Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to strenuously condemn the Burmese State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and its latest acts of violence against the democratic movement in Burma. As many of us know, in 1990, the Burmese people elected Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), to lead their country. The NLD won an astounding 82 percent of the popular vote, dealing a shattering defeat to the absolutist State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). In perhaps one of the great crimes against democracy in history, the SLORC refused to seat the newly elected parliament and imprisoned the leaders of the NLD. Ms. Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest, where she has remained for much of the last 13 years. The State Peace and Development Council, as the government is now known, continues to wage war on its own people and to lead Burma toward rogue nation status. The SPDC is notorious for using rape and imprisonment as an instrument of political influence on its citizens and is known to force children to fight indigenous ethnic groups in the country. This brutal form of governance is combined with military dominance of heavy industry and a sickly economy dependent upon black market and illicit exports. Now, the SPDC seems committed to stiffening its repression of the Burmese people. After toying with several international initiatives aimed at restoring democracy to the country, the SPDC has essentially halted talks with a spasm of violence directed against the NLD organization. On May 30, a motorcade carrying Ms. Suu Kyi through the country was attacked by an organized group of armed criminals. In the process, a number of NLD members were reportedly tortured and murdered, while Ms. Suu Kyi was taken into ``protective custody'' by the government. It seems that the only ``protection'' was being given to an illegitimate regime against the popular, peaceful NLD leader. This pattern of vicious oppression in Burma must come to an end and Ms. Suu Kyi must be released unharmed. I urge the President and Secretary of State Powell to take the necessary measures to ensure her safe release and to fully support the National League for Democracy. I further ask my friends in Congress to work with the Administration to ensure that we supply maximum support to the NLD and that we forcefully denounce the actions of the dictatorial junta now reigning over Burma.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill before the House today. This bill is the most historic and significant addition to Medicare in the program's history. This Medicare bill offers enormous benefits for all of Pennsylvania's seniors while saving the Commonwealth hundreds of millions of dollars. The Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act provides all seniors with a thorough, flexible, and voluntary prescription drug plan while at the same time augmenting Pennsylvania's PACE plan. Importantly, for the nearly 2 million seniors in Pennsylvania, this bill would allow PACE to wrap around the Federal benefit which would largely supplant and build on PACE's current benefits. And to ensure that Pennsylvania's seniors get maximum drug coverage, this Medicare bill would allow PACE to pay for beneficiaries' copays under Medicare while at the same time counting those contributions toward out-of-pocket expenditures to more rapidly trigger catastrophic coverage. Our seniors have waited too long to receive the benefits that they deserve. This flexible, voluntary, and affordable plan would provide seniors with dependable benefits. This is a huge benefit for seniors in the roughly 10 States that have a significant State plan already in place. Mr. Speaker, this bill also provides real help to America's rural health providers to allow them to deliver the highest quality care to seniors and meet the demanding fiscal challenges that they currently face. In many rural areas like my own district of western Pennsylvania, inequities in Medicare's wage reimbursements and payments for hospitals often drive workers, especially skilled nurses, to look for jobs in higher-paying metropolitan hospitals and contribute to staffing shortages in many local communities. Several provisions in this bill mirror legislation I introduced earlier this year to help alleviate those high costs by increasing Medicare's salary reimbursements to our hospitals. These two provisions would pump $13.3 billion into the struggling rural health systems, and I am pleased to note that hospitals in my district alone would receive approximately $65 million as part of this fix. I ask for support for the bill.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I really wish more of the American public were watching this debate because they would be able to fully appreciate how marginal the left has become to any serious debate about the problems facing this country. What we are going to be doing tonight is not voting to repeal Medicare, but instead voting to pass this bill, which is a bill that would provide more medical security for uninsured Americans as well as many low- and middle-income workers. This legislation actually creates two new instruments to meet health care needs by rewarding Americans who open either type of account with tax advantages and maximum flexibility, so as the other side has noted, even the healthy can have a greater role in managing their own health care. Encouraging individuals to enroll in these new savings vehicles has multiple benefits. First, this is a big step to make health insurance more affordable and help reduce the growing number of Americans without health insurance. The tax-preferred nature of the health savings security accounts offers a powerful incentive for uninsured workers to take advantage of these accounts. The contributions to the accounts are deductible; the investment earnings within the accounts tax-free; and the distributions are also tax-free when used for health insurance. Many, including the self-employed, would find this enormously valuable. This results in significant savings on health insurance, an economic benefit that is certain to encourage many uninsured Americans to utilize these accounts. Second, insured workers with high-deductible plans will also see similar incentives. Both savings vehicles give individuals a potent incentive to save for health care costs that do not fit within their deductible, giving them another option and perhaps some peace of mind about unanticipated medical expenses. The medical expenses that qualify for tax-free distributions are very far reaching and include expenses from preventive care to long-term care. When individuals use their own hard-earned dollars for health care, they will ask more questions, further inform themselves, and become better consumers of health care products. This bill undoubtedly promotes an educated and wise consumer of health care services and will result in all-around better health care decisions. Our current Tax Code puts a punitive burden on working families who save their own money for medical and other expenses. The health savings accounts ease that burden by providing two simple and flexible savings mechanisms for working families. This is commonsense legislation that makes health insurance and health care more affordable and tax advantaged for Americans. It does not destroy our health care system and it does not dismantle Medicare. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to give workers control of their own health care and vote for the creation of health savings accounts.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I particularly welcome the opportunity to come to the floor and invite my colleagues to support this extension on a bipartisan basis. I will talk more on this in a moment; but too often we have seen partisanship, as the gentleman pointed out, but not with the examples that he had cited. We have seen partisanship creep into the debate on welfare reform, and I think it has detracted from the seriousness of the endeavor. As the chairman of the subcommittee noted, this has been, if not one of the greatest social reforms of the 20th century, certainly the most successful social reform of the last 20 years of the last century. We were successful in overhauling a failed welfare system. And as a result, some 3 million children have risen out of poverty since the bill that we had passed and we developed in the subcommittee, and I was there in 1996, and was signed into law by the last administration. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the number of American children experiencing hunger has plummeted to half the number in 1995. Now, the economy was growing during this period; but we also have to recognize that at different times when the economy was growing in the past, the welfare rolls had also been growing. During this period, the welfare rolls were literally cut in half. In all, 3.5 million fewer Americans lived their lives in poverty than in 1995. The results of welfare reform are hard to argue with, although some on the left are continuing to try to make that argument. While this success is inspiring, we recognize that more work needs to be done and further changes need to be made, which were embodied in the bill that we passed last year. May I say we need to recognize that some of the things that were included in the bill that we passed earlier this year, which was a replication of what had passed in the earlier Congress to fully reauthorize this program, including initiatives like full-check sanction, a very important reform that makes very clear if you do not follow the rules, you do not get your welfare benefits. Some 2 million recipients now remain dependent upon welfare assistance and many still do not participate in work or training programs. In response, we have passed in our reauthorization, a boost of tough work requirements and reinvigorated work incentives for State and welfare recipients. Stronger welfare reform means less dependence and more economic independence for poor people in America. Perhaps more importantly, strengthening welfare reform means fewer American children will be living in poverty. However, some opponents of welfare reform, as we have seen, have sought to turn back the clock by running out the clock on this reauthorization. We saw that in the Senate in the last Congress; and, unfortunately, in this Congress the Senate has not taken up the bill in as timely a fashion as we would like. Hence, we are with this bill today. I believe that there are opponents of this effective social policy that are trying to filibuster our attempts to fight poverty. I urge the Senate to end this obstructionism and work with us to enact a strengthened TANF program. I am hopeful that this bill will pass today; but having heard some of the remarks earlier on the floor, I also want to take a moment to clarify the record. Yes, the bill that passed in 1996 passed finally with bipartisan support. But in its earlier forms it had been consistently opposed by the minority. The record shows very clearly the broad outline of what we had proposed and was signed into law was present in the earlier versions of the bill, but it was opposed by the Clinton administration and opposed by many on the minority side. We had sought bipartisanship in that markup in 1996 just as we had sought bipartisanship last year and this year. But bipartisanship requires both parties to engage. We also have shown on our side, in the majority, a strong and consistent commitment to day care, whereas, we were faulted by some for not adequately funding day care. In fact, in 1996 we put twice as much funding, substantially more funding for day care than the Clinton administration had originally proposed. So that has always been a red herring. What we have done is give the States adequate resources to meet the needs of poor people; and as they brought more and more off the rolls, they have been extraordinarily successful in meeting those needs. We need to continue that work and continue this bill by passing this reauthorization.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the 100th anniversary of the founding of Congregation B'nai Abraham in Butler, Pennsylvania. Such a landmark event exemplifies a foundation based on both strength and unity. I wish the B'nai Abraham Congregation growth and prosperity. In the year 1903, 25 Jewish families residing in the Butler community elected Abraham H. Goodman to serve as their spiritual leader and guide them in the Jewish traditions. That same year, the first service was held to commemorate the first Jewish High Holiday, Rosh Hashona, at the Knights of Pythias Hall, now the Reiber Building in Butler. The congregation was officially deemed Congregation B'nai Abraham after obtaining a charter from the Common Pleas Judge James M. Galbreath in 1906. Over time Butler's Jewish community flourished and eventually established a large sanction and school facilities on Butler's North Main Street, which remains its home today. During the 4th of July weekend, Congregation B'nai Abraham will celebrate its 100th anniversary and renew the relationships of both past and present members. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Congregation B'nai Abraham on their 100th anniversary. And as they often say in the opening prayer of a Jewish mass, ``Ma Tovu Ohalecha, Mishknotecha'' or ``How goodly are thy tents, thy dwelling places.''

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I must say having been in western Pennsylvania, when you have been reading the headlines, looking at the economic statistics, things are indeed bleak out there. We are in a recession even if many within the Washington beltway do not fully recognize it, and that is why I rise today to applaud the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentlewoman from Washington, and the House leadership for recognizing the needs of the unemployed in this recession. While we work, apparently in the face of partisan opposition, to enact a balanced and robust economic growth package, we also need to provide immediate help for these displaced workers. These are people who would rather have a job; but in lieu of a job during an economic slowdown, they need these benefits. Today's legislation will maintain a safety net for our Nation's displaced workers by providing up to 26 weeks of benefits for those who exhaust their State benefits. This type of measure is absolutely critical to move now so we make sure that no families fall between the cracks. However, as we do it, I think we also need to recognize as a House that maybe the time has come to reassess parts of the safety net, look for ways of extending it, and that is why I have introduced the Safety Net Extension Act, a bill that would not only extend temporary assistance for the unemployed, but also enact some permanent reforms to the unemployment system. It would provide relief for those workers who are paying taxes on their unemployment benefits, many of whom are in my district. My bill would look to also reauthorization trade adjustment assistance, and I view this package as being of a piece. Tonight we have an opportunity to move forward and extend the unemployment benefits for workers who have been laid off, making sure that they do not fall between the cracks. But in the long haul, I would hope that we in the House would come together on a bipartisan basis and look for ways of enriching those benefits and at the same time pass a real stimulus package that will get the economy back on a growth path.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Pension Security Act, which is very similar to legislation that was passed last year by the House of Representatives in response to the Enron crisis. This is mainstream legislation that provides fundamental protections to American workers and American pension systems. Now, as I listen to the debate here, I am struck by a certain Alice in Wonderland quality to the entire proposal because we have heard on the other side an enumeration of some of the things that they think this bill does not do. They do not focus on the fact that this does include fundamental protections. They complain that this has taken a long time to do, and yet it was their party in the U.S. Senate that held up the proceedings on this bill after we passed it in the last Congress. This is clearly legislation whose time has come, and I am very proud of the work that two of our committees have done, in the Committee on Education and the Workforce and in the Committee on Ways and Means, on which I serve, to make this legislation possible. Ultimately, the bill before us is one of the most important measures to secure Americans' retirement futures that we will work on this year. Our working families clearly deserve to know that their hard-earned dollars invested in pension and retirement savings are secure. We have seen the devastating effect of corporate scandal on employees' pensions. The House again is responding to the challenge to make sure that the Enrons and WorldComs of the corporate world do not destroy the savings of their employees. This bill clearly provides rights to workers to diversify pension plan assets and protections against corporate abuses and pension mismanagement; and it also helps small businesses provide retirement security for their workers, which is one of the most fundamental reforms given, that so many small businesses currently do not extend to their workers those options. By giving small businesses just a little relief from burdensome and costly regulations, millions of small business employees will now have retirement security. This is a worthy goal. This is worthy legislation. And I hope in the end when the smoke clears that this body will support it on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Today, Mr. Speaker, the House has the melancholy responsibility to take up a resolution memorializing one of the great leaders of the Pennsylvania State legislature who passed recently. I am referring to former State Speaker of the House Matthew Ryan whose 41-year extraordinary career, including repeated service as Speaker of the House beginning in 1981, is an extraordinary testament to how so much of our legislative talent and our best legal minds are still concentrated in our State legislatures. I worked for the State House. I knew Speaker Ryan. I knew what an extraordinary individual he was and how, at a time when affiliation with parties is something that has lost public favor, he was one of the finest products of the Delaware County Republican organization, a great friend, an individual who absolutely dominated the State House by the force of his mind and the force of his personality and led it in very positive directions, a man who was far more bipartisan than the reputation of that institution but always a strong Republican and always a strong advocate of creating jobs and of welfare reform. We will miss him dearly. I hope his memory and his example will long be with us.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is perhaps the most important bill for our economy that we are going to be voting on this year, and I strongly support it because it is a measure that provides a powerful tonic for economic growth and job creation. We estimate that over a million jobs will be created as a result of this bill, and what I want to underscore here is that this bill is strongly and powerfully pro-manufacturing. It will stimulate manufacturing jobs in a sector which has been battered by the economic slowdown. Two provisions, the increase on the business expensing allowance and a 5-year carryback of net operating losses, will go directly toward preserving and creating high-paying manufacturing jobs in our economy. A strong expensing allowance is the right medicine for the ailing manufacturing sector. It significantly reduces the cost of capital so that manufacturers can invest in new equipment and machinery and in the process dramatically increase workers' productivity. Allowing businesses to deduct more quickly the cost of capital investments makes those investments more affordable. This is seed corn for the economy. We need it now, and I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to applaud Chairman Henry Hyde and the International Relations Committee on their Herculean efforts to save lives in the developing world. As of last year, an estimated 42 million individuals were infected with HIV worldwide. Seventy-five percent of those individuals live in developing nations in Africa and the Caribbean. As the leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa, AIDS has killed more than 20 million people in that region alone. This global pandemic shatters families and wrecks any potential for prosperity in developing nations. Indeed, AIDS has nearly annihilated entire segments of society in Africa. Like some of my colleagues, I have had an opportunity to visit some the nations hit hardest by AIDS. Just months ago, I visited a small town just outside of Capetown, South Africa. There, I was told that at least 30 percent of the town's residents were infected with HIV. The nearly incalculable costs associated with such widespread suffering almost certainly damn South Africa's children to poverty. Notwithstanding this horrific situation, I was struck by the success of some heroic efforts to fight back against HIV. In the same town, the international aid organization Doctors Without Borders, has been running a small clinic devoted to treating pregnant victims of HIV. In treating these women, Doctors Without Borders has also prevented the spread of HIV to the unborn children of its patients. Efforts like this one have effectively saved the lives of hundreds of those who might otherwise face death as a result of AIDS. Perhaps one remarkable aspect of this effort is that it shows what a small investment in public health can do to alleviate mass suffering in the developing world. Imagine what organizations like Catholic charities and Doctors Without Borders can do with a multi-billion dollar commitment by the United States of America. Today's legislation shows leadership and it demonstrates our resolve in the fight against AIDS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations to the International Relations Committee on a job well done.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the state of Pennsylvania's Collegiate Academy High School Academic Decathlon team as they prepare to conquer the championship title for the 2003 United States Academic Decathlon (USAD) National Competition. Pennsylvania's Academic Decathlon team is comprised of students and coaches from the Collegiate Academy High School, located in the 3rd Congressional District. The Collegiate Academy team has already found victory in the local, regional and state USAD competitions and is anxiously awaiting the final national competition scheduled to be held at the end of April in the school's hometown of Erie, Pa. I'd like to take the time today and recognize these talented students and their coaches, who have mentored and inspired the students throughout the entire school year. The 2003 members of Pennsylvania's Academic Decathlon Team include: Joshua Cohick, Mara DiTullio, Jarrod Fedor, Noelle Lucas, Brian McNair, Andrew Narusewicz, Eden Roseborough, David Tran and Gregory Stachelek. The team's coaches are Carolyn Huzinec and Paula Lucas. For more than 20 years, the USAD National competition has brought high school students together to challenge their intellects on various levels and provide an advanced educational opportunity. In the pursuance of academic excellence, academic decathlon teams must vigorously prepare to compete in ten different categories. The winning team will be recognized as the most prestigious high school in the nation. I believe this scholastic competition to be a grand endeavor for high school students across America. Its continuous success is a prime example of our nation's enthusiasm for education. I am proud that Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District's own Collegiate Academy High School will represent the state this year in the national competition and I wish them the best of luck. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Pennsylvania's Academic Decathlon team and their coaches as they compete to become America's most prestigious high school.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be here, and I particularly want to thank the chairman and thank the committee for having moved this resolution forward so quickly. It is a real honor to be able to participate in an action which would recognize the value of the long public service that Jim Merry provided as a community leader and as a member of the State legislature, serving in his last 2 years as chairman of the local government committee and also my colleague at the same time that I was serving in Congress. This was a great experience for me because during my career as a staffer in the State legislature, I had an opportunity to work with Jim Merry in that capacity, and I saw him from a number of different angles. Jim Merry was the kind of legislator that I think Mr. Jefferson had in mind when he considered that our legislatures would be populated with individuals who were citizen politicians. Jim Merry came by his interest naturally. His father had been a State representative in Crawford County during the 1950s and early 1960s, and Jim had been a borough councilman, had been head of the chamber of commerce, and was enormously active in his community. When the seat came into play in 1980, Jim ran and in something of an upset won the seat and quickly made it his own. It was a seat that straddled the Erie and Crawford County lines, and a lot of diverse communities; but he reached out everywhere he went. He was a fine legislator, an active community member. He was a great gentleman. The thing that I think is his greatest legacy is, although he was a man of his party, he was a very active Republican. At no time did I ever see him become rancorous about his politics. He worked well with people on both sides of the aisle. He was always committed to finding a way of getting things done and putting that over party politics. Particularly important, he always treated every individual with a great deal of deference. As someone who learned a lot from Jim Merry, it is a real privilege to be able to play a role in honoring him by renaming the post office in the community that he long represented, Linesville, Pennsylvania, where his family still is, where he was a lifelong resident, after him in recognition of that great community contribution. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Members, and ask for a ``yea'' vote.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, Secretary of State Powell was in Beijing recently, asking for Beijing's assistance on the issues of North Korea and Iraq. Beijing responded by asking the Bush Administration to consider ``trade-offs,'' especially more American flexibility on the issue of Taiwan. I want to commend Secretary Powell and the Bush Administration for refusing to participate in this sort of irresponsible horse-trading. We continue to support peaceful solution to any political disagreements between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. At the same time, Congress has repeatedly voiced its commitment to defend the people of Taiwan from aggression, and we have backed this commitment with economic, political and military cooperation. I believe that this Administration has done an exemplary job of reinforcing this commitment by refusing to compromise Taiwan's security in the face of Beijing's attempts at coercion. Meanwhile, Beijing has turned a deaf ear to Taiwan President Chen Shui-Bian's calls for renewed dialogue between the two. This lack of communication will certainly result in misunderstanding, and could lead to dangerous miscalculations by both sides. These sorts of miscalculations can in turn lead to the sort of military confrontation that we all wish to avoid. I therefore strongly urge Beijing's new leadership to remove Chinese missiles from the area along the Taiwan Strait and to embrace a peaceful approach to managing the cross-strait relationship. It is time for bilateral dialogue on economic cooperation, democratic governance, improved human rights and peaceful resolution of all issues between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, Yesterday marked the one year anniversary of President Bush's historic stand against unfair steel imports. The President's decision to implement safeguard relief for steel products exemplifies the perfect case in which this type of trade law remedy was created for. Implementing a safeguard action on steel products was necessary, appropriate and permissible under both domestic law and our obligations within the World Trade Organization context. The American steel industry was seriously injured as a result of repeated surges of low-priced steel imports that suppressed domestic steel prices to unsustainable 20 year lows. The impact of these import surges includes 35 American steel companies entering bankruptcy and the elimination of over 50,000 American steelworker jobs. And yet, the bold safeguard action taken by the Bush Administration alone can not rectify the underlying practices leading to the import surges which placed the American steel industry in such peril. Make no mistake, the domestic steel industry is still very much threatened by enormous global market distortions. Massive foreign steel overcapacity continues to disrupt the global steel trading system--foreign excess raw steelmaking capacity has averaged more than twice the level of average domestic steel consumption. Foreign governments and steel manufacturers have shown little interest in implementing meaningful capacity reduction programs. And the inefficient excess foreign steel capacity will continue to impose serious pricing pressures in the U.S. market as foreign producers attempt to unload their excess capacity whenever an opportunity presents itself. This is precisely why I applaud President Bush for having the vision to implement such a broad and ambitious agenda for correcting the distortions in the steel marketplace which have made this threat as cyclical as the seasons themselves. Further, I applaud the Administration for actively implementing its three-part steel program and engaging all steel producing nations at the negotiating table. Specifically, the President's three-part plan will: seek the near-term elimination of inefficient excess capacity in the steel industry worldwide; eliminate the underlying market-distorting subsidies that led to the current conditions in the first place; and implementing the safeguard action for three years to allow for domestic steel industry restructuring and recovery. All parts of the President's plan must be implemented in order to place our domestic steel producers on a level playing field. The domestic steel industry is a national asset and is inseparable from our nation's economic, political and military development. But while no one disagrees that the American steel industry is an integral component of our nation's economic base and critical to our national security, only a few voices speak loudly to decry the remedy as unfair to steel consumers. Mr. Speaker, I emphatically disagree. The tariffs implemented under section 201 resulted from a thorough investigation of the facts. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) conducted the most exhaustive investigation of its type in history. Foreign steel producers employed over thirty-four law firms and participated in more than three weeks of public hearings, submitting over 85 feet of legal briefs and arguments. Foreign and domestic interest groups., including domestic steel consumers, who were opposed to any form of relief for the domestic steel industry were given every possible opportunity to participate--and they did. After this exhaustive investigation, the ITC unanimously found that the American steel industry had been seriously injured as a result of high levels of low-priced steel imports. Following the unanimous decision of injury by the ITC, the President reviewed the Commission's findings, considered if a safeguard action would have a greater positive effect on the economy than it would negative, and then imposed a reasonable set of tariff and tariff-rate-quota measures. Mr. Speaker, up to this point I have detailed two separate mechanisms which facilitate the specific input of domestic steel consumers. It is evident that the facts in this case provide the merit for the President's safeguard action, that all interested parties had ample opportunity to participate in the investigation, and that, as part of a broader plan to reform trade distorting practices in this sector, the safeguard action is working without serious negative consequences to downstream industries. Since the safeguard action was implemented one year ago, there has been a modest price recovery on steel products. Keep in mind, however, that the price of steel was at unsustainable levels prior to and had absolutely no where else to go but up. In fact, even after one year with the tariffs in place hot rolled steel prices are still below the twenty year average. Steel supplies have also been robust since the safeguard action has been in place. Contrary to predictions, there is no evidence that the safeguard measure has unduly hampered import supply. Indeed, imports of flat-rolled steel increased substantially after the imposition of section 201 measures in 2002, as compared to the same period in 2001. One goal of the safeguard statute is to achieve a period of breathing room from unfairly traded imports which allows the affected industry time to restructure. Since the safeguard action was implemented, domestic producers have enjoyed improvements in revenues, operating income, and capacity utilization. A number of companies have returned to profitability, while other companies have shown significant improvements even though they have not yet become profitable. The industry has made significant progress toward restructuring and consolidation. While recovery and restructuring will take time, the President's plan has allowed the industry to make a real start. The crisis in steel is not yet over. It is not enough for Congress to look back on the actions already taken by the ITC and the President. Instead, Congress must continue to take an active roll, along with the President, and look toward completing the initiatives we have already begun. The safeguard action was put in place by President Bush for three years, declining each year it is in effect. The safeguard action must not be cut short and must run its full course. Further, great strides must be taken to facilitate a comprehensive and meaningful conclusion to the OECD high-level talks on steel. Finally, the United States must also maintain and utilize strong trade laws which encourage free and fair trade. Over the long term, strong and full enforcement of U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws is the only means to encourage market behavior and deter the unfair trade practices that initially led to the steel crisis. These laws are critical to the long-term survival of the domestic steel industry. It is essential that our trade laws are fully enforced and that the Administration defend the integrity of this last line of defense against unfairly traded imports in negotiations for new international trade agreements.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the 200th anniversary of the city of Butler in western Pennsylvania. This charming city has a long and rich history and I am confident that it will enjoy a future filled with continuous growth and prosperity. Butler, like the rest of our great country, was originally inhabited by the Native-American tribes; the land was used as a hunting ground by Indians from the Iroquois Nation during European settlement. The Venango Trail, which runs through Butler, was commonly traveled by settlers in colonial times and was famously traveled by George Washington in the mid 1700's. Named for Richard Butler, one of Washington's generals in the Revolutionary War, the town of Butler was officially established in 1803. Over the next two hundred years, the city of Butler flourished and became known for its steel industry. In early March, Butler will celebrate its 200th anniversary. May it celebrate for many years to come. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the city of Butler, Pennsylvania on their 200th anniversary celebration.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to the life of David P. Hanlon, beloved principal of McDowell Intermediate High School in Erie, Pennsylvania, who passed away tragically at the age of 46 on January 10, 2003. Dave Hanlon will be remembered by the Millcreek community as a dedicated and loving husband, father, teacher, coach, and friend. As Millcreek Township's athletic director and later MIHS Principal, Hanlon was known for his reassuring presence and ability to inspire students. He would spend little time in his office during the day, preferring instead to walk the halls of McDowell reaching out to students and teachers. But he spent many late nights at his desk implementing his ambitious plans for the school's future. Dave Hanlon was a fixture at McDowell arts and sporting events, and led many school trips including a government class trip that visited the Capitol two years ago. Because of his contagious enthusiasm for McDowell, it was often said that he bled blue and white, the McDowell Trojans' school colors. Mike Gallagher, a close friend, once observed that Hanlon's ability to connect with students ``changed the way kids view adults in their lives.'' The Reverend John Detisch eulogized that ``David was a teacher. And what he taught came not so much from the classroom; what he taught came from the heart.'' McDowell sophomore Hubbell McGeorge wrote the following about Dave Hanlon's immeasurable impact on students lives: ``The first day back to school after such a tragedy is very hard. It feels like a piece of all of us is missing and can't be fixed. There is, and will be, a hole in the school, the district, and the community for years to come.'' Dave Hanlon's dedication to his students was surpassed only by his devotion to his wife Paige and three children, Collin, Peyton, and Braden. On the last day of his life, Dave Hanlon confided to a student about the ``perfect life'' he had found with his family. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to the life of David P. Hanlon, a devoted family man and model educator who will be deeply missed by an entire community.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for giving me the time. Today, I stand in support of H.R. 4, which is a clear and consistent effort to improve upon the landmark welfare reform law that we enacted when I was a freshman in 1996. As I have stood here listening to this debate, the arguments I have heard have oddly echoed those arguments, and yet the matter is settled. Clearly welfare reform has been successful. Since we overhauled this country's failed welfare system, some 3 million children have risen out of poverty. That is pro-family. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the number of American children experiencing hunger has plummeted to half of its number in 1995. In all, 3.5 million fewer Americans live their lives in poverty than in 1995. This is the most successful social experiment of the 20th century, and yet here we are today listening to the left arguing still against welfare reform. They are attempting to turn back the clock, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this awful amendment in the nature of a substitute. These critics argue that welfare reform is not responsible for the decrease in poverty today, that instead the economy is solely responsible for these changes. Yet they ignore the fact that in the past the economy has risen but welfare rolls had risen before welfare reform; and since welfare reform, despite the Clinton recession starting in the last two quarters of that administration, welfare rolls have continued to drop. Yet some 2 million recipients remain dependent on welfare assistance, and many still do not participate in worker- training programs. In response, we are poised today to pass a reauthorization of welfare reform boosted by tougher work requirements and reinvigorated work incentives for States and welfare recipients. I want to draw my colleagues' attention to one specific provision called ``full-check sanction.'' This provision establishes a tough, consistent penalty for those welfare recipients who decline to participate steadily in the workforce. Contrary to the negative predictions of welfare reform's opponents, this provision, where it has been tried, has worked exceptionally well. A study by former Clinton administration economist Rebecca Blank reveals that these States ``show consistently higher income gains among poor children throughout the income distribution than do States with lenient penalties.'' I am proud to note that by including this provision in today's bill we will soon apply full-check sanctions to welfare recipients throughout America. Full-check sanctions, marriage promotion, and other enhancements will only make welfare reform more effective. Stronger welfare reform means less dependence and more economic independence for the poor of America.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for all of her work on the issue of unemployment benefits because I know this has been a big focus of her efforts in this body for the last few months. Mr. Speaker, last year Republican leadership in the House advanced a program of extended unemployment insurance which has assisted some four million Americans. Today we will be extending that critical program to help the millions of Americans who continue to face unemployment through no fault of their own. These working families have borne the brunt of hard economic times and will continue to do so until our economy gets back on a growth path and begins to generate new jobs. We in Congress have a fundamental responsibility to help cushion the effects of economic displacement by providing a set of extended unemployment benefits for those who exhaust their regular State compensation. Under today's legislation, these workers who exhaust their 26 weeks of State benefits will be able to collect up to 13 more weeks of benefits; and in a couple of other States with very high unemployment, 13 more on top of that. This program not only benefits working families but it also acts as an economic stabilizer for communities like the many that we have in western Pennsylvania that have been particularly hard hit by this downturn and its effect on the manufacturing sector, places like Erie, Warren, Meadville. These are communities where this program is going to be enormously beneficial to those who depend on jobs that are tied to the local economy. Nonetheless, many Americans will continue to face difficulties as this economy recovers. For this reason I will be introducing legislation that reforms the trigger mechanism on extended benefits and that allows unemployed workers to receive up to 26 weeks of additional assistance. State unemployment numbers can mask big regional differences. I believe that a change in the trigger mechanism will allow us to more effectively respond to uneven economic recovery across the country within States. I support the legislation before us. I believe that we need to continue to work to provide more relief for the unemployed where and when it is needed; and above all since these are workers who want a job, not just unemployment insurance, we need to pass a stimulus package that gets the economy back on a growth path.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, more than 800,000 unemployed workers throughout the U.S. and over 35,000 in Pennsylvania alone are faced with the grim reality that their unemployment benefits will end just 3 days after Christmas. With the economy in such bad straits and so many working families suffering, we cannot stand by and let the Grinch steal Christmas from the unemployed whose holidays are already constrained by an extended period of unemployment. This cutoff is hanging like a sword of Damocles, like a Grinch, over these families; and we need to act today. This bill removes the December 28 cutoff on benefits. It allows more than 800,000 unemployed workers nationwide who will already be receiving extended benefits to temporarily continue receiving benefits when the current program expires. This bill extends federally funded benefits by up to 5 weeks per individual. This bill continues through January 2003 the current availability of additional weeks of federally funded extended benefits in certain high-unemployment States. As a longtime supporter of this issue, I feel it critical that we move now to provide extended unemployment benefits to these families. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up to the Grinch and making sure that America's unemployed continue to receive benefits after Christmas.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, in this body our first and highest responsibility is protecting our homeland, and that responsibility may from time to time require us to embrace unpopular policies and justify them to our constituents when we recognize a transcendent danger to our country. Mr. Speaker, I realize my vote for this resolution authorizes a military action that may put at risk thousands of American lives in Iraq. However, the tragedies of September 11 have vividly highlighted the danger that inaction may risk tens, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent American lives here at home from terrorism. This bipartisan resolution was drafted in recognition of this fact and, therefore, presents our President with the initiative in continuing the global war against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, we know that Saddam Hussein, like Osama bin Laden, hates America and has called for the murder of Americans everywhere. We know that Saddam Hussein even in the face of crippling economic sanctions has found the resources to reconstruct his chemical and biological weapons programs, even at great painful expense to his people. We know that Saddam Hussein is directing an aggressive program to procure components necessary for building nuclear devices and that he actively supports terror in other nations, including Israel. So the question before us is, do we wait for Saddam Hussein to become a greater threat, or do we address that threat now? CIA Director Tenet has told us in recent days that al Qaeda has sought cooperation from Iraq. I cannot stand here and trust that Saddam Hussein will not supply al Qaeda and other terrorist networks with weapons that could be used to massacre more Americans. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that the Iraqi dictator would share his growing arsenal of terror with agents willing to strike at the United States. With this in mind, and given other revelations from captured members of al Qaeda, it is clear that time is not on our side. That is why I support this balanced and nuanced resolution providing our President with the powerful backing of Congress in an effort to disarm Iraq. It is my sincere hope that this resolution will stimulate intrusive and decisive action by the United Nations and at the same time lead to a full disarmament of Saddam Hussein. But if it does not, the United States of America must stand willing to act in order to prevent more events like those of September 11.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, on the morning of September 26, 2002, due to an official meeting at the White House, I was unable to place votes on three items: If I had been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 2215, ``no'' on the Journal, and ``yea'' on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3295.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, while I congratulate the other side on their valiant, but unsuccessful, partisan attempt to change the subject, I rise on behalf of this rule as an opportunity to put the House on notice and put the House on record that we need to move right now on welfare reform. This reform is the most important social reform that Congress has achieved since I came here in 1994, and right now it is at risk. Welfare caseloads under our initiative have fallen by 60 percent to their lowest levels since 1965. Nine million recipients have gone from welfare to work, from dependency to independence. We have learned from this success that we can help people bootstrap themselves and become self-reliant and proud. We have reaffirmed that the welfare system is supposed to provide a safety net, not a hammock. Mr. Speaker, it has been 4 months since the House passed the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Protection Act reauthorizing these reforms. We passed this bipartisan bill which would build upon the success of the past 6 years by improving day care and increasing opportunity. We strengthened the welfare system by making it less permissive, but at the same time providing real incentives to work. Sadly, some on the left would rather go back to the days of welfare dependency, limited opportunity, and stunted hope for some of our most underprivileged Americans. These reactionaries want to run out the clock on welfare reform here today so that they can turn back the clock and repeal those critical welfare reforms. We cannot allow that to happen. My answer to them is that we need to move forward. Congress has a narrow opportunity to do something real for our neighbors in need. Congress must pass a 5-year welfare reauthorization bill now, before this program expires.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this is landmark legislation that provides solid benefits to workers and communities facing the challenges of globalization. At a time of record trade deficits, this legislation gives the President the authority to conduct negotiations to strengthen U.S. trade policy in a dramatic way, while at the same time opening new markets to American products. It establishes a new national compact on trade which will guarantee workers who have been laid off better access to health care benefits, and it provides income stabilization for older workers by giving them the difference between the salary they can earn from a lower-paying job as opposed to their earlier job that they lost because of a trade- related displacement. This legislation incorporates broader trade adjustment assistance for those who need it in the wake of a trade-related layoff; broader by providing secondary worker benefits for upstream workers, as well as for downstream workers, affected by trade shifts to Canada and Mexico. It broadens TAA by providing benefits to workers if a firm shifts production to any country with a free trade agreement with the U.S. or any country eligible under a variety of agreements. This legislation also gives the administration the power to challenge egregious labor practices in foreign countries, such as child labor, and it promotes greater coordination between the WTO and the ILO. In short, we will be creating opportunities to link trade, labor rights, and environmental policy to a degree never before achieved. There are some who will say that this bill will not accomplish enough, Mr. Speaker, and as a group, I marvel even now at their pessimism about the competitiveness of the American worker and the American economy. But how many of them have been moving the goal post as we have been crafting this legislation, and how many of them have associated themselves with the less aggressive trade policy of the last administration? Vote this trade bill through. It is the beginning of a new day and a stronger trade policy for America.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means, I particularly want to pay tribute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), who has been on the receiving end of many barbs tonight. The fact is that no one has fought harder to bring a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program; and if we are successful in that, she, perhaps more than any other Member of this body, will deserve substantial credit. I am here tonight because I represent a district which consists of working families for whom the abstractions of this debate do not mean much but who desperately need help on their prescriptions. This program that is being proposed in this landmark legislation would give them a flexible and affordable benefit, one that would be voluntary, a program that would give them real choices, allowing them to customize their benefits. It would provide a benefit that would be very substantial, more generous in fact than the one that had been previously proposed by the Clinton administration that folks on the other side of the aisle once embraced. This is a program that represents a $350 billion investment in the Medicare program and one that would provide substantial benefits to seniors that would be available for a premium of about $1 a day. At the same time, for those seniors, including many in my district who cannot afford that premium, this program would provide full coverage for low- income seniors. What is particularly striking about this legislation is that it establishes a firm ceiling, a limit, catastrophic coverage for people who participate in this program, an ultimate limit on the amount of prescription drugs they would be liable for in a given year, a limit of $3,700. That is extraordinarily generous, and it positions people who participate in this program to be able to have affordable drugs when they need it. The 30 percent discount that is built into this program has been much mentioned. Let me say it also allows CMS to negotiate with the drug companies to get the best possible discount and to sharpen their pencils. This is a great program, and I hope the House will pass it tonight.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, when I came to Congress, the welfare system was in crisis--a record number of families were on welfare, dependency on the system was enormous and caseloads were rising. But in 1996, in the face of fierce ideological resistance, we reformed the welfare program, establishing work standards and setting time limits while giving states the flexibility to implement them in a way that suited their local situation. We did this after a 30-year period when the Democratically controlled House had spent $5 trillion of taxpayer money on the welfare program, which resulted in skyrocketing poverty rates and welfare cases. It was compassionate conservatism--and it was marvelously successful. The results speak for themselves: Caseloads have fallen by 60 percent to their lowest levels since 1965 and 9 million recipients have gone from welfare to work--from dependency to independence. In Pennsylvania alone, more than 319,000 people were graduated from the caseloads, working their way out of the welfare system. This change is not only extraordinary, but unprecedented. It was clear that the welfare system was the biggest, most costly domestic policy failure of our time. And today, we have been hearing complaints from many who consistently opposed welfare reform until just before the bill signing ceremony. But we have learned from experience that you can strengthen work requirements; require states to closely monitor caseloads. And what we have learned is that we can help people prosper and become self-reliant, independent and proud. We have the opportunity to build on our success without creating a personal entitlement program which deadens individual responsibility, creating incentives for dependency. The Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Protection Act takes dramatic steps to maintain and strengthen the current program. Despite the enormous declines in caseloads, this bill gives states the same record federal welfare and child care funding, which means more money per family. H.R. 4737 maintains the flexibility that has allowed states to tailor the program to meet the specific needs of its residents, rewarding states for engaging recipients and reducing caseloads. More importantly, it also provides an additional $2 billion for child care, ensuring that parents who are working hard to improve the lives of their families are not being slammed back to the ground by staggering child care costs. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not interested in building on the welfare reform of 1996, but rather that they want to dismantle it. They want to allow welfare recipients to work two days per week and stay on welfare forever. Let me share with you some facts about the Democratic substitute--it allows welfare recipients to work two days per week and stay on welfare forever. It also provides partial credit towards work rates for adults who work as few as 10 hours per week while collecting full welfare benefits. In fact, according to the Department of Health had Human Services, the Democrat's a new ``employed leaver credit'' would effectively eliminate the work requirements in 2003--reducing from 50 percent to 2 percent the share of the welfare caseload expected to work. The Democratic proposal increases welfare dependence and poverty while seriously undermining the time limits designed to promote self- sufficiency. But Mr. Speaker, if that is not enough let's look at the cost. For about $70 billion over 10 years, the American taxpayers would see welfare return to a program where able-bodied people do not work for their benefits and bear little personal responsibility. The Democratic substitute is expensive and would increase deficits. Unlike the Republican bill, the Democratic substitute includes NO offsets for its new spending, so it simply adds to deficits in the future. These are the same Democrats who consistently opposed welfare reform until just before the bill signing ceremony in 1996. The Democrats also want to place additional, burdensome mandates on the states, essentially tying the hands of states who know how best to meet the needs of their residents. We cannot take a step backward--as the Democrats advocate--returning to a welfare program where able-bodied people do not work for their benefits and bear little personal responsibility. No public policy rationale exists for the additional spending they propose to mandate. This is not to say that at some point in the future more money will be needed for this program but the case for that has not been made today. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the substitute, ensuring that the reforms we enact maintain and strengthen the current program, not return us to an entitlement program with a staggering price tag and even greater social costs. Six years ago, we changed the way people look at welfare, making it a program that helped people find work, renew their self-sufficiency and gave them financial freedom and personal dignity. We must act responsibly and continue these reforms. Vote yes on H.R. 4737.