Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), one of the most distinguished advocates of community renewal in the House.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means who has been fighting for low-income housing.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/4\ minutes. Today, Mr. Speaker, we will vote on landmark legislation that will provide our communities with the tools they need to revitalize our cities and many of our depressed rural areas. This is the day we will provide communities the tools they need to once again become self- reliant, and with that we give people more control over their own futures. The Community Renewal and New Markets Act breathes new life into areas that have become America's forgotten communities. With this legislation, we empower impoverished cities and towns to rise above the perils of poverty. We give them the mechanisms needed to mold faith, family, hard work, and cooperation into opportunity, while expanding the community leaders' ability to attract new investment and grow existing businesses. This bipartisan community renewal initiative will provide poor inner cities and rural areas with workable mechanisms that allow them to evaluate the needs in their communities and address them. This bill creates 40 renewal communities with targeted pro-growth tax benefits, homeownership opportunities, and other incentives that address the principal hurdles facing budding small businesses: raising capital and maintaining cash flow. In a renewal community, individuals would not pay capital gains taxes on the sale of renewal community businesses and business assets held for more than 5 years. Small businesses would also be able to expense up to $35,000 more in equipment than they are able to under current law. And those who revitalize buildings located in these renewal communities will receive a special deduction. Beyond that, this bill will stimulate State efforts to build the necessary infrastructure and rebuild economically depressed areas by accelerating the scheduled increase in the amount of tax exempt private bonds. Even more importantly, we will increase the amount of low-income tax credits a State can allocate. This translates into more and better housing opportunities for low-income families. Today, through a variety of incentives, we will create a fertile environment for growth, with targeted pro-growth tax benefits, regulatory relief, savings accounts, and homeownership opportunities, as well as provide for the inclusion of local faith-based organizations. This is an opportunity for Congress to aid in lifting up those who have already been left behind during a time when many are enjoying the benefits of a prospering economy. With this legislation, we will truly make a difference in people's lives and allow more people to participate in the American Dream. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record material from the Joint Committee on Taxation relevant to this bill.

Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that both sides in this debate control an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the individuals who have spoken today in congratulating the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his Herculean efforts on behalf of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, working families must be able to fall back on strong private pension plans when they are planning for retirement. Social Security is simply not enough. This landmark legislation will allow more families to save with greater flexibility for retirement. This legislation has many simple changes, but the cumulative effect is profound. It would allow families to secure their retirement future by increasing the IRA contributions limits and increasing the 401(k) limits, long overdue changes. It would also allow baby boomers who are discovering that their retirement is seriously underfunded to catch up through higher contribution limits. But particularly I wanted to note that the changes in the current section 415 would address the unintended consequences of this legislation which have hurt many, many of the working families in my district. Currently section 415 seriously hampers the ability of America's workers, not the rich, but rank and file workers, to collect their full pension amounts that they have earned. Slashing the pensions of workers who retire before normal Social Security retirement age has caused financial hardship for many workers, especially in my district. Many of these workers have physically demanding jobs and frequently negotiate and contribute to pension plans specifically with the goal of being able to retire before age 65. Thousands of retiring workers have carefully saved and planned for their retirement. They are depending on their pensions. But when they retire, there are arbitrary cuts in the amount they can collect. Americans are living longer, but are not saving enough to sustain them through an extended retirement. This legislation goes a great distance toward improving our retirement system and creating a greater incentive for employers to offer private retirement plans and for individuals to save for their retirement. Some have labeled this as tax cuts for the rich, and I find that to be an extraordinary claim. The fact is this legislation is clearly pro- savings, pro-worker, pro-union, pro-taxpayer, and pro-small business. Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member of the House to join us in support of this very important initiative.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as I heard this debate, I felt the need to come down to the floor and participate because I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), which unfortunately we will not be considering today, addresses an issue that we are going to have to address as part of our trade policy, whether we enjoy doing it or not. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the sugar program has harmed U.S. trade policy. The United States has had a goal and policy of knocking down barriers to fair and open trade, such as tariffs, quotas, and subsidies. This policy clearly benefits domestic agriculture and domestic manufacturing. Our trade representatives have taken a message to the world that subsidies and tariffs are bad, and we need to allow free trade to work and we need to allow markets to be opened up. The U.S. economy is essentially free of subsidies and high tariffs, yet, despite that high ground, when our trade representatives go forth and meet with their counterparts, our trade representatives are forced to passionately defend the sugar subsidy and tariff, defend the indefensible. Sugar protectionism in America harms our efforts to open up world markets to more important U.S. commodities and sell U.S. corn, wheat, livestock, cotton, rice, and other products overseas. It also hurts the competitiveness of American food products that are made with sugar. We have heard some speeches on the floor about candy manufacturers, but they are not given a subsidy. They are invited to compete in a free market. Mr. Chairman, during the recent Seattle round our trade negotiator in the agriculture discussions was trying to lower foreign protections of corn, grain, and cattle. This job was made all the more difficult because other nations could point to our absurdly generous support of sugar and call us hypocritical. We cannot allow the sugar program to continue to be a black eye on our efforts at knocking down trade barriers for our most important products. The U.S. Trade Representative's testimony to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary conceded the trade negotiations relating to sugar are some of the most contentious she has had to deal with, despite sugar's relatively small share of our economy. Because of her concession, that appropriations bill contains report language for the USTR to prepare a report on how sugar complicates U.S. efforts to discuss trade policy with other countries. I have heard the world price of sugar described as the dump price, but the fact remains, we have in place antidumping laws to provide protection for our markets against those kinds of practices. That is the appropriate remedy, not sugar protectionism. Our trade policy should be to open up markets overseas first, not defend outdated, environmentally unsound corporate welfare benefiting a very small segment of our economy, the domestic sugar industry. To elaborate on this, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, if we can set aside for a moment the hot bipartisan rhetoric, today the House has an opportunity to take a historic step to ensure that no senior will ever have to face the choice again between destitution and neglecting their prescriptions. The House bipartisan prescription drug plan is a balanced, market- oriented approach targeted to updating Medicare and providing prescription coverage, more generous coverage as it happens than what the President has originally proposed. For my district, the plan does some very important things. It takes vital steps toward improving Medicare as a whole. It expedites the appeals process by mandating Medicare appeals. They used to take an average of 400 days now it takes less than a quarter of that time. Our plan is the only one that addresses the problems in Medicare+Choice, particularly a problem in portions of my district, where plans are raising rates or cutting benefits. Under our bipartisan bill, we move the prescription drug benefit of Medicare+Choice out from under the cold shadow of the Health Care Financing Administration that has haunted the program, instead we create the Medicare Benefit Administration to safeguard prescription drug plans and negotiate lower prescription prices for seniors. Mr. Speaker, today the House takes a historic step to ensure that no senior will ever have to face the choice between destitution and prescription drugs. The House Bipartisan Prescription Drug Plan is available, affordable and voluntary for ALL seniors. Under this proposal, seniors will no longer have to pay exorbitant prices for drugs. Using group bargaining power, seniors will enjoy a 25 percent discount on necessary prescriptions. Many seniors in my district will qualify for direct subsidies. About 100,000 seniors in Pennsylvania will be covered 100 percent under this plan. But the best part is that those seniors who are struggling to pay runaway drug costs would have access to a Medicare entitlement which covers all of their costs about $6,000. Seniors at all income levels will have access to affordable prescription drug coverage that best meets their individual needs. The House Bipartisan Prescription Drug Plan is a balanced, market- oriented approach targeted at updating Medicare and providing prescription drug coverage. Under our prescription drug plan, the government would share in insuring the sickest seniors, making the risk more manageable for private insurers. By sharing the risk and the cost associated with caring for the sickest beneficiaries, premiums will be lower for every beneficiary. Keeping rural seniors in mind, our plan guarantees at least two drug plans will be available in every area of the country with the government serving as the insurer of last resort. The President's plan shoehorns seniors--many of whom have private drug coverage which they are happy with--into what I call a ``one-size- fits-few'' plan with Washington bureaucrats in control of their benefits. medicare reforms The plan takes vital steps toward improving Medicare as a whole. It expedites the appeals process by mandating that appeals that used to take an average of 400 days now take less than a quarter of that time. Our plan is the only one that addresses the problems of Medicare+Choice. In portions of my district, plans are raising rates and cutting benefits to seniors because the dismal reimbursement rates. We move the prescription drug benefit and Medicare+Choice out from under the cold shadow of the Health Care Financing Administration that has haunted and nearly bankrupted the system. The Medicare Benefit Administration will be created to safeguard prescription drug plans and negotiate lower prescription prices for seniors. The administration will allow the plan to realize its potential, free from interference from the bureaucracy. We further strengthen Medicare+Choice plans by: raising the base rate that counties currently receive; providing higher updates for those areas who currently have 1 or no plans--thereby encouraging plans to continue to provide coverage in these areas.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment which would appropriate an additional $3 million for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. These extra funds would satisfy the USTR request to add 25 new employees to handle negotiations, monitoring, and enforcement of trade agreements. These positions within the USTR are needed to add permanent trade negotiators to several offices with four or fewer professionals, including offices for China, agriculture, environment, Africa, and economic affairs. With the passage of Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China, this amendment is the essential next step. With an ever-increasing amount of trade activity and with the United States having entered into numerous trade relationships, including NAFTA and the WTO, we must make certain that our trading partners honor the promises and commitments that were made. Approval of these funds is critical to acquire the needed staff for monitoring and compliance of the U.S.-China bilateral agreement and China's accession to the World Trade Organization. The amendment presents a simple choice: jobs for constituents and export-oriented firms or in industries threatened by illegal and predatory practices, or more money for administration and bureaucracy. All too often, countries do not fulfill their obligations regarding trade agreements, which results in job loss. It is imperative that we show our constituents that we are serious about protecting U.S. jobs. We need to invest now in patrolling our markets and open new ones. Congress must make certain that USTR is given the proper tools to monitor and enforce these trade agreements. The English amendment provides the necessary funding for enforcing the trade agreements that we have entered into. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to review some of the new positions that would be added if this $3 million is appropriated for USTR. USTR is proposing to add 25 new positions. Of these positions, two will be added to enforce agricultural negotiations. At a time when our farmers are struggling, we need to make sure that their needs are being met and that market access is being addressed. If we are concerned about China, and some of the other speakers have been, one position will be added to assist in the administration of the agricultural agreement of April 1999 and the WTO market access agreement negotiated last November. There is a position that focuses on Japan to negotiate market-opening measures under the bilateral deregulation initiative, including those on housing and energy. If my colleagues are concerned about the environment, which many of my colleagues are, a staff person would be added to work on the WTO built-in agenda and other negotiated environmental agreements. The labor specialist would be added to work on trade-related labor issues and human rights. A policy expert would be added to carry out trade agreements with Africa, a building on the recently-passed African Growth and Opportunity Act. In addition, three positions, which focus mainly on monitoring and enforcement regarding WTO and NAFTA cases, provide and help to enforce U.S. trade laws such as sections 201, 301, special 301, GSP, and other laws relating to intellectual property, and government procurement would be provided for under this amendment. Two policy experts would be added to specialize on economic affairs to analyze economic effects and enforcement cases. Lastly, several positions would be added to enforce and monitor existing regional arrangements. Mr. Chairman, it is incomprehensible to me how USTR is managing to enforce these agreements with the limited staff that they already have. As trade liberalization spreads throughout the world, however we may feel about trade issues, whichever side of the debate on free and fair trade we may be on, we need to recognize that the U.S. needs to be prepared to provide the necessary resources to be our watchdog on trade. We need to help USTR here. Mr. Chairman, this is a modest amendment, it is one that enjoys bipartisan support, and I hope that the Chamber will join me in making this commitment to free, fair, and open trade.

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

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, and I rise to strongly oppose this resolution. The WTO is the keystone of an international trading system that we have belonged to and helped shape since the late 1940s. This is an essential part of our strategy long term for fair and open trade. The WTO is essential to maintaining a rules-based trading framework that is critical to the little guy in international trade, not just us, and to the small company, participating in international markets. I have listened to the debate here, and there is no question that the WTO needs reform. We need to improve transparency and its decision making. We need to address the weak and arbitrary dispute settlement process that I have been critical of, but these facts make the case for our involvement, not for our withdrawal, any more than a disagreement with an individual court decision makes the case for our withdrawing from the Constitution. Do any of these individual cases make the case for our withdrawal from the WTO? We are the greatest economy on earth, and we cannot turn our back on the rest of the world where 75 percent of the world economy is. We need to play in that arena. And the only way we can do it and shape world trade is by participating in the WTO. I have no doubt that some of our trade competitors would delight in seeing us withdraw from the WTO and create a windfall for them and a clear field for their policies. If we are in favor of fair and open trade, if we are in favor of involving ourselves in a trading system that will continue to improve our quality of life and our economy, it is critical that we engage. I have no doubt in the future if we fail to address a need for reform in the WTO, that there will be a legitimate case for reassessing our involvement, but that case is not been made today. Vote down this resolution.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, the House is on the brink of considering a very important issue, one that matters to people in my district in northwestern Pennsylvania and to all users of the Medicare program throughout the United States, whether they are seniors or individuals with disabilities. We are talking, of course, about the bipartisan effort to revise the Medicare program and to include prescription drugs. My intention tonight, along with a couple of my colleagues, is to clear away the partisan smoke, to clear away the rhetoric, and to focus on what is really being proposed and the potential for a true bipartisan approach to extending prescription drugs under the Medicare program. Mr. Speaker, modern medicine is using drug therapies more and more to prevent and treat chronic health problems. This is the 21st century. A trip to the pharmacy is far better than a trip to the operating room. We no longer practice medicine as our grandfathers or even our fathers once experienced, nor should we continue to offer seniors the limited Medicare program that our grandfathers and fathers knew. We need to revise the program and expand it and rethink it. Medicare is, essentially, a standard benefit program from the 1960s, and it needs a facelift. We started that process in recent years by extending Medicare benefits to include a variety of new procedures. But we need, among other things, fundamentally we must modernize this benefit to provide prescription drug coverage. Now, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being appointed by the Speaker to serve on his Prescription Drug Task Force. We generated a blueprint and an outline which we thought could form the basis of a bipartisan prescription drug initiative. And indeed it has. The House bipartisan prescription drug plan is a billion-dollar market-oriented approach targeted at updating Medicare and providing prescription drug coverage. After all, how many of us would give our employer's health plan a second look if it did not include coverage for prescription drugs. But that is what we have been asking America's seniors to do. We must take the steps necessary to ensure that seniors have access to affordable prescription drugs throughout America. What we have done is create a plan which invests $40 billion of the non-Social Security surplus to strengthen Medicare and offer prescription coverage to every beneficiary. This is, after all, $5.2 billion more than what the President had proposed, and it was included in a budget resolution that we passed in this House over fierce resistance from House Democrats. The bipartisan prescription drug plan that we have created will provide lower drug prices while expanding access to life-saving drugs for all seniors. Many of us had carefully examined the President's proposal and, in doing so, felt that we could improve on it and do better and provide seniors with a richer benefit and the flexibility to choose a plan that best meets their needs. Under this bipartisan plan, seniors and persons with disabilities will not have to pay the full price for their prescriptions and will have access to the specific drug, brand name or generic, that their doctor prescribes. This plan provides Medicare beneficiaries with real bargaining power through group purchasing discount and pharmaceutical rebates, meaning that seniors can lower their drug bills up to 39 percent. These will be the best prices on the drugs that they need, not some Government bureaucracy that may not offer the drug that the doctor prescribed. Studies have shown, Mr. Speaker, that a small portion of the senior population consume a majority of prescription drugs, making them extremely difficult to insure and driving up costs for everyone. Under our prescription drug plan, the Government would share in insuring the sickest seniors, creating a stop-loss mechanism, making the risk more manageable for private insurers. By sharing the risk and the cost associated with caring for the sickest beneficiaries, premiums would be lowered for every beneficiary. We address skyrocketing drug costs by providing Medicare beneficiaries with real bargaining power through private health care plans which can purchase drugs at discount rates. Our plan provides options to all seniors, options that allow all seniors to choose affordable coverage that does not compromise their financial security. The plan benefits all seniors. Even though it is not a subsidy for a millionaire's mother, it provides the prospect of more affordable coverage for every senior. Seniors will have the right to choose a coverage plan that best suits their needs through a voluntary and universally offered benefit. We realize that the left wing of the House Democratic Caucus is violently opposed to giving seniors that choice, but we disagree with them. Those that are happy with their current coverage will be able to keep that plan without any difficulty. Others who need to supplement existing benefits or State programs or who are without coverage can also choose from a variety of competing drug plans. Keeping rural seniors in mind, our plan guarantees at least two drug plans that will be available in every area of the country with the Government serving as the insurer of last resort. Clearly, we do not depend exclusively on HMOs or on private insurance, as has been alleged. The plan also requires convenient access to pharmacies allowing beneficiaries to use their local pharmacy or have their prescriptions filled by mail. This plan protects seniors at 135 percent below the poverty level, matching the eligibility contained in the President's plan. That means a single senior making less than $11,272 or a couple making less than $15,187 a year will receive 100 percent Federal assistance for low- income seniors, including 100 percent full reimbursement for premiums. Like the President's proposal, this bipartisan plan also includes reimbursement phase-outs exceeding the poverty line. For those between 135 percent and 150 percent of poverty, Medicare will pay part of their premiums and their co-payments would be covered under Medicare. Yet, the President's plan shoe-horns seniors, many of them who have already private drug coverage which they are happy with, into what I would call a one-size-fits-few plan, with Washington bureaucrats in control of their benefits. Our plan, our bipartisan plan, gives all seniors the right to choose an affordable prescription drug benefit that best fits their own health care needs. By making it available to everyone, we are making sure that no senior citizen or disabled American falls through the cracks. The plan also provides coverage and security against out-of-pocket drug costs for every Medicare beneficiary. Any senior spending $6,000 a year or more will have 100 percent of their drug costs covered by Medicare. No longer will seniors be forced to drain their savings in order to pay for the prescriptions on which their lives depend. The President's plan does not reflect any coverage for those seniors who pay high drug costs. Although we now understand that belatedly the President has leaped forward, panicked, and is now offering a catastrophic benefit as an add-on, but that was not his original proposal. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if the President were to add such coverage, it will double the cost of the plan and/or double the premiums seniors would pay. The President leaves those who face the highest drug costs out in the cold in his original plan, choosing between paying the bills or buying life-saving medicines. In addition, private employers under our plan would be given the option to buy into the Federal program in order to enhance their current plans or to begin offering a drug benefit to their employees. States would be allowed to choose to enhance their existing plans with the Federal coverage while not jeopardizing the existing coverage that their residents have. This includes programs such as the Pace Program in Pennsylvania. But in adding a prescription drug benefit, we also modernize Medicare to ensure its long-term solvency. The plan ensures that seniors and disabled Americans will continue to have access to life-saving drug therapies. In recent years, scientific and medical research has resulted in 400 new medications to treat the top killers of seniors: heart disease, cancer, and stroke. A market-oriented approach ensures that the quality of care that beneficiaries receive will continue to be second to none. The plan takes vital steps toward improving Medicare as a whole. It expedites the appeals process by mandating that appeals that used to take an average of 400 days now take less than a quarter of that time. After all, to some seniors every minute counts. But on top of that, the plan removes this part of Medicare from the Washington bureaucracy that has haunted and nearly bankrupted the system. The Health Care Financing Administration, which the last speaker had quoted extensively in his comments, will not control the prescription drug benefit under our plan. We create a Medicare benefit administration within the Department of Health and Human Services to manage prescription drug plans autonomously. This reform is fundamental to safeguard the new program and to allow it to realize its potential free from interference from the bureaucracy. We would also remove Medicare+Choice plans from under HCFA and put under the control of this agency giving it more flexibility and stability. President Clinton has attacked the bipartisan plan primarily because he knows it offers richer, more encompassing benefits and greater flexibility than the plan he has proposed while dealing with the needs of people with diverse circumstances. The President's plan would force as many as 9 million seniors out of their existing programs for drug coverage because the employers would be dropping or limiting their prescription drug coverage instead of allowing the Government to take over. As baby-boomers retire, 40 million Medicare beneficiaries could lose their current drug coverage under the President's plan. As time goes on, the coverage offered by the President dwindles as the cost of the program for seniors skyrockets. Under his plan, seniors see as little as a 12 percent savings on drug costs. Under his plan, seniors would pay more for premiums, more fees for services, all while the President spends more than was ever budgeted for the program. Mr. Speaker, about 69 percent of America's seniors have some prescription drug coverage currently. Many of them need more help, but it is the remaining 31 percent that worry me the most. A stronger Medicare program with prescription drug coverage is a promise of health security and financial security for older Americans, and we are working to ensure that promise is kept. America's seniors deserve no less. House Republicans believe that Americans should be spending their golden years concerned about what time the grandchildren are coming to visit or is the rain ruining their walk in the park. They should not be concerned with how they are going to pay for the medicines that allow them to enjoy life. I am joined in this sentiment by a number of members from my task force that I served on and also fellow members of the Committee on Ways and Means. I would like first to recognize a colleague of mine, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), who served with me on the task force and a distinguished member of the House Committee on Commerce who has specialized in health care issues and has been a strong voice for seniors.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a very distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a gentleman who has been a leader on most of the issues before our committee, but who particularly has come forward to be a strong advocate today on prescription drugs; and I might add, it is a great service to serve with him.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his generous efforts in helping us clear away the rhetorical smokescreen that hides the fact that we have heard advocated on the floor an alternative to the bipartisan plan which is actually less flexible and less generous in terms of the benefits it offers. We think we have a better product. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant), a gentleman who played a critical role in developing this bipartisan product. He was part of the task force that I served on, and he is a member of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, let me say I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant). Judging from his remarks, he would concede that we have managed to build a bipartisan product based on a Republican budget that set aside $40 billion to modernize Medicare and to improve benefits, and we have offered here the American people a bipartisan plan that would provide benefits that are universal, affordable, flexible and voluntary and allow them to get prescription drugs based on a model of choice, something lacking in the other plan. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks because he has clearly elucidated the strength of our plan and the fact that we are offering something that the American people, hopefully, can unite behind. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, on June 6th and part of June 7, 2000, due to a death in my family, I missed the following votes: Had I been present on June 6th, on Rollcall votes 234, 235, 236, and 237, 1 would have voted ``aye'' on all four votes. Had I been present on June 7th, on Rollcall votes 238, 239, and 240, 1 would have voted ``aye'' on all three votes.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his efforts as well as those of the gentleman from California to move forward to repeal this fantastically antiquated tax. Mr. Speaker, recently I had the opportunity in visiting Egypt for the first time to do something that every archeology buff wants to do, and that is visit the pyramids. As I descended into the bowels of the great pyramid of Cheops, I developed a fresh appreciation for the ancient Egyptian belief in resurrection. Mr. Speaker, as we move to inter this tax finally, we are looking at a provision in the Tax Code that would reaffirm the beliefs of the Old Kingdom in resurrection. This tax was first introduced in 1898, before income taxes were levied. It was designed as a temporary tax to pay for the Spanish-American War, as the last speaker noted. Since then, this tax has been repeatedly resurrected by Congress to no end. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of repealing this outdated tax on our most basic communications. In my home State of Pennsylvania, this would mean $245 million in tax relief, with $75 million of that going to families who earn less than $30,000. The time has long passed to eliminate this regressive tax on the American people and on small business. For the first time in decades, with the Federal Government running a budget surplus, it is particularly perverse to continue this tax on talking when telecommunications play such a vital role in the information superhighway. The revenues from this tax, as the last speaker noted, are not even earmarked to support telecommunications infrastructure. It goes to the general treasury. Mr. Speaker, I would urge every one of my colleagues to vote for this bill, and, in doing so, vote for tax fairness, for tax relief, and for easier Internet access. I urge the passage of the legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I will enter quotations from Chinese human rights' activists at the appropriate place in the Congressional Record who all agree that the best way to open minds is through open markets. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I in Congress remain deeply concerned about human rights' violations in China, but one of the best ways to instill American ideals of individual freedom and liberty is through opening China's borders to American goods and services. That is what this agreement does, and that is why I support this agreement. China's old hard-line regime would like nothing more than for these American values and ideas to be denied access to their country. China's membership in the WTO will force China to play by the rules, protecting human rights. May I suggest that engaging China is the best possible way that Americans can influence Chinese behavior, enhance human rights, strengthen labor standards, and improve the environment. And as we can see, a number of human rights' activists in China agree that opening the markets would open the door for improving human rights. Mr. Speaker, China's involvement in the international trading community has already improved human rights. We know that the most repressive periods of China's history occurred at times of international isolation. Exposure to the outside world has increased openness, social mobility, and personal liberties for the Chinese people. I think people need to recognize that engagement does not mean endorsement. Congress will continue to monitor China's human rights' record. Nothing prevents Congress from legally sanctioning China and invoking its penalties should Congress feel China has violated the spirit and the rule of law with respect to human rights, even if we pass this agreement. Annual human rights reviews will continue. Future administrations will continue to conduct annual reviews of China's human rights' record. Nothing in this legislation changes that. Rather, we have enhanced it under this legislation thanks to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). I would ask everyone to keep in mind that this legislation is not only about exporting American goods to China; it is also about exporting American values. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the quotes I referred to earlier: Human Rights Activists Agree that open markets mean open minds. The participation of China in the WTO would not only have economic and political benefits, but would serve to bolster those in China who understand that the country must embrace the rule of law, which of course is a key principle underlying active membership in global trade organizations . . . For those of us who have long pressed for vigorous adherence to the rule of law in China, it is encouraging that so many Chinese officials support the nation's entry into groups such as the WTO.''--Martin Lee, Chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong. ``An isolated China will resist change at home and be likely to behave more aggressively towards its regional neighbors. None of that serves American interests. Admitting China into the WTO may not cause it to shed dictatorship for democracy. But it's the right step toward realizing that goal.''--Randy Tate, Co-Chair of Working Families for Free Trade, and Former Executive Director of the Christian Coalition. ``All of the fights--for a better environment, labor rights and human rights--these fights we will fight in China tomorrow. But first we must break the monopoly of the state. To do that, we need a freer market and the competition mandated by the WTO.''--Dai Qing, prominent Chinese environmentalist. ``It is obvious this is a good thing for China . . . I appreciate the efforts of friends and colleagues to help our human rights situation but it doesn't make sense to use trade as a lever. It just doesn't work.''--Bao Tong, prominent Chinese dissident. ``For so many years of China's reform and opening, these areas couldn't be opened up and remained state monopolies. But if economic monopolies can be broken, controls in other areas can have breakthroughs as well. These breakthroughs won't necessarily happen soon. But in the final analysis, in the minds of ordinary people, it will show that breakthroughs that were impossible in the past are indeed possible.''--Li Ke, Former Chinese Editor of the Democratic Journal Fangfa.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, this debate that we undertake today is about better, stronger, fairer trade with China, which in time will pave the way for social and political reforms. Some of these reforms are already evident today. Pennsylvania has exported more than $297 million in goods to China in 1998. Voting for this agreement forces China to take down tariff barriers and nontariff barriers that have prevented even larger Pennsylvania exports. Increasing the amount of exports to China will only help in creating jobs, not only in Pennsylvania, but also throughout our country. Last November, the U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Barshefsky completed historic negotiations with the People's Republic of China and managed to craft an agreement that would provide access to the Chinese market while requiring no concessions by the U.S. Let us be clear about this. This is no NAFTA. We do not make a single job-killing concession in this legislation. The bill we consider today would allow the U.S. to benefit from those negotiations. The bill will not determine whether or not China enters the WTO. China is entering the World Trade Organization with or without this legislation. I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that I entertained serious concerns when this issue was first raised. I was concerned about human rights and fair trade, which are critical to building a long-term stable relationship with China. Luckily, through the bipartisan leadership of my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), many of these issues have been addressed convincingly. Let us look at the facts. The Levin-Bereuter plan provides better oversight for human rights and protections than exist under current law. It provides strong and enforceable anti-surge protections, which are part of the original agreement with the Chinese Government and will now be codified. The Levin-Bereuter provisions, not only ensure that Chinese play by the rules in trade; but, more importantly, they strengthen U.S. law to provide quick and effective weapons if there is a violation. The bill includes language from Levin-Bereuter, urging that the WTO approve both the PRC's and Taiwan's accession in the same General Council session. All of these provisions are major improvements that make this overall package a good bill. We are entering into a trade agreement with China that will create a more balanced relationship than any initiative to date. This debate should be about ensuring that China plays by the rules in trade, and that they honor commitments made in this agreement. Mr. Chairman, a China disengaged is more likely to be a rogue country in the new century. A China engaged is more likely to move down the sunlit path of human rights. I challenge every one of my colleagues to vote to engage China, a China to which we can export our goods along with our values. Mr. Chairman, I include two editorials from my district in favor of normal trade relations, as follows: [Editorial Column--The Erie Morning News, May 21, 2000] If we can believe the American business community, windfalls will follow if the Congress goes along with President Clinton and approves permanent normal trade relations with China. American labor--which has never met a free trade measure it liked--sees PNTR as another job-killer. As usual, neither forecast tells the full truth. Opening the huge China market by allowing the Communist nation to join the World Trade Organization will undoubtedly be lucrative--in time. No windfalls. As with the equally contested North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, some American jobs will vanish with free and open trade with China. But no one will hear giant sucking sounds as American jobs are lost to China, as labor preaches. Similar divisions afflict Congress as it prepares to vote on PNTR later this week. The U.S. Senate is expected to back PNTR with little fuss, but war has begun in the always fractious House of Representatives. The Republican leadership is guiding PNTR despite loud opposition from some GOP members who seek leverage to force China to end human rights abuses. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt is against PNTR, as is the bulk if the Democratic caucus. So labor still threatens passage. We find China's recent behavior offensive. We also realize the 20-year Most Favored Nation Status charade did nothing to moderate Beijing's repeated rights abuses. Our support for PNTR is based on simple reality. China is not Cuba. It is the most populous nation in the world, with the globe's fastest growing economy. It is senseless for the United States to treat the Asian colossus as anything else than a superpower likely to emerge later this century. With China's markets open, with American goods--and American popular culture--flowing throughout this giant nation, dramatic reforms will eventually follow. The old Communist leadership will be just as powerless to stop these forces as its decreased former Soviet and Eastern block comrades (and as Fidel Castro would be in Cuba if American policy weren't based on Cold War myths). We understand these are difficult votes for many in Congress, who despise the Chinese Communists or who fear labor. But then, Congressman didn't seek office merely to vote on popular, easy issues. Side legislation creating a commission to monitor China's performance offers political cover for nervous Democrats. Even Erie's 21st District Republican Congressman Phil English ``emphasized the importance of the proposal'' to the Wall Street Journal after voting with the Ways and Means Committee to approve PNTR and send it to the House floor last week. English will vote for PNTR because he understands the stakes China has agreed to join the world community and play by its trade rules with entry into the WTO. That is where America's influence is, with China as a full trading partner--not some junior member of the world community who must be monitored like a troubled child. The United States tried that approach with China and Most Favored Nation Status the last 20 years. It's time to join the real world.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his contribution to this debate. He has laid out for us the vista of a very different tax system and one that I believe would potentially have a great impact on the American economy. One of the areas of similarity between his plan and my plan, I note, is the fact that he on the business side offers a border adjustable tax. Before I slip into the jargon, what I mean by that is we would take the taxes off of exports and put a fair tax on imports. Now, I have been very concerned, Mr. Speaker, about our trade balance in this country. I have been very concerned about the competitiveness of American jobs. I have been very involved in working with the steel industry to address the problem of steel imports. One of the proposals that always does not seem to get a full focus when we discuss these things is the fact that by changing our tax system, we could improve the competitive position of our economy and potentially the balance of trade. The tax system that the gentleman just outlined would not tax job creation in basic industry and it would allow us to export tax free. My tax system has many of the same incentives and would allow us to grow capital intensive jobs. I look forward to hearing more about the gentleman's tax system next week when we discuss it in the House Committee on Ways and Means as part of our tax summit. I am also looking forward to the opportunity to discuss with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in our committee the merits of my tax proposal which I conceive to be a hybrid between a simplified income tax and a consumption tax. It has many of the same incentives of a consumption tax and yet addresses many of the equity issues that I believe concern Americans and concern their elected representatives. I am hopeful that we can attract bipartisan support for real tax reform. In the interim, I am pleased that Republicans have chosen to move forward and to raise this issue and consider how we can simplify the tax code to the benefit of individual taxpayers and certainly to the benefit of the economy. One parting shot. It really frightens me when I see estimates that suggest that the cost of the current tax system to our economy is somewhere upward of $300 billion annually. That is a dead loss to our economy. It comes through complexity, it comes through the cost of the system itself, it comes through bad decisions that people make because of the tax code and its perverse incentives. We need to change the tax system if we are going to leave this century the way we have entered it with the most productive economy and the preeminent economy in the world.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, after concluding opening remarks, I will be yielding to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) who has some very interesting ideas to outline for us. Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the tenor of my colleague's comments, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who laid out a bill of particulars of what this Congress has done to make this Tax Code much more pro working family. But at the same time, we need to recognize that more needs to be done, and it is time for Congress to move in the direction of fundamental structural tax reform. Next week, as the gentleman from Ohio noted, the House Committee on Ways and Means will be sponsoring a tax reform summit where many of the ideas of alternatives to the current tax system will be outlined. I have one that I intend to outline tonight, but let me say that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), myself, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) share a common perspective which I believe is why we feel we need to move forward quickly on this subject and begin to define alternatives to the current tax system. The American tax system looms like a Frankenstein's monster that terrorizes individual taxpayers while casting a cold shadow over the productive sectors of the U.S. economy. It is too complicated and riddled with obvious inequities, it punishes savings and investment, it reduces economic growth, and it burdens domestic industries struggling to remain competitive. We in Congress cannot complacently sit back and watch as this complicated, antiquated tax system erodes our Nation's confidence in its economy. We must reform the American tax system in a way that makes sense to average citizens and that, therefore, will pass the test of time. Because not only do we need a fair and sensible Tax Code, we need a stable one. As bad as the current Tax Code is, and I am one of its severest critics, in my view the last thing we need to enact is some reform that is so radical and experimental that it results in an irresistible demand to redo it again a few years later. The simplified USA Tax Act that I have introduced does all of that and more. H.R. 134 is based on sound and familiar principles that we all understand and we know will work. The Tax Code, Mr. Speaker, must give Americans a fair opportunity to save part of their earnings. After all, thrift has helped provide Americans the security and independence that is the foundation of freedom. We understand that savings is the seed corn of the modern economy. Savings buys the tools to make Americans more productive. Productivity raises our living standards to the highest in the world. In my tax reform proposal, USA stands for unlimited savings allowance. Everyone is allowed an unlimited Roth IRA in which they can put the portion of each year's income they save after paying taxes and living expenses. After 5 years, all money in the account could be withdrawn for any purpose, and all withdrawals, including accumulated interest and other earnings and principal, are tax free. Nothing can be simpler and nothing could give the people a better opportunity to save, especially young people. Because only new income earned after enactment of the simplified USA tax can be put into the USA Roth IRA, young people starting to move into their higher earning years are the ones who will benefit the most in the long run. The Tax Code must also give everyone the opportunity to keep what they save and, if they wish, to pass it along to succeeding generations. To that end, my tax reform proposal repeals the Federal death tax. Under the new Tax Code, tax rates must be low, especially for wage earners who now must pay an income tax and a 7.65 percent FICA payroll tax on the same amount of wages. The simplified USA tax starts out with low tax rates, 15 percent at the bottom, 25 percent in the middle, and 30 percent at the top. Then the rates are reduced even further by allowing wage earners a full tax credit for the 7.65 percent Social Security and Medicare payroll tax that is withheld from their paychecks under current law. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to repeal the payroll tax, because to do so would imperil Social Security. But I do allow a credit for it; and when the credit is taken into account, the rates of tax on workers wages are very low, indeed, in the 7 percent to 17 percent range, for nearly all Americans. The simplified USA tax provides tax relief for all Americans, especially those who own their home, give to their church, educate their children, and set aside some money for a better tomorrow. Under my proposal, everyone receives a deduction for the mortgage interest on their home and for charitable contributions that they choose to make. In addition, USA tax allows a deduction for tuition paid for college and postsecondary vocational education. This type of incentive is relatively new, and given the importance of education, long overdue to encourage investment in human capital. Generous personal and family exemptions are also allowed under my proposal. On a joint return, the family exemption is $8,140; and there is an additional 2,700 exemption for each member of the family. Thus a married couple with two children pays no tax on their first $18,940 of income. The simplified USA tax is just that, simple, 75 percent simplier than the current Tax Code by one estimate. The tax return will be short, only a page or two for most of us; but more to the point, the tax return will be understandable. For the first time in many years, America's tax system will make sense to the citizens who file the tax returns and pay the taxes. And for the first time since inception of the Federal income tax, Americans will have a full and fair opportunity to save whatever proportion of their income they wish and for whatever purpose they wish. Working families will be allowed a credit for the payroll tax they pay. Families will have generous taxfree allowance for the education of their children. My proposal, Mr. Speaker, also contains a new and better way of taxing corporations and other businesses and this is something that every worker in the international economy has stake in. It allows them to compete and win in global markets in a way that exports American-made products, not American jobs. Experts who have studied my plan believe that if enacted in America, this innovative approach to business taxation will soon become the worldwide standard to which other countries aspire. All businesses, corporate and noncorporate, are taxed alike under my plan at an 8 percent rate on the first $150,000 of profit and at 12 percent on all amounts above that, small business level. All businesses will be allowed a credit for the payroll tax they pay under current law. All costs for plant, equipment, and inventory in the United States will be expensed into the year of purchase. This is a critical reform that will allow capital formation in those businesses competing in the international economy that most need it. This is an important point, Mr. Speaker. All export sales income is exempt, as is all other foreign source income. All profits earned abroad can be brought back home for reinvestment in America without penalty. Because of a 12 percent import adjustment, all companies that produce abroad and sell back in the U.S. markets will be required to bear the same tax as companies that both produce and sell in the U.S. Mr. Speaker, I hope to push forward a bipartisan effort with the simplified version of the USA tax. I invite all of my colleagues in the House to join me in an effort to provide the American people the fair and sensible tax system they deserve. Mr. Speaker, for too long the Tax Code has been a terrible drag on our economy that is not very smart and certainly is not fair to those Americans whose living standards are lower now because of it. For years, its complex inanities have been the object of ridicule. It is also the ultimate source of bureaucratic excesses and abuse by the IRS that is inconsistent with our free society. In my view, it is high time we restore people's faith in the integrity and basic fairness of their tax system and in the process, take a major step toward restoring people's confidence in the good character of their government. Mr. Speaker, we believe that these are priorities worth pursuing, and I believe that this plan is one that can push us in the right direction. To hear about another plan, the fair tax plan, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the prime sponsor of that bill, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), who we expect will outline a challenging alternative to the proposal I have just laid before us.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, next month, I will have the privilege of visiting the Republic of Kazakhstan to witness firsthand this vigorous young nation's emergence, under the leadership of its President Nursultan Nazarbayev, as a bastion of democracy and free market economy in Central Asia. I am entering into the Record three articles written last week by Scott Hogenson, Executive Editor of the Conservative News Service (CNS), who just returned from Kazakhstan. Mr. Hogenson spent time in Kazakhstan reporting on that nation's rich ethnic and cultural diversity, its free media, and its strategic importance to the United States. At a time when we are paying upwards of $2.00 for a gallon of gasoline, Kazakhstan is a viable source of hope for us. This non-OPEC member is rapidly developing its enormous oil and natural gas reserves with the help of Mobil, Chevron, and other U.S. corporations. As reported by Mr. Hogenson, Kazakhstan is a ally of the U.S. and a secular Moslem nation that has befriended Israel and stood up against Islamist terrorists. Please take the time to read these fascinating articles and join me in saluting Kazakhstan's struggle to right itself after 70 years of brutal Soviet repression. Cultural Diversity Reflects Gains in Kazakhstani Democracy (By Scott Hogenson) Almaty, Kazakhstan (CNSNews.com).--Ivan Bernardovich Zinkevich describes Kazakhstan's transformation from communism to democracy as one that resulted in his Polish heritage being ``reborn.'' The re-birth of ethnic and cultural identity among Kazakhstan's minority populations was demonstrated in no small part Sunday afternoon when a crowd of about 100 ethnic Poles rose to their feet as a nine-member youth choir sang the Polish national anthem during a cultural celebration in Almaty, an act that would have been considered criminal a few decades ago. Zinkevich, the 60-year old chairman of Almaty's Polish Cultural Center, called this and other public displays of cultural heritage a ``very significant'' freedom for Kazakhstanis, who have been laboring to make democracy work since the nation declared its independence from the former Soviet Union in 1991. While the vast majority of Kazakhstan's 15.6 million residents are either Kazakh or Russian, people representing more than 100 other ethnic groups also live in this sparsely populated central Asian nation whose geography makes it the ninth largest country on Earth. But Zinkevich made it clear that he and the estimated 47,000 ethnic Poles living here do not want to be separate from the rest of the nation. Speaking through a translator, Zinkevich said Poles ``want to be Kazakhstanis but also want ethnic identity,'' within Kazakhstan. Born in Kazakhstan in 1940, Zinkevich is the son of Polish parents who, like millions of other non-Russians, were deported to this region of the former USSR in 1936 under the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin. More than half a century later, the mass deportation of people to Kazakhstan has resulted in a population that is among the most diverse in the world. While many of the new nations created from the demise of the Soviet Union have struggled with varying degrees of ethnic strife, Zinkevich said there are ``no conflcits,'' among Kazakhstan's ethnic peoples, a view shared by the leader of the country's National Democratic Party. Hasen Kozha-Ahmet, who heads one of the numerous oppposition parties to President Nursultan Nazarbayev, described the country's indigenous Kazakh population as ``very tolerant,'' though he said through a translator that there is a ``distrust of some ethnic Russians among some of the nation's Kazakhs, who comprise roughly 52 percent of Kazakhstan's citizens. Russians are the second largest ethnic group in the country, representing about 31 percent of the population. A staunch Kazakh nationalist and anti-Communist, Kozha- Ahmet attributed some of the distrust he described to ``the humiliation of the Kazakh people,'' under Soviet rule. But Kozha-Ahmet said he is generally pleased and optimistic about continued harmony between the many ethnic groups living in Kazakhstan. Although general tolerance among the various peoples plays a large part in keeping Kazakhstan essentially free of ethnic strife, the growth of free-market economies also plays a part in maintaining social and political stability. Sergy A. Tereschenko, chairman of the majority Otan Party that supports Nazabayev's administration, said continued emphasis on economic reforms and creating stronger markets are not only key elements of the party's platform, but also represent ``the most difficult issue,'' for his party and the nation. ``If a majority (of citizens) does not have work, they express dissatisfaction,'' said Tereschenko, a former communist who assumed leadership of the Otan Party after serving as Nazarbayev's first prime minister. Speaking through a translator, Tereschenko likened the ``establishment of a middle-class,'' in Kazakhstan to the Biblical account of the Jews' 40-year sojourn through the desert. ``It is very difficult to show benefits to capitalism,'' said Tereschenko, an agricultural businessman who said he repudiated the economic precepts of communism after studying and learning the business structures of the United States and other democracies during the course of his travels abroad. The economic challenges facing the people of Kazakhstan and their associated political challenges for the Otan Party are not small. With a population that is shrinking due to emigration by some from Kazakhstan and the continuing recovery from the nation's economic contraction following its independence from the old USSR, Tereschenko emphasized the importance of writing legislation and policies ``that are clear to the people.'' ``To accept law is one thing. To explain it is another,'' said Tereschenko, who added that a primary need for the Otan Party is to ``prove the value (of democracy) by demonstration.'' The Otan Party holds 32 seats in the 77- member Majilis, or lower chamber of Kazakhstan's Parliament. By comparison, Kazakhstan's Communist Party holds four seats in the Majilis. In attempting to overcome the difficulties of throwing off communism and introducing the relatively unknown precepts of free-market economic policies to a people who have enjoyed little freedom for the past two centuries, Nazarbayev had issued a sweeping package of proposed long-term reforms known as the ``Kazakhstan 2030'' plan. Nazarbayev's proposals address a wide range of needs and goals for the nation, covering national security and domestic stability, management of the country's large oil and mineral reserves, the development of a professional class of government employees, education, health care and other social issues, increased economic growth through open markets, and improving the country's communications and transportation infrastructure. In delivering his Kazakhstan 2030 proposals, Nazarbayev spoke to all citizens in asking the country to ``share my vision for the future of our society and the mission of our state,'' but there also is a strong emphasis on the younger generation of Kazakhstanis and the need to ``say once and for all what future we want to build for us and our children.'' The long view of Kazakhstan 2030 is reflected in part by Nazarbayev's recognition of the ``enormous domestic and external difficulties,'' facing the country. ``Many representatives of our generation won't live to the time when this strategy will be realized,'' Nazarbayev said. ``Our children will estimate its reality and the correctness of the work implemented by us.'' While the complete implementation of Nazarbayev's plan remains a distant vision, some of the benefits of the president's stewardship over this infant democracy could be seen in the faces of dozens of teenagers practicing Greek line dancing Sunday at Almaty's House of Friendship, a multi- cultural center in the heart of Kazakhstan's largest city. The youth smiled as they worked out to the quickening pace of music from Zorba the Greek, executing the sometimes complicated maneuvers of the dance and correcting the errors brought to their attention by their instructor. The act of espousing a culture foreign to one's homeland may seem small among better established democracies but its significance is not lost on Kazakhstanis who lived through an era in which openly embracing one's heritage was forbidden. As Polish Cultural Center Chairman Ivan Zinkevich said, the newfound freedom to celebrate their ethnicity is ``a big happiness,'' for Kazakhstanis travelling the sometimes-rocky road to democracy.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), my distinguished colleague, for their extraordinary efforts as well as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Madam Speaker, right now the Social Security system places a higher tax penalty on working seniors than on billionaires. We have been sending seniors the message that when they hit retirement age, we do not want them anymore. The earnings limit that was created 60 years ago is a relic of Depression era economics that says that seniors should make room for younger workers. But we all know, seniors add more to the workforce and more to the economy than they could ever take away. They add their years of experience and their talents. H.R. 5 repeals the earnings limit which unfairly punishes seniors who earn more than $17,000 a year. That is not a lot. This legislation has received virtually unanimous support in the House and Senate, but more importantly, a ground swell of support from our constituents. After all, a 65-year-old who works as a barber or a cashier currently loses $500 in benefits just because they have earned $18,500 a year. That is absurd. This arbitrary limit serves as a barrier to many low- and middle-income seniors who need to work in order to improve their quality of life or even to make ends meet. The Social Security Administration reports that more than 800,000 working seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 lose part or all of their Social Security benefits due to this outdated earnings limit. My own State of Pennsylvania ranks sixth with the number of seniors adversely affected by that earnings limit. It is important that Congress protect the dignity of retirement. The time has come for us to unshackle the creative energies of America's seniors. Today, by supporting this legislation, Congress says to seniors, you may choose to work, choose to remain part of the productive economy, and choose to share your talents, and we will not punish you.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to thank the chair and the ranking member for having produced, on a bipartisan basis, this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, every small business begins with a dream. It is the dream of a saleswoman who longs to hang out a shingle on Main Street or the dream of an entrepreneur who envisions moving his inventions from his basement to department store shelves. Unfortunately, not everyone with a dream has the business experience or the capital to put their ideas in motion and compete successfully in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Data from the Bureau of the Census indicates that over 99.9 percent of new employer firms and business closures are small firms. But with the help of the U.S. Small Business Administration, more and more small businesses are swimming upstream and are able to make it, making these dreams a reality. Established in 1953, the SBA provides financial, technical, and management assistance to help Americans launch, manage, and expand their businesses. The SBA is the Nation's largest single financial backer of small businesses. They fund dreams; and, on the way, they have created millions of jobs and helped us build the economy of the future. With their $45 billion portfolio of business loans, loan guarantees and disaster loans, the SBA provides the money that allows the corner hardware store to expand its line of power tools. America's 23 million small businesses employ more than 50 percent of the private workforce. They generate more than half of the Nation's gross domestic product and they are the principal source of new jobs in the U.S. economy. Last year, the SBA offered management and technical assistance to more than one million small business owners. Training classes allow the barber shop on Fifth Street to learn how to better manage their time and resources, while a mentoring program provides an inexperienced restaurant owner with an experienced one who can counsel and advise the new business owner. The SBA has a proven track record of success, which is evident not only through the success of its members but through the jobs that it has created and the economic growth that it has fostered. I urge all the Members in the House to take a look at this institution to recognize its value in the economy. It is the largest and most important programmatic commitment that the Federal Government has made to growing the Federal economy. I urge my fellow Members to join in my enthusiasm and to vote in favor of reauthorizing this worthwhile program. I believe that this institution, which has helped so many small businesses lay the groundwork for the economy of the future, deserves to be reauthorized.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who has been one of our most vigorous advocates of pension reform, for yielding me this time. I am happy to see that this legislation has some of his work included. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. This package provides much needed relief to small businesses that, combined with an increase in the minimum wage, is a win-win situation for workers and entry-level positions who are trying to work their way into the mainstream of our strong economy. I have been a long-time supporter of raising the minimum wage, and this $1 increase that we have proposed is the equivalent of a 20 percent raise over 3 years. That sends a strong positive message to working seniors, first-time workers, and those striving to work their way out of the welfare system. Combined with that minimum wage increase, this legislation provides much-needed tax relief that will assist small businesses and their workers. For example, it enhances the retirement security of all Americans by increasing pension portability, allowing workers over 50 to catch up on contributions and increasing the contribution and benefits limits in defined contribution and benefits plans. It encourages job creation among small businesses through increasing the expense and write-off for equipment, an important pro-growth initiative. This legislation also reforms a section of the code that punishes people by artificially lowering the value of their pension through caps. It also creates tax incentives to lure investment back into some of our most depressed communities so that they can share in our economic prosperity. It expands incentive for the creation of affordable housing. Notwithstanding all of that, we are hearing rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, as incredible as it may sound, that this is all tax cuts for the rich. In reality, we are simply helping all American workers partake of the current financial prosperity of our country. I urge all of my colleagues to look beyond the rhetoric and to support this important fairness legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, for his extraordinary leadership, not only on this issue, but in moving forward to make Social Security more solvent. Mr. Speaker, today Congress says to seniors, you may choose to work, choose to remain part of the productive economy, and choose to share your talents. Right now the Social Security system places a higher tax penalty on working seniors than on billionaires. We have been sending seniors the message that when they hit retirement age that we do not want them anymore. We need to change that. The earnings limit was created 60 years ago, and it is a relic of Depression-era economics that says seniors should make room for younger workers. We now know that seniors add more to the workforce and more to the economy than they can ever take away. They add their years of experience, their expertise, their talents. This legislation repeals the earnings limit that unfairly punishes seniors who earn more than $17,000 a year. This arbitrary limit serves as a barrier to many low- and middle-class seniors who take on a job because they need to work in order to improve their quality of life or even just to make ends meet. They must not lose Social Security benefits that they earn simply because they choose to work. The Social Security Administration reports that more than 800,000 working seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 lose part or all of their Social Security benefits due to this outdated limitation. That is an outrage. In Pennsylvania, we are sixth in the number of seniors adversely affected by the earnings limit; 48,000, over 48,000 Pennsylvania seniors are penalized for working. I urge my colleagues to join the AARP, join the Subcommittee on Social Security, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and vote in favor of this legislation. It is important that Congress protect the dignity of retirement and unshackle the creative energies of America's seniors.