Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) might respond to a colloquy. I specifically have a question about how to interpret one of the rules contained in section 422 of the conference agreement. Would the chairman please clarify what the rule that disallows deductions for expenses ``properly allocated and apportioned to the deductible portion'' of the dividend is intended to cover?

Mr. ENGLISH. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a conference report today that repeals the FSC/ETI regime and, while doing so, boldly strengthens our manufacturing sector. Passing this conference report will fulfill our duty to end the punitive job-killing tariffs that are being levied against American products. Manufacturers in my home State of Pennsylvania are being hard-hit by the tariffs, and that is why ending the tariffs has been a top priority for many of us. The repeal of the export regime also provides us with an opportunity to enact pro-growth, pro-manufacturing policies, resulting in new and higher-paying jobs across the United States. This bill acts on that opportunity and significantly reduces the tax burden on manufacturers in the United States and begins to address the uncompetitive tax system U.S. employers are faced with. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to draw attention to one particular job-creating provision in this bill, which mirrors legislation I introduced and will lead to in-sourcing. This provision, known as the Homeland Investment Act, is one of the strongest stimulus proposals brought before Congress in recent years, and I think it is going to have a huge impact. It temporarily reduces the tax rate on foreign earnings of U.S. companies, when that money is brought back to the United States for investment here at home. The billions of dollars that will be brought back will be used by American employers to hire new workers, invest in top-of-the-line equipment, and build new plants right here at home, instead of in the countries where their earnings are currently stranded. This is critical legislation to rebuild our manufacturing base.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think what is coming through here is kind of an interesting contrast, and while I am here by myself tonight speaking on this point, I do not feel that I am particularly outnumbered, one man and the truth and all of that. I think what we have before us, Republicans clearly want to prevent tax increases on middle-class families. I think from the debate tonight we have a legitimate question as to whether our friends on the other side are as firmly committed to doing that, unless they also get to raise taxes somewhere else. I found reassuring some of the comments of my friend from Texas who suggested that he might be willing to consider cuts as well in spending. I think everyone here intuitively understands that there is adequate spending, low-priority spending, in the Federal Government, and that certainly that would be one way we can bring down the deficit. In fact, the Republican budget this year contemplates just that kind of fiscal restraint through the process. H.R. 1308 maintains the successful tax policy that has clearly contributed to the economic recovery. The motion to instruct here creates a zero sum game. It extends tax relief with one hand, while potentially raising taxes with the other. If I understand our recent fiscal experience in America, I do not believe that this is a good time for us to be raising taxes on certain sectors. This is bad for the economy, and it is bad for families. Republicans have provided significant tax relief for families since this administration took office resulting in higher after-tax incomes for Americans. Yet because of arcane Senate rules, Congress could not provide permanent tax relief for families. The gentleman correctly pointed out that when we voted, what we voted for turned out to be a temporary expedient, but was a function, as he well knows, of the Senate and its rules. House Republicans have voted to provide predictability in the Tax Code, and the Senate has not taken those steps. If Congress does not act, I think we all could agree, middle-class families will face a tax increase next year. For example, next year, the $1,000 tax credit, as my friend from Arizona noted, drops to $700 per child. The 10 percent tax bracket will apply to less of an individual's income, and the marriage penalty provision will provide significantly less relief for couples. The House has voted overwhelmingly to make these tax cuts permanent and has done so without offsets. These votes show that the House does not want to increase taxes on middle-class American families. Now, if we are serious about looking for a way of balancing this, if we are serious about addressing the deficit, first we need to stimulate the economy to bring down the deficit. We have done that, and it has succeeded. But second of all, if there is an argument here that we should be tying tax cuts to other reductions in spending, or closing some unsubstantial loopholes, then I think that the burden is on the other side as they lay out the instructions to tell us specifically how they think this could be done without pain or without a drag on the economy. Mr. Speaker, I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply flattered by the gentleman's kind words and his apparent elevation of me to the chairmanship of the Committee on Ways and Means. I am not in a position to make any promises about what the Committee on Ways and Means will do. I am not in a position to make a commitment on behalf of the Committee on Ways and Means. I do not know the chairman's policy. I do know that the chairman is prepared to move forward with whatever legislation is necessary, recognizing that the national debt today is significantly smaller relative to the economy than when Republicans inherited that 10 years ago when I came in. I cannot, obviously, commit the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, you know, this is a very interesting debate tonight, although it seems a little circular, because we have seen similar motions to instruct in the past. Mr. Speaker, I have chosen to rise tonight in opposition to this motion to instruct. First I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Republican leadership for having already taken substantial action on the issues before us. Contrary to what the argument is we are hearing from the minority, the House took action on this issue and moved legislation forward in order to ensure that families are not hit with a tax increase next year. Earlier this year, the House voted to permanently extend the current $1,000 child tax credit, relief from the marriage penalty and the expansion of the 10 percent bracket. That is the bracket that applies to working families. The House passed this permanent relief without raising taxes on hard-working Americans. The motion to instruct before us takes several steps back from the policy we had previously passed. The motion calls for the extension of middle-class tax cuts, but insists that they be fully paid for. I do not think that the minority intends to pay for them through cuts in spending. If they did, we might have a very different outcome this evening, but I do not believe they do. Republicans have provided tax relief in the past 3 years, and the minority has fought us every single time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has already had a few minutes. I would like to complete my statement, because I think it is important that a realistic perspective be offered on this. This is, in my view, simply another attempt to turn the clock back on tax relief. While it is costly to extend tax relief permanently, the workers of this country deserve to know that their taxes will not be increased on a year-by-year basis. The tax relief passed by this House under this administration has clearly helped grow the economy. Chairman Greenspan has been invoked here, and it is fairly clear from his testimony before congressional committees that he believes that the tax plan that has passed the House and that has been signed into law has clearly stimulated the economy. This is the wrong time to block the extension of this tax relief. The House acted when it passed a direct and permanent solution to the needs of families struggling with the burden of day-to-day expenses. This motion, in my view, is unnecessary and sets us down a path of tax increases. The author, whom I have great respect for, argued that this could be paid for simply by closing a few tax shelters. If it is so painless, I would be very interested as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means to solicit his suggestions, and perhaps he may offer some this evening. I thank him, Mr. Speaker. However, under the circumstances, I feel obliged to call upon the House to oppose this motion.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), my distinguished colleague from the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it has been with great interest that I have listened to the debate tonight. I guess my reaction, in listening to some of the rhetoric from the other side, is that I do not mind much if they steal our clothes when we go in bathing, if they want to look and sound like fiscal conservatives, look and sound like Republicans; that is an understandable thing in today's political climate. Although I must say, if I were actually to go in swimming and they were to steal my clothes, they might need a little clever tailoring, and, in fact, I think the rhetoric suggests they may need a little clever tailoring if they are to pass themselves off. I feel very strongly myself that under most circumstances the United States should have a balanced budget, but history tells us, whether Republicans were in charge or whether Democrats were in charge, there is no real example of the United States having maintained a balanced budget during a significant recession. Second of all, there is no real example of the United States having run a balanced budget during wartime, and over the last few years, as the gentlemen undoubtedly are aware, we have not only been fighting a slowdown, which began during the Clinton administration, which cut into our revenues and began to create the deficit over a couple of years' time, but also, we engaged in the war on terror. Now, I realize it is controversial on the other side. They are sometimes for the war in Iraq, sometimes against it, even sometimes having misgivings about Afghanistan, but the fact remains, we have made a major investment in our efforts not only to improve homeland security, but also to challenge our adversaries elsewhere in the world. In my view, that has been an investment worth making. The fact that we have run a deficit does not alarm me as much as some of the rhetoric on the other side seems to suggest alarm. For example, when I came to Congress in 1994, we were approaching a point where our national debt, which was smaller in those days in absolute numbers, but larger relative to the economy, was approaching 44 percent of GDP. Even in that context, realizing that what we needed to do was stimulate the economy, we cut taxes, and we were able to trim spending, and over time the Republican Congress, grappling with a Democratic administration, winning some, losing some, we were able to get to a balanced budget, and we brought down the deficit in relative terms to the economy. Today, in real terms, our national debt is lower than 40 percent of GDP. It has grown over the last year. Well, we might expect that under the circumstances, but also, the Republican budget has made a commitment to lower the deficit to one-half of what it is currently relative to the economy. That is a powerful commitment that gives us confidence to go forward and cut taxes, which is what we need to do to stimulate the economy and generate more revenues. There will always be some who would prefer to raise taxes during a slowdown, and we remember the intellectual genesis of their philosophy. This was the argument being made by the Hoover administration. It is odd that we hear some conservative Democrats, or who are wanting to be conservative Democrats, tonight adopting some of the same rhetoric that the Hoover administration embraced during the Depression. Hoover Democrats I do not think is the solution tonight. I do think what we need to do is continue to stimulate the economy and make permanent the President's tax program. It has been criticized tonight for allegedly giving most of the benefits to the wealthy. Yet the folks on the other side will have difficulty explaining that in the context of the studies which have shown that now the wealthy, since the tax cut, pay a higher proportion of the tax share. We have increased the progressivity of the American Tax Code in the wake of the tax programs that have passed this House. That is something that is not grasped well on the other side, but it is one of those stubborn facts that takes the sting out of their rhetoric. The fact is a little more of the share has gone to working families, and this is important. Some families, I realize, may be only $2 a day, but that means something to them, and I believe it is important that we continue to have that relief in place. This is, I think, a very important debate. I think it is worth noting that there is fresh evidence that the way to get the deficit down is to grow the economy, because with new estimates, we have found that the deficit has actually shrunk by $75 billion, $75 billion over the past few months as we have begun to take into account the recovery of the economy and the growth in revenues. These, I think, are facts which rebut the argument being made on the other side, but if they were serious about these arguments, I think we would hear some more specifics. We would hear some specifics about the tax shelters that the gentleman from Indiana alluded to, and I am hoping in his close he will perhaps give us some specifics of tax shelters that can be closed, real ones that can generate real revenue or reduce spending. Surely we can have some suggestions from the other side. If they do, contrary to my impression, want to cut spending, perhaps they will prove me wrong and identify some areas where we can save money. But, at any rate, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Indiana tonight for raising this debate. It has been, from my standpoint, edifying. I have enjoyed it, and I believe also that the House has had an opportunity to see a clear difference here, and I believe as they examine it, they will have an opportunity to vote down this perhaps well-intentioned motion to instruct, but one that I think would be counterproductive at a time when we are trying to get our economy back on the growth path. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I have only one more speaker, myself, to close; and I would like an understanding from the gentleman how many more speakers he might have.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering landmark legislation to implement the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, and delve deeper into the bonds of friendship with the Kingdom of Morocco. Just 4 days ago, we marked exactly 217 years of official relations with Morocco, the longest unbroken diplomatic relationship in the existence of the United States. While the furthering of our positive ties with Morocco is certainly an important goal, this FTA really stands on its own as a benefit to our economy. The U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement was negotiated over a period of a year and a half and, once implemented, will be truly a win-win for both of our countries. This is, in my view, an FTA which contains the best market access package of any FTA that has been negotiated with a developing country. I believe it has the potential to serve as a model for future free trade agreements with developing countries, particularly because of tough provisions to enforce intellectual property rights. The Morocco Free Trade Agreement contains the most advanced intellectual property chapter in any FTA negotiated thus far. It contains language that not only commits Morocco to fight piracy, but to fight piracy on products that are potentially coming through as transshipment. Morocco is a natural market for many American companies, and a Free Trade Agreement will bring both countries closer together for mutual benefit. The International Trade Commission has also determined that U.S. exports to Morocco are likely to increase dramatically, by $740 million, while imports from Morocco are likely to increase by nearly $200 million after full implementation of the Free Trade Agreement. The major reason for the anticipated increase in U.S. exports is due to the fact that on day one of this agreement, 95 percent of tariffs on industrial and consumer goods will be eliminated. Morocco has demonstrated consistently its commitment to being a fair and responsible trading partner. They have taken steps to guarantee the security of foreign investment in Morocco, and have enacted sweeping labor laws to protect their workers and to improve women's rights. These negotiations were a catalyst for Morocco moving forward with a modernizing labor code. Moreover, workers in Morocco have the right to associate, collectively bargain, and to strike. The new labor law also improved worker safety, raised the minimum wage, and created additional safeguards on child labor, all core obligations of the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, including labor and environmental provisions, which are subject to the dispute settlement provisions of the agreement, and the agreement includes strong enforcement mechanisms, including the ability to suspend trade concessions or establish monetary assessments. This agreement deepens America's dialogue with the Middle East and North Africa, and builds upon the free trade agreements already reached with Israel and Jordan. The U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, in my view, is an essential part of the puzzle in moving forward to strengthen our trade relationships with our trading partners, establish stronger, more enforceable trade agreements, and establish over time a level playing field in which American companies and American workers can thrive. Mr. Speaker, I believe the passage of this FTA will be a significant achievement in moving toward a stronger trade policy for the United States, and on the strength of that, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this FTA.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 705.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I agree with the gentleman that there is a great need for bipartisanship right now in our trade policy if, in fact, we are going to reverse the tide and put American companies and American workers on a competitive level playing field that will allow us to build the 21st-century economy we need to create good-paying jobs for young people. That is something that should not be a partisan issue. That is something that should unite us, because many of its components cut across philosophical lines. As we will see today in some of the later trade votes, there is a great deal of bipartisanship still in the approach to trade policy. The gentleman is raising an important point that perhaps there should be more bipartisanship. But the fact is, the fact that we have had genuine philosophical disagreements on the FSC bill should not mask the fact that this resolution is enormously significant for American workers and for American companies. I would like to demonstrate to the American public how dramatic an impact this is. I come from Erie County, Pennsylvania; and we make things for a living. We have the biggest concentration of manufacturing jobs still in the State. Much of what we make is actually for export. As a result of that, any small competitive disadvantage puts our workers and our companies at a significant disadvantage in the global marketplace. We cannot be dealing ourselves these sorts of large, substantial disadvantages. Let us understand exactly what kind of disadvantage is being dealt to our producers as a result of a trading system which is not adjustable. This is a study that was done by the U.S. Council For International Business. It demonstrates on balance the comparative disadvantage of American products, both in our market and in foreign markets, as a result of not having a border-adjustable tax system. In the United States, because in the U.S. we have the price of our tax system built into products, a product that has that price in it may, for argument's sake, cost $100. The same product, if it is produced to cost $100 in China, because there is a rebatable VAT tax, comes into our market costing only $88.89, plus the cost of transportation. All things being equal, if it is the same price there and the same price here, we are at a significant competitive disadvantage just because of the taxes. At the same time, a product coming in from Germany that would cost $100 in Germany comes into the United States without the VAT included, without the price of their tax system included, lands in the United States, and it amounts to $86.21, competing with the product in the United States that costs $100. That is a significant wedge when it comes to manufactured products, where small price differences and small profit margins are what govern. But what happens if we try to export from the United States to Germany? A product that costs $100 in the United States and $100 in Germany goes out of the United States with the price of our tax system built in, and then has imposed on it that additional VAT in Germany. So it costs $116 in Germany, competing with the same product that costs $100 in Germany. In that respect, Germany has a big advantage in competing with American products that they import. Their domestic producers have, in effect, a tax subsidy. Look at what happens if we try to sell the same product in Germany and compete with the same product coming in from China. We send it in, it costs $116, but the Chinese export it to Germany, and it only costs $100.87. Why is it? It is because in their market, our pricing of our product has to include not only the price of our tax system, but theirs. It is double taxation. When their product comes into our market, our product still carries the price of our tax system, but theirs has been rebated away. So, in effect, it is a tax subsidy, a standing tax subsidy that double taxes our products in foreign markets and frees imports from carrying their fair share of the tax burden. That is not fair. That is a tax differential that we can no longer afford to look the other way at. This has been a disadvantage that we dealt ourselves back in the 1940s, and it has taken us this long. It is not this administration; it has taken us this long to come head to head with this problem. The time has come for us to put the World Trade Organization on notice that we are going to insist on tax fairness, that we are going to insist on a level playing field. And that is not the only thing we need to do. There is no single silver bullet in leveling the playing field for fair trade, but this is one thing that has to happen. This needs to be the beginning of a much broader trade agenda that allows us to level the playing field, to insist on fairness, and to insist on apples-to-apples competition if we are going to have a strong international trading system. I urge my colleagues, in the bipartisan spirit that my colleague raised, to support the resolution, to support this legislation, to put America on record as moving forward in this area and insisting on a change in terms of trade.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, it is now a great privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a strong advocate of fair trade for American workers.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman for his statement because I can associate myself honestly with a good bit of the analysis that he has provided, and I also want to congratulate the gentleman because I know that he understands to an extent that many people who have not debated trade policy do understand that one of the reasons why we are in a competitive disadvantage is the design of our tax system, and I quite agree with him. What we are putting forward in this resolution is not an endorsement of a particular tax system. What we are doing is putting the WTO on record that we want to change the standard, that we are going to insist on changing the standard. We are also putting the WTO on record that we are determined to make our tax system internationally competitive once more. Through all of the debates on our trade deficit and the problems that we have had in the current international trading system, too little of the focus has been put on the disadvantages that we impose on ourselves, on our workers and our producers, because of the design and the level of American taxes. I will in my closing remarks give some specific examples. But I again want to congratulate the gentleman for getting the gist of what we are doing and supporting it and giving it a strong bipartisan push, because I think it is important for our trading partners in the WTO to see that this resolution is coming out of the House with strong support. This is, in my view, an extremely strong resolution. This is a strong statement of policy. And I think that, although the gentleman makes I think a credible point, that there has been a need for stronger leadership on this point. It has not been specifically this administration but actually a series of administrations that have not been willing to take on this very difficult challenge directly. We need fundamental international tax reform if we are going to remain competitive. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to bring House Resolution 705 before the House today. It was introduced last week and it is being brought forward with considerable urgency because, Mr. Speaker, while this may not be the first time that we have discussed the issue of competitive trade disadvantage on the floor of the House that U.S. companies are facing, this may be the time that we are most clearly focusing on the contribution to that problem created by the American tax system. The fact that our trade deficit is more than $500 billion demonstrates that the economic engine of American exports has experienced a slowdown. In order for us to revive our economy and to have long-term growth, the substantial trade imbalance that we now are experiencing, 5 percent of our economy, representing our trade deficit, has to be corrected. Mr. Speaker, Congress and the administration need to push our trading partners to adjust the rules to level the playing field for American workers and American companies; and today's resolution helps do that by focusing on the disadvantage actually built into the World Trade Organization rules, a disadvantage imposed upon our Tax Code, allowing our competitors what amounts to a $120 billion advantage over American companies. For the past 30 years, the WTO has said that, while the EU members and other trading partners can and do exempt from tax their exports to the U.S., we must fully tax our exports to them. As our manufacturers and other critical industries begin to recover from the recession, it is imperative that we address this inequity. Otherwise, we risk undermining one of the key drivers of economic growth, our export sector, and we also put at risk those companies that are competing within our domestic market by fostering upon them a significant competitive disadvantage. Right now, WTO rules recognize the U.S. corporate income tax to be a so-called direct tax. Under the WTO rules, so-called ``indirect taxes,'' value-added tax or retail sales tax or any other consumption- type tax, can be rebated on exports going out from the home country and imposed on imports coming in from foreign countries, but such adjustments cannot be made for direct taxes when goods and services cross international borders. This is a distinction that has no grounding in economic reality and simply puts us at a competitive disadvantage. It is a crucial inequity for U.S. taxpayers and producers. Confronting it head on will go a long way to boost American competitiveness in the global market. That is why the resolution before us declares that this distinction is arbitrary and it results in a competitive disadvantage for businesses and works with a border-adjustable system, such as all value-added tax systems. Looking to the future, this resolution should serve as a roadmap for reforming our international tax rules to allow U.S. products to compete in the global marketplace. This should be done in a way that exports American goods and services, not American jobs. The resolution asks the President to report to Congress on two matters within 120 days of the convening of the 109th Congress. As required by the Trade Act of 2002, the United States Trade Representative is charged with considering how to eliminate trade barriers put up by the U.S.'s direct tax system in pursuing trade negotiations. Thus, first, the resolution asks for the President to provide a progress report on these barriers and how they can be eliminated. Second, it resolves that the President should report on proposed alternatives to the disparate treatment of the direct/indirect distinction as well as domestic proposals redressing the taxes disadvantage to the U.S. Under the resolution, the President is asked to consider the impact of reducing the corporate rate, of implementing a territorial tax system, as well as the impact of a border-adjustable system as already allowed under the WTO rules. A comprehensive report on the issues would be an enormous help to the Congress and to any administration in putting into bold relief the improvements needed to international tax rules as well as our tax system as it stacks up against the systems of the rest of the world. The reason we must look at this issue more deeply is because it impacts on our economy in such a fundamental way. While we are certainly in a period of robust economic recovery, there is more we can do to sustain long-term growth. As evidenced by the $550 billion trade deficit I referenced earlier, we have become a Nation of importers. We need once again become a Nation of exporters; and as a Nation of exporters, we would see a thriving job market and a thriving manufacturing sector. In the absence of some kind of border tax adjustments for exports of American-made goods to correspond to the export rebates under VAT systems, there will continue to be a disincentive to produce goods in the United States. In effect, our tax system is creating all of the incentives to send our good-paying jobs offshore. This must be corrected, and this resolution is a step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 705) urging the President to resolve the disparate treatment of direct and indirect taxes presently provided by the World Trade Organization.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is considering, I think, landmark trade legislation by considering a free trade agreement with our close ally and trading partner, Australia. As a member of the Subcommittee on Trade, I have had the opportunity to review many trade agreements and specific concerns with our trading partners, and I am happy to conclude that the U.S.-Australia FTA is among the most pro-American, pro-worker agreements that we have seen before this House. For 50 years, we have cooperated closely on security issues and developed a trading relationship to the tune of $29 billion. What is more, the United States enjoys a $9 billion trade surplus with Australia. Indeed, Australia purchases more goods from the United States than it does from any other country, and that is extraordinary. While our positive relationship is an important factor in approving this FTA, to me, Mr. Speaker, this agreement really stands on its own merits on what it will do for manufacturers in my congressional district. Australian companies currently employ 1,600 people in Pennsylvania of whom 600 are in the manufacturing sector. This agreement would increase investment opportunities in Pennsylvania and create jobs. Australia is the eighth largest market for Pennsylvania goods exports, with total exports valued at $430 million last year. Pennsylvania's economy is heavily dependent on manufacturing; and 21 percent, or $89 million, of our total exports to Australia was in manufactured machinery in 2003. Our exports to Australia support, we estimate, 2,000 jobs in Pennsylvania alone. This agreement would lower the tariffs on American manufactured products and create even more opportunities for local manufacturers to tap into a robust Australian market. By immediately making almost 99 percent of U.S. manufactured exports to Australia duty free, American exports would shoot up by an estimated $2 billion annually. Since 93 percent of our goods exported to Australia are in industrial products, the significant benefit this agreement offers U.S. manufacturers is obvious. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our relationship with Australia is one of our most important. By approving this FTA, we can deepen this relationship, and we can also enter into an FTA which will particularly benefit our manufacturing sector; and that is what sets this treaty particularly apart from others that have come before this House. I urge my colleagues strongly, on a bipartisan basis, to embrace this FTA.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Mr. Billie L. Miller for his dedication to his country and exemplary service during World War II. I commend Mr. Miller for his commitment to liberty and justice and for his dutiful service in carrying freedom to the world. World War II is filled with stories of heroism, selflessness, patriotism and a relentless desire to secure a peaceful and prosperous future for the United States of America and the international community. Brave men left their ordinary lives in order to serve a cause greater than themselves. Mr. Miller was among those great men to take up the call of service and sacrifice. A man of courage, Mr. Miller served in the 92nd Bombardment Group as a stealth gunner on a B-17 bomber and participated in numerous flying military missions. As a prisoner of war, captured by the enemy, he was forced to trudge alongside his American comrades during an 86 day, 488 mile march from Gross Tychon, Poland to Halle, Germany. A true guardian of freedom, Mr. Miller kept his morale high and persevered, earning several honorary medals and helping America achieve greatness. I am often reminded that our country has been blessed with great people and leaders; Americans who rose to the challenge when their country was in need. I take great pride in representing a district with so many heroes. In June of this year, the Slippery Rock Area High School of Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District will honor Mr. Miller for his service and bravery during World War II. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Mr. Miller for his dedicated service to our country. The spirit of his sacrifice lives on in the strength of the United States of America.