Jim McCrery

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this free trade agreement. Madam Speaker, I would like to close by making several points about the value of our free trade agreements and the value of this agreement with Peru in particular. First, free trade agreements implemented under Trade Promotion Authority have been a tremendous success story in expanding U.S. exports and reducing the U.S. trade deficit. Let me point to a very telling statistic: the U.S. trade balance with the 12 countries for which FTAs have been implemented under TPA improved by an overwhelming 162 percent between 2001 and 2006, going from a trade deficit to a trade surplus of $13.9 billion with these countries. Our free trade agreements work. Second, our free trade agreements create jobs. Let me give you an example. Whirlpool, a company responsible for thousands of jobs in places like Iowa and Ohio, estimates that once the Peru agreement is implemented, its sales to Peru will increase by 400 percent. Current high Peruvian tariffs hamstring Whirlpool's ability to supply its stores in Peru with U.S.-made goods. Instead, Whirlpool primarily supplies stores in Peru with goods made in its manufacturing facility in Brazil to escape those high duties. This agreement will eliminate Peruvian tariffs for U.S. products and will allow Whirlpool to increase exports of its U.S.-made products at the expense of Brazilian goods. That means more jobs in the United States, not Brazil. Here's another example: Our FTAs, including the Peru agreement, increase opportunities for express delivery services, both because there are more packages to ship and also because such U.S. services providers will enjoy liberalized access to their markets. UPS reports that for every 40 new packages that it ships per day, it must hire a new U.S. worker. That new worker will almost certainly be a union employee, as UPS is the largest employer of Teamsters. Third, our free trade agreements support small and medium sized businesses. There are over 19,000 small and medium sized U.S. businesses currently exporting to the three Latin countries with whom we have pending FTAs. Nearly 81 percent of the U.S. companies that exported merchandise to Peru in 2005 were small and medium-sized businesses. These companies, which will see reduced tariffs when they export goods under these agreements, are the engine of our economy and are powerful job creators. Finally, the Peru agreement will end one-way trade and will finally give U.S. companies equal access. Today, without agreement, Peru has almost complete duty-free access to the U.S. market, as it has since 1991, when Congress gave such access through Andean preferences--and which this Congress extended last June with 365 Members voting in favor. For all of these reasons, in my view, if you are concerned about trade deficits or american jobs, you must support this agreement. Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate my comments from last night: I am delighted that Chairman Rangel and I are able to stand together today as partners in strong support of this agreement. If it weren't for his leadership, we would not be here today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.'' At this time, Madam Speaker, for closing for our side, I would recognize the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Weller.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first want to endorse the remarks of my colleague, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel. Indeed, had it not been for his efforts and Chairman Levin's efforts, we would not be here on the floor about to pass the Peru Free Trade Agreement. There is no reason why this country should not have a bipartisan trade policy that is endorsed by both the executive branch and the legislative branch of government. For too long, for whatever reasons, we have avoided trying to create that agreement that a majority of both major political parties in this country could stand behind and promote breaking down barriers to trade around the world. I am hopeful that through the chairman's work and through Chairman Levin's work with the administration, we have at least gotten to first base on creating a policy that will allow us to move forward as one Nation trying to create a freer flow of goods and services around the world for the betterment, not just of this country, but for all the world. I want to echo the words of Chairman Rangel and say that I couldn't agree more with his words or his sentiment. I also want to express my appreciation for the majority staff and the minority staff of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee for lending their considerable talents to this effort. I think it's safe to say that without their efforts, without their cooperation, we wouldn't be here today. We wouldn't have the bipartisan framework that we announced back in May to allow us to get this far. I want to thank the staff for their hard work. Needless to say, I rise in very strong support of this free trade agreement. I am glad we are here. I wish we had been here sooner, but we are here today, and it's a great day for that reason. On May 10, precisely, Congress and the administration established that framework for advancing the four free trade agreements the United States has negotiated, Peru, Colombia, Panama and Korea. The Peru Free Trade Agreement is the first of those four trade agreements that Congress is considering. As the Speaker said earlier, at least we have that framework in place that can allow us to look at free trade agreements that have been negotiated. Then each one, yes, of course, must be considered on its own merits. At least we have that framework in place, and that will allow us to, I am very hopeful, consider later in this Congress the Colombia FTA, the Panama FTA and the Korea FTA. Trade is often blamed for the loss of jobs in this country, and certainly we know that there are losses of some jobs directly related to trade. But the truth is that trade creates a great many jobs in this country, and those jobs generally are high-paying jobs. Trade also significantly increases the standard of living for Americans, as well as the peoples of other nations around the world by providing us with a wide variety of affordable goods, goods that are not only affordable but available. Anybody who appreciates fresh produce in the winter or coffee with their breakfast should be a fan of free trade. Too often trade is portrayed as only having negative consequences for the United States' economy. But the facts are clear that today, more than ever, trade is the engine of economic growth in the United States. As a senior economist at Goldman Sachs was saying last week, ``Trade is the only thing holding up manufacturing.'' This is why passing this legislation, and then, I hope, moving expeditiously to pass the free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and Korea is so critical to the economic well-being of the United States. By the same token, we should also make sure that any workers adversely affected by trade have access to training and support. I am hopeful we will move in this Congress a bipartisan trade adjustment assistance reauthorization. In light of the significance of trade to the United States' economy, Congress should promote our continued economic growth by passing the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Today, virtually all imports from Peru come into the United States duty-free, while United States exports of goods and services to Peru face significant barriers, tariffs in Peru. It's a one-way street in favor of Peru today because of the trade preferences that are in effect. This legislation before the House today will create a two-way street so that our goods and services can go to Peru with the same preferences, no tariffs, or very low tariffs that Peru goods and services come today to the United States. Not passing this agreement would perpetuate the competitive disadvantage faced by United States exporters into Peru. Therefore, the impact of passing this bill should be crystal clear. This trade agreement will result in increased United States exports and an improvement in the United States trade balance with Peru. I had the opportunity to travel to Peru recently with several of my colleagues and Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez earlier this fall. I saw firsthand how important this agreement is to Peru and to the entire region and how this agreement will strengthen an important ally of ours in that region. Peru is resisting the efforts of Venezuela's authoritarian President Hugo Chavez to wage a war of words and ideas in Latin America against the United States. In fact, Chavez blatantly intervened in Peru's democratic elections, espousing sentiments against the United States and the principles for which America stands, democracy, free markets, liberty. On June 4, 2006, Peruvian voters decisively rejected Chavez's candidate in Peru and instead chose Alan Garcia to be their next president. The election was a sign of support from Peru that they reject Chavez's fiery populism and instead continue supporting Peru's current policies of economic engagement with the United States and market reform. Congress should acknowledge the support of the people of Peru and pass this legislation by a strong margin. We should then turn to the remaining FTAs that have been negotiated. I hope that the bipartisan spirit that resulted in the May 10 framework and the imminent passage of this legislation can help us make clear to all Americans that trade is a benefit for this country and that we must continue to pursue trade agreements that open markets for United States exports or risk letting our companies and workers being left behind in the global economy. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 5 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. Ramstad).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, be allowed to allocate the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, the amendment I offer, along with Mr. McKeon, is a substitute for the bill that is before the House this afternoon. Our amendment would reform and reauthorize for 5 years the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, and we believe our substitute would strengthen and improve not only TAA but the Workforce Investment Act program as well. Our bill would better equip workers affected by trade, globalization, and other causes of job loss with the skills needed to adjust to changes in the global economy. Our Republican alternative consists of four related pieces of legislation separately introduced this year. Some of these are under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee; others are under the jurisdiction of the Education and Workforce Committee. Among other things, our bill would provide more flexible training options to get people into training sooner and back to good jobs more quickly. For example, we've heard some discussion about the plant closing notice. The bill before the House this afternoon would expand the amount of time from 60 days to 90 days that a plant company would have to give notice to employees of either plant closure or a substantial layoff at that plant. Under the current constriction of TAA, a worker in that plant wishing to, perhaps, go to job training at night after he gets off work, waiting for the expiration of the 60-day notice or the 90-day notice could not qualify for TAA training benefits. Our substitute would correct that and allow that worker to take advantage of trade adjustment assistance while he is still working in that plant that he knows is going to be closed and where he would lose his job. Number two, our bill would continue the health coverage tax credit over our bill's 5-year life and increase the premium subsidy from 65 percent to 70 percent. Mr. Levin earlier talked about how the current 65-percent credit has not been enough to entice a high number of laid- off workers under TAA to claim that credit and get their health care, their health insurance through that method, and he is right. The take- up rate on this benefit has been lower than we expected, and so some adjustment is necessary. Whether that adjustment, the appropriate one to provide the right level of enticement, is 70 percent, or in their bill 85 percent, we don't know. We are willing to go up on that. We think it is appropriate to do that. We've included 70 percent in our bill. And the House should know that that means that a person who is laid off and who is eligible for trade adjustment assistance can get, under our substitute, 70 percent of the premium paid by the government. So, that laid-off worker would only have to come up with 30 percent of the premium to continue coverage under COBRA or to get some other qualified insurance plan. Number three, our bill would convert the wage insurance pilot program for older workers into a transitional wage supplement for all TAA workers, regardless of their age. It would be allowed for any worker who became reemployed at low wages, low wages being defined as minimum wage plus $2.40 an hour, and allow them to obtain, at the same time they were getting this wage supplement, the health care tax credit and additional trade adjustment training, which right now, if a person goes back to work, under TAA he is not eligible for those benefits. So our bill would expand the availability of the health care tax credit and job training under TAA for people who go back to work and who are receiving a wage supplement. Number four, our bill would require indicators of performance to evaluate the Trade Adjustment Assistance programs and their results. Currently, TAA programs have no measure of performance, no way for us to tell if these programs are being effective or if taxpayer dollars are being wasted. Our bill would put in place those indicators of performance to give us the idea of the efficiency of these programs. Number five, in provisions affecting the unemployment insurance program, our bill would allow States to apply for cost-neutral waivers of current rules to operate wage insurance and other demonstration programs to better assist unemployed workers in returning to work. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard some in opposition to the Republican substitute say that this would allow States to do away with their unemployment insurance benefits. We certainly didn't intend that in our substitute; we don't think that the language would allow that. But in any event, a State would have to get a waiver from the executive branch to take advantage of these provisions, and I doubt seriously if any executive branch under any President would allow a State to just do away with its unemployment insurance benefits. So, I don't really think that's a valid argument in opposition to this increased flexibility that could assist unemployed workers. And number six, our bill also creates a new trade-related category for qualification under the new markets tax credit. Businesses and communities experiencing adverse economic effects due to trade would qualify for an additional $500 million of new markets tax credits. These tax credits, we believe, would bring significant amounts of private capital into these economically disadvantaged areas to create jobs to replace those that had been lost due to trade. Mr. Speaker, we believe this substitute is a much more cost-effective approach than that contained in H.R. 3920 and would help all Americans, not just those who lose jobs to trade, get the skills needed to find productive new jobs. I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just one more time to try to rebut the characterization of the other side of our substitute with respect to training. The information that we have, and we think it is reliable, is that no State ran out of training money, but obviously the majority has different information and at some point during the process we would love to sit down with them and examine their data and our information to see if there is some way to reconcile those and arrive at a conclusion that we both can embrace. We have not had that opportunity other than the limited debate we had in committee and now here on the floor, and we are hearing the same thing on the floor we heard in committee and so we haven't reconciled those differences. But clearly there are differences in the data that each of us thinks is reliable.

Mr. McCRERY. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. McCRERY. Yes. As I said, I think each side has information that it deems reliable, but we have attempted to try to reconcile those two different sets of data. I am hopeful we will do that before this process is over.

Mr. McCRERY. Absolutely.

Mr. McCRERY. Absolutely. I do understand that. We, of course, as you know, question the need right now to include all those additional people, as I have talked about before, with respect to services workers. But our substitute with respect to the universe of people presently covered under law by the Trade Adjustment Assistance, we think the training money in our substitute is more than adequate to cover the needs of that population with respect to training. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker. The gentleman from Washington only has 2 minutes remaining, but are you ready to close? Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I'll close for our side.

Mr. McCRERY. Oh, well, thank you for the kind offer. I'm happy to close at this time, Mr. Speaker. I think we've had a good debate today on the different approaches that the majority and minority have at this point on the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. We certainly understand the importance of providing an array of benefits to people in this country who lose their jobs because of trade, and certainly Chairman Rangel and I have talked and agreed that it's necessary for Congress to take action and to make sure that people in this country know that as we expand trade, that the benefits of trade expansion will be uneven. And there will be some in this country who will lose their jobs because of that expansion of trade, and we need to be prepared to assure those people that we will help them give them that helping hand to lift them up after they've lost that job and find training, education, whatever is necessary to get them a new job if they desire, and in the meantime give them benefits that will allow them to take care of themselves and their families. So we agree on the importance of this program. I had hoped we would have had more give-and-take over the last couple of months with respect to crafting a bipartisan approach to reauthorizing the program, not only because the program was originally a bipartisan program, but also because we are trying, some of us on both sides of the aisle are trying to rebuild that bipartisan coalition for the expansion of trade around the world, knocking down trade barriers to our goods and services, to make the playing field more level for United States producers of products and services. And as we attempt to create or recreate that bipartisan coalition for the expansion of trade, we understand that one leg of that effort has got to be reauthorizing and strengthening not only TAA, but perhaps even going beyond the current universe of beneficiaries of a Trade Adjustment Assistance program and looking at enhancing the benefits of all workers who lose their jobs, not just because of trade but perhaps due to things that are more in the rubric of globalization but not specifically trade. So I'm glad that we have this bill before the House today. I'm hopeful that we can reauthorize in some form this very important program before the end of this year. I regret that I cannot support the majority bill that's on the floor today. I think we have offered a reasonable substitute and I'm hopeful that the House will adopt our substitute, and then as the process moves through the Senate and to the President, we can perhaps refine that product some more and get a bipartisan agreement. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the substitute. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. 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. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I return the compliment to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for helping to create an atmosphere on our committee which has allowed us to make great progress in the area of trade, as evidenced by today's 39-0 vote in favor of advancing the Peru Free Trade Agreement. The chairman and I have talked many times this year about the need to have a more viable assistance program or network of programs at the Federal level as well as in the private sector to assist workers in our country who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, who lose their jobs because of trade or because of globalization more generally. The chairman has been very good at listening to our suggestions from the minority and considering those. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the bill that is before the House today does not reflect any of our suggestions or proposals that we have shared with the majority; and that's unfortunate, although I have been assured by the chairman that as this bill works its way through the rest of the process, our ideas may yet receive consideration and perhaps inclusion. So I remain hopeful of that. But the bill that is before us today does not contain those and it contains, I think, a number of weaknesses which compel me to not support the bill that is before the House today but instead to support a substitute which I will offer later in the debate. In talking about the majority bill that's on the floor today as a threshold matter, and the chairman knows this because I have talked with him about it, I think we should be considering trade adjustment assistance, unemployment insurance, modification of those programs in the context of trade opportunities generally for United States workers, farmers and businesses. That is to say, I think we should be considering modifications to our assistance network in the context of the pending free trade agreements that are before the Congress and the expired trade promotion authority. Unfortunately, we are not doing that. We are considering TAA in isolation. The alternative that I offer today would reauthorize trade adjustment assistance for 5 years. To help workers gain the skills needed to adapt to the changing global economy, our bill would restructure TAA from a predominantly income support program that offers training into a job retraining program that improves access to more flexible training and continues to provide income support, health care, and other benefits. The contrasts between the substitute I will offer and H.R. 3920, the bill on the floor, are quite stark. For example, H.R. 3920 would pointlessly keep people in trade adjustment assistance longer. Our substitute would provide more flexible training options to get people back to work sooner, including by training before layoff and training part-time and giving people training scholarships to use over 4 years. H.R. 3920 would increase TAA spending by billions of dollars, but would not require any further accountability on how program funds are spent. Our bill introduces some elements of accountability in that spending. H.R. 3920 would greatly expand TAA and, I think, exacerbate the inefficiencies in the program today. Our bill would better integrate TAA and other Federal programs to make more services available to all workers. H.R. 3920 would extend benefits to public sector workers and submit State and local officials to subpoenas and legal proceedings to comply. Our bill would maintain the focus of the program on private sector workers. H.R. 3920 would greatly expand the health coverage tax credit, but then terminate that credit in 2 years. I don't know exactly why the majority chose to terminate this health care tax credit in 2 years. They have, in way of explanation, said that they think the current way the tax credit is structured may not be the best way to do it so they may use these 2 years to come up with another plan. That may be; but the fact is that the bill terminates the health care tax credit in 2 years. They also increase the credit from 65 percent to 85 percent which I believe is not warranted. Our substitute would increase the credit from 65 percent to 70 percent, and would continue that credit for the entire 5-year life of the bill. There are other differences. One that we think is notable is the new markets tax credit that we would expand. We think that is a more efficient way to address communities that have been directly impacted by trade. The tax credit bonds in the majority bill we think are untested. They could be subject to abuse and uses that are not really related to impacts of trade. I also want to express my clear opposition to how the majority pays for the $10 billion cost of their bill. First, they would delay interest allocation rules that this Congress enacted in 2004. We did that to address an unfairness for American companies that do business overseas. The effect of delaying the application of that change that we made would be to make United States companies less competitive. Second, they would unnecessarily, in our view, increase Federal unemployment payroll taxes by extending the 0.2 percent FUTA surtax that is due to expire at the end of this year for another 3 years. I regret that this bill does not reflect what I hoped to be our bipartisan approach to trade adjustment assistance or to our trade agenda beyond the Peru FTA, and I reluctantly will oppose it and support the substitute. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from North Carolina, I was moved by Mr. Miller's presentation a few minutes ago and would tell the Speaker, if he gets a chance, to tell the gentleman that if they would look at some of the provisions we have in our bill, it would make it, in fact, easier for all those people he is concerned about to get the training and the retraining under TAA, that those changes are not included in H.R. 3920 or in the bill that came out of Education and the Workforce. With that, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 3920, pursuant to House Resolution 781, the amendment printed in part B of House Report 110-417 be modified by the form I've placed at the desk.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time for each side.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. CAMP of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).