Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents the culmination of years of discussions between rail management and a sizable majority of rail labor. I am pleased to support the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001. This legislation is designed to improve significantly the financing and benefits of railroad retirement benefits. H.R. 1140 improves the performance of the Railroad Retirement Account (RRA) by enhancing employees benefits, reducing employer and employee tax rates, and promoting financial growth of the railroad retirement trust fund. More than 3,400 of my constituents in northwestern Pennsylvania will benefit from reforming the current railroad retirement system. In fact, many of those people have called my offices urging Congress to pass this legislation that represents benefit improvements for them and their families including: an expansion of widow(er)s' benefit by guaranteeing no less than the amount of the annuity that the retiree received; liberalized early retirement which allows retirement at age 60 with 30 years of service without a benefit reduction; and expanded vesting which means bringing this requirement consistent with private industry practices. This entails the reductions of the ten-year requirement to vest for Tier I and Tier II annuities to five years. This is a strong proposal and I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for yielding to me. I particularly want to thank her and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) for their leadership along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) in moving this debate forward. I believe that the House is going to make a momentous decision in the next few days. A decision which could either lead our health care system forward on a path of quality or, on the other hand, could lead to an unraveling of our longstanding system of health care based on employer-provided benefits. My fear is that the House may make the wrong decision. But thanks to the heroic efforts of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) and others, there is an alternative, a commonsense alternative. Mr. Speaker, I came to the House in 1994 as an advocate of health care reform. I have concluded, Mr. Speaker, that today the best medicine for patients is a modernization, an improvement of the health care systems for all Americans, while at the same time having an initiative to make it more affordable and accessible. We must make sure that our health care system works while preserving competition in the free market. Every family deserves health care that can never be taken away. Congress must move this week to adopt health care reform that moves us down the path toward universal access to affordable care. In my view, the version of the patients' rights bill of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) is the one that does precisely that. I am an original co-sponsor of this bill because it recognizes that strengthening patients' rights is the first and seminal step to successfully reforming health care. Mr. Speaker, I am urging all of my colleagues tonight to back the Fletcher bill because ensuring patient access to affordable quality health care should be the focus of any reform effort. We need to put patients back in charge. That means establishing quality standards for all health plans, allowing doctors and patients to make health care decisions. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that after years of examining managed care reform legislation and as a member of my colleague's subcommittee, a great deal of consensus exists as to what a Federal patient protection bill should include. I believe there is also strong bipartisan agreement that Congress should act quickly to extend patient protections to all Americans. The plan of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) does exactly that, by providing patients with the tools they need to protect themselves and to ensure that they have quality health care coverage now and in the future. This bill provides patients with better access to information about their health care coverage. It requires plans to provide patients with detailed plan information with an explicit list of covered and excluded services and benefits. Unlike other proposals, the plan of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) requires the plan to disclose their formulary if requested. H.R. 2315 reopens the door that allows patients and doctors to work directly together to decide the best course of treatment, rather than focusing on insurance company guidelines and regulations. It ensures that patients have the right to choose their doctor with continuity of care protections. These protections allow patients who have an ongoing special condition such as cancer or even a pregnancy to have continued access to their treating specialist in cases where the specialist has been terminated from the plan or if the plan is terminated. H.R. 2315 eliminates the so-called gag rule by prohibiting health plans from restricting physicians giving patients advice about their health and what is the best for them. Additionally, this legislation does not forget the special health care needs of women and children by allowing immediate access to gynecologists, obstetricians, and pediatricians. It also provides access to specialists. The bill of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) provides a provision that says patients cannot be denied emergency care coverage because the visit was not preapproved. The plan says if a prudent layperson believes that a symptom requires immediate medical attention, including emergency ambulance services, then the insurer must pay for the care regardless of whether it is a network facility. We do not want to let insurance providers drive the industry to a point where, in an emergency, patients are calling their insurance companies before dialing 911. The plan also requires coverage of routine medical costs for patients enrolled in any government-sponsored cancer clinical trial which includes FDA trials under which about two-thirds of all clinical trials occur. It also prohibits insurance providers from denying coverage on FDA-approved drugs or medical devices by classifying them as, quote, ``experimental'' or ``investigational.'' This legislation provides patients with the best access to prescription drugs by allowing doctors to request off-formulary drugs for their patients and for plans to consider side effects and efficacy in their determination. Mr. Speaker, American families are concerned about their health care; but we cannot address the quality of care without addressing the cost. Those without health insurance are not just the indigent. It is the small business owners, the self-employed who cannot afford the premiums. It is young people. It is a broad cross-section of America. A staggering 44 million Americans cannot afford or do not have health insurance. Studies show that other proposals being offered in the House as an alternative to the bill of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) could force 6 million more Americans into the ranks of the uninsured. On the other hand, studies show the plan of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) would help provide 9 million uninsured Americans vital access to coverage by expanding association health plans and repealing all restrictions on access to medical savings accounts, tax-favored accounts that give the patients themselves ultimate control over their own health care. Another notable feature that puts the proposal of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) above the other proposals which claim to protect patients is support from the Bush administration. President Bush has promised to sign this bill saying, ``I believe the Fletcher bill will help enhance the great medical care that we have in our country.'' I could not agree more, and I am pleased that the President has put the needs of patients first by lending his support to this bill. Health care reform is complicated, much more complicated than many would have us believe. We must protect patients by advocating strong patient- focused health care reform. Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate, strengthening patient protections, strengthening patients' rights is the key to reforming health care. I strongly support H.R. 2315. I salute the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for their efforts. Mr. Speaker, I support this as a plan to reform managed care that promotes quality care and restores the doctor-patient relationship. My hope is that my colleagues can join us in rallying behind this initiative as a bipartisan basis for moving finally a patients' bill of rights forward, moving it back to the Senate, and getting a consensus that we can get a Presidential signature on. I believe this is all achievable in the immediate future if we can work together on a bipartisan basis in this body. I thank the gentlewoman for playing a critical role in creating that bipartisan environment that is allowing us to move forward and have this vote and hopefully move forward to success.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, the real issue today is, will blind ideology and partisan politics stand in the way of our investing in successful faith-based programs, in communities and families, and in individuals truly in need? The naysayers today are the same people who told us that welfare reform would not work; and look at the results. For years, faith-based charities have reached out, making it their mission to serve our communities. They work to support those who are struggling and have broken lives. These groups provide emergency food and shelter, after school care, drug treatment, welfare-to-work assistance, and many other services. They do it with little support from the Federal Government, but they get the job done. Because of all of that, what these groups do for our communities, I urge my colleagues to step back from partisan politics, step back from blind ideology and support the Community Solutions Act. Mr. Speaker, this bill will stimulate an outpouring of private giving to nonprofits, faith-based programs and community groups by expanding tax deductions and other initiatives.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, during the last 2 weeks, I have introduced the House to my Standard Trade Negotiating Authority Act that I have introduced which in my view offers a new approach to trade promotion authority. I have highlighted the portion of the bill which provides for a congressional preauthorization process, increasing accountability and transparency in trade policy. Beyond that, H.R. 1446 allows for full and appropriate consideration of labor and environmental issues as important trade agreements are negotiated. We know that not every trade agreement raises blue and green concerns. For example, labor and environmental provisions are not appropriate to append to financial services or competition policy agreements. However, where serious disparities exist between America and a potential trading partner in the scope or enforcement of workplace protections, labor rights or environmental regulation, so much so that normal social costs become a significant competitive disadvantage in attracting or retaining jobs, under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, our trade negotiators should be allowed to encompass basic labor and environmental standards as part of an enforceable agreement. Most Americans recognize that some of our trading partners do not give workers the right to strike or the right to organize. Some do not give workers livable working conditions or guarantee workplace safety. We need to be able to establish a level playing field for our workers competing in the global marketplace through agreements that will protect the environment and workers and promote a healthy economic competition that strengthens and promotes and expands American values. My bill ensures that no country could engage in a race to the bottom in order to lure jobs by sacrificing the environment or debasing the common rights of its citizens. This bill provides for an assessment of labor and environmental issues with every potential trading partner when the President indicates to Congress he would like to begin negotiations. By establishing a commission made up of representatives of government and private agencies with real expertise in these areas, my bill addresses blue and green concerns at the start of the process instead of as an afterthought. The commission, once created, will assess the labor and environmental standards of the countries involved, the enforcement and implementation of those standards, and make recommendations on how to comply with the objectives set forth by Congress. Congress and the President would then review the commission's findings and include applicable language in the preauthorization that as a part of its scope would address specific labor and environmental concerns with that country. Mr. Speaker, this fundamental reform of fast track brings labor and environmental issues into the appropriate focus in trade policy. It represents a conceptual compromise on how to incorporate these very real issues into trade policy. We should be confident that a voluntary exchange of goods and services will buttress our values and strengthen the rights of workers in countries that do business in our market and create an economy that in the long run financially supports environmental challenges. I urge my colleagues to think about trade policy reform outside of the box, avoiding a debate of sterile extremes that all too often has blighted fast track proposals in the past. I call on every one of my colleagues to step back from partisan posturing and ideological preconceptions and consider how we can unite in defense of our national economic interest.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, as the United States grapples with an historically large trade deficit, and many of our farmers and manufacturers face growing and cumulative competitive disadvantages in the international marketplace, the time has come for Congress to work with the administration on behalf of a stronger trade policy. Clearly, the centerpiece of a new and more aggressive trade policy has to be new authority which allows our government to pursue trade agreements that level the international playing field for American workers and American products. Congress must act quickly and firmly to give our trade negotiators the authority they need to defend our interest and open distant markets to the creation of our sweat, ingenuity and freedom. Last week, I outlined to the House the major provisions of my bill, H.R. 1446, the Standard Trade Negotiating Authority Act. At that time, I promised this House I would return and discuss at greater detail the major components of this bill. Today, I would like to focus on the pre-authorization requirements. This section requires the President to consult with Congress and receive an affirmative vote to authorize the initiation of trade negotiations with any country or countries before proceeding with them. WTO negotiations, which are already authorized by existing agreements, would be exempt from this pre-authorization requirement. Mr. Speaker, Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution specifically grants to Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Unfortunately, over the last several decades, Congress has almost entirely ceded the policy making initiative over this increasingly vital part of our national economy. Under Fast Track, we eliminated our oversight and opportunity to influence the outcome of potentially far-reaching agreements to one single up-or-down vote. I believe this lack of input and transparency has led directly to the increasing controversy surrounding trade agreements and the inability of the Nation to have an intelligent and conclusive discussion about trade policy. For example, NAFTA was never contemplated during the Fast Track authorization then in existence. In 1988, when we last authorized Fast Track authority, NAFTA was not even discussed. But within a couple of years, NAFTA was brought back in toto for an up-or-down vote. Likewise, the 1994 GATT agreement included changes to section 201 and 301 of our trade laws, the antisurge and antidumping provisions, without any prior discussion in Congress. How then would the pre-authorization requirements of H.R. 1446 address these concerns? First, Mr. Speaker, my bill provides ongoing authority for the President to negotiate any trade agreement, providing first that he receives approval from Congress in the form of a vote to specifically authorize that negotiation along with its scope and its objectives. This means that each negotiation can be considered under its own merits and provides for a systemic review by the Congress while there is still some time to affect the outcome. There will be no more surprises, not for us, and more importantly not for the people we represent. Under this legislation, 90 days before entering into trade negotiations, the President would formally notify Congress of his intention to proceed. The International Trade Commission would also be required to complete an assessment of the potential impact of the agreement on the U.S. economy. Legitimate labor and environmental concerns would find voice in this process through the establishment of a Commission on Labor and the Environment. The Commission would issue a report to Congress and the President laying out specific concerns and negotiating objectives prior to the vote by Congress on pre-authorization. This careful review process allows the Congress to deal with the reality that not all proposed negotiations are created equal. It is certainly the case that a bilateral trade agreement with Australia would raise very different issues and different concerns than one with Egypt or Laos. Hemispheric trade proposals may raise labor and environmental concerns which have no relevant place in a negotiation involving financial services or competition policy. For these reasons, our negotiating strategy and goals must be flexible if we are to maximize the opportunities before us. The law should recognize this reality while still remaining true to our constitutional obligations as a Congress. Some may attack this proposal because it would require two votes by Congress, not just one, one before a negotiation and one to approve the final agreement. I say so much the better. The government should speak plainly and honestly to our citizens. Our trade policy should be shaped in direct consultation with working families throughout the United States, speaking through their elected representatives. Goals and objectives should be spelled out. Details matter. If we want to restore the faith of Americans in trade agreements, we must be forthright in spelling out our objectives, and we should have nothing to hide. Pass this legislation and give the administration the authority they need.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove the name of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) as a cosponsor of H.R. 1305.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a topic that is of central importance to our economy for many years to come, a topic which Congress is going to be called upon to consider in the near future, and I think has to consider in a bipartisan way in thinking outside of the box, thinking outside of their traditional ways of approaching it. I am referring here, of course, to the topic of trade and trade negotiating authority for the President. Mr. Speaker, more than 200 years ago, Benjamin Franklin wisely observed that no Nation was ever ruined by trade. Back then, the United States was a small part of the global economy. By far, the largest portion of the wealth of the world lay outside of our borders. Franklin was simply expressing that which was obvious to most Americans, the wealthiest and most powerful nations on Earth were the great trading powers. If the U.S. were ever to live up to its potential, we had to plug in, we had to participate in the global economy. An island, even one of continental scale, could not expect to prosper by sealing its borders to the commercial opportunities that lie abroad. But today, Mr. Speaker, all that has changed. Or has it? Following World War II, the U.S. temporarily was an economic colossus such as the world had never seen. By some measures, we accounted for over 50 percent of world economic output. Gradually, however, the old balance was restored. Europe and East Asia were rebuilt, international trade soared as the nightmare effects of the war and depression-causing tariff walls were swept away, economies prospered, and tens of millions were lifted from poverty. Today, 75 percent of the world economy is outside of our borders. Some would suggest, even after the experience of the last 5 decades, that all economic growth abroad comes at our expense. They seem to think this is a zero sum game. They seem to think that there is a finite amount of money in the world and that for someone to win, someone else must lose. I categorically reject that argument. In the complex web of international trade, other nations are not simply competitors, although that is certainly an important component of our relationship. They are also our customers. They are our suppliers. And, more than occasionally, they are our partners in joint ventures. We depend on them and they depend on us. Or can they? For 6 years now, the President of the United States, the leader of the free world and representative of the largest single economy on the planet, has lacked the authority to negotiate trade agreements, agreements that could pry open foreign markets, reduce and even eliminate unfair trading practices and create and preserve more jobs here at home. All of this is beyond the reach of the President of the United States. How did we get into this mess? How did we reach a situation where our government lacks the same ability to protect and advance our interests that even the smallest international player takes for granted? While I supported many of the trade policies of the last administration, particularly their efforts to preserve our antidumping and counterveiling duty laws, the sad fact is that they forfeited America's leadership role by simple default. None of this would matter if the rest of the world were standing still, but the rest of humanity is impatient for economic progress. All around us, our trading partners, tired of U.S. excuses and delays, are joining and forming new trade alliances without us. Europe is forming new trade pacts all across Latin America, South America and North Africa. The nations of East Asia are actively working to form a new regional combine. America is not even a party to these discussions. It is time to break through the either/or, dead-end fast track debate and move beyond the current stalemate to allow for full consideration of the legitimate issues that confront us in trade negotiating authority. To restore the President's ability to advance our interests, I have introduced H.R. 1446, the Standard Trade Negotiating Authority Act, as a new approach to trade promotion authority. Over the course of the next several weeks, I will describe in greater detail the most important sections of this bill. But today I would like to outline some of its basic provisions for the House. My bill provides ongoing negotiating authority for the President but differs from fast track by requiring preauthorization from the Congress for a specific country for a specific negotiation before the President enters into negotiations. Legitimate concerns regarding environmental and labor standards are addressed during the preauthorization process through the creation of a new commission which will draft specific recommendations to be included in the negotiation goals. This ensures that blue and green concerns are considered, where appropriate, as part of a trade negotiation. When negotiations are complete, the President will submit the agreement along with a plan for implementation and enforcement to Congress for final approval. He must also outline any costs that accompany the plan. This bill is an attempt to demystify the stale debate surrounding trade agreements, open the process to greater public and congressional scrutiny, making it more transparent, provide for a way to address real blue and green concerns and restore the U.S. to its leadership role on the international stage. A few weeks ago, the President submitted his trade proposal to Congress. In my view, he correctly outlined his goals to expand our export markets while leaving Congress with a great deal of discretion for determining the best way to proceed. My legislation answers this challenge by creating a framework that provides for appropriate oversight of trade agreements before, during and after their completion. I urge my colleagues to set aside partisan rancor, set aside traditional ideological classifications and consider this bill carefully. I would welcome their efforts to join with me to build a bipartisan coalition to take a new approach to trade in America.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, it is fundamental that the family is the central institution of American society. Mr. Speaker, many families open their hearts and open their homes to children through adoption. They know that they can provide a child with a loving home, and they know that they can grow as individuals and as a couple by experiencing the love of a child. Our enlightened social policy and tax policy should encourage this. Unfortunately, the average adoption in 1998 cost roughly $5,900, with 25 percent of adoptive parents reporting expenses of more than $10,000. That price tag prohibits many families from growing, leaving more than 118,000 foster care children waiting to be adopted. Given the financial commitment being made by families who adopt a child, the current credit does not go far enough. The Hope for Children Act opens the doors for many families who wish to adopt children but find the cost absolutely prohibitive. H.R. 622 increases the maximum adoption tax credit to $10,000 from $6,000 for special-needs children and $5,000 for all other adoptions, while increasing the income cap for those who claim the credit from $75,000 to $150,000. It also makes the credit permanent for all adoptions, not just special-needs children. The bill allows the credit to apply against the AMT, so families are not unfairly pushed into the AMT by claiming this credit. This plan also increases the exclusion for employer-provided adoption assistance to $10,000 for all adoptions and makes this provision permanent. Mr. Speaker, many families in my district and around the United States know firsthand the joy of adopting a child. We should not allow cost to stand as a barrier to all families that wish this experience, to experience it. Passing this legislation will advance the goal of providing every child with a loving home.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, as the Republic of China on Taiwan prepares to celebrate President Chen Shui-bian's first anniversary in office, I wish to extend to President Chen and the people of Taiwan my congratulations. Despite its diplomatic isolation, Taiwan is a proud nation that has made extraordinary progress in recent years. It has an exemplary democracy with free elections, free press and respect for human rights. For decades, the United States and its people are united in supporting Taiwan's pursuit of freedom and democracy. We will continue to support Taiwan and its people. Peace and security in the Taiwan Strait is vital to the security interests of all nations in the area. Congratulations, President Chen on a job well done.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in the last 40 years, Americans have gone from saving 6.2 percent of their disposable personal income to saving less than .1 percent. In fact, Americans lag behind Canada, Germany, and Japan by as much as 4 percent when it comes to our national savings rate. The rate of decline in national savings is greater in the United States than in most of the industrialized world. Today, as a result, we import capital into our country to finance our improving standard of living. In my view, addressing this problem is as important to our national economic future as addressing our reliance on foreign oil. We need to end our dependence on imported capital, and this landmark legislation will address that problem by allowing families to increase their retirement savings. H.R. 10 will increase the national savings rate, increase our national prosperity, and provide for a stable retirement for millions of working families through better access to pension plans and expanded IRAs. The Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act provides individuals with a variety of retirement savings incentives, such as lifting limits to IRA and 401(k) plans. These limits are currently stuck at 1980 levels. Baby boomers who are discovering that their retirement is severely underfunded because they stopped working to raise a family can catch up under this plan through higher contribution limits. In addition, I am particularly pleased to see that this bill addresses the unintended consequences of section 415. Currently, section 415 seriously hampers the ability of America's workers, not the wealthy but rank and file workers, to collect their full pension amounts which they have earned. Reducing the pensions of workers who retire before normal Social Security retirement age has caused enormous financial hardship for many workers in places like western Pennsylvania. Thousands of retiring workers have carefully saved and planned for their retirement, and they are relying on their private pension funds. This legislation will allow them to have the full benefit of the pension that they themselves worked so hard to build. I urge my colleagues to support this landmark legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I am brought to the floor by two recent bits of news that were called to my attention, one that fills me with foreboding and another that fills me with hope. Yesterday, I received sad news from my district. Another local steel company, MacInnes Steel, had filed for bankruptcy, a company that has been a long partner and a long contributor in our community; a company that I visited only a few weeks ago as I traveled my district to announce my chairmanship of the Congressional Steel Caucus; a company that is progressive and in which management has been making a major capital investment; a modern steel company. This company had filed for protection under our bankruptcy laws. Their CEO called it, and I quote, ``a last resort as it struggled with the double blow of a domestic slump in the industry and surging energy costs.'' I must say this is not the first time recently this has happened in my district. Earlier this year, we received the news that an employee- owned company, Erie Forge and Steel, another long-standing institution in our community, had filed for bankruptcy. They cited a variety of reasons for this, including foreign dumping and a slow economy. The fact is, this is part of a pattern we are seeing around the country. America's steel industry is struggling. We are experiencing a steel crisis. A major core industry of our manufacturing capacity is being threatened, and in the process we face the risk that a major strategic part of our manufacturing sector could be hollowed out in the near future. Our companies are facing predatory trade practices from our foreign competitors, and so it was encouraging to me to read on Tuesday that the U.S. Department of Commerce had made a preliminary determination confirming that a number of our foreign trade competitors were dumping hot-rolled steel in the U.S. market. I have to say this is a very important decision and a very encouraging one. This preliminary ruling found that 11 countries had been violating our trade laws, including Argentina, China, India and Taiwan, and were benefiting from countervailable subsidies as high as 40 percent. This finding points to major infringements not only of international trade norms but also our anti-dumping laws. This preliminary decision is good news for our struggling domestic steel industry. It means that beginning this week, we collected a bond from the importers in the amount of the preliminary dumping margin, providing immediate relief to our employers. If, in the final determination, the decision stands that these countries are indeed dumping on U.S. markets, anti-dumping orders will be issued. The problem of dumping, Mr. Speaker, is not unique to western Pennsylvania employers but, rather, is part of a bigger picture of what is happening nationwide with the steel industry facing a cascade of layoffs. The companies that were injured by unfair trade practices in this decision are not only from Pennsylvania; but they are also from Kentucky, Illinois, North Carolina, Indiana, and Ohio. This decision by the Commerce Department is an important and initial recognition of how severe the problem of dumping is as it faces our domestic industry. I would like to commend the Bush administration for their quick action in this area. It is good to know that President Bush is willing to enforce the existing trade laws. But this is only a beginning. I urge the administration to continue to take action to protect American workers and their jobs when they face clearly unfair competition. The economic slowdown in the United States and East Asia intensifies the need for enforcement of our trade laws. Yes, there was a drop in steel imports last month, but as we have analyzed that change, clearly this only reflects a buildup of excess inventory. The steel industry continues to be flat on its back facing a depression even as we debate whether other areas of the economy are heading toward a recession. We must be very vigilant against dumping and unfair trade practices by our competitors. I encourage President Bush to look at all of his options, including seeking an action under section 201 and supporting our efforts to dramatically strengthen domestic trade laws that allow the administration to police our markets.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of a great man, one who is truly a living legend. Transplant pioneer Thomas E. Starzl not only performed the world's first liver transplant in 1963 and the first successful series of kidney transplants between nonidentical twins between 1963, and 1964, he has for forty decades continued to make equally extraordinary advancements. For instance, in 1980, just before coming to the University of Pittsburgh, he developed a combination of drugs that transformed transplantation of the liver and heart from an experimental procedure to an accepted form of treatment for patients with end-stage organ failure and opened the door to pancreas and lung transplantation. In 1989, his development of another drug markedly improved survival rates for all kinds of transplants and made possible for the first time successful transplantation of the small intestine. The entire field of transplantation has advanced because of his courage, his genius, and his compassion for his patients. When Pittsburgh welcomed him just 20 years ago, no one had any idea the incredible contributions this man would make to medicine and mankind. Indeed, the city has enjoyed an enhanced reputation because he chose to make the University of Pittsburgh his academic home. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the first liver transplant he performed in Pittsburgh. Since then, surgeons at the University of Pittsburgh and the UPMC Health System have performed nearly 6,000 liver transplants and more than 11,300 transplants of all organs. No other center in the world comes close. But the impact of Dr. Starzl's work goes far beyond Pittsburgh. Patients throughout the world, even those who have not been under his skillful care, have benefited from his contributions. He has trained numerous surgeons and research scientists. In fact, many, if not most of the world's transplant surgeons and physicians have been trained by Dr. Starzl or by those trained by him. Later this month, many of these former students and colleagues will honor Dr. Starzl at a scientific symposium in his honor, and the University of Pittsburgh will unveil his portrait, which will hang in the School of Medicine with the likes of other great pioneers, including Jonas Salk. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring and thanking one of history's great surgeons, Dr. Thomas Starzl.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding me the time. Today's vote, Mr. Speaker, is one of the key votes on tax equity that this Congress will make. Whether or not an individual Member may support our efforts to provide a proportional tax cut for every taxpayer, they have to concede that this bill makes our Tax Code fairer for dual-income couples and families with children. That is why I rise to urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in support of this legislation. On a fundamental level, increasing the child tax credit makes our tax system more fair. It especially helps middle-income and low-income families who can use the money to meet the priorities of their family budget. Since the 1950s, the ugly fact is we have shifted more and more of the tax burden of the Federal Government onto the backs of Americans working families. This legislation takes an important step forward in improving tax fairness and progressivity in our Tax Code. Here are the facts: This legislation takes 2 million working families completely off the tax rolls. This legislation provides benefits to 25 million families through doubling the child tax credit. This legislation provides relief to 5 million families within the earned income tax credit. The tax relief debate that we have should not be a partisan debate, but rather a debate about how fairly to return a portion of our national surplus back to working families. American taxpayers have been overcharged by their government, and it is only fair that Congress ensure that they receive a refund. This legislation provides tax fairness, and everyone who professes to support tax fairness on the other side of the aisle should have an obligation to support it.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, in a time of crisis, many of us choose not to get involved. Mr. Speaker, we've all read the newspaper headlines when someone has witnessed a crime or even saw someone get injured and they chose not to get involved because they didn't want to complicate their lives. Today, I rise to pay tribute to someone who acted differently, bravely. Heather Hagan personifies a hero's life. She chose to get involved and in the end saved a woman's life. At 15 years old, Heather showed incredible intuition, caring, and determination for one so young. On March 12, as she was doing her daily rounds delivering The Herald to her customers on her paper route, she noticed something different at the home of Josephine McCutcheon. The newspapers were piled up against the door, unclaimed for several days. Additionally, Heather realized she had not seen the 81-year-old woman in days. Heather completed her route. She thought about how odd it was that Mrs. McCutcheon had not picked up her newspaper or even stopped delivery if she was going out of town. Worried, she called the elderly woman's house but the line was busy. Heather chose not to let it end there. She knew something was not right so she returned to the home of the former Mercer councilwoman and county commissioner. There was no response when she knocked at the door. Sensing something was wrong, Heather contacted the local authorities, who found Mrs. McCutcheon lying on the floor of the house after a fall, unable to summon help. Mr. Speaker, in a time when the news is full of stories of insensitive and selfish people, they have not been introduced to teens such as Heather Hagan. She broke the mold. She gives me hope for the coming generations. The easy thing to do would've been for Heather to do her job and leave it at that. But she, in the immortal words of Robert Frost, took the road less traveled by, going out of her way, having a dramatic impact on someone's life. I would like to say thank you to Heather--she is truly a treasure to our community.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, all too often we in Washington are insulated from major events that are going on around the world, events that directly or indirectly impact us. But there are few events more grotesque than something that happened just over the last couple of weeks in Afghanistan, an act of barbarism, an act of mindless iconoclasm by a regime noted for its intolerance of all values that do not precisely conform to their own. Here I am referring to the decision of the Taliban outlaw government in Afghanistan to sanction and encourage the destruction of two standing Buddhas of enormous importance to world culture. The Bamiyan standing Buddha statues in Afghanistan up until this point have been one of the greatest wonders of the world and one of the marvels of that region and one of the remaining gifts that the cultures of that part of central Asia had given the entire world. They were a magnificent example of human artistry and skill. Mr. Speaker, those statues had represented a common heritage of all mankind. The Bamiyan Buddhas had survived hostile onslaughts over the centuries, but they did not survive destruction at the hands of religious zealots and heretics. Afghanistan is a country with a very rich and enormously complicated history. Because of its mountainous terrain, it was often on the border of different empires that washed across the history of the world. It was briefly a Greek region under Alexander the Great, and it was also a Buddhist region in the third century B.C., Buddhism having been launched there by the Emperor Ashoka of the Mauryan empire. At that time, Afghanistan lay at the heart of the silk route, which was a source of trade that moved from east to west. Accompanying the caravans of precious goods, Buddhist monks came and went, teaching their religion along the route. From this very part of the world Buddhism established itself over the centuries in China, Korea, Japan, Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and Mongolia. In the early centuries of the Christian era, a new art form emerged, the art of Gandhara, the ancient name for part of Afghanistan. During this period, the earliest Buddhist images in human form evolved in this Kushan/Saka area. The caravans on the silk route often stopped in the Bamiyan Valley. It was one of the major Buddhist centers from the second century up to the time that Islam entered the Valley in the ninth century. There these two giant Buddhas, one of them the largest standing image of Buddha in the world, more than 120 feet high, stood, until this week. These symbols of their ancient faith were cut out of the rock sometime between the third and fifth centuries A.D. The smaller statue of Buddha was carved during Kanishka the Great's reign. It was estimated that two centuries later the large Buddha statue was carved. I have to tell you, it is striking to me as an archaeology buff that both of these statues were dressed in togas of the Greek style imported into India by the soldiers of Alexander the Great when he invaded the region between 334 and 327 B.C. The features of these statues of Buddha had disappeared. During the centuries, undoubtedly, there had been earlier bouts of iconoclasm. The idea behind the destruction was to take away the soul of the hated image by obliterating, or at least deforming, the head and hands. The intolerance of the Taliban in leading to this destruction needs to have a strong international response. The Taliban has clearly failed to recognize the value of any art that does not conform precisely to their religious purposes. The Taliban are only the temporary holders. Their government is only a custodian of this area. We cannot tolerate their willful destruction of international treasures that are really holdings of the entire world. We cannot allow them to get away with this action. The action of the Taliban regime represents the worst case of vandalism in recent history of our ancient past. Today, more and more people are awakening to their heritage and the importance of preserving these sorts of relics. We have in Christian countries many examples of Islamic art that are protected, like the Alhambra in Spain. We know that in Egypt, now an Islamic country, there are relics, there are statues, there are temples that are of enormous significance to the culture of the world. We need in Congress to send a clear message to the Taliban that this is unacceptable, and we need to bring together all of the nations of the world to express our outrage and take firm action against this cultural imperialism.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come for candor. We need to recognize that America is experiencing a slowdown. After we have seen the smoke clear from last year's election campaign, it became increasingly obvious that the economy was not doing as well as some had claimed. And in the manufacturing sector that makes up so much of the economy of my district, we are clearly experiencing a recession. We have an opportunity to move forward right now and change those dynamics. But the only way we can do it is by recognizing that in this background, we are imposing the heaviest tax burden in peacetime ever on the American economy, and we need to recognize that if we are going into a recession, the last thing on earth we want to do is run a huge surplus. Our tax bill would address that issue. Our tax bill would stimulate the economy, lower the tax burden and encourage growth, savings and investment. A recent study by the Heritage Foundation of H.R. 3 suggests that this bill would clearly increase economic growth, increase investment, increase savings, increase family income and over 5 years create 500,000 new jobs. Now, our opponents are making phony procedural arguments against the bill and using strange numbers. But the fact is they want to spend the money. We want to give it back to the American public so it can stimulate the economy and get our economy back on a growth track. There is nothing more urgent facing this Congress than the right kind of economic policy. We should act swiftly to pass this tax cut and send the resources back to the economy.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, every community has a voice. It's that one person whose voice resonates through the neighborhoods, asking questions and expressing aloud the thoughts of all. I rise today to pay tribute to one such voice in Butler County, Mr. Larry Berg. He has left an indelible mark on this area of western Pennsylvania, not only as a radio host, but as an active and vital member of the community. Upon his retirement, he deserves to be honored for his outstanding contributions. As a 16-year-old freshman at New York University, Larry chose his radio broadcasting major simply because it sounded interesting. But during the span of the next 53 years, he found himself working in places such as Baltimore, Des Moines, St. Louis, New Orleans, El Paso and New York. Tired of the gypsy's life, he and his wife decided in 1964 to buy a radio station in Butler, Pa.--a town neither of them had heard of before. And for 36 years, he ably served this community. On air, he satisfied his listeners by asking probing questions, whether he interviewed the star of the high school musical, a member of Congress, The Beatles' Paul McCartney or even the King himself, Elvis Presley. Larry became a local icon through his daily radio talk show. He brought the world to our cars and living rooms with his unique gift. His hard work and dedication to the people of Butler County went well beyond what could be heard over the airwaves. Off the air, he served as president of many fine organizations such as the Butler Rotary Club, the Butler County Chamber of Commerce and Tourism, and the B'Nai Abraham Synagogue. Determined to give back to the community that welcomed him with open arms, he also served as a board member of Butler Memorial Hospital, Visiting Nurses Association of Western PA, Boy Scouts, Salvation Army, Lifesteps, Cancer Society, Butler County Music and Art Festival, and Butler County Jaycees. And his efforts have not gone unnoticed. He's been honored by various groups including receiving awards such as Junior Man of the Year, Pennsylvania's Most Outstanding Radio Program About Cancer and the City of Butler's True Citizen Award. Larry is a genuine individual whose openness, honesty and friendliness on and off the air paints a clear picture of his love for the human species. Those who know him describe him not only as an exceptional human being but a wonderful friend, husband to his wife, Judy, father to his three children and grandfather of 10. Now as he retires, I wish to thank Larry for his years of extraordinary service to our community. Knowing Larry, I am positive that he is entering retirement in name only. He will continue to be a positive influence in Butler County and beyond. I wish him the best in the coming years. This may mark the end of his radio program, but it is simply life moving on to a different frequency.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Broadband Internet Access Act, which is a bipartisan bill to encourage the spread of high-speed Internet technology in rural and low-income communities. Much in the role that canals played at the turn of the 19th century and the railroad played later in the century, the Internet is the critical infrastructure of our age. Communities without access will suffer as jobs and investment moves to connected communities. People in the rural or low-income communities are excluded from the personal and economic benefits of a high-speed information flow--a digital divide. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2001 addresses the disparity in the availability of high-speed Internet access, also known as broadband services, in the United States. Underserved communities--typically rural and low-income areas--are lagging seriously behind. The digital divide compromises the enormous gains that could be achieved by the Internet economy. The Internet is a valuable tool and every American should have the opportunity to get up to speed on the information superhighway. I am submitting a technical explanation of the bill that is designed to stimulate the growth of high-speed Internet services. Broadband Internet Access Tax Credit (New Sec. 48A of the Code) Present Law Present law does not provide a credit for investments in telecommunications infrastructure. Explanation of Provision The bill provides a credit equal to 10 percent of the qualified expenditures incurred by the taxpayer with respect to qualified equipment with which ``current generation'' broadband services are delivered to subscribers in rural and underserved areas. In addition, the bill provides a credit equal to 20 percent of the qualified expenditures incurred by the taxpayer with respect to qualified equipment with which ``next generation'' broadband services are delivered to subscribers in rural areas, underserved areas, and to residential subscribers. Current generation broadband services is defined as the transmission of signals at a rate of at least 1.5 million bits per second to the subscriber and at a rate of at least 200,000 bits per second from the subscriber. Next generation broadband services is defined as the transmission of signals at a rate of at least 22 million bits per second to the subscriber and at a rate of at least 5 million bits per second from the subscriber. Taxpayers will be permitted to substantiate their satisfaction of the required transmission rates through statistically significant test data demonstrating satisfaction of the required transmission rates, by providing evidence that all relevant subscribers were provided with a written guarantee that the required transmission rates would be satisfied, or through any other reasonable method. For this purpose, the fact that certain subscribers are not able to access such services at the required transmission rates due to limitations in equipment outside of the control of the provider, or in equipment other than qualified equipment, shall not be taken into account. A rural area is any census tract which is not within 10 miles of any incorporated or census designated place with a population of more than 25,000 and which is not within a county with a population density of more than 500 people per square mile. An underserved area is any census tract which is located in an Qualified Expenditures Qualified expenditures are those amounts otherwise chargeable to the capital account with respect to the purchase and installation of qualified equipment for which depreciation is allowable under section 168. Qualified expenditures are those that are incurred by the taxpayer after December 31, 2001, and before January 1, 2006. The expenditures are taken into account for purposes of claiming the credit in the first taxable year in which broadband service is delivered to at least 10 percent of the specified type of subscribers which the qualified equipment is capable of serving in an area in which the provider has legal or contractual area access rights or obligations. For this purpose, it is intended that the subscribers which the equipment is capable of serving will be determined by the least capable link in the system. For example, if a system has a packet switch capable of serving 10,000 subscribers, followed by a digital subscriber line access multiplexer (``DSLAM'') capable of serving only 2,000 subscribers, then the area which the equipment is capable of serving is the area served by the 2,000 DSLAM lines. Although the credit only applies with respect to qualified expenditures incurred during specified periods, the fact that the expenditures are not taken into account until a later period will not affect the taxpayer's eligibility for the credit. For example, if a taxpayer incurs qualified expenditures with respect to equipment providing next generation broadband services in 2004, but the taxpayer does not satisfy the 10 percent subscription threshold until 2005, the taxpayer will be eligible for the credit in 2005 (assuming the other requirements of the bill are satisfied). To substantiate their satisfaction of the 10 percent subscription threshold, taxpayers will be required to provide such information as is required by the Secretary, which may include relevant customer data or evidence of independent certification. In the case of a taxpayer that incurs expenditures for equipment capable of serving both subscribers in qualifying areas and other areas, qualified expenditures are determined by multiplying otherwise qualified expenditures by the ratio of the number of potential qualifying subscribers to all potential subscribers the qualified equipment would be capable of serving, as determined by the least capable link in the system. Taxpayers may use any reasonable method to determine the relevant total potential subscriber population, based on the most recently published census data. In addition, for purposes of substantiating the total potential subscriber population which equipment is capable of serving, taxpayers will be required to provide such information as is required by the Secretary, which may include manufacturer's equipment ratings or evidence of independent certification. Qualified equipment Qualified equipment must be capable of providing broadband services at any time to each subscriber who is utilizing such services. It is intended that this standard would be satisfied if a subscriber utilizing broadband services through the equipment is able to receive the specified transmission rates in at least 99 out of 100 attempts. In the case of a telecommunications carrier, qualified equipment is equipment that extends from the last point of switching to the outside of the building in which the subscriber is located. In the case of a commercial mobile service carrier, qualified equipment is equipment that extends from the customer side of a mobile telephone switching office to a transmission/reception antenna (including the antenna) of the subscriber. In the case of a cable operator or open video system operator, qualified equipment is equipment that extends from the customer side of the headend to the outside of the building in which the subscriber is located. In the case of a satellite carrier or other wireless carrier (other than a telecommunications carrier), qualified equipment is equipment that extends from a transmission/reception antenna (including the antenna) to a transmission/reception antenna on the outside of the building used by the subscriber. In addition, any packet switching equipment deployed in connection with other qualified equipment is qualified equipment, regardless of location, provided that it is the last such equipment in a series as part of transmission of a signal to a subscriber or the first in a series in the transmission of a signal from a subscriber. Finally, multiplexing and demultiplexing equipment and other equipment making associated applications deployed in connection with other qualified equipment is qualified equipment only if it is located between qualified packet switching equipment and the subscriber's premises. Although a taxpayer must incur the expenditures directly in order to qualify for the credit, the taxpayer may provide the requisite broadband services either directly or indirectly. For example, if a partnership constructs qualified equipment or otherwise incurs qualified expenditures, but the requisite services are provided by one or more of its partners, the partnership will be eligible for the credit (assuming the other requirements of the bill are satisfied). It is anticipated that the Secretary will issue regulations or other published guidance demonstrating how the requirements of the bill are satisfied in such situations. Effective date The provision is effective for expenditures incurred after December 31, 2001.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here to urge strong bipartisan support for this very important legislation. Legislation that may be the most important action we take at the close of this Congress, and perhaps for years to come. This is critical legislation to protect the jobs of working families who have members who work in some of our best-paying export oriented jobs in America. I am surprised to hear the strange rhetoric on the floor of this House that is essentially rhetoric directed against their jobs. We have heard the opponents of this legislation adopt the same rhetoric of our European trade competitors in criticizing our tax system. The thing to understand and what FSC is intended to address, this legislation is not a welfare bill, corporate or otherwise. It is not a subsidy. It is an adjustment of our tax system to establish a level playing field, and that is what our European trade competitors have not wanted. FSC was originally created and made necessary, only because the U.S. maintains an archaic worldwide tax system which taxes foreign-source income and because the U.S. taxes export income. By refusing to reform FSC today, this Congress would be inviting massive retaliation against U.S. export trade leaving our exporters and their employees high and dry. Failing to reform FSC today would make an already tough global market next to impossible for U.S. employers to compete in. If we do not act today, we would impose a huge cost on the economy of this country, particularly on some of the industries in manufacturing that have the best paying jobs. If we do not act today, we would put our workers at a competitive disadvantage and effectively balance our budget on their backs. Mr. Speaker, if we do not act today, we will explode our already large trade deficit and put our economy in a downward spiral because, if we do not act today, we will set up the dynamics for a trade war between Europe and the United States. We cannot afford that. They cannot afford that. We should not move down this slippery slope. Pass this legislation. It is the one responsible thing we can do today.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, briefly I urge my colleagues to vote against this perverse and misguided motion to instruct. I agree the trend of Medicare+Choice plans pulling out of areas across the country is enormously disturbing, but may I suggest to the folks on the other side that they have offered exactly the wrong solution. By forcing plans to commit to 3 years, we are ensuring that plans who are struggling to maintain their service will leave now, right now. Medicare+Choice funding, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), noted, is too unpredictable under current HCFA policy. This motion adds no accountability; just a poison pill. I find it ironic that the Democrats and the President have spent the past week tearing apart the Medicare bill that this House passed, calling the money spent on Medicare+Choice plans unjustified. If anyone thinks that the money dedicated to shoring up Medicare+Choice plans is unjustifiable, I invite them to come to Erie, Crawford, and Mercer County, Pennsylvania. I invite them to explain that to seniors who are facing copays that will double in January and decrease benefits. If they are indeed serious about stabilizing Medicare+Choice, then I urge our friends on the other side of the aisle to drop this and urge the President to sign the House package and work with us to ensure that seniors relying on these plans continue to have access to quality health care. Do not simply adopt populist poses and deploy vacant partisan rhetoric while requiring Medicare+Choice plans to be at the mercy of HCFA for 3 years. This is no solution. They will simply leave and seniors will be left holding the bag.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a long-time strong supporter of the LIHEAP program to support this motion. LIHEAP, indeed, has been underfunded for many, many years, and it is an important priority for this year to put more funding into LIHEAP. Let me reiterate the point that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has already made, under the President's budget, he had proposed only to fund LIHEAP to the tune of $1.1 billion, plus $300 million for emergency funding. The position that had been worked out on our side of the aisle with some collaboration was that instead, we would put in $1.4 billion for the LIHEAP program, plus $300 million for emergency funding. Mr. Speaker, I think there is a strong case to be made for increasing beyond the $1.4 billion. But let us understand what is really at work here. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) noted, one of the real problems here is that we have a failed energy policy in this country. We are anticipating this winter that energy costs are going to go through the roof; and that is going to have a huge impact on low-income households, seniors and others are going to be forced to choose between heating and eating, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) noted. That is because not only have we underfunded LIHEAP, but also because we have not placed regulatory policies that are antiproduction. We need to tackle this problem from a number of different directions. Yes, let us increase LIHEAP funding; but that in, itself, is no excuse for not having an energy policy in this country.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in paying tribute to a man whose retirement announcement was one of the things that I most dreaded in this Congress. When I came to Congress and came to the Committee on Ways and Means in 1994, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) was a beacon. We had just taken control. Revolution was in the air. And we were facing an enormous task of moving, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) noted, 70 percent of the Contract with America through our committee and doing it right. We could not have done it without leadership of the character and quality of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer). He has been noted by other speakers for his extraordinary civility in an institution where that is an increasingly rare element. I would like to say that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has always struck me for his stoicism, his strong principle, and the fact that when it comes to principle, he has been absolutely unyielding. And yet, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, he has always been a superb legislative tactician. He has been courageous and articulate every time he has risen on the floor of this House. This chamber has become kind of hushed, because the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) always has something extraordinary to say and the expertise to back it up. He is one of those Members who brings to this body true intellectual rigor. He has a profound understanding of the Tax Code, and that has really been the hallmark of his term as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. It is notable that he opposed the 1986 Tax Code when it passed, and with good reason, and every criticism that he made of that Code has been proven true. He has consistently advocated its replacement, and perhaps this body will some day have the courage to take up his challenge and pull the current Code out by the roots. Yet, he has been involved in other issues, as well. I became aware that he was a leading advocate of raising the earnings limit for persons with disabilities and carried that issue in a number of Congresses. He has consistently defended the prerogatives of the House Committee on Ways and Means, the oldest committee in this body, and one that has always risen above the partisan zephyrs that have troubled other committees. He has preserved the traditions of the Committee on Ways and Means very much in the tradition of the giants who have chaired that committee in this body, like John Randolph of Roanoke, William McKinley, and in our memory, Wilbur Mills. We will miss the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer). His shoes will be impossible to fill. But like Nathaniel Macon in the 19th century, he has decided that he is at a stage in his life when he would like to move on and do something else. We respect that. We wish him and Sharon well. We will miss him sorely in future Congresses. He has been for me an inspiration and has been a source, I think, of great institutional memory and stability.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which will bring a measure of fairness to our corporate tax system. Currently, closely-held C-corporations pay a 35% tax on capital gains, while all other closely-held corporations and individuals pay only a 20% tax. This kind of tax treatment is unfair to the owners of closely- held C-corporations. Unfortunately, current tax law prevents closely-held C-corporations from competing on a level-playing field with other forms of enterprise with respect to capital gains. Widely-held C-corporations are not subject to the same provisions that limit closely-held C-corporations. In addition, closely-held C-corporations are subject to a much higher- tax rate than individuals or pass-through entities. Closely-held C-corporations have become a sort of hybrid form of business which, from a federal income tax perspective, operates in the worst of worlds. First, they are subject to all the Internal Revenue Service provisions that apply to widely-held C-corporations. Second, they are subject to two important limitation provisions that normally apply only to individuals or pass-through entities: the passive loss rules and the at-risk rules. Third, they are subject to the personal holding company and accumulated earnings tax provisions, which generally do not apply either to individuals or widely-held C- corporations. for the owners of closely-held C-corporations, things are even worse. Not only are capital gains initially deprived of a favorable tax rate at the corporate level, but when these capital gains are distributed, they are taxed as ordinary income in the hands of the owners. The penalty provisions described above were intended to prevent especially wealthy individuals from using C-corporations to avoid tax liabilities. However, multiple changes over recent years in the tax treatment of C-corporations have all but eliminated any possibility of using a C-corporation in such a manner. S-corporations, on the other hand, have experienced a liberalization of regulation and now present a better ownership vehicle, from a tax point of view, than any closely- held C-corporation. Current tax law prevents closely-held C-corporations from competing fairly for capital gains investments. These companies cannot compete against widely-held C-corporations because the latter generally are not subject to the limitation provision with which the closely- held C-corporation must grapple. In addition, they cannot compete fairly with individuals or pass-through entities because they pay a much higher capital gains tax rate. This kind of discrimination in tax treatment is unfair to the owners of these businesses and is unhealthy for the economy as a whole. My proposal would reduce the tax rate applicable to the capital gains of closely-held C-corporations from the current 35% to 20%. However, in order to benefit from the lower capital gains rate, these corporations must subject their ordinary income to the individual 39.6% tax rate. If the net effect of these two rates is a reduction in tax liability, the corporation will pay the lower amount. If not, the corporations would pay the current 35% tax rate on capital gains and ordinary income. As a result, all closely-held corporations would pay the same rate and thus compete fairly. This proposal is obviously not the entire solution, but it would make a dent in dealing with the inequity of this particular situation.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, the Republic of China on Taiwan will celebrate its birthday on October 10, 2000. Taiwan has much to celebrate. It is a modern country led by newly elected President Chen Shui-bian, who believes that Taiwan's future lies in a strong democracy and a free enterprise system. Taiwan is highly admired as a successful example of democracy in much of the developing world. In March of this year, Taiwanese citizens freely chose Chen Shui-bian, the candidate representing the Democratic Progressive Party, as their president. Since his inauguration on May 20, President Chen has convincingly demonstrated his leadership in all areas. In recent years, Taiwan has experienced unprecedented economic success. In addition to its well-known industrial prowess, Taiwan leads most Asian nations in its production of computers, computer chips, and telecommunications equipment and has contributed tremendously to the world wide high technology boom. Taiwan's citizens enjoy one of the highest living standards in the world. On the occasion of the Republic of China's National Day, it is important to remember that Taiwan has a strong relationship with the United States and we hope that this relationship will continue to flourish in years to come. I look forward to working with President Chen and wish the people of Taiwan well on this special day.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to salute the gentleman from Missouri (Chairman Talent) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member, of the Small Business Committee for bringing forward this legislation now and on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Chairman, America's 23 million small businesses employ more than 50 percent of the private workforce and they generate more than half of the Nation's gross domestic product. They are the principal source of new jobs in the U.S. economy and the primary source of dynamism in the U.S. economy. But no matter how they shape our economy, small businesses in general, and notably women-owned businesses, still face an uphill battle when it comes to obtaining Federal contracts, that is why I rise in strong support of this legislation, the Small Business Competition Preservation Act of 2000. Mr. Chairman, small businesses have an inherent disadvantage of scale because of their size and resources. It is difficult for them to compete in a procurement landscape dominated by big business. Congress has, as the gentleman noted, enacted goals for Federal agencies that give small businesses a fighting chance in a playing field slanted toward the big boys. One goal calls for small business to be awarded just 20 percent of Federal contracts; but, Mr. Chairman, not a single Federal agency, not one, has met that goal. Federal agencies, and particularly the Department of Defense, have ignored these goals and instead instituted procurement policies more focused on alleged efficiencies in the procurement system. By consolidating numerous jobs into one contract, Federal agencies erect a barrier to participation by small business. Small businesses have limited resources to draw on and work at a disadvantage when it comes to bidding on a bundled Federal contract. I have heard from many small business and women-owned business owners who have expressed their concerns and shared their stories of the quality services that they could offer the Federal Government but are unable to do so because a Federal agency chooses a bundling process with contracts instead of a series of small contracts. After all, how can a small business grow and expand if the Federal Government consistently penalizes them for their size by only offering bundled contracts, which are often too large for a single small business to handle? That slants the playing field toward big business, making it impossible for smaller players to compete. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of H.R. 4945. After all, the Federal Government should be fostering the dreams that this Nation was built on, which is what this legislation is intended to do.