Pat Toomey

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss briefly a little bit about what we are trying to do here procedurally. This is not a happy occasion for anyone. This is not something that we enjoy doing. In fact, this is a painful process. We have no interest in making this any more of a painful process than it needs to be, but we think that there is an important issue that we need to discuss. The issue is very simply some of us think that our budget process has gone awry, and if we continue down this road, we will not adhere to the budget resolution that we have passed. Some of us do not want to adhere to that budget, and I understand that. Some of us think in light of the economic downturn and other things that have happened since budget resolution, we should be spending less than that budget resolution. But we want to have an opportunity for all Members to have this discussion, have this debate, have a chance to air their amendments. We have 75-odd Republicans and 8 or 10 Democrats vote in favor of some dramatic cuts right out of the block on the first line of this bill. As we move through the process, I strongly suspect there will be more interest in some of these cuts because I believe there is a recognition that there is a problem here. As we work to try to reach a consensus, and we would like to, we are open to rolling votes and finding whatever way can cause the minimum inconvenience for our Members. We are open to reaching a unanimous consent agreement, and we are prepared to speak with Members about that. But it is very important that we have this discussion. We think that it is vitally important that we have this debate and give every Member to have their day and represent their constituents on each and every amendment that we offer. I do not think that it was appropriate to limit the discussion on the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) to 10 minutes, but let me assure Members we are trying to find a way, find a procedure under which we can do this expeditiously, but we are going to have this discussion.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, if we exclude emergencies and look at the bill from last year and the bill that is proposed, my number suggests that this is an increase of 5.54 percent, to be exact, which is, of course, way above the rate of inflation and way above the growth of most families' budgets.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to share my Report from Pennsylvania for my colleagues and the American people. All across Pennsylvania's 15th Congressional District there are some amazing people who do good things to make our communities a better place. These are individuals of all ages who truly make a difference and help others. I like to call these individuals Lehigh Valley Heroes for their good deeds and efforts. Today, I would like to recognize Bethlehem resident Stephanie McKenna as a Lehigh Valley Hero. She is working hard to make a difference in her community. Stephanie, a single mother of three and guardian of two others had always thought of ways to spend more time with her children. A year ago, she quit her high powered Manhattan job to put in motion the idea she had for a way to be more in touch with her children while helping other children in the community. This idea was called Teen Destiny, a one-year residential program for teenage boys who are troubled, but haven't yet crossed into the juvenile detention system. This program, which could start as early as September is run by a seven-member board of directors and has a $1.2 million agreement of sale for a 189-acre farm in Upper Mount Bethel Township. This working farm would be the temporary home for teenage boys. After school and on weekends, the boys would learn to cook, clean and do laundry through the 4-H, and try their hand at farming. Stephanie hopes that by taking the teenagers into a new environment, giving them close supervision and lots of attention, she and a staff of professional counselors and tutors can turn the teenagers around before they succumb to alcohol, drugs or gangs. Stephanie McKenna is selflessly working to make a difference in the lives of many teenage boys in need of direction, and therefore she is a Lehigh Valley Hero in my book. Mr. Speaker, this concludes my Report from Pennsylvania.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that I am hearing talk over here about where is the Republican plan to get out of the predicament that we are in. The obvious question is, where is the Democrat plan? Where has it been? Where is the budget? I sit on the Committee on the Budget. The Democrats did not have a budget in committee, they did not have a budget on this House Floor, and they have the nerve to come down here and say, where is our plan? We put a budget together. We put a budget on this floor. We passed it on this floor. We have a plan. They may disagree with it, but they did not have the courage to put a budget on the floor and have an honest debate about it and have an honest vote about it. Let me tell my colleagues what the plan would look like if we had one. It would be all about more spending, and they know that. I know they do not like tax cuts, but what they wanted to do with that money is they wanted to spend it. I have not been here all that long, this is only my fourth year, but each and every single time that we have had an appropriation bill on this floor, if we did not all agree, and on many we do, but when we did not agree, what was the objection on their side? It was always that it does not spend enough. Well, let me tell my colleagues, we cannot spend our way into a deficit unless we are spending too much. And the Democrat plan, that I must infer, since they will not put one on the table, can only be that they want to spend even more money. The Democrats also know for a fact that the big problem that we face is the result of an economic slowdown and a war that we are engaged in. The fact is, if it had not been for the tax cut that we passed last year, I do not know what kind of condition this economy would be in, but it would clearly be in much worse shape than it is in now. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this measure.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding the time. I would just observe to my colleagues that it is not at all clear to me that the majority party's respect for personal and economic freedom and the desire for families to keep more of what they earn is in any way the cause of the numerous health problems, including the one we are going to discuss today. I am glad that we are bringing this resolution to the floor. The reason we are picking this week is because it is the week leading up to Father's Day that is National Men's Health Week. House Resolution 438 expresses the sense of the House that improving men's health through fitness and the reduction of obesity should be a priority for all of us, and I feel strongly about that. I should observe that National Men's Health Week is currently celebrating its eighth year. I want to recognize one of the driving forces behind this recognition, and that is Rodale Publishing in Emmaus, Pennsylvania and, specifically, Men's Health Magazine, one of Rodale's flagship publications, has really driven this message and elevated the level of awareness of the problems that plague men, in particular health care problems. Back in 1993, Men's Health Magazine asked its readers to support a nationwide initiative to identify and treat health issues of particular interest to men. This public awareness campaign was spearheaded by the National Men's Health Foundation with the help of Men's Health Magazine. As a result of their efforts, Congress passed a bill in 1994 naming the week prior to and including Father's Day as National Men's Health Week. They designated this week as an opportunity to encourage preventive health behavior, as well as early detection of diseases that disproportionately claim men as victims. It is one week out of the year to have a focused public service campaign to educate men and their families about the importance of positive health attitudes, preventive health practices, and treatments of health problems for men. It is important because, after all, men do lag behind women by 6 years in average life expectancy. This message of wellness and disease prevention and individuals taking control of their own lives for the betterment of their lives is a big part of the tradition at Rodale Publishing. Rodale's magazines include Men's Health, Prevention, Runner's World, Bicycling, and a whole host of magazines geared towards helping people to improve really the quality of their lives, often by improving their fitness. I also want to take a minute to recognize the tremendous work being done in this area by a friend of mine, Dave Zinczenko, the editor in chief of Men's Health Magazine. Dave is clearly dedicated, as well as his colleagues, to helping men find ways to live longer, healthier, better lives, and he has been a driving force behind this recognition of men's health needs. So every year, Men's Health Magazine has now focused its coverage on this week to some topic, some topic specific to men's health. Last year was prostate cancer, the second leading cancer killer in men, and this year it is obesity which, according to the Surgeon General, will soon overtake smoking as America's number one leading health concern. This year, the magazine's editors have launched the ``Million Pound Challenge.'' It is a campaign to help the men of America drop the weight that quite literally threatens their lives. Media outlets from Good Morning America and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette have done major coverage of this nationwide campaign to lose this excess weight, and the resolution we are debating today specifically underscores this effort. I think it is worth distinguishing between two terms that are sometimes used interchangeably. Being overweight is different from suffering from obesity. It is really largely a matter of degree, but being overweight simply indicates that a person's weight exceeds the normal or the average weight for a given body height and frame size that may often lead to health problems, but not necessarily so. Obesity, on the other hand, is the condition in which an individual has an excessive amount of body fat. It has been demonstrated that the average individual in this country will gain approximately 1 pound of additional weight each year after the age of 25. Such a seemingly small gain results in 30 pounds of excess weight by the age of 55 years, and since bone and muscle mass sort of naturally decrease in a person at a rate of approximately 1\1/2\ pounds each year due to a reduction in physical activity, the fat is actually increasing at a rate of 1\1/2\ pounds each year. So that means somebody over a 30-year period when they reach middle age is often faced with 45 pounds of excess weight in the form of fat. This leads to obesity and can lead to serious health problems. As I said, the Surgeon General has identified obesity as a major health problem already. Sixty-one percent of adults in the United States are now considered overweight or obese. As my colleague from New York pointed out, approximately 300,000 deaths each year occur prematurely in the United States and they are associated with the condition of being overweight or obese. The economic cost of obesity in the United States is staggering. It is approximately $177 billion a year. Being overweight or obese puts people at a greater risk of a number of serious, life-threatening conditions, including heart disease, certain types of cancer, type 2 diabetes, stroke, arthritis, breathing problems and depression. So how do people combat obesity? Well, people become overweight and obese for a variety of reasons: dietary, some socioeconomic, some genetic, but mostly it is lifestyle factors, and the long-term solution requires the recognition of the benefits of a well-balanced, a well- proportioned, moderate diet and a commitment to regular physical activity. Those are really the two things that are necessary. In short, it is moderation and it is control of a lifestyle that is the key to fitness and can help dramatically increase the likelihood of longevity in one's life. Unfortunately, too many adults do not even get the moderate amount of exercise that can make a huge difference. More than 60 percent of U.S. adults do not engage in the recommended amount of physical activity, which is only 30 minutes 3 to 4 times a week, but so many of us find it so hard to squeeze that in. Approximately 25 percent of all U.S. adults are not active at all. We are here today to encourage everyone to improve their lifestyles through fitness and nutrition and seek out the experts and organizations that can provide the help if people need that. I want to commend those organizations that are already hard at work at addressing this problem of obesity. Because of the true national scope of the problem, I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution. The resolution simply resolves that the United States House of Representatives recognizes that being overweight or obese is a major health concern in the United States. It commends and supports the work of all organizations that are taking steps to combat this health problem. It urges all governmental, State and private organizations to do everything in their power to promote healthier lifestyles, and it pledges to take proactive steps to intensify its efforts to combat this health problem.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for crafting a good bill, which I believe is going to make the Ex-Im Bank more accountable to the taxpayers. Specifically I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for working closely with me to ensure that the Ex-Im Bank is not in a position to reward foreign countries or industries that are in violation of U.S. trade law, and thank the gentleman for including me as a conferee on this report. This is an important bill which reauthorizes the bank through 2006. There are several significant changes, one I would like to focus on in particular. To illustrate this provision that I wanted to focus on, I want to review very briefly the crisis that is facing the American steel industry. I think we are aware that the American steel industry has been devastated by a flood of imports. Foreign governments subsidize steel production, which creates a glut of steel, and prices in turn are depressed. The result has been devastating. Over 33 American steel companies have been forced into bankruptcy. Bethlehem Steel, headquartered in my district, filed Chapter 11 last year. This is having a devastating impact on steel workers, their families, their communities and retirees who depend on these steel companies for their health care benefits. In the face of this huge, global overcapacity, shockingly to me in late 2000, the Ex-Im Bank unfortunately provided financing for a project which would actually increase global capacity, specifically financing an $18 million project to increase by 1.5 metric tons the steel-making capacity at a Chinese steel company. This action was taken despite the recommendations to the contrary by the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, the Congressional Steel Caucus and others. The good news is in this conference report we have a provision for the first time which would prevent a similar situation from ever recurring. There is a provision which prohibits the Ex-Im Bank from extending any loan or guarantee to any foreign company found in violation of U.S. trade law. Specifically, it would prohibit the Ex-Im Bank from providing a transaction to an entity for the resulting production of a product which is already subject to a countervailing duty or antidumping order, and prevent any loan or guarantee for an entity which is subject to an affirmative injury determination by the ITC under section 201. The bottom line is that we would not grant loans to companies that are already proven to be violating U.S. trade laws, and taxpayer funds could not be used to assist foreign corporations in aggravating an existing American economic problem. While this provision was inspired by this Chinese steel company transaction, it is not specific to any industry or product; rather it would apply to any product or commodity for which there are violations of U.S. trade laws. Again, I commend the leadership of this committee on both sides of the aisle for the hard work they have done in crafting a good bill. I would also like to thank the American Iron and Steel Institute, the American Steelworkers of America and the Congressional Steel Caucus for their support, and urge my colleagues to vote yes on this conference report.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Maybe there is a new consensus in the Democratic Party. Maybe there is a new conscience about deficits that was never exhibited during the decades in which the Democratic Party controlled the Federal Government and ran up massive deficits and accumulated a huge debt. There was no evidence of that conscience then, but maybe there is one now. Maybe there is a new sense of fiscal responsibility. Since those folks are so upset about this deficit and the debt that is occurring, then what we ought to do, and frankly, what we all ought to do, myself and all the Republicans, what we ought to do is seriously consider the alternative budget that they have proposed, the alternative budget that those folks ran in the Committee on the Budget, the alternative budget that would have no deficits, that would accomplish all the goals that they have talked about. But why is it that we do not consider that alternative budget? Well, they know the reason for that, too. It is because they do not have one. All the rhetoric, the demagoguery, the attacks occur, but there are no alternatives.

Mr. TOOMEY. Under that logic the gentleman would suggest that Viet Nam was not a war, Korea was not a war, in the Persian Gulf we did not have a war, and today we are not at war. I would reject that categorically. It seems to me pretty clear that we are at war. We were at war in those other circumstances despite the fact that Congress did not declare it.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would observe that part of the reason I did not yield time before is because I was concerned that what did happen would happen, which is that rather than refute the basic premise of my argument, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) brings up extraneous issues. For instance, he did not refute that the Democratic Party has utterly abdicated its responsibility by not proposing a budget. Instead, he brings up the issue of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which I do support, but which, unless the gentleman can correct me, unless I am mistaken, it includes an exception for time of war. I would observe to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that it strikes me that we are engaged in a war, I believe. It also allows for an exception in a time of a national emergency. If we are not in a national emergency, then I do not know what this is.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the Committee on the Budget who sat through budget hearings and the budget markup and the debate on the budget, I think I know why there is no budget from the other side. That is, if they had to propose a budget, they probably would have proposed a budget with larger deficits than we have. Oh, sure, there would have been no tax cut. In fact, some would like to have raised taxes by repealing what is coming in the way of further tax relief. Some do not want to do that. But the fact is, there would not be the future tax cuts. That money would have been spent, as was proposed by the Democrats on the Committee on the Budget during the markup. We would have a weaker economy as a result of a higher tax burden, and probably less revenue. Mr. Chairman, I would simply argue that the lack of a serious alternative really undermines every single argument that we have heard from our colleagues on the other side. A party that lacks the courage to propose any alternative really lacks the credibility to justify the attacks against the party that has taken the responsibility of governing.

Mr. TOOMEY. I sit on the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just felt the need to respond to the level of really demagoguery and intellectual bankruptcy that I have been hearing from my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle this morning and last night. I just feel the need to review some facts that every one of the Members knows have been conveniently left out of this discussion. I will start with one, which is a simple fact that everyone knows, that if we had not passed any tax cut at all last year, we would still be running a deficit. They know that. They know for a fact that the cost of the war, the cost of rebuilding New York, the cost of increasing homeland security, as well as the cost of spending in other areas, is vastly greater than the revenue that was lost to the Treasury as a result of last year's tax cuts. Members know that. They also know that, perhaps with the exception of defense spending, where many would still like to cut, not all but many would, that these folks want the Federal Government to spend much more money on non- defense, non-homeland security areas than we do. We just heard the previous speaker talk about inadequate spending in all kinds of other programs. Members know also that each and every year, at least since I have been here, and that is only 4 years so far, but in each and every year when there has been an appropriation bill on this floor in which we are not in agreement, I cannot remember a single time in which these folks came down here and said, you know, you guys are spending too much. No, it was always the opposite. They have always come down here and said, they are not spending enough.

Mr. TOOMEY. Furthermore, Members know that if they had had their way last year, for instance, if they were in control of this Chamber and the rest of the Federal Government, I am sure there would have been no tax cut. I am sure that is true.

Mr. TOOMEY. Now, I want to reflect on the possibility that maybe I am wrong. Maybe I am wrong about this.

Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the Chairman. I think it is a very safe bet that in the absence of that tax cut, the revenue that theoretically would have been collected, although that is theory, but that revenue would in all likelihood have been spent on any variety of government programs that those folks would like to spend more money on. But thinking about this, I thought, well, maybe I am wrong.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to share my Report from Pennsylvania for my colleagues and the American people. All across Pennsylvania's 15th Congressional District there are some amazing people who do good things to make our communities a better place. These are individuals of all ages who truly make a difference and help others. I like to call these individuals Lehigh Valley Heroes for their good deeds and efforts. Today I would like to recognize the Lehigh Valley Regional Team DUI Task Force. This organization has truly made a difference in their community. The most recent statistics from 2000 show 1,520 people died in traffic crashes in Pennsylvania. One-third of those were alcohol related and many involved teenagers. Obviously this is an alarming statistic. The purpose of Team DUI is to reduce these alcohol-related traffic crashes, fatalities and injuries related to seatbelt non-use, speeding and impaired driving among the youth of Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton. Recently, the Lehigh Valley Regional Team DUI received a two- year, $250,000 grant from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to educate area teenagers on the dangers of mixing alcohol with driving. Team DUI will use the money for educational programs, public awareness activities and law enforcement. Team DUI is determined to do what they can to curb this dangerous and deadly phenomenon and therefore they are Lehigh Valley Heroes in my book. Mr. Speaker, this concludes my Report from Pennsylvania.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to share my Report from Pennsylvania for my colleagues and the American people. All across Pennsylvania's 15th Congressional District there are some amazing people who do good things to make our communities a better place. These are individuals of all ages who truly make a difference and help others. I like to call these individuals Lehigh Valley Heroes for their good deeds and efforts. Today, I would like to recognize three nurses from Lehigh Valley Hospital, Elizabeth ``Betsy'' Seislove and Gayriel ``Tracy'' Lester and Claranne Mathiesen as Lehigh Valley Heroes. These women have truly made a difference in their community. Betsy and Tracy both recently received the prestigious Nightingale Award of Pennsylvania, a symbol of outstanding nursing. Betsy, a resident of Macungie, is an advocate for patients and families and is a patient care specialist at LVH Salisbury. She volunteers to work with victims of stroke and leukemia and speaks to elementary school students about the importance of trauma prevention. Tracy, a resident of Lehighton, is a licensed practical nurse pursuing a degree in nursing and is a 20-year LVH veteran with experience in oncology, cardiology and trauma. Claranne was a finalist in the statewide competition for the Nightingale Award. A Stroudsburg resident, she is an advanced practice nurse specializing in neuroscience nursing. She is also president-elect of the Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Neuroscience Nurses Association. These women make a difference everyday, working to save and improve lives at LVH, and therefore they are Lehigh Valley Heroes in my book. Mr. Speaker, this concludes my Report from Pennsylvania.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a sad day for our country. We are taking a big step in the wrong direction. I would say in the direction of Soviet style agricultural policy. It is hard to know where to begin with this bill, but let me start with the cost. Here we are, a Nation at war, running a wartime budget, substantial deficits this year. We have got a budget baseline that already commits us to spending $100 billion in farm subsidies over the next 10 years, and this bill commits us to add to that considerably more than the advertised additional $75 billion. I say more because this bill knowingly uses dated commodity price assumptions that lowball the total cost. It also uses gimmicks such as creating a whole new $100-million- a-year program and then pretending that that will only be funded for 1 year. The truth is, the American taxpayer cannot afford this bill, but it is, in particular, a sad day for Republicans because we know better than to do this. This is a massive government subsidy of crops that is going to cause overproduction, that is going to cause further decline in crop prices and make a bad situation worse, especially for small farmers such as those in Pennsylvania. We, who generally believe in freedom and independence and personal responsibility in the marketplace, we are in danger of systematically turning farms into dependent serfs of the Federal Government, already dependent on government for an average of 46 percent of their income. This bill will increase that to well over 50 percent. This is a sad day for my Democratic colleagues, who often pride themselves for their support of the working people and the poorest in our society. This bill is a massive transfer of wealth from poor people, and especially urban poor, to many large and wealthy corporations. The Environmental Working Group observes that two-thirds of farm subsidies will go to 10 percent of farms, many of which have an average income of a quarter of a million dollars a year. The cost for the average American household is going to average $4,400 over the life of this bill, $1,800 in higher taxes, $2,600 in higher food prices because of the price support mechanism. Mr. Speaker, one of the great lessons of the 20th century clearly was that command control economics, government-run subsidies, government manipulations of the marketplace does not work. It leads to a misallocation of capital, distortion of the marketplace and prices, and economic ruin, but that is exactly the direction we are taking today with regard to farm policy in America. I would urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit, but if that fails, vote against passage of this bill.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlemen for yielding time to me. I also thank the full committee chairman and the full committee ranking member for their important work on this bill. I really want to commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for crafting a very good bill, making Export-Import Bank more accountable to taxpayers. Specifically, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for working with me to be sure Export-Import Bank does not reward foreign industries and companies that are in violation with U.S. trade law with money from the pockets of U.S. taxpayers. As most of us appreciate, the domestic steel industry has simply been devastated by a global steel overcapacity. Since 1997, at least, perhaps further back, the domestic steel industry has been overwhelmed by a flood of imports. Foreign governments subsidize their steel production. That creates overcapacity, which in turn leads to a glut of steel on the international markets. That, of course, depresses prices; and the result has been devastating. Nobody disputes that this has happened. Our own Commerce Department and the ITC have confirmed this, and the result has been that over 33 American steel companies have been forced into bankruptcy since 1997. Bethlehem Steel, headquartered in my district, filed Chapter 11 last year and joined that long list of companies devastated by this phenomenon. Of course, the result of all these bankruptcies is an uncertain future, at best, for over 72,000 steelworkers, their communities, and their families. But it has also jeopardized the retirement security of hundreds of thousands of steel retirees, who are also dependent on the continued success of American steel companies for their health care benefits, for their pension. There are tens of thousands of such steel retirees in my district about whom I am very concerned. Well, despite the recognized problem, widely acknowledged problem of global overcapacity, in early 2000, in the midst of this entire crisis Export-Import Bank granted a loan to a Chinese steel producer, which further increased by 1.5 million metric tons the world's excess steel capacity. In taking this action, the Export-Import Bank ignored on-the-record objections from the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, the Steel Caucus, the entire steel industry. What this tax credit really amounted to was the Ex-Im Bank using American taxpayer dollars to subsidize a foreign company, making a serious American economic problem worse. That is why I offered my amendment in the Committee on Financial Services, and I am delighted the committee adopted my amendment. The language is in this bill. What the amendment is is a bipartisan, long-term solution to prevent a similar situation to that loan guarantee that went to the Benxi Iron and Steel Company from ever recurring in steel or any other industry. Specifically, it would prohibit the Export-Import Bank from extending loans to foreign companies that are in violation of U.S. trade law. It would do that by prohibiting the extension of financial assistance to an entity for the production of a product that is subject to a countervailing duty or antidumping order, and it would also prohibit the extension of a loan or guarantee to any entity subject to a definitive conclusion by the ITC under section 201 of our trade laws. In other words, we would not grant loans to companies that are already proven to be violating U.S. laws and harming American industries. I think this is a very balanced approach. We worked this out in the committee, discussed various ways of addressing the difficult and challenging issue. We have set a significant hurdle that has to be overcome before this prohibition would be invoked, and I think we have reached a very reasonable conclusion on this. I appreciate the cooperation on both sides of the aisle, especially from the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). I would also like to thank the American Iron and Steel Institute, the United Steelworkers of America, and the Congressional Steel Caucus for their support of this provision. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record their letters of support, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill, because this does not merely extend authorization for the Export-Import Bank, but it makes substantive, positive reforms in that authorization. I would like to commend my colleagues for a job well done.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would start by observing that the Enron debacle is obviously devastating in many ways to many people. One of the most devastating ways is the way that collapse has shaken public confidence and really raised the question about financial reporting, even in the accounting profession, and the stability of our financial markets. This underlying bill is going to have several very significant and very positive effects. It is going to help investors make better informed investment decisions; there is no question about that. It is going to require greater disclosure. It is going to enhance audit quality and the quality of financial reporting. By doing those things, it is going to increase the confidence in our capital markets, our financial reporting system, and those effects can only be beneficial for our financial system and our economy and our economic growth. I would remind my colleagues that this bill passed our committee by a vote of 49 to 12. It was obviously supported by a bipartisan effort, and it takes some unprecedented measures. We take some very dramatic steps, one of which is the creation of the Public Regulatory Organization. This is going to be an organization that is going to be able, for the first time, to really discipline accountants that violate standards of ethics, competency, or independence, and it includes even disbarment. This is a major step in the regulation of the accounting profession, a dramatic departure from the traditional model in which this profession was entirely self-regulated. But I think that it is impossible for us to know today, here in this Chamber, all of the answers to all of the questions that that regulatory organization needs to address. That is why instead of specifying in great detail every rule that we want them to promulgate, what we ought to do instead is set the broad parameters, and then give them the authority to carry this out, together with the regulators like the SEC, and that is what the underlying bill does. My main criticism of the substitute amendment is that it goes too far in trying to micromanage this process in spelling out in great detail rules that ought to be left to the SEC and to others. Mr Chairman, the ranking member does an outstanding job and does a lot of great work in our committee. Today's substitute differs from the substitute he offered in the committee; it is more similar to ours than the substitute offered in committee. Maybe in another few weeks we would see something quite similar to our bill. In fact, it is not enormously different. I do not think that the differences are that huge, but they are important, and they differ in the sense that I think the ranking member has gone too far in trying to specify details that ought to be left to others. Several have mentioned the President's principles that have been discussed. Let there be no question about it: The President supports this bill. The administration has issued a statement of their policy, and it clearly supports this bill. Let me look at a couple of the specifics in which the ranking member gets very specific. Disgorgement is one. But look at what we do with disgorgement. We take a very tough approach. It is unprecedented, the approach we take in this bill. If an officer or director sells stock in a company 6 months prior to a restatement, then the SEC can require the disgorgement of any profits that were earned or avoided losses. That is probably all we need to say about this. Let us let the specifics be developed by the SEC. Instead, in the substitute, basically, the SEC's rule is written for them. I do not think that is a good idea. With regard to analyst conflicts, again, this bill tries to micromanage how analyst conflicts should be addressed. But we have entities, the NASD, the New York Stock Exchange, they are already in the process of producing rules on how this is going to be governed. I think the ranking member, as well as other members on this committee, have had input on that rulemaking process. It is still under review. It is they who should be doing this job, not us. I think part of the problem with the substitute is an underlying failure to appreciate the ability of the marketplace to impose some discipline as well. But we have already seen how severely and appropriately investors have responded to companies who have even questionable accounting practices after this Enron debacle. It is not as though the investment community has not noticed and has not taken the precautions to demand certain greater disclosures and more transparency in financial reports and to punish companies that have engaged in perhaps dubious accounting principles, and that same kind of discipline is going to continue; it is going to continue with respect to analysts and other matters between the market's discipline. In this bill, the underlying bill that the majority is proposing, we take some unprecedented measures. I am very confident we are going to encourage a greater degree of honesty and transparency in financial statements. It is going to be extremely helpful. I would suggest to my colleagues that we reject the substitute, reject the micromanagement of what should be done by regulators who have the expertise in this area, and support the underlying bill.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to share my Report from Pennsylvania for my colleagues and the American people. All across Pennsylvania's 15th Congressional District there are some amazing people who do good things to make our communities a better place. These are individuals of all ages who truly make a difference and help others. I like to call these individuals Lehigh Valley Heroes for their good deeds and efforts. Today, I would like to recognize the fifth graders and teachers at Hanover Elementary School in Bethlehem. These students and teachers are true examples of excellence in education. This year, Hanover Elementary, for the second year in a row had the highest PSSA scores in all of Pennsylvania. The 69 students scored 1630 in math and 1570 in reading, well above the state average of 1310 in both areas. The students outscored 3,800 public and private elementary schools across the state! I recently had the opportunity to attend a reception in honor of these students and teachers, and offer my congratulations. The teachers deserve much credit for their hard work and dedication. They obviously inspired their students to want to achieve academically. They have shown that when we raise academic standards, we raise academic performance. These teachers who make a difference everyday and students who excelled way beyond expectations are Lehigh Valley Heroes in my book. They are as follow: Carol Leasure, Principal; Earl Bethel, 5th grade teacher; Patrice Masluk Schwartzman, 5th grade teacher; and Amanda Shuler, 5th grade teacher. Students are: Sophia Abud, Erin Albertson, Matthew Ammon, Darren Ankrom, Philip Antonis, Amal Atiyeh, Peter Badger, Monica Bates, Rachel Bochner, Jaimie Boyd, Lauren Burlew, Christopher Cann, Andrew Cass, Rakesh Chauhan, Dilesh Chudasama, Nicholas D'Angelo, Brittany Dellatore, Gregory DeSarro, Owen Divers, Lance Dolci, Roberta Domyan, Caitlin Donnelly, Brittney Dunnigan, Austin Emmons, Donnarae Farrell, Luke Foley, Shawn Forouraghi, Maria Gentis, Erin Glenn, Alexander Haller, Benjamin Haskins, Andrew Hero, John Hrubenak, Christie Jones, Kayleigh Kalamar, Patrice Kane, Ryan Kassis, Carl Kolepp, Nicole Kyriakopoulos, Gregory Laudenslager, Alaina Loguidice, Kyle Longemecker, John Lule, Kevin McCarthy, Drew Mihalik, Brian Miller, Mark Moyer, Bradley Pendzick, Gregory Pendzick, Lauren Perlman, Matthew Piazza, Ashley Plummer, Alexander Pypiuk, Jason Ricles, Kayleigh Rider, Daniel Rivera, Ethan Saravitz, Robert Sawyer, Matthew Searfoss, Emilie Segretto, Mark Segretto, Paul Segretto, Jared Serman, Christopher Smith, Robert Stauffer, Abigail Tercha, Emilye Turner, Steven Walsh, and Rebecca Yaple. Mr. Speaker, this concludes my Report from Pennsylvania.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes as I rise today in support of H.R. 1009, the Business Checking Freedom Act of 2002. Let me begin by saying that as a former small business owner, I have seen firsthand just how challenging it can be to run and operate a small business and the endless headaches that come with playing so many roles: making a payroll every Friday, complying with an almost endless amount of regulation, paperwork, and taxes. It is an unfortunate fact that regulation itself, applied equally to large and small entities, is more burdensome to the smaller businesses, because they just have fewer resources with which to meet the needs of the regulatory environment and to cover the overhead costs. Despite these obstacles, many small businesses are thriving. What I think we can do here in Congress is ask ourselves, Are there ways that we can help these businesses to thrive, help them expand their bottom line, help them to hire more workers, become more productive, and contribute more to our economy? I think we can do that by fostering an environment where the free enterprise market system can thrive. Part of that means eliminating unnecessary regulation. That is something we can do today. It may be hard to believe for many folks, but we actually have a law on the books today that prohibits banks from even having the option of offering to pay interest on the checking accounts held by businesses with those banks. It is actually illegal for a bank in America to pay interest to a business that keeps a balance in its checking account. Now, this has implications. The inability of depository institutions to pay interest on these business checking accounts really hurts all sectors of our economy, but the harm is especially pronounced on small businesses. Specifically, it means that the small florist shop in Pennsburg, Pennsylvania, cannot earn any interest on the hard-earned balance that they have to keep in their checking account to pay the bills. Over the course of a year or two, that could mean several hundred dollars. In time it could mean the difference between making a payroll and not making a payroll. It means the auto mechanics shop on Northampton Street in Easton, Pennsylvania, cannot earn the interest on their hard-earned checking account balance, and that could make the difference in investing in the latest technology for diagnostic equipment for car repairs. Now more than ever, a change in this law would be very helpful to businesses as they struggle through this economic slowdown and try to get this economy moving again. Today, what Congress can do to help is we can pass H.R. 1009, the Business Checking Freedom Act of 2002. The bill contains several commonsense reforms; but most importantly, it eliminates the ban on the payment of interest on business checking accounts that is currently imposed on banks after a 2-year transition period. The ban has been in effect since the Great Depression. Frankly, it was probably never a very good idea, but it is certainly long overdue for appeal now; and today is our chance to abolish this ban. Support for this bill is nearly universal. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the NFIB, the America's Community Bankers, the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, the Association for Financial Professionals, and the Independent Insurance Agents of America are just a handful of the independent organizations that support this bill. In addition, on March 19 of this year, President Bush announced that repealing the prohibition on business interest checking would be included as part of his small business legislative plan. In addition to the President, the Federal regulators support this legislative change as well. In their 1996 joint report, ``Streamlining of Regulatory Requirements,'' the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision stated that they believe that the 1933 statutory prohibition against payment of interest on business checking accounts ``no longer serves a public purpose.'' There is another important feature that I would like to touch on briefly in this bill, and that is that in addition to providing small business with much-needed relief, H.R. 1009 would authorize a payment of interest on certain reserves that banks are required to maintain at the Federal Reserve, the so-called ``sterile reserves.'' Just as it makes no sense to prohibit banks from paying interest on business checking, it also makes no sense to continue to prohibit the Federal Reserve from paying interest to banks on their sterile reserves. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has testified before our committee, the Committee on Financial Services, that repealing the prohibition against paying interest on sterile reserves would have the additional benefit of facilitating the Federal Reserve's management of U.S. monetary policy. In part because the Fed pays no interest on these Reserves, balances at Federal Reserve banks have declined dramatically in recent years. The Federal Reserve believes that paying interest on these reserves would have the effect of stemming that decline and thereby enhancing their ability to conduct monetary policy. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of this committee, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member, for their strong support of this bill and for bringing it to the House floor today. I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) for their contributions, their support, and their leadership on this legislation. I believe this legislation is long overdue. I am hopeful that the other Chamber will soon bring it up as well. I urge my colleagues to pass this pro-small business, pro- small bank, pro-free market legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.