Charles Melancon

Mr. MELANCON

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, first, before I start, you are doing a wonderful job this morning. Mr. Speaker, last week, we learned how determined the majority party is to approve any Social Security reform bill as long as it includes privatization. Despite the fact that the American people have already rejected President Bush's privatization proposal, it appears that the Congressional Republicans are not willing yet to let privatization die. The American people should know that this latest proposal is similar to the President's plan in several respects: First, the new proposal would divert payroll contributions that are now being held for future beneficiaries into these risky, private accounts. By merely diverting Social Security funds, the plan would still force large benefit cuts on today's seniors and tomorrow's beneficiaries. And, just like the President's plan, the Republican legislative proposal does nothing to address the real issue facing Social Security, and that is solvency. Mr. Speaker, the American people have seen what can happen to pensions and the stock market and how important a guaranteed Social Security benefit is to their retirement security. It is time that our Republican colleagues realize that privatization just is not going to fly, no matter how you package it.

Mr. MELANCON

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard of the 3-legged stool that each of us should build when we are looking towards our retirement. Two of these legs, pensions and individual savings, are the responsibility of the individual and the employee. Mr. Speaker, as events over the last month have shown, it is clear that the pension leg of the stool is being seriously undermined by companies who are striking their responsibilities to live up to the promises they made to their employees. The best example of this comes in the form of United Airlines who sold out its employees the first chance it got as a way to come out of bankruptcy. Employees who have been promised $100,000 a year pensions will now have to settle for $45,000 a year, a dramatic cut in their promised benefits. That may still seem like a lot of money, but these employees were promised a lot more, and they are not going to receive it. Couple that with the giant market crash in 2000 when the stock market lost $9 billion. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is a lot of uncertainty right now, and maybe that is why Americans are so determined to keep one thing that is certain, that is, Social Security from being privatized.

Mr. MELANCON

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 251, Had I been on the floor, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

Mr. MELANCON

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I stand here today, and if sugar is such a great and wonderful and high-priced subsidized commodity, someone needs to call Hugh Andre or Nooni Duplantis or call the management at the two sugar mills that shut down in Louisiana. They did not shut down because they were making money. These boys are not having problems getting their production loans because they are making money. They are having problems because they are having a tough time making the bottom line, and it is just not working. When we start talking about free trade, we are getting things confused here. Sugar in the GATT gave up 15 percent of the imports allowed in this country under the agreement with the United States Government that that would be it, no further depletions in the future agreements. Yet every time there is an agreement, sugar is in it. Do the Members know that there is not another agreement in a third world developing country that grows sugar, that sugar has been included? Canada got out of the agreement. They produce sugar. I ask that the Members vote against this amendment.

Mr. MELANCON

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, as I begin my remarks, let me say that in my first 2 days as a newly sworn-in Congressman, I had the unfortunate experience of attending seven funerals for young men within a 20-mile radius of my home. I bring this war-related veterans service amendment to you today. This amendment provides an additional $53 million in urgently needed funding for items critical for veterans returning from the war. The increased money for vets is paid for by cutting back this year's funding for the next round of the BRAC by 9 percent. The amendment will provide $8 million for combat-related trauma care. The VA is currently operating four polytrauma centers for research, education and clinical activities on complex multitrauma associated with combat injuries. The important work of these centers needs to be expanded and demands dedicated funding. Six million dollars is provided for hardware and software to support telemedicine initiatives to allow the polytrauma centers to support wounded troops once they return to their homes. Long-term follow-up is particularly problematic for Reservists and National Guardsmen who return to their communities without the support of nearby military bases. Nine million dollars is added for medical and prosthetic research, which is needed to support current spending levels for VA research. Last year, this was funded at $402, but the bill only includes $393, a $9 million cut. Unlike NIH, VA research is uniquely focused on veterans' health issues. It investigates new prosthetic devices, infectious disease, the effects of various environmental hazards, postdeployment mental health and war-related illnesses. Veterans returning from the global war on terrorism will all benefit from this research. It should not be cut. Provide retroactively $23 million for war orphans: Surviving spouses with minor children are eligible for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation to assist the families with immediate and transitional needs after the death of a spouse. Right now, only servicemember families whose spouses die after November 30, 2004, receive this $250 per month benefit for 2 years. This amendment will help approximately 4,100 spouses with children whose servicemember spouse died during the war on terrorism between September 11, 2001, and November 30, 2004. This will also provide $7 million for 100 additional staff who process claims for compensation and pension benefits. Veterans coming home from the war deserve quick response to their claims, but as of May 21, 2005, over half a million claims for compensation and pension benefits were pending at VA regional offices. This includes 342,811 claims by veterans who are seeking a disability rating. I propose a BRAC offset. The administration requested $1.88 billion for fiscal year 2006 for the new round of BRAC. While the administration was formulating this request, the DOD consistently was stating that there was about a 20 to 24 percent excess capacity in military installations. Then, on May 12, just 2 weeks ago, Secretary Rumsfeld reported at a press conference that the new BRAC list would only cut between 5 and 11 percent of excess capacity. The 2005 BRAC round will actually require less than half of the closure and realignment activities originally projected. The administration's budget request reflects much more money than will be needed to be spent for BRAC activities in fiscal year 2006. The bill already cuts $310 million from the BRAC request, and the program would not suffer with an additional $169 million cut. This is well under the $180 million in additional cuts that was approved by the Committee on Armed Services. While it is important to begin funding the implementation of the new BRAC round, this money is the first installment in a process that will take several years. By contrast, money for veterans' health is urgently needed, especially in the critical areas funded in this amendment. We need to take care of our servicemen and -women returning from the war as they come home.

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for the welcome to the floor of the House, to the Chamber. It is an honor to be here. I, too, regret that the gentleman has to oppose my amendment.

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MELANCON

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to this amendment. Knowing the economy of Louisiana and particularly south Louisiana, my district is very reliant on the oil and gas industry. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) gave some numbers that apply to what has happened with the leaseholds out on the Outer Continental Shelf in recent times. Just at Port Fourchon, which is the focal point for the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling, deep and shallow water, we have increased the number of jobs there by thousands. We have 125 companies that have located at Port Fourchon, and there are 25 companies presently on the list waiting for locations to open up at the port. I am concerned, as most are, about the energy crisis in this country. I understand my colleagues' concern about subsidies and big oil, as everyone describes it. At the same time, in order for us to reach some independence, we need to continue to encourage deep water, shallow water, oil, gas and every type of mining that will help us get out of this problem.

Mr. MELANCON

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 41, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. MELANCON

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here tonight. I am here to speak about the CAFTA issue. It is of great concern to me. I come from the State of Louisiana. That is one of the largest sugar- producing States in this country. During the period of time when the CAFTA was being debated or discussed and negotiated, Mr. Zoellick would go around and tell people in this country that the sugar industry was a dinosaur and that it was not competitive. That was the furthest thing from the truth as possible. The U.S. sugar industry as well as the Louisiana sugar industry is very competitive by world standards in cost of production, and there are studies and numbers out there that testify to that fact. However, we are sitting here with an agreement that is between ourselves and a number of countries that really does not bring anything to this country. When you look at the gross product that would be brought by the CAFTA to the United States, it does not exceed the total gross product of the city of Memphis. Now, what is that? That is a political notch on the gun. That is all it is. If you look at the trade agreements that have occurred between the United States and other developed countries, those deals usually are finalized when both parties either walk away unhappy or both parties walk away happy. And what is happening in these trade agreements such as the NAFTA and the CAFTA, the United States is walking away unhappy and the Mexicans and the Central Americans and the Dominican Republic people are walking away happy. Why? Because we are exporting our biggest and cherished thing and that is jobs. We are giving them away. We are turning to a service economy every day. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) pointed out, if you look at the trade deficit that has occurred, those are American jobs going out of this country. Last year I was in Vancouver, Canada, traveling back into the State of Washington, going to Seattle; and it was amazing to sit at the border and watch the traffic come through the check points. Loaded 18- wheelers, full up coming into the United States. Yet the trailers that were coming back on the 18-wheelers were empty. They were lined up going in. They were few and far between coming out. What does that tell us? That tells us not only our money is leaving but that our jobs are leaving. We are bringing products in. These products were supposed to be brought to us at cheaper prices. If you really look, and we have had this discussion in the sugar arena, these are manufacturers of products that use sugar as an import. They do not care if there is an American job one as long as they can get their product at a cheaper price somewhere out of this country. That is part of what is going on in these trade agreements as these large multinational corporations are the beneficiaries. We continue to give them tax breaks. We continue to give them favoritism, and they continue to export our jobs and move the economy away from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. We have already given away steel. We have already given away the textile industry. The shrimping industry is about gone with the trade deals that this administration and others have imposed on our fishermen. Sugar is on the chopping block if the CAFTA is passed, and not just Louisiana sugar, the entire United States sugar industry, some 450,000 people across this great land that will lose their jobs. In Louisiana and primarily in my district, 27,000 jobs will be lost if the sugar industry goes the way of steel and the textile industry; $2 billion a year in economic impact in the State of Louisiana with gross revenues of approximately $700 million a year. That in Louisiana is a large, large loss should we lose it. Louisiana cannot stand it. The United States cannot continue to have this drain on the economy. We talk about a good economy. As I ran in my election, in this last election, I cannot tell you that there is a good economy in Louisiana, especially in the Third District of Louisiana. It does not exist. The sugar people are struggling. The shrimpers are going out of business. The boat people have boats tied up. There is something awfully wrong that is going wrong, gone astray; and I think a lot of it has to do with the trade agreements.

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman speaks of moral issues. If you have ever been to Central America and if you have ever been in a sugar cane field where a 4- and a 5- and a 6-year-old kid is covered with soot and has a cane knife in his hand that is as big as him, but he needs to be there because it is income for the family, where the average family 4 years ago was earning $275 a year, and look, that is not right. That is morally wrong, but there is a need in that country. We ought to be helping that country, but we should not be giving them every job in America. The gentleman spoke earlier about fast track, trade promotion authority. In the previous administration, the Congress did not want to give that authority, but it has given it in recent administrations, but it is not fast track as it was purported to be. It is actually slow track. As the gentleman indicated, there were several agreements, there were the Jordan agreement and others that were negotiated, signed, brought to the public for public display and comment and then brought for a vote in the Congress. If, in fact, we are going to do something, let us be consistent and let us be consistent all the way across the board. What has happened with the CAFTA is that the multinational corporations and this administration know right now they do not have the votes, and I have been in this city when it gins up over an issue, and it scares me to death to think that we are going to be selling America down the road if we pass this CAFTA.