tax preparation or access to accountants and lawyers and all the rest of it. So you make it as simple as you can for people who you know are going to be principally their own tax preparers, and you hope they can understand it without having to expend much money to do it. Up the line, people who have all these various deductions and exemptions they can take and all the rest, they are folks who usually can pay for the lawyers and accountants and the rest and get it all figured out and worry about saving money. So I think the gentlewoman is dead right, that instead of making it more complicated for the poorest people in this country who are going to work every day, who are working hard every day, and who we have encouraged through the EITC to stay on the job rather than to accept welfare, we ought to make it simple for them to get their reporting done.

Mr. JEFFERSON. I thank the gentlewoman for what she is doing.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Brief for the Record. [No. 02-241] In the Supreme Court of the United States

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Congress is advancing the Millennium Challenge Account or the MCA, a bold initiative supporting economic growth and self-sufficiency in the world's poorest nations. I applaud MCA's focus on reforming poor nations that have demonstrated achievement in ruling justly, investing in people, and encouraging economic freedom. MCA should have a special emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region of the world with over 290 million people living on less than one dollar per day. Several countries in sub-Saharan Africa are successfully addressing some of the most critical developmental challenges of our century, HIV/ AIDS, poverty eradication, political reform and economic liberalization. As our Nation prepares to launch MCA and make this important contribution to human and economic development, we can draw inspiration from countries such Uganda. Uganda progress demonstrates that the developmental challenges confronting Africa are immense but not insurmountable. Uganda was recognized by the World Bank/IMF as the first IDA or International Development Association country to adopt a comprehensive and participatory national strategy to eradicate poverty. As a result, Uganda's poverty rate dropped from 56 percent to 35 percent over the past 10 years. During this same period, Uganda has maintained a growth rate of over 6.5 percent. Uganda is leading the developing world in addressing its HIV/AIDS rate and its infection rate which fell from 30 percent 10 years ago to less than 7 percent today. Over the last 12 years primary school enrollment in Uganda increased from 40 percent to 99 percent. This transformation helped Uganda to further distinguish itself as the first country to qualify for the World Bank's Heavily Indebted Poor Country debt relief initiative or HIPC. Uganda's success is attributed to strong leadership and the government's establishment of broad-based public-private partnerships in health care, education, and economic development in rural communities and municipalities throughout the Nation. The number of registered nongovernmental organizations and faith- based groups working with local government administrators has more than doubled over the past 5 years. Uganda's successful development model also includes empowering women in government, in civil society and in enterprise development. The number of women in the governments rose from 22 percent to 45 percent in 4 years and a woman now serves as Vice President of Uganda. Mr. Speaker, Uganda's record of achievement reflects good governance. President Museveni and his team have successfully transformed a war- torn and ethically divided country into one with strong democratic institutions. Uganda held successive elections in 1996 and 2001 that were certified as free and fair by national and international bodies. Additionally, the government has made the issue of multi-party system a transparent debate with the referendum in 2000 that was also certified as free and fair by the international community. Voter turnout in Uganda is also admirable with the vast majority of eligible voters consistently turning out to vote. Uganda is now engaged in a national process to further refine its flourishing democracy. While corruption continues to challenge Uganda, the government is making strides with the adoption of an aggressive anti-corruption strategy through the independent Office of the Inspector General. In partnership with the World Bank, Uganda instituted reforms to broaden the enforcement authority of the IGG and strengthen its ability to fight corruption. Public officials in Uganda must now among other things declare their wealth upon taking office and throughout the process of their holding office. Mr. Speaker, Uganda's record speaks for itself. The Millennium Challenge Account should build on the African Growth and Opportunity Act. It should strengthen the capacity of progressive poor nations, such as Uganda, to realize further gains as they proceed on the arduous but promising path of reform and development.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing today the best of the leadership of the civil rights movement, that of the past and the present, and that of the present and the future, in John Lewis and in Kendrick Meek, a young Congressman who envisioned this hour for America. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the many students that traveled all over the country to rally in support of affirmative action. Particularly I would like to acknowledge the many students from my own State, Louisiana, who made the journey. Students from Xavier, Southern, Grambling, Dillard, and throughout Louisiana, let me say I am very proud of you. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ``Everyone can be great because everyone can serve.'' It is in this spirit that I have dedicated much of my life to public service, and I found it very encouraging that on April 1, 3 days before the anniversary of Dr. King's death, thousands of students honored him and all that he fought for by actively getting involved and actively serving as well. Mr. Speaker, it is shocking to observe that 141 years ago, virtually every African American in this country would be somebody else's property. Just think about that: unable to earn, unable to learn, unable to hold wealth. It is this legacy of subjugation, of discrimination, of denial, over 400 years of segregation, that justifies affirmative action today. If the government, and it did, took race into account to create this legacy of disabilities, then it is the government's responsibility today to take race into account to obliterate them. So it is particularly disappointing that 40 years later, after Dr. King's historic march to Washington, that we as a democratic Nation are still struggling to realize his dream; and 140 years after the emancipation of slavery, there still exists two Americas, separate and unequal, one black and one white. As one student's sign read: ``Surely 400 years of slavery is worth 20 points.'' Without affirmative action, these disparities will likely widen, not only in education, but also in employment and property ownership and income levels. Yet, as Dr. King noted, ``Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror, because while they agree that the Negro,'' as he said, ``should be granted equality, they believe that he should ask for nothing more.'' I cannot tell you how proud I am of all our young men and women who have worked tirelessly in participating in efforts to demonstrate supports of the University of Michigan. Students of all races around the country have worked in some capacity to protest this attack on equal opportunity, realizing that any successful attempt would be a major setback for our society as a whole. Numerous other students took action and demonstrated and spoke out on their respective college campuses, such as my daughter Akilah and other young people at her college who did not travel to Washington. I was especially pleased to join the Black Law Students Association from my alma mater, Harvard Law School, as one of several counsel on an amicus brief. This brief was submitted on behalf of the Harvard Black Law Students Association, as well as those from Yale and Stanford. As I stated then, I believe that we live in a country that affords us great liberties. However, for some Americans, the pursuit of these freedoms is hindered by tremendous barriers. Opportunities for some are limited because of America's sins of the past. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to make conscious attempts to right these wrongs. Hence, initiatives like affirmative action. Affirmative action in education programs, such as the one at the University of Michigan, looks beyond students' limitations and sees their potential, potential that may be realized if presented the opportunity. More importantly, affirmative actions, like the one at the University of Michigan, benefits not just African American students, but all students. Mr. Speaker, it promotes a diverse student body, which provides an education that equips our future leaders, both black and white, with the capabilities to successfully function in a diverse society. Mr. Speaker, it was our hope during the civil rights movement many years ago that we were fighting this battle now so that our sons and daughters would not have to fight it later. And though I am dismayed that still this fight goes on, even today, I am heartened by the tremendous number of fresh soldiers for civil rights, eager, active and capable of engaging in the battle and winning the struggle. I commend them all. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) for yielding to me.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is on the verge of opening a new front in the global war on terror. It is a front fraught with peril. It is a front that may send thousands of young Americans, men and women, to uproot a ruthless dictator that has committed unspeakable acts against his own people and wrought havoc on the world. No decision is more difficult, more wrenching for a U.S. President, the Congress, or the American people than to commit our soldiers and our Nation's prestige to a military conflagration. It is for this reason that we must consider all possible diplomatic and military options short of war. As noted 19th century French author Guy de Maupassant wrote, ``Every government has as much of a duty to avoid war as a ship's captain has to avoid a shipwreck.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Spratt substitute to House Joint Resolution 114. It offers the best and most certain way to achieve our objectives of disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and the best chance of avoiding a hasty decision to go to war. It is a sensible, prudent approach to managing the use of force by our country. Eleven years ago, then President George Bush created one of the most impressive multinational coalitions that the world has ever seen. He very wisely determined that it was not in our Nation's interest to act unilaterally to liberate Kuwait. The Spratt substitute is informed by that experience. It limits the opportunity of our current President for unilateral action to liberate Iraq. I am pleased that President George W. Bush has engaged the U.N. during the current crisis. I am grateful that he has recognized that our Nation should work with the United Nations Security Council and allow weapons inspections to go forward and this process to occur. I am relieved the President said that war is not inevitable. And I am encouraged that he has said that he would give a diplomatic course to disarm Iraq through a U.N. process every chance to work ahead of using force. Mr. Speaker, the Spratt resolution guarantees the President's stated intentions are made law. As set forth in the Spratt substitute, our Armed Forces should take action only against Iraq only in conjunction with a new U.N. Security Council resolution that calls for the complete elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. If the U.N. Security Council resolution is violated or the U.N. does not act, the President would need approval from Congress for unilateral action, and then only after making certain important certifications to Congress. Thus, this vote would occur only if the President has certified that further U.N. action is not forthcoming, force remains the only viable option, a broadbased international coalition is being formed, and the global war on terrorism would not be adversely affected by an Iraqi invasion. Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as prudent haste. It is an understatement to say that we should take the time for calm deliberation by the Congress in a proceeding uncomplicated by any question other than whether we should commit to a course of action that may cost a heavy toll in human lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the good will of the international community. I urge support of the Spratt substitute. But what is our course if Spratt is not adopted? What then is the best course for us to address the threat of terrorism and the threat of the use of chemical and biological weapons in the hands of a brutal dictator? What is our best chance to evoke the response from Iraq that will lead to unfettered weapons inspections and eventual disarmament? With long and careful thought I have come to the conclusion that the leadership of Iraq will only submit to a credible disarmament process based on inspections if it is faced with a credible threat of the use of force. It is the use of force authorization that I pray will never be used. And it is the use of force authorization that should never be used unilaterally. After Spratt, H.J. Res. 114 provides the only remaining prudent chance to stem these new threats of unthinkable horrific terror that our Nation and the world now face, threats that we are now only just beginning to understand. It is a chance that I believe our country through this Congress must commit to take at this time.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to join the House in honoring Congresswoman Corrine ``Lindy'' Boggs. From her work here, in the halls of Congress, to her days as ambassador to the Vatican, Congresswoman Boggs has served our country and served as an inspiration to all of us who followed in her footsteps. As one who was privileged to succeed her in Congress in representing Louisiana's Second Congressional District, I have been particularly inspired by her work. Congresswoman Boggs has enjoyed a well-deserved outpouring of love and gratitude in this, the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Congressional Women's Caucus. With a collective voice, we say thanks to a woman who helped shape the voice of women in Congress. Since its founding, the Congressional Women's Caucus has championed issues that affect the lives of women and families. The women's caucus has fought for gender equality in the workplace and in schools. It has worked to promote women's health issues and protect victims of domestic and violent crimes. From Congresswoman Boggs' vision to today, the Congressional Women's Caucus has become the primary voice of women in Congress. Thank you, Congresswoman Boggs for your work and dedication to the people of Louisiana and of this country. Thank you for your dedication to the women of this country. And, thank you for your leadership and inspiration. I am honored to represent you in the Congress and to serve the people of the 2nd District of Louisiana as you did so honorably for so many years.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened and disappointed by the action of the Committee on Rules and by the response of many of my Republican colleagues to the resolution that I have filed. Just a few months ago, I joined with many of them in open discussions about the benefits of free trade to our country and to a global economy. Yet today, they turn their back on all those arguments that they so embraced just 2 months ago during the trade promotion authority discussion; and no matter how they cast the action on this rule today, if they vote for the rule and table the resolution and prevent us from having a debate on it, what they are doing nonetheless, no matter how they cover it up, is they are voting a protectionist line when they have taken quite the opposite position just a few months ago as I said, and routinely, throughout this Congress. What is happening here is what has been described here by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I have a resolution which is quite clear. It purports to ratchet down the President's tariff decision to protect the steel industry from 30 percent tariffs, generally speaking, to 20 percent tariffs under the ITC recommendation. It lowers the tariffs in almost every case; and while one can argue that it still maintains a 201 result, and it does, for those who want to see 201 action, it permits that; but it simply does it at a lower level. What I said in committee is there is no way to undo the President's decision by action on this floor. The only thing that can be done is what is being attempted here, that is, to reduce it down to what the ITC recommended. That is the only legal course that is available. One cannot go to court or to an administrative action. This is it. So when I say in committee that what we are doing here is not fixing the problem, but making a bad situation less bad, that is precisely what is available to us. That is all that we can do. That is not the ultimate outcome I would desire, but that is all that is available to us. This decision, Mr. Speaker, in just a few short months has rankled the ire of all of our trading partners in the European community, in Australia, in Japan, in Korea and China, in Brazil. Almost every corner of the world, they are threatened and are now imposing sanctions against our products. The European Union has estimated it will cost $2.4 billion in losses to them just based on what we have done here. Added to our fish problem that is already $4.5 billion, how on God's earth can we respond to these extreme and very high costs that are being imposed by this action the President has taken? The President is talking out of both sides of his mouth on this question. He says that he is for free trade, and yet he wants to restrict free trade when it is convenient for, as some have said, political purposes. The columnist that generally favors President Bush on all these matters, George Will, writes quite candidly it is the worst protection action taken by a President in decades. He cannot even think of one that is worse. He also said that it is a billion dollar tax increase on those folks who buy automobiles alone and estimates an $8 billion tax increase on consumers across the country because what happens is we are raising prices on steel products across the board, whether they are cars or toasters or vacuum cleaners. Whatever is made of steel, the prices are going to rise. They are already rising. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, this whole issue of free trade is supposed to be about consumers in this country, and we are going to saddle them with $8 billion in new costs that they are going to have to pay; and in the end it is going to end up with a result that is worse than we ever imagined because we are now just getting out of, what some people say, getting out of a recession. We are going to drive this country right back into a deeper one because every one steel job we purport to save here, the estimates are we lose 10 in other industries. So with the stevedores we will lose jobs up and down the line of those folks who make steel products. We will have layoffs because the business cannot afford to carry on with the price for steel so high, and so it is not a good trade-off for this country to save one steel job for every 10 jobs we lose in some other industry. It is a very bad trade-off. I would like to urge this body to vote ``no'' on this resolution on this rule today for the simple reason we deserve a debate, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has said. Whether my colleagues are for or against this, this matter deserves a debate on the floor today, and I would urge the Members of this body to do just that. These steel tariffs the President has imposed are also not WTO consistent. That is pretty clear. There was a decision in a Korean case involving a line pipe that made quite the case that unless there are recent upsurges in the importation of a product that the 201 action does not apply. Here we have had steel importations going down the last 4 years, from 1998 to now. The better action here would have been to find some way to fix the number of imports that can come into the country at what was the pre-1998 levels. That would have been the sensible and supportable action. That did not happen here, Mr. Speaker; and therefore this bill is not designed to fix any problem, but it is designed for political reasons, not supported by any economist in the country, not even supported by economists in the White House, not even supported by the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. It is unsupportable economically, and I urge this body to vote ``no'' on the resolution.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) for his remarks in support of the resolution and in opposition to the process being used here. Many of the speakers who have preceded me have talked about the ITC decision, the merits of it, that it was a 6-member vote, 3 on the Democratic side and 3 on the Republican side supporting it. If the resolution passes, the ITC decision is in effect. This does not undo the ITC decision because it cannot. Honestly, I wish it could; but it cannot. The ITC decision will stand if this resolution should pass. What is most egregious this morning is not whether you disagree with the position on the merits of the resolution, but whether we are going to have a debate on this matter or not. That, it seems to me, is the undeniable wrongness that is being accomplished here. I believe it is a shameful process, and in some respects it is a very hypocritical process. I have no problem with the idea that steelworkers need relief. I think the relief ought to come from making sure that we continue our work on eliminating the overcapacity in not only our markets but the world markets. I think it comes in making sure that the quotas are right for pre- 1988 importation levels, and I think it is also important to think about the legacy cost issues which are not addressed by this resolution and the President's action, to see what we can do to make sure that the $13 billion legacy costs that are out there get taken care of. That is not the subject of any of these discussions, yet they are talked about by Members who oppose this resolution as if they were a part of what we are dealing with here. Today on this vote the only issue is whether there will be a full debate on this question today or not. How in the world can the House oppose a full debate on a matter of such dimensions as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) has described, as I have described, and as others have described? It is a matter which has put the President's economic advisers on one page opposing the President's action. Some political advisors say it is a good idea, but his economic advisers do not support it. It is not justifiable on any economic ground. Give us a chance to debate. Vote no on the resolution. Madam Speaker, I will move for the previous question when the vote is called.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Madam Speaker, at the end of this discussion, I will urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment provides that the underlying resolution, H.J. Res. 84, disapproving the action taken by the President under section 203 of the Trade Act, will be considered by the House separately with a clean vote, and not simply tabled as the rule provides. Madam Speaker, whether or not the Members agree with the President's action on this issue of considerable importance, we should all agree that this deserves to be considered under the process that was set up in section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974. That act allows the House to take an up or down vote on the President's action. This convoluted process of tabling the disapproval resolution before we even get to a vote completely short-circuits the regular process. Vote no on the previous question so we can all vote up or down on H.J. Res. 84. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. JEFFERSON. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, making this $1.35 trillion tax cut permanent is bad policy, bad for the economy, bad for the American people, and it is bad timing. This bill is not about tax cuts, it is priorities. Not Democratic or Republican priorities, but the priorities of the American people. Members favor tax cuts. The American taxpayers favor tax cuts, but our job in Congress is to enact sensible and affordable tax cuts. We should repeal the AMT because it is a stealth tax increase on millions of unsuspecting Americans. Many of us believe we should enact business tax cuts like depreciation reform to stimulate the economy. Mr. Speaker, in good conscience, how can we support legislation that robs Congress of the resources today that we all know are needed to keep our promises to the American people. Just last year, a $5 trillion surplus made everything seem possible. But even with then, with that rosy scenario, Congress knew it could not see clear to afford permanent tax cuts. That is why it sunset them in the first place. What has changed in a year? Everything, and none of it argues for making tax cuts permanent. Mr. Speaker, if we pass these tax cuts, we are making a big mistake. It is plain wrong for our economy and for the American people. It is terrible timing. Oppose this legislation.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), who has been a real leader in forging a bipartisan effort on this bill.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), who has been a real partner in this effort.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson).

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I think I thank the gentleman for the extra 30 seconds. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his efforts to reach a bipartisan consensus on this bill and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for the comity that they have shown us in our efforts, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) for the unique partnership that we have been able to forge on this bill. I rise in strong support of the legislation. Why should Democrats support this bill? I think the first reason, Mr. Speaker, is because of our legacy. Earlier this week, Jeff Sachs commented in the Wall Street Journal that Democrats have a strong legacy of promoting democracy and free trade, highlighting the efforts of Woodrow Wilson, F.D.R.'s initiation of trade liberalization in the Great Depression, Truman's postwar launch of multilateral trade in the GATT, JFK's call for deep tariff reductions, and Bill Clinton's completion of the Uruguay Round and the leadership in founding of the World Trade Organization. Regarding the multilateral trade negotiations, Sachs pointed out that while this round is being launched under a Republican administration, it might well be completed by a Democratic one. The Dillon Round was launched by Eisenhower and finished by Kennedy. The Tokyo Round was launched by Nixon, but completed by Carter, and the Uruguay Round was launched by Reagan and completed by Clinton. History tells us, Mr. Speaker, this issue is about how our Nation engages the world over trade issues through the institution of the Presidency, not about a particular President. That is why I supported Fast Track under former President Bush, former President Clinton; and that is why I support granting Trade Promotion Authority now. Why should Democrats support this bill? Because it advances Democratic trade principles in a meaningful and balanced way. For the first time, ILO Core Labor standards will now be considered on par with commercial interests in the context of trade agreements and negotiations. For the first time, our proposal provides meaningful ways for the U.S. to assist countries in improving their labor standards. Principal negotiating objectives require the President to assist in building the capacities for countries to respect worker rights, the right of association, the right to bargain collectively, a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor, a minimum age for employment of children, and acceptable worker conditions. The bill also requires countries to enforce the labor and environmental laws. Our bill includes substantive and enforceable standards on labor and the environment.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. Why should Democrats support this bill? Because this debate is not one of pure philosophy. It has meaningful and powerful implications for the United States and the world, and we can be sure that the world is watching and waiting for our leadership on this important issue.