Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Erie Otters hockey team for their recent triumph over the Barrie Colts in the Ontario Hockey League Championship Series. On Friday, May 10, Erie center Sean Courtney snapped the series- clinching shot off a Colts defenseman to give the Otters a 2-1 win 14 minutes into the overtime period. The Otters, coached by Dave McQueen, pulled off their first OHL championship by ``crushing the Colts'' 4 games to 1. Erie's own league-ending playoff scorer, center Corey Pecker, opened the scoring with his 25th goal of the playoffs early in the first period. The Colts, struggling to stay alive in the championship series, tied the game late in the first. The game remained tied until Courtney's clutch game winner in OT. Otters' captain Brad Boyes was later named the OHL playoffs' Wayne Gretzky 99 Most Valuable Player. The Otters arrived in my hometown of Erie in 1996, and have since featured some of the most dynamic young hockey players in the world. The Ontario Hockey League has produced world superstars like Mario Lemieux, Joe Sakic, Ron Francis, Scott Stevens and Patrick Roy. Friday's win marks the first time that the Otters have won the highly- regarded OHL championship and gives the young Otters an opportunity to battle for the Canadian Hockey League's Memorial Cup. The Memorial Cup is an 84-year-old ``final four'' tournament that crowns the year's best Junior hockey team in North America. The Otters, combining a steely work ethic and spectacular skill, should be a dominant force at the Memorial Cup tournament. The tournament begins May 18th in Guelph, Ontario. I would like to conclude by congratulating Erie's hockey heroes and by wishing them the best of luck in their quest for the Memorial Cup trophy.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical issue. I came to the floor prepared to give a lengthy and detailed speech, and, instead, I will simply submit that for the record. I would like to take 2 minutes to speak from the heart on what I think is an absolutely critical issue for the American economy. George Bush, when he took office last year, took a look at the issue facing steel, took a look at the crisis in American steel and initiated a WTO consistent process to evaluate the situation. The finding of the International Trade Commission was this: That, clearly, we were facing a surge of imports; clearly, there are unfair traders involved; and, clearly, we need to have an opportunity to give a breathing space to the U.S. industry. The authors of the resolution today are opposed to what the President is trying to do, and I hope that this resolution will be tabled. We will be sending the wrong message to our international trading partners if we allow the Jefferson resolution to stand. The Jefferson resolution, in effect, sends the message that it is open season on America's manufacturing sector. It simply says you do not have to play by the rules; that the global excess capacity in steel can continue to be dumped on the American market. And it will send a very clear message that notwithstanding the fact that America has some of the most productive steel mills in the world, America will not be able to defend itself when facing unfair trading practices in this critical sector. The message that this resolution would send is that we are not prepared to defend ourselves in the critical area of trade; that we are not prepared to insist on maintaining an internationally competitive manufacturing sector in this globe. We need to stand up for steel. We need to stand up for the President. Today, table this resolution and let our trading partners know we stand for fair trade. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for Congress to rally behind the President and stand up for steel. The passage of H.J. Res. 84 would send a clear message to the world that it is open season on the American manufacturing base. Anything less than the Section 201 relief provided by the President is unacceptable. The Bush Administration labored over the various options for relief under Section 201 and it represents a milestone shift toward a stronger trade policy that insists on a level playing field of trade for domestic producers. The relief provided by President Bush is balanced, allowed under U.S. Trade Law and consistent with the rules under the World Trade Organization. A strong tariff-based remedy is the only way to prevent the loss of thousands of additional steel-related jobs and indicate to foreign producers that the United States is not a dumping ground for excess steel products. But today we find ourselves faced with H.J. Res. 84. It's a joke of a proposal that dramatically weakens the tariff remedies by up to 10 percent for certain steel products by tossing aside the President's remedy and instead using the majority view of the International Trade Commission. Let me assure you Mr. Speaker that weak action would silence many more steel plants, destroying jobs as well as the families and communities who depend on them, all while dealing a blow to our national economy and security. Because of eight years of inaction by the previous administration on this issue, 33 steel companies have declared bankruptcy, which translates into 45,000 steelworkers who have lost their jobs because of this most recent surge in steel. Make no mistake--I am very strongly pro-trade, yet when it comes to steel it is distorted trade. And keep in mind that we are already witnessing the positive effects of the relief provided by the President. Imports have slowed and the window has opened to allow the domestic steel industry to recover from the devastating import surge. We are providing the time the domestic steel industry needs to restructure to remain competitive in the tight global steel market. President Bush labored over this decision, carefully weighing all of the options on the table. His decision was tailored to provide relief to the steel industry while minimizing the negative impact on the rest of the economy. Very simply, the ITC decision was not. President Bush's remedy reflects thorough consideration given to developing countries, trading partners who have entered into trade agreements with the United States, and to domestic steel mills with specific needs for imported steel products while crafting the tariffs and tariff-rate quota. Yes, Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 84 does reflect the majority opinion of the ITC, while the President's remedy went beyond that. The same statute that allows the gentleman from Louisiana to bring this resolution before us is the same statute that allowed the President to go beyond the majority opinion of the ITC. According to the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 Section 203, the President has the right to take action that he determines will facilitate efforts by the domestic steel industry to rebound and provide greater economic and social benefits when compared with the costs. Clearly, the President and I are in agreement--the majority ITC opinion would have been ineffective. It would not return steel prices to their normal pre-crisis levels, and allow American steel companies to make the necessary investments to remain viable and competitive in the future while providing good-paying jobs. The plight of the steel industry is grim but both Congress and the administration are working hard to give employers the tools they need to be competitive in the global market. Strong relief, coupled with the Bush Administration's continued efforts to address foreign market distortions and global steel overcapacity, will allow domestic steel manufacturers to restructure and regain ground lost to the injurious imports. This will ensure the continued viability of an industry that is a cornerstone of our economy and national security. The domestic steel industry is at a significant crossroad. By granting relief under Section 201 of the U.S. trade laws, the Bush Administration provided critical breathing space for this strategic industry. Congress must not turn around and apply a choke hold. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 107, I was unavoidably detained at an event with several of my colleagues and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, we have the unique opportunity before us to help American families. In my district, the average working family of four makes about $36,000 a year. Failing to make these tax cuts permanent, effectively is a vote for significantly increasing the taxes of working Americans. By making the tax cuts passed by the House almost a year ago permanent, Americans will not face a $2,000 increase in their taxes in 2011. If these tax cuts were allowed to sunset, we would again be taxing those saving for higher education--putting it out of reach for many middle-class Americans. It has always struck me as odd that the federal government taxes balances in prepaid tuition programs which in my mind defeats the whole purpose of these valuable programs. Failing to enact this legislation would reinstate taxes on this valuable tool used by middle-class Americans to pay for their children's higher education. And make no mistake--this is a tax on middle class Americans. In Pennsylvania, families with an annual income of less than $35,000 purchased 62 percent of the prepaid tuition contracts sold in 1996. Refusing to make this tax cut permanent will also cost families up to $20,000 a year as the contributions to education savings accounts shrink from $2,000 to $500 in 2011. But beyond that college graduates--many of whom have substantial debt--would be restricted on claiming a tax deduction for their borrowing. They would again be limited to 60 months for deducting their student loan interest, but the expiration of this tax provision goes one step further. The income limits would regress to the 2001 limit meaning the $100,000 caps for single taxpayers would drop to $40,000 while $150,000 for joint returns would drop to $60,000. $40,000 in 2002 barely pays for most college educations. I can only imagine what this equates to in 2011 dollars. College is no longer simply for the wealthy. More and more parents and children realize college is a prerequisite for attaining their dreams. Make no mistake, the debt loads are prohibitive. Congress recognized this and took the appropriate steps to help these students achieve their goals. By not providing permanency to these tax cuts, Congress would deal a severe blow to those who recognize that an education is an investment in the future. We should not further punish struggling families and college grads by reinstating taxes, which are the tools they depend on to make college more affordable.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor the 90th anniversary of Girl Scouting, the world's largest organization for girls. Juliette Gordon Low founded the organization on March 12, 1912 in Savannah, Georgia. Through Girl Scouting, girls acquire self- confidence and expertise, take on responsibility, and are encouraged to think creatively and act with integrity--qualities that are essential in good citizens and great leaders. In my district in northwestern Pennsylvania, the Penn Lakes Girl Scout Council is made up of about 11,000 girls and volunteers. One in five girls in the five-county area served by the Penn Lakes County participates in girl scouting where they are encouraged to develop to their fullest potential. Girl Scouts can be found in schools, public housing, churches, community centers, battered women's shelters, Head Start facilities, in-school programs, juvenile homes and international centers. The Penn Lakes Council is dedicated to meeting the individual needs of young women in all communities. The council's outreach initiative is designed to serve girls in underprivileged areas. Individual Girl Scouts are mentored in situations where a troop format is not available. In the Penn Lakes Girl Scout Council, girls learn by doing, and they are encouraged to make contributions to the world around them through community service. Since the Sept. 11 tragedy, Girl Scouts have made patriotic ribbons, written letters to firefighters and volunteers, given their own money to America's Fund for Afghan Children, and collected more than 20,000 lollipops for New York City children. All in an effort to let the world know that Girl Scouts care. The quality programming provided to Girl Scouts in northwestern Pennsylvania would not be possible without a dedicated network of adult volunteers. These dedicated women and men give their time and energy to ensure continued service to the increasing number of girls who want to become Girl Scouts. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Girl Scouts of America for 90 years of ensuring that girls have a quality foundation for becoming successful women. May girl scouting enjoy another 90 years where girls can continue to grow strong.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I wish to lift this debate above the grotesque ad hominem quality we have been hearing too much on the floor today and focus instead on the real direction this budget takes us in. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, it is important that people understand that I came here in 1994 with the first conservative and the first fiscally responsible Republican majority in my lifetime. At the time we inherited the House, we discovered that we had deficits as far as the eye could see. In those 8 years, we have seen a radical change in the landscape because we have had a fiscally conservative Congress not spending on impulse, like the previous Congress had. We have trimmed the deficit, we have cut taxes, we have encouraged economic growth. What is particularly important, Mr. Chairman, we have made a commitment to stay within a range of fiscal responsibility and activity that has allowed us to balance two budgets, and now this year we face the acid test: Can we maintain fiscal discipline under very adverse circumstances. As this budget evidences, we can do that. Our answer is yes. This is a budget that will meet America's needs while keeping us on a path to balancing the budget as we come out of the recession. As the Treasury Secretary testified before our Committee on Ways and Means, it is important to understand, the United States has never run a surplus during a recession. The last time someone tried that was Herbert Hoover, and it did not work very well. And we have never run a surplus during war time. Well, Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a serious conflict, and we are trying to work our way out of a recession. And in that context this budget keeps us on a path to a balanced budget. The projected deficit is less than 1 percent of GDP. For most of the other industrialized nations that deficit would be a marvel. And it proves that this budget maintains sensible funding levels. It is a fiscally responsible budget. Contrary to what we have heard here today, despite the over-heated partisan rhetoric, this takes care of our social needs by funding Medicare with a prescription drug benefit and funding highway projects while adequately funding our national defense. It keeps outside a growth path by preserving tax cuts. We have heard them abominated here today, but the fact is that we need to have a continuing commitment to tax relief in order to provide economic opportunities for millions of Americans. As this country entered into the recession, American working families were suffering under the largest tax burden in history. And I do not doubt that some on the other side would raise taxes in a New York minute. According to the Joint Economic Committee study: ``Delaying, reducing or rescinding the tax cuts for working families would only reduce economic growth.'' This budget spends money responsibly while not punishing working Americans with back-door tax hikes. Now today we have heard a lot of very unrealistic figures being thrown around by the other side, but that does not change the fact that this budget reflects the priorities of America and the priorities of the Bush administration. It is virtually unprecedented, Mr. Chairman, that the minority lacks the unit and focus and leadership to offer its own budget blueprint. The majority had the courage and leadership to stand up and offer a workable budget blueprint. We met the needs of working families and workers facing the challenge of finding good- paying jobs. By contrast, the other party finds itself unable to be all things to all people, and accordingly, has recoiled from offering its own budget. We must support critical homeland security initiatives, fully fund highway and highway safety programs, and provide for the needs of our military. This budget does it, and I hope all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this difficult, but important, compromise.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I am here to express support for a bill that House Republicans are once again putting forward before the House in response to the pleas of American workers who have been laid off in the Arctic climate of this recession. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we pass this legislation, but, unfortunately, we have been missing many opportunities. Three times already we have passed the substance of this legislation with additional stimulus built in, passed it, and sent it to where it has been blocked by partisan obstructionism which I have neither the time, nor the inclination, nor the flexibility, under the rules of this House, to adequately explore. What is important here is that we are laying forward a bill that helps American workers by extending unemployment benefits for 13 weeks. At a time when workers are having difficulty finding another job, they need that extension. It provides clear tax incentives for investment in good-paying jobs. I represent a manufacturing district. This is precisely the sort of incentive that will allow manufacturers to pour money into capital equipment, modernize their production lines, improve productivity, and successfully compete globally. This is precisely the kind of incentive that is going to allow them to become more competitive and also boost the economy now at a critical time when it needs a boost. The legislation that we face is the right mix in order to try to provide some relief for an economy that is still dragging and still very much at risk. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we pass this legislation now. If we cannot get the full-blown stimulus package that House Republicans have been advocating and that the President has been advocating, it is critical that we move this legislation forward to try to address at least some of the more obvious problems that we are facing.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, allow me to take a moment to applaud President Bush for standing tall in favor of our domestic steel industry. He has, at a very critical moment, stood up for steel. If we have a domestic steel industry in coming decades, I believe it will be because of this courageous action and an administration that was willing to listen to steelworkers, listen to steel producers, and also listen to all other interested parties in order to craft a creative policy. He clearly listened to those who were calling for substantial relief for an industry in crisis. It has been running the risk of being hollowed out by unfair trade practices. It is obvious that the President carefully weighed the issue. His judicious decision will provide breathing space to the domestic steelworkers and the industry. Enacting tariffs of up to 30 percent for most steel products provides help for those hardest hit by unfavorable conditions in the steel market. This administration has stepped up to the plate for the American steel industry and its workers, something that previous administrations, regrettably, had been unwilling to do. Without the concrete actions taken by this President, the industry was facing a meltdown. The President recognized that the American steel industry and its workers have done their part in recent years. This is something that critics do not really willingly acknowledge, but the fact is our steel producers have taken dramatic steps to reduce inefficient capacity and modernize operations to become among the most productive steel producers in the world, with as few as one-and-a-half man hours needed per ton of steel produced. That is an extraordinary transformation of an industry that was very inefficient a few decades ago. To achieve these advances in productivity, the U.S. steel industry reduced capacity by more than 23 million tons, closed numerous inefficient mills, and significantly cut jobs. The workers have endured their fair share of pain and suffering as the workforce was reduced by hundreds of thousands of workers in an effort to become the most efficient producers of steel. But we all know that when competing with the unfair trading practices of some of our competitors, it was simply not enough. Let us understand, Mr. Speaker, what the President did was WTO compatible. It was based on remedies approved by the International Trade Commission, and it utilized our 201 process, which the WTO contemplated. While opponents of this 201 action are crying foul, saying the cost will be prohibitive, Mr. Speaker, allow me to assure Members that their arguments are without substance. According to a study by Professor Jerry Hausman, an economist at MIT, the assumptions from opponents such as the Consuming Industry's Trade Action Council were fundamentally flawed. Hausman's study, which unlike the CITAC study so often quoted in the media, accurately reflected the current steel market, showed the tariffs would cost the average consumer about $2 a year and have no negative impact on the U.S. economy. This was a study of stronger remedies than were actually proposed by the International Trade Commission. Hausman's study showed that the section 201 remedies would provide a net benefit of $9 billion a year to the U.S. economy. Steel constitutes only a small share of the total cost of most products that contain steel, so the cost to the consumer and the costs on a single consumer item would be minimal. For a typical family car, the increase caused by the imposition of a 40 percent tariff would be about $60, a 30 percent tariff in the tariff structure proposed by the President would be substantially less. For a refrigerator, the increase would be less than $3. Again, I have to congratulate the President for being engaged on these issues, looking past the cannot at the substance, and being concerned about many of the communities we have in places like western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia where people have built a living and built living wages around a steel industry that we need to have in this country for strategic reasons, and if we are going to maintain our industrial base. Mr. Speaker, this administration has had the courage to take on this tough issue. We need to do more in Congress. We need to look at the issue of legacy costs. We need to look at ways potentially of participating in a global effort to rationalize the industry; but in the end, we can build on this 201 decision, we can build on the President's courage, and working with the administration, we have an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a strong, healthy competitive world-class American steel industry that is allowed to compete on a level playing field.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, Norman Vincent Peale--a pastor and a motivational speaker--said ``Change your thoughts and you change your world.'' Fifty years ago, more than 20 residents of Mercer County, many of them parents of developmentally disabled children, recognized a need in their community. The area lacked much needed education programs that addressed the special needs of their children. This included not only basic education but also the development of job and social skills. With that focus, they established what has evolved into the Arc of Mercer County. Remember, this was a time when mental retardation was often misunderstood by society. Those who were developmentally disabled were quickly committed to asylums. It was believed that they could contribute nothing to the community. But, these Mercer County residents knew otherwise. They knew these precious individuals could enrich people's lives if they could find a way to integrate them into society. So with hope, optimism and faith, they actively sought donations of space, time and money to establish a program where children and adults with mental retardation could learn to support themselves, learn social skills and attend classes designed to meet their special needs. These 20 families, through their actions and deeds, changed the way we view mental retardation forever, not only in their own community but worldwide. We now know that being developmentally disabled is not an end-all, they play a vital role in our economy while gaining independence for themselves. MCAR has grown from a small patchwork organization who once borrowed classroom space from the Salvation Army and the American Legion to a powerhouse agency providing services to more than 500 individuals with mental retardation. Their services have expanded to include vocational training, residential services, employment services and recreation and socialization programming. MCAR owns 17 group homes, a campus of education facilities in Hermitage as well as a Mechenbier workshop in Greenville. For 50 years, MCAR has given some very special people in the community the opportunity to stand on their own two feet. With their various programs, they are building new and better bridges, ensuring everyone has the opportunity to live a full and productive life. I applaud the founding officers--Mrs. Peter Jarocki, Mrs. Frank Machuga, Mrs. Royal DeWeese, and Mrs. David Cooke--for working with the community to develop a program that would blossom and bloom into an agency that helps so many. Under the leadership and inspiration of current CEO Bob Beech and his board, the vision of these families has only flourished. Mr. Speaker, those with developmental disabilities and their families face a lifetime of challenges. MCAR has provided the tools necessary to ensure that those challenges are met. I would like to congratulate the founding families and everyone at MCAR--past and present. Your hands and hearts have left a positive imprint on so many lives, mine included. Last but not least, I would like to congratulate the clients of MCAR. You have come so far. Your contributions to our local community are felt in so many ways and our lives are enriched by knowing all of you. You have truly made Mercer County a better place to live.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. I want to thank the gentleman for his involvement in our Steel Caucus. One of the things that has made being chairman of the Steel Caucus such an extraordinary pleasure is the involvement of people like him and like you, Madam Speaker, both of you from West Virginia, and also from our last, final speaker of the evening, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), to whom I will yield.

Mr. ENGLISH. I thank the gentleman, and I will resume making some of the points I had been making; and then, in a few minutes, I will recognize another member of the steel caucus, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), who has been a leading advocate of this cause. Summarizing the last two speakers, it is clear that the International Trade Commission has given the Bush administration the tool that it needs to get action. Tariffs in the range of 40 percent are clearly needed if the industry is to recover. But, Mr. Speaker, we recognize the March 6 decision is only the first inning; 201 action must be followed by a concrete commitment from our trading partners to reduce inefficient global overcapacity. Again, I have to congratulate the President for his understanding of the issue and his foresight in initiating the OECD talks. Beyond that, we must look at ways to address the industry's legacy costs, clearing the way for a domestic steel renaissance. Continued cooperation between Congress and the Bush administration is the only way of ensuring the viability of the domestic steel industry. Let us think a minute about the fundamental causes of this crisis. In my view, one of the underlying causes is a massive foreign inefficient overcapacity. Looking at this graphic, as my colleagues can see, from 1998 to 2000 the United States consumed 131 million metric tons of steel, while the former Soviet Union, which is NIS on that graphic, alone produced 114 million metric tons. The entire foreign excess raw steelmaking capacity averaged 268 metric tons, which is more than twice the level of average U.S. steel consumption. Massive foreign steel overcapacity, created and sustained by abusive government subsidies, protected markets and anticompetitive practices, resulting in a diversion of excess steel products into the U.S. market. Going to the next graphic, it is obvious that raw steelmaking capacity has greatly exceeded steel consumption in many areas of the world during the last 3 years. Again, the former Soviet Union is producing more than 120 million metric tons of steel than it needs. Even Brazil is producing almost 20 million more metric tons of steel than it needs for domestic consumption. And make no mistake, the excess production is being dumped in our domestic market. And they say it is our fault. Mr. Speaker, a key point to understand is that American steel companies and their workers have already done their part to create a world-class competitive industry during recent years. They have invested more than $60 billion in steel plant modernization since 1980 to become among the most productive steel producers in the world with as few as 1\1/2\ man hours needed per ton of steel produced. To achieve these advances in productivity, the U.S. steel industry reduced capacity by more than 23 million tons, closed numerous inefficient mills, and significantly cut jobs. The workers have endured their fair share of economic pain and sacrifice as the workforce was reduced by hundreds of thousands of workers in an effort to become the most efficient producers of steel. As this graphic reflects, U.S. productivity measured as output-per- worker has nearly tripled since 1980, according to the U.S. Commerce Department. These are the official statistics. The industry average has gone from using 10 man-hours to produce a ton of steel to just 4, all the while the net shipments of steel have grown from just over 90 million tons to 110 million tons. That is extraordinary. But when competing with the unfair trading practices of our foreign competitors, it is simply not enough. Much of the world's major steel markets have formal steel import barriers to foreign steel or are subject to international market-sharing arrangements by foreign steel exporters. These cartels are aimed at us. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the steel industry is the victim of predatory trade practices, and we desperately need strong relief under section 201 of the U.S. trade laws. This is allowable under the WTO rules. In this case, the International Trade Commission determined damage has occurred and made recommendations for tariffs to the President. The March 6 deadline for the Bush administration to make a decision is fast approaching. I call upon the President to recognize the needs of our domestic industry. Significant relief is necessary in order to return steel prices to their normal precrisis levels and allow American steel companies to make the necessary investments to remain viable and competitive in the future while providing good paying jobs. Tariff rates must be substantial in order to ensure that import prices return to market-based levels. The section 201 remedy must be enforced for at least 4 years to allow the domestic steel industry to make the necessary adjustments to be competitive. A shorter duration, I feel, will simply be ineffective. Section 201 relief must not replace existing orders under the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. If these orders are set aside, hard won as they are, any remedy will be perversely rewarding those foreign producers that engage in unfair trade. That is something that I would think we all would agree we do not want. To further these remarks, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), a member of our caucus, a gentleman who has been very involved in the steel issue from the get-go.

Mr. ENGLISH. I thank the gentlewoman. I congratulate her particularly on serving within the Steel Caucus, already as a member of the executive committee and one of the effective leadership, helping us shape the strategy to bring this issue to the point where it has arrived today, where there is an opportunity for the President, through his action, to put this steel industry on a much more level playing field. It is worth noting, since he initiated the 201, already it has had a substantial effect on imports and already it is having some effect on steel prices, forcing foreign competitors to rethink their strategies and rethink their dumping. I also want to congratulate the steelworkers unions, the United Steelworkers Union, the Independent Steelworkers Union, and the industry which is so diverse yet has come together behind the notion that this 201, coupled with a 40 percent tariff through the President's initiative, is ultimately going to lead to a strong, competitive, world-class American steel industry for the future.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, and I want to thank him for his personal involvement, for his work with the administration, for helping to bring there issue to the fore, at a very, very critical time when we can still save our domestic steel industry. I thank him for being involved in the Steel Caucus. Mr. Speaker, I yield to another gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps), who is also a member of the Steel Caucus.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, America is at a critical moment. The domestic steel in its industry and the current workforce retirees and their dependents are clearly at a vital crossroad. Without strong relief under the section 201 action that this administration has called forth utilizing that section of our trade laws, the future of the industry is clearly grim. Thousands of steelworkers already have lost their jobs, and thousands more jobs are at stake. Beyond that, pension and health care benefits are in jeopardy for hundreds of thousands of retirees. Now is the time to provide relief for this beleaguered domestic industry. The Bush administration took the vital first step by initiating the 201 investigation, and now the results are in. The investigation demonstrated what the industry and its workers have known all along, the rest of the world is not playing by the same set of rules. Meaning, the steel score sheet has long been skewed to provide foreign competitors with an unfair handicap, making it unnecessarily difficult for U.S. producers to compete. That has to stop. Mr. Speaker, this may be hard for people to see up here, but let me assure you that the subsidies our domestic steel companies have received since 1980 are dwarfed by the subsidies that foreign steel makers receive. Looking at this graphic, this minuscule yellow bar down here represents the U.S. government subsidies, while this tower next to it represent the $90 billion in subsidies our leading competitors have received since 1980 in the steel sector. The amount of subsidies to foreign producers have outnumbered and outshone by those in the U.S. by a factor of more than 8 to 1. Substantial relief under section 201 is a move toward eliminating that handicap as well as others, putting the U.S. on a level playing field and staving off a permanent liquidation of this strategic industry. Inaction or weak action would silence many steel plants, while destroying the livelihood, the good-paying jobs of the workers, their families and communities, and dealing a blow to our national economy and to our national security. I applaud the Bush administration for stepping up to the plate for the American steel industry and its workers, something that previous administrations had been reluctant to do. With that, I urge the Bush administration in the next week in making a decision on this steel 201 to knock the ball out of the park by imposing credible tariffs over the next 4 years. There will be a number of speakers joining me tonight. The first of these is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), and I yield to him.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman for his great advocacy for the cause of steel. Mr. Speaker, this administration has done more than the last administration did so far; and that is very, very encouraging. Also, a bill like H.R. 808 was brought up by this House Republican leadership, passed the House overwhelmingly, and was killed in the Senate. This is not so much a partisan issue. The importance is that we need to move now the strong remedies necessary to put this critical, strategic industry back on an even keel. We also know an effective remedy is the only way to stimulate foreign governments and steel producers to make the difficult decisions that U.S. producers have already made to modernize, eliminate inefficient capacity and rationalize, bringing stability and balance to the global steel market. Looking at this next graphic, we know that a 40 percent tariff would provide more than $1.4 billion of operating revenue for our domestic producers. A substantial tariff-based remedy is the only way to prevent the loss of thousands of additional steel-related jobs and will send a clear message to foreign producers that the United States is not a dumping ground for excess steel product. Going to the next graphic, even with the 40 percent tariff, people need to understand prices would still be well below the 20-year average on hot-rolled, cold-rolled, hot-dipped galvanized steel and coil plated. Even with the 40 percent tariff, prices would still be below the 20- year average. So much for the dramatic price increase as a result of tariffs that some opponents of relief for the domestic industry have been arguing; and comparing the pricing trends of steel to other industries, going to the next graphic, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the price of construction machinery and equipment has increased about 60 percent during the last 20 years. I realize that this graphic is confusing and looks like something that Washington would conceive of, but if Members look at the actual details, if Members know that the price of products such as motor vehicles have risen by about 45 percent since 1981, paper has risen 55 percent, food has risen 40 percent, steel prices during that same time have increased less than 5 percent. That shows that steel has managed to maintain a relatively low cost and has actually declined as a cost in relative terms. Anything that we do as part of this remedy is not going to create a problem with the relative price of steel. Tariff-based remedies will not harm U.S. consumers. Increases in steel prices have minimal effect on the price of end products because steel constitutes only a small share of the total cost of most products that contain steel. Think about it. For a typical family car, the increase caused by the imposition of a 40 percent tariff would be about $60, $60 on the cost of an automobile. For a refrigerator, the increase would be a cost of about $3. That is not enough to affect consumer decisions. On this graphic, as measured by the Department of Commerce, steel's share of total costs is 0.8 percent for construction, 3.4 percent for motor vehicles and parts, 5.4 percent for other transport equipment, 6.8 percent for household appliances, 4.6 percent for electrical industrial apparatus, and for the highest of Commerce's categories, fabricated metal products, steel's share of total cost is less than 16 percent. That clearly indicates that by seeking this remedy, we are not going to create a problem for the domestic economy. Since 1995, the price of finished goods has risen 11 percent while the cost of steel mill products has declined 16 percent. The steel-consuming industries have been running around Washington suggesting that relief under section 201 will not return profitability to the domestic steel industry by raising prices while at the same time arguing that relief will raise consumer prices to prohibitive levels. According to a study by Professor Jerry Hausman, an economist at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, the tariffs would actually have a minimal effect on prices, costing the average consumer $2 a year, and having no negative effect on the U.S. economy. We can reach out and successfully impose 40 percent tariffs, and it will have a minimum impact on consumer prices. Hausman said the assumptions from the consuming industry's trade action coalition are fundamentally flawed. Using the same model, but with accurate assumptions that truly reflect the current steel market, the studies show that the section 201 remedies would provide a net benefit of about $9 billion to the U.S. economy. The same consuming industries that are saying that they will be placed at a severe disadvantage because of these tariffs on steel have not had to endure the same stagnated prices on their products during the last 20 years. My previous graphic, those steel-intensive industries such as construction machinery, equipment and motor vehicles, have seen the price of their product increase 60 and 40 percent respectively since 1981. I will say it again: steel prices have increased less than 5 percent. Entire American communities have been devastated by this import crisis, and I would like my colleagues to consider that regions already experiencing hardship as a result of the current recession are being dealt a devastating blow by the massive levels of low-priced imports. The loss of good-paying steel industry jobs directly impacts thousands of workers in other sectors that depend on the steel industry. The U.S. manufacturing sector, including the steel industry, has one of the highest multiplier effects. For every $1 of a manufactured product sold to an end user, an additional $1.19 of intermediate activity is generated. The steel industry is a major consumer of computers and other high-tech equipment. It is also a major user of transportation industries such as rail, trucking, and shipping. Steel-generated demand for key raw materials, coal, coke, iron ore and limestone provides employment in a number of regions where, frankly, other jobs are scarce. The steel industry is also a major contributor to the U.S. tax base, including the tax base of State and local governments. There is another dimension that I would encourage my colleagues to think about, and that is a healthy domestic steel industry is a cornerstone of our national defense. Steel is an indispensable component of many weapons and weapon systems, as well as the ships, tanks and other vehicles that carry these systems and our dedicated troops. In my district, Erie Forge and Steel is the sole producer of propeller shafts that are used in Navy ships, and they are just coming out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy with a new buyer. The President and many other U.S. government leaders recognize that steel and national security go hand in hand. At a time when we are trying to enhance our national security and we are thinking anew about the need to have a strong defense, defending the steel industry should be a top priority. It is vital to U.S. national economic security and to our homeland security that America does not become dangerously dependent on offshore sources of supply for, among other things, the steel that goes into our transportation security infrastructure such as highways, bridges, railroads and airports; the steel, that goes into our health and public safety infrastructure, such as waste and sewage treatment facilities and the public water supply; the steel that goes into our commercial, industrial and institutional complexes such as schools, hospitals, retail stores, hotels, churches and government buildings. We must maintain a viable domestic steel industry if our country and our economy is truly to be secure. The gentleman from Ohio brought up the issue of legacy costs, and we need to recognize that 2 decades of downsizing have created a domestic steel industry that is highly efficient with modern facilities; but the downsizing that has occurred to achieve this goal has placed an enormous burden on the industry, and that burden is these legacy costs: health and pension liabilities for steelworkers who lost their jobs as a result of the massive industry downsizing which occurred especially during the period of the 1980s through the present as a result of injurious, unfair trade. Legacy costs have put the industry overall at a significant competitive disadvantage versus foreign competitors whose governments have assumed these same costs. Congress, the administration, and the industry must continue to work together to address these costs that serve as a critical barrier to industry consolidation. While this is a time of enormous crisis for the industry, we need to recognize it is also a time of unique opportunity. This is a chance to facilitate an important, long-term restructuring to allow for significant capacity reduction and help create an industry poised to compete over the long run with any competitor in the world. Mr. Speaker, we have reached a pivotal point in stabilizing the American steel industry and ensuring good-paying jobs for its workers. The Bush administration took a monumental first step. I encourage the administration to follow through by enacting tough tariffs that will truly provide relief for a besieged industry and its struggling employees. Many of our manufacturers face growing and cumulative competitive disadvantages in the international market. While the European Union may loudly voice their objections to strong tariffs as not necessary to fix America's problem, the percentage of steel dumped into their market is significantly lower than that dumped on our shores, and I would like to demonstrate that with another graphic. As Members can see, not since 1960 have we been on a relatively even keel with the Europeans when it comes to receiving excess foreign steel. The foreign excess steel dumped in the United States has steadily grown since then, topping off at 30 percent while the EU hovers at 15 percent. The EU's argument simply does not hold water. Mr. Speaker, the plight of the steel industry is grim, but both Congress and the administration are working hard to give employers the tools that they need to be competitive in the global market. Nothing will solve today's steel crisis in this sense: the damage is already done. Instead, we must seek to apply the lessons learned in today's crisis, put reforms into place so nothing like this will happen again. We need to have substantial tariffs to begin this process. We must do this in order to provide some security for the 62,000 American steelworkers as well as 600,000 retirees and their dependents. Without this action, the future of our domestic steel industry as well as our economy and our national security will remain very much in question. With that, I would like to yield to another of my colleagues, a great member of the Steel Caucus, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as chairman of the Congressional Steel Caucus to bring before this body the grim crisis facing a major sector of our manufacturing base, a sector which if we allow it to be washed away, if we allow it to leave, if we allow it to go offshore will permanently affect our ability to manufacture within the United States. The crisis that is today facing the American steel industry is one that will be seen and has been seen in many other areas of manufacturing; and I believe in coming years if we do not resolve the steel crisis, if we do not resolve it to the satisfaction of all of those Americans who work in the industry, then I believe we run the great risk of seeing other industries challenged in a similar way. The domestic steel industry and its current workforce, retirees and their dependents are at a vital crossroads, Mr. Speaker. Thirty-one steel companies have declared bankruptcy since the steel crisis began in 1998, creating an uncertain future for 62,000 American workers. Thousands of steel workers have already lost their jobs. Pension and health care benefits are in jeopardy for hundreds of thousands of retirees. And now is the time to address this issue and to provide relief for this beleaguered industry. I want to credit up front the Bush administration for being willing to directly take on this issue, as I will describe in a few minutes. Relief for this industry must be strong and swift in order to stave off a permanent liquidation of the domestic industry. Inaction or a weak action would silence many steel plants, destroy workers' livelihoods, affect their families and their communities while dealing a blow to our national economy and our national security. I want to applaud the Bush administration for developing a comprehensive steel policy that began with the initiation of a much- needed 201 investigation, using a provision in our law which has been long recognized within the WTO framework. The Bush administration last year launched an investigation under the International Trade Commission to determine the causes and the likely consequences of the crisis facing domestic steel. I want to credit them for having done that, particularly since their predecessors had not been willing to launch a 201 investigation. But the investigation part, which is now complete, is just the beginning. The 201 action needs to be followed by a concrete plan for reducing overcapacity and dealing with nonmarket forces. And the International Trade Commission's decision as it was handed down by the various commissioners gives the Bush administration the tools that it needs to deal with this problem. Again, I have to congratulate the President for his understanding of this issue and his foresight in bringing together under the OECD many of the producing nations with the objective of coming up with a way of rationalizing our global problem. But beyond that, we must look at ways to address the industry's legacy cost and clear the way for a renaissance in the American steel industry. Ensuring the viability of the domestic steel industry is going to require a continuation of the cooperative efforts that have developed between Congress and the administration working together with both management and labor. Let us take a look at the problem, Mr. Speaker. The fundamental cause of the current steel crisis is a massive global, but primarily foreign, overcapacity. The livelihoods of thousands of American steelworkers and their families have been devastated as 31 American steel companies have been forced into bankruptcy, largely as the result of this overcapacity and its effects. Massive foreign steel overcapacity, created and sustained by abusive government subsidies, protected markets and anticompetitive practices and nurtured by soft monetary policies have resulted in a diversion of excess steel products to the United States market. The American steel industry and its workers have over the past many years done a great deal to become more efficient, to become more productive, to become world class; and they have made the sacrifices and the capital investments necessary to do that. They have taken dramatic steps to reduce capacity and modernize operations, to become a high quality, low cost and efficient steel producer. They have invested more than $60 billion in steel plant modernization to become among the most productive steel producers in the world, with fewer than two man hours needed per ton of steel produced. One of the red herrings I hear in discussion of steel issues has to do with the allegation by some of our trading partners, and even some among American opinion makers, that the whole problem is one of domestic inefficiency and inability to compete in the world market. That simply is not true. But what is needed is a leveling of the playing field and an opportunity for these companies to compete on a fair basis. Having made that kind of investment to achieve these advances in productivity, the U.S. steel industry closed numerous inefficient mills, significantly cut jobs and reduced capacity by over 23 million tons. As a result, U.S. productivity as measured by output per worker has nearly tripled since 1980, and that effectively debunks some of the conventional wisdom. But when competing with the unfair trading practices of our foreign competitors, even this is not enough. In 1999, foreign excess raw steel making capacity was more than two times greater than the total annual U.S. consumption of steel. That is an extraordinary disparity. Much of the world's major steel markets have formal steel import barriers to foreign steel or are subject to international market sharing arrangements by foreign steel exporters. As a result, the United States has become the dumping ground for the world's excesses of steel, effectively allowing many of our trading partners to export their economic problems to our shores. That is not fair. The United States, to understand, are, from the standpoint of the world market, the good guys. We let in foreign steel, and normally our market is designed so we would expect to normally import about 20 percent of our steel needs. That is a good thing, and that has helped many of our trading partners. But under the current circumstances, we have seen the level of imports rise to the point that they constitute nearly one-third of our domestic market, and, in this context, the recession has been particularly painful. As domestic steel consumption has declined, the imports have become more worrisome, and between the Sylla of imports and the Caribdis of decline and consumption, many American steel companies have fallen victim. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the steel industry is the victim of predatory trade practices, and we desperately need relief under Section 201 of the U.S. trade laws. The investigation, followed by a strong tariff ruling, represents a milestone in a shift toward a stronger trade policy that insists on a level playing field of trade for domestic producers. This is a huge shift in policy because this Section 201 was initiated by the administration. This initiative also gives the administration the big stick that it needs to bring those countries with excess steel capacity to the negotiating table to fix what is clearly a global problem and to rationalize the global steel market. I realize many hearing this will wonder, how does that tie in to free trade? Please, realize I am very strongly pro-trade, Mr. Speaker. But we need to realize that when it comes to steel, we are looking at one of the most distorted market places in the world, and the only place in steel where free trade has been in existence in recent years has been, in effect, in the classroom. Initiating a broad 201 investigation by the administration firmly underscores the commitment to protecting our steel industry from unfair imports. This administration has clearly shown its willingness to stand up for steel, and we are beginning to see the benefits of that. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 was established to address cases where domestic industries have been seriously injured or are threatened with serious injury by increased imports. This is allowed under the WTO framework, and it is clearly one of our legitimate trade policy options. Once petitioned by the impacted industry, Congressional committee or segment of the administration, the ITC determines whether a product is being imported at levels that have or could harm the domestic industry. Section 201 does not require a finding of unfair trade practice, but, rather, depends only on a finding that increased imports are damaging the industry. In this case, the International Trade Commission determined that damage has indeed occurred and made recommendations for tariffs to the President. The President will make the final decision whether to provide relief and the nature of the relief, meaning granting relief is completely discretionary. The March 6 deadline for the Bush Administration to make that decision is fast approaching. I call upon the President to look at the needs of our domestic industry, recognize the scope of this problem, and recognize that if we do not draw a line in the sand here, if we do not stand up for our domestic manufacturers and demand for them a fair break, then steel is not going to be the last industry to be hollowed out. It is now up to the President to end the abuse of the American market by enacting a strong remedy such as those recommended by Commissioners Bragg and Devaney. Strong relief is necessary in order to return steel prices to their normal pre-crisis levels, and allow American steel companies to make the necessary investments to remain viable and competitive in the future, while providing good-paying jobs for the American worker. Tariff rates must be substantial in order to ensure that import prices return to market-based levels. The Section 201 remedy must be enforced for at least 4 years to allow the domestic steel industry to make the necessary adjustments to import competition. A shorter duration, I feel, will be ineffective. Section 201 relief must not replace existing orders under the anti- dumping and countervailing duty laws. Those hard-won concessions under our laws, won by those domestic companies, need to be left in place. If these orders were set aside, any remedy will perversely reward those foreign producers that engage in unfair trade. That is something, Mr. Speaker, we do not in any case want to do. I believe that relief needs to be comprehensive. We need to apply a consistent tariff-based remedy across all that is essential to the domestic industry and as representing the only fair way to impose relief. Disallowing the continued abuse of the open U.S. market will give the President the leverage needed during multilateral steel talks and force foreign producers to cut back excess production capacity. The imposition of tariffs for a 4 year period will demonstrate to foreign producers and governments that the administration is serious about addressing the problem of foreign excess steel capacity. Any talks that are conducted without enforcement capabilities will lack the incentives needed to achieve measurable results. An effective remedy is the only way to stimulate foreign governments and steel producers to make the difficult decisions that U.S. producers already have made to modernize, eliminate inefficient capacity, and bring stability and balance to the global steel market. Increases in steel prices have minimal effect on the price of end products because steel constitutes only a small share of the total cost of most products that contain steel. Accordingly, we need not be overly concerned that by providing a measure of fairness to American steel, we are making steel products that we manufacture uncompetitive. For a typical American car, for example, the increase caused by the imposition of a 40 percent tariff would be about $60. For a refrigerator, the increase would be about $3. That is something that we can afford to pay. As measured by the Commerce Department, steel's share of total cost is 0.8 percent for construction, 3.4 percent for motor vehicles and parts, 5.4 percent for other transport equipment, 6.8 percent for household appliances, 4.6 percent for electrical industrial apparatus, and, for the highest of Commerce's categories, fabricated metal products, steel's share of total cost is only 15.9 percent. Since 1995, the price of finished goods has risen 11 percent, while the cost of steel mill products has declined 16 percent. The steel consuming industries who have suggested that relief under Section 201 will not return profitability to the domestic steel industry by raising prices, while arguing that relief will raise consumer prices to prohibitive levels, I believe are arguing an inherent contradiction. But in fact this is simply not true at all. Their own study has found the complete opposite. A tariff rate quota would artificially set import lids of foreign steel and apply a tariff on any imports above the set limits. Such a remedy would be detrimental to the domestic carbon steel industry and its workers. Let us look at the impact overall on the industry of this crisis. Entire American communities have been devastated by this import crisis, and we have seen that in Western Pennsylvania. In my district, which is one of the cradles of the modern steel industry in the world, we have seen a significant loss of jobs and other jobs very much at risk. Regions already experiencing hardship as a result of the current recession are being dealt a devastating blow by the massive levels of low-priced imports. The ripple effect of each lost job in the steel sector is simply tremendous in these communities. The loss of good-paying steel industry jobs directly impacts thousands of workers in other sectors that depend on the steel industry. The steel industry's use of goods and services in its production process generates considerable economic activity at the intermediate levels. The multiplier effect, for example, the U.S. manufacturing sector, including the steel industry, has one of the highest multiplier effects. For every $1 of a manufactured product sold to an end user, an additional $1.19 of intermediate activity is generated. The multiplier effect for the service sector is a mere 77 cents for every $1 sale. The steel industry is a major consumer of computers and other high- tech equipment. It is also a major user of transportation industries, such as rail, trucking and shipping, and we have seen a direct impact resulting from the decline of steel on those industries. Steel-generated demand for key raw materials, coal, coke, iron ore and limestone, provides employment in a number of regions where other jobs are scarce. Mr. Speaker, the steel industry is also a major contributor to the U.S. tax base, including the tax base of State and local governments. There is another issue here that is all too frequently overlooked. The steel industry is a significant asset to our national security. At a time when we are effectively at war, this ought to be central to many of our considerations. A healthy domestic steel industry is a cornerstone of our national defense. Steel is an indispensable component of many weapons and weapons systems, as well as the ships, tanks and other vehicles that carry these systems and carry our dedicated troops into battle. In my district, as an example, Erie Forge and Steel is the sole producer of propeller shafts that are used in Navy ships. They have had a bout with chapter XI bankruptcy, and I am glad to see they have a purchaser; and they appear ready to move on and survive. But many others are facing immediate liquidation. The President and many other U.S. Government leaders recognize that steel and national security go hand in hand. It is vital to U.S. national economic security, and as well to our homeland security, that America does not become dangerously dependent on offshore sources of supply. For steel, for example, that goes into our energy infrastructure, such as petroleum refineries, oil and gas pipelines, storage tanks, electricity, power generating plants, electric power transmission towers and utility distribution; for steel that goes into our transportation security infrastructure, such as highways, bridges, railroads, mass transit systems, airports, seaports, and navigation systems. For the steel that goes into our health and public safety infrastructure such as dams and reservoirs, waste and sewage treatment plant facilities, and the public water supply system, and for the steel, Mr. Speaker, that goes into our commercial, industrial and institutional complexes such as manufacturing plants, schools, commercial buildings, chemical processing plants, hospitals, retail stores, hotels, houses of worship, and government buildings. We must maintain a viable domestic steel industry if our Nation is truly to be secure. There is another issue, and we need to recognize it, and it is central to this crisis and that is the issue of legacy costs, one that does not fall evenly on all parts of the steel industry but, nevertheless, is important and vital and central and necessary to be addressed. Two decades of downsizing have created a domestic steel industry that is highly efficient with modern facilities; but the downsizing that occurred to achieve this goal has placed an enormous burden on the industry. That burden includes legacy costs. Health and pension liabilities for steel workers who lost their jobs or who retired and lost their jobs in some cases as a result of the massive industry downsizing which occurred especially during the 1980s. Legacy costs have put the industry overall at a competitive disadvantage versus foreign competitors whose governments assume these same costs and continue to assume these same costs through socialized medical systems. Congress, the administration, and the industry must continue to work together to address these costs which serve as a critical barrier to industry consolidation. What company is going to buy out and fold into another company if huge legacy costs come with it? While this is a time of enormous crisis for the industry, it is also a time of unique opportunity. The government often played a part in the initial negotiation of the contracts that build up legacy costs, and so the government should be willing to play a constructive role today in addressing this problem. This is a chance to facilitate important restructuring, allow for significant capacity reduction, and help create an industry poised to compete over the long run with any competitor in the world. The administration needs to take the lead in developing a plan to address these critical legacy costs which are preventing the industry from restructuring. As chairman of the steel caucus, I think I can fairly say that on a bipartisan basis, we are prepared to work with this administration to try to address that problem. In conclusion, we have reached a pivotal point in stabilizing the American steel industry and ensuring good-paying jobs for its workers. The Bush administration took the monumental first step, standing up for steel, by initiating a section 201 investigation, which is a critical first step in its overall steel policy. Now, I urge the administration to enact tough tariffs that will truly provide relief for a besieged industry and its struggling employees. Many of our manufacturers face growing and cumulative competitive disadvantages in the international market. The plight of the steel industry is grim, but both Congress and the administration need to work together and work hard on a bipartisan basis to give employers the tools that they need to be competitive in the global market. Unfortunately, nothing will solve, quote unquote, today's steel crisis, because the damage is already done. Instead, we must seek to apply the lessons learned in today's crisis, put reforms into place so that nothing like this can ever happen again with steel or any other part of our manufacturing base. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the administration. I hope the President will look at this issue; and I challenge the administration to join us, come up with a creative policy for making this industry viable in the 21st century.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I actually had a written statement to present, but I have been listening to this debate, and frankly I am outraged. As I listened to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) accuse us of turning our backs on the worker, I look at their side of the aisle and have seen how many times since last fall they have voted down or tried to vote down an economic stimulus package. As for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and his concern that there is not going to be a vote on that defenestrated piece of legislation that was sent over here from the Senate, let me help him with this. The Senate will not even allow a vote on our stimulus package. They have been bottling this up now for months and months. Fifty bills held up in the Senate and they will not let them free, and frankly, it is on their heads what is happening to American workers, and I say this because in one region of my district alone the manufacturing sector has been hemorrhaging, a total of more than 4,000 jobs in less than 18 months. These job losses have dealt a $100 million blow to our region's economy, and the picture throughout my district looks like the rest of western Pennsylvania and more and more like the rest of the country. During a single week in December, the number of workers receiving unemployment benefits who could not find new jobs rose by over 300,000 to over 4 million, the biggest 1-week jump in 27 years, and meanwhile, the Senate and some of our friends on the other side of the aisle are playing the usual political game. Every day we fail to sign the economic stimulus package into law that the President asked us to pass months ago, it is another day where a worker or a dozen workers or a hundred workers are laid off or a business closes its doors. The statistics do not tell the whole story. American workers need help. They need help now. We have neighbors in need. We should act. Pass this legislation, get it done, get it to the President's desk as he has requested and as American workers need. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Republic of Kazakhstan for its efforts in assisting the United States in our war against terrorism. Kazakhstan was among the first of our allies to offer its condolences and help after the destruction of September 11th. Indeed, following the terrorist attacks, Kazakh President Nazarbayev took the unprecedented step of visiting the United States Embassy in the Kazakh capital of Astana to sign the Embassy's book of condolences. On September 15, 2001, President Nazarbayev issued a strong statement of support for our war against Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. In his statement, President Nazarbayev declared that his country would support our own government ``in the fight against terrorism with all means available.'' More importantly, our friends in Astana backed their firm statements with action--offering blanket overflight clearance for U.S. aircraft over the vast Republic of Kazakhstan. Moreover, the Kazakh government has since offered its own airfields and supply bases to the United States military for use in action against Al Qaeda. In addition to this strong strategic help, our Kazakh friends have shipped nearly 3,000 tons of wheat and other grains to the impoverished people of Afghanistan. This sort of vital assistance has helped our own nation in a fight not only to rid Afghanistan of its terrorist oppressors, but to resurrect a long-suffering people. A young nation itself, Kazakhstan has also sought to integrate itself into the global alliance against terrorism by offering further food sales to the United Nations World Food Programme in order to facilitate the feeding of the Afghan people. President Nazarbayev and his countrymen have also shown political courage and leadership in embracing global standards of conduct in international affairs. The Govermnent in Astana has ratified seven international terrorism conventions, while the Governor of the Kazakh Central Bank has pledged to track down and freeze any terrorist financing within the Kazakh Republic. Mr. Speaker, this sort of cooperation and assistance exemplifies the sort of friendship that our own nation treasures and needs in our fight against the evil behind international terrorism. The Republic of Kazakhstan has demonstrated a valiant commitment to protecting freedom by siding with the United States of America. It is my hope that other nations, young and old, will follow the tremendous example of the Kazakh people.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, as Asians all over the world prepare to celebrate the lunar New Year, I would like to extend good wishes to all my Asian constituents and friends. I would especially like to wish Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian and the people of Taiwan good luck in this year of the Horse, along with continuing economic success and meaningful political reforms. Since President Chen's inauguration in May 2000, he has made many gestures of good will. This includes encouraging Beijing to start meaningful discussions between Taiwan and Chinese mainland on the issues separating them. It is my hope that both Taiwan and the Chinese mainland will soon begin a dialogue on reunification, leading to a peaceful co-existence, hence, maintaining stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. Also, I would like to extend my good wishes to President Chen's new cabinet. Mr. Yu Skyi-kun has been appointed the new premier. Mr. Yu possess a wide range of administrative experience and diplomatic skills which will help bring all political factions together. Other top cabinet posts includes Dr. Lee Ying-yuan, former deputy representative to the United States. In his new role as Secretary-General of the Executive Yuan, Dr. Lee will keep relations between the executive and the legislative branch working smoothly. Another excellent cabinet choice is the new foreign minister Dr. Eugene Chin. Before appointment, he was a diplomat and in previous administrations, he was Minister of Transportation and of Environmental Protection. Last but not least, my best wishes go to Ambassador C.J. Chen. A distinguished career diplomat, he is Taiwan's chief representative in Washington. He is industrious, courteous, and more importantly, experienced. His briefings are crisp, witty, and well-informed. Like many of my colleagues on the Hill, I enjoy working with both him and his knowledgeable and friendly staff. They are wonderful representatives for the Republic of China on Capitol Hill. Again, my best wishes in the coming year.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, American workers need help now. We know that from my district in northwestern Pennsylvania, and we know that from the experience around the country. The legislation before us brings a total of 37 billion new dollars in new benefits for unemployed workers, including 13 extra weeks of additional unemployment benefits. This is a critical initiative that we must pass now. With this bill, the House has made an effort to respond to the needs of the American worker during the current slowdown. But in doing so, we have also insisted that a stimulus package must be just that, a stimulus, that will return our struggling economy back to a growth path. The single best way to jump-start our sputtering economy today is to allow companies to quickly recapture the money that they invest in capital. We know that huge additional amounts of business capital investment are critical to restart the economy. This bill includes an expensing provision that is no corporate giveaway. It rewards companies that make concrete entrepreneurial investments. We know that productivity is spurred by investment in innovative capital equipment. The sooner manufacturers can recapture the cost of their equipment, the faster they can create and maintain good-paying jobs. Workers not only need a better safety net as provided in this bill, but they need to be able to hold on to their jobs. Yes, workers want help when they are unemployed; but more importantly they want a good-paying, stable job. This bill stimulates the economy to make that possible. This is a well-balanced bill that addresses both the human needs and the investment needs of this recession and will help many individuals and employers who are bearing the brunt of a slowdown that started last year. We must put partisan differences aside and unite behind this pro- growth, pro-jobs, pro-worker economic program to get America's economy growing again.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 282, Keeping the Social Security Promise Initiative. This resolution simply reaffirms Congress's resolve to strengthen the Social Security program for future generations without lowering benefits or increasing taxes. Mr. Speaker, Social Security provides essential retirement security for more than 45 million Americans. With each paycheck, workers send their hard-earned payroll taxes to Social Security with the promise of security in their retirement. In reforming the system Congress should not do anything that will jeopardize that security or break our promises to America's seniors. President Bush has recognized that Social Security cannot sustain the imminent retirement of the baby boomers and future generations. He should be commended for creating a bipartisan Commission to Strengthen Social Security. The final report is due on December 21, 2001. The Commission has proposed three options to date, two of which would reduce benefits. The responsibility for reforming Social Security ultimately lies with the Congress. I believe we can protect Social Security's commitment to our current and future retirees without lowering benefits or raising taxes while providing cost-of-living adjustments. With Social Security anticipated to run a deficit in 2016, now is the time for Congress and the President to work together in a bipartisan fashion to put Social Security on sound financial footing for generations to come. I ask my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 282.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3391, The Medicare Regulatory Reform Act of 2001. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) estimates that each year 5.6 million workers in the health care industry are exposed to blood-borne diseases because of needlesticks. OSHA studies have shown that nurses sustain the majority of these injuries and that as many as one-third of all sharps injuries have been reported to be related to the disposal process. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that 62 to 88 percent of sharps injuries can potentially be prevented by the use of safer medical devices. However, needlestick injuries and other sharps- related injuries, that result in occupational blood-borne pathogens exposure, continue to be an important public health concern. H.R. 3391, The Medicare Regulatory Reform Act of 2001, includes a provision that will reduce needlestick injuries. This provision requires public hospitals, not otherwise covered by the OSHA rules, to meet the administration's standards which require employers to implement the use of safety-designed needles and sharps. The requirements will be established under Medicare statute and enforced through monetary fines similar to fines under OSHA. Violations would not cause hospitals to lose Medicare their eligibility. I also would like to take this opportunity to thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Nancy Johnson for not only including this provision to reduce needlestick injuries in the Medicare regulatory reform bill, but also for her many years of hard work on this issue. She has long been a champion of requiring public hospitals to use safety-designed needles and sharps. I was pleased to join her and Mr. Stark in this important effort. We have the technology to provide better protections for our healthcare workers. A vote in favor of this legislation ensures that hospitals are using state-of-the-art equipment while significantly reducing the risk to healthcare workers.