Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time; and I will say one thing, Mr. Speaker, and I think the gentleman from Massachusetts had it right when he said this is about priorities. This motion is definitely about priorities, and it is about maintaining or not maintaining the current economic policies that make it a priority to encourage economic growth and encourage job creation. In 2005, we created 2 million jobs in our country, and since 2003 our GDP has seen its fastest growth rate in 20 years, averaging a robust 4.4 percent per quarter. That growth is attributable at least in part to the competitive rates that we have set on capital gains and dividends, the seed corn of our economy. And it is precisely here that their instruction proposes to impose a tax increase, a tax increase on the most dynamic sector of the economy and on the most sensitive part of our Tax Code. They do not say tax increase. They couch it in terms of withholding or withdrawing a tax cut. But in fact the markets for years have now taken into account a tax rate on capital gains and a tax treatment of dividends which encourages economic growth. They want to raise taxes. At a time when our economy is facing pressure from globalization and facing pressure from high energy costs, now is not the time to be raising taxes on dividends. Now is not the time to be raising taxes on capital gains. I realize they desperately want to spend more money and they desperately want to raise taxes, but we cannot permit that to happen. If we are serious about maintaining America's economic growth rate, if we are serious about maintaining a competitive position in the world, it is essential that we send the right message and that we look to make permanent the current rates on capital gains and the current tax treatment of dividends that are so important a part of our competitive position. I am surprised to see the other side coming forward with such a naked and clear attempt to raise taxes. But be that as it may, I think the time has come for us to reaffirm our message and to send a clear message to the markets that we are prepared to maintain current policies to encourage economic growth and to maintain the strong points of our current economic policy. I call on my colleagues to turn down this instruction and do so decisively.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, as the United States continues to lead the world in trade and commerce, the rules-based system which we helped pioneer has been steered off course by some of our trading partners who profit from the system without submitting to its disciplines. New members in the global trading system are given sufficient time to adjust to the established rules. However, economic giants like China have taken advantage of this system, to the detriment of our manufacturers and workers. While China has benefited from our relatively low tariffs and high degree of transparency, it has failed to live up to the obligations to which it agreed in acceding to the WTO, the global trading body tasked with setting the rules. As a result, America's manufacturing sector, and most recently the pipe and tube industry, is dwindling away, struggling to survive in a market distorted by currency manipulation, government subsidization of industry and illegal surges of cheap imports! This month, however, President Bush and the administration have an opportunity to send a powerful message by standing up and protecting America's domestic pipe and tube industry by implementing quota relief as part of the China-specific safeguard, or Section 421, to help combat China's low-cost pipe imports which illegally flood our markets. Included by Congress as a condition of China's accession to the WTO, Section 421 is a critical element in our trade remedy arsenal because it augments the antidumping and countervailing duty laws by providing domestic producers with a way to respond to absolute or relative increases of imports over periods of time that result in a market disruption. Between January 2002 and February 2005, five Section 421 petitions were filed and initiated by the ITC. In three of those cases the ITC found that imports caused market disruption, yet no relief was granted to the industries and workers involved under this statute. Earlier this year, seven U.S. standard pipe steel producers, two of which are in my district in western Pennsylvania, filed a Section 421 trade case to seek relief from market disruptions cause by a surge of Chinese pipe imports. As a result of these surging imports: domestic production and shipments are down by more than 25 percent; 20 percent of the domestic workforce has been laid off; and, from 2002 to 2004, Chinese market share increased from 0.4 percent to just over 10 percent. In addition to standard pipe, China is now the single largest exporter of all pipe and tube to the U.S., and millions of tons of excess steel and pipe and tube capacity in China threaten to wipe out the U.S. pipe industry. There is no doubt that surging imports are rapidly displacing domestic producers from recent market share. Our American pipe producers have clearly fallen victim to a torrent of unfairly traded imports from China and it is our legal right to respond by imposing this China-specific safeguard program. It is the right thing to do. I'm pleased that the ITC agreed and chose to advance the pipe and tube petition this past October. Now, however, we have yet another Section 421 trade case, standing before the President, awaiting its fate. If granted quota relief, this domestic industry will be afforded a period to restructure and recover from the damage it has suffered as a result of the illegal import surge. Our standard pipe producers will be able to rehire laid off employees and finally have the opportunity to make investments to regain competitiveness and continue to contribute to their local economies into the future. A large number of members of this body agree--62 of them joined me in sending a letter to the President urging him to grant relief this month. It is imperative the President grant the domestic standard pipe industry quota relief under Section 421, and preserve the American steel industry, an industry critical to our nation. In a world where we have to compete to win and win to survive, it is critical that our manufacturers, workers and all of our businesses compete on a level playing field. America's standard pipe industry contributes to the making of some of the finest products in the world. Providing these firms quota relief under Section 421, will level the playing field for these domestic manufacturers and allow them to thrive in the international trading system of today.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to commend the Chairs of the Ways and Means and Education and the Workforce Committees for putting together a bill which could finally fix the antiquated laws that govern pension plans and protect, at the same time, the interests of workers, retirees, and taxpayers. What comprehensive pension reform must do and what this bill does for the first time in a generation is to significantly shore up pension funds through tough funding rules, but without pushing employers into termination, bankruptcy, and a multibillion dollar taxpayer bail-out of the PBGC. But this bill goes beyond reforming pension laws. It also embraces new tax policies to encourage savings for retirement. First, the bill provides for automatic enrollment into 401(k) plans. While defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s have seen increases in participation since their inception, our national savings rate now is well below 1 percent. A study by the Vanguard Group projected that enacting the automatic enrollment provisions in this bill would boost participation to create 5.5 million new participants in 401(k) plans. The bill also provides for split tax refunds, where taxpayers may direct all or part of their tax refund to be deposited into an IRA. Recently, we became aware of a pilot project that gave a sampling of tax filers the opportunity to split their refunds between a savings account and a refund check. Participants deposited $583, on average, 47 percent, of their refunds into savings accounts. Most significantly, 75 percent of these individuals had no prior savings. These results speak for themselves. As cochairman of the Savings and Ownership Caucus, I believe that reaching out and empowering working families is essential to increasing the country's savings rate and ultimately to improve on our trade balance, strengthening our economy and providing a growth path for the American future. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this pro-worker, pro-retiree, pro-savings legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we are on the eve of the World Trade Organization's ministerial meeting in Hong Kong, and it is critical that the U.S. maintain its upper hand in pursuing its goals of a successful Doha Round and also exercising leadership in the global trading system. I recently led a bipartisan group of my colleagues to Brazil to participate in a study trip to help strengthen the bilateral relationship between our two countries. During our time there, we met with top Brazilian negotiators to discuss key trade issues that we expect will be addressed next week in Hong Kong. At our meetings, my colleagues and I drove one critical message, and that is our government's unwavering commitment to the utilization and protection of our trade remedy laws. There is no doubt the U.S. employers rely on these laws which serve as a fundamental line of defense, an opportunity to police our markets against unfair trade and to preserve domestic industries that otherwise would be at risk. There is no question that it is the responsibility of Congress and the administration to ensure that our firms have the proper tools to fight illegally traded goods and services. While we are committed to opening our markets, and have done so historically, reducing trade-distorting subsidies and eliminating non- tariff barriers to trade, we are not willing to give up appropriate tools that we have to police our market for illegally traded imports. To reinforce this, I introduced a resolution, H. Res. 577, calling on U.S. negotiators to stand firm in the face of international pressure and uphold our trade remedy laws during the WTO's Doha Development Agenda Round. Many in the Doha Round, particularly the so-called friends of antidumping negotiations, have targeted U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty measures as distortions to trade. They claim they are antifree trade, and yet the fact remains that our participation in a free trading system is contingent on our ability to have access to these remedies. These laws, as I said, are the last line of defense, and eliminating or weakening them is not a solution to making sure that they work appropriately. Nor is, in this political climate in Congress, weakening or watering down the ability of the U.S. to utilize its appropriate trade remedy laws in any way a viable position. The time has come for Congress to draw a line in the sand and take a much tougher stance with our trading partners to ensure that they fully abide by the rules-based global trading system. We will not stand by and let other countries try to use negotiations to undermine the intent of our domestic trade remedy laws. America will no longer tolerate unfair trading practices at the expense of our workers. Our trade laws have a fundamental purpose and are used only when others break the rules. Congress will not allow this last line of defense to be compromised in any way, and our negotiators need to recognize that. My resolution will make very clear what our position is and in the process fend off any attempts to derail our trade laws and put the House on record opposing any multilateral agreement that will weaken these important U.S. trade protections. Senators Craig and Rockefeller have introduced a similar resolution which was included in the Senate's tax reconciliation bill, adopted overwhelmingly by the U.S. Senate. This week our Chamber voted on our own tax reconciliation measure. We are making one step closer to having this resolution become law. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to our resolution and join me in working to ensure that the Craig-Rockefeller initiative is included in Congress' tax reconciliation package as we move to a final package. And as we move closer to the trade talks in Hong Kong, which we hope will be successful, we must carefully monitor the progress of the Doha Round and specifically the rules negotiations to ensure that we do not resign ourselves to agreements that would in any other way impede American producers from policing the domestic market. This is a fundamental issue for a country that recognizes that our future is in engaging in the international trading system, but also that we need to be prepared to reflect back and at least provide the fundamental guarantee to American companies and American workers that the rules will be followed.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to pass a bill that I believe will provide a powerful tonic for continued economic growth as a precedent for social justice. Since 2003, when much of the current tax policies were enacted, our GDP has seen its fastest growth in 20 years, averaging a robust 4.4 percent growth per quarter. This growth, Mr. Speaker, is attributable in part to reduced rates on capital gains and dividends. I would like to highlight who in the real world is receiving these reduced rates and, therefore, whose taxes we will be raising if we fail to extend these existing policies. Mr. Speaker, 54 percent of those families receiving dividend income had incomes of less than $75,000, and they received an average of $1,400 in dividends. Today, families with incomes under $100,000 have more than $20 billion in dividend income. In 2005, an estimated 10.3 million families in the 10 and 15 percent tax brackets will save on their taxes because of the existing tax policies. So the rhetoric that this tax relief only benefits the wealthy is vacant, ideological posturing. To let these rates expire would simply be a tax increase on the productive sector of the American economy. Not only would the lapse of the reduced rates impose a tax increase; it would particularly discourage equity ownership among working families, among whom we have seen a 91 percent increase in stock ownership. To turn back the clock on our tax policies that have benefited American workers and encourage more American workers to own a stake in their future is simply the wrong thing to do. Mr. Speaker, those who oppose this legislation are asking for a perverse tax increase on the seed corn of our economy and are suggesting that we impose a drag on economic growth at a time when we need it the most. We cannot afford not to pass this legislation today if we are serious about growing our economy.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague from New York in strong support of the Stealth Tax Relief Act, a bill which ensures that the tax cuts that have allowed middle- class families to keep more of their income over the past 4 years will not be undermined by the so-called alternative minimum tax. I am co-chairman of the Zero AMT Caucus. Our objective is to eventually repeal this tax. But for the moment, we are strongly supporting this bill. The evidence is overwhelming that the Republican tax cuts have helped families cope with economic uncertainties and played a significant role in stimulating the economic growth that has been in place since the 2003 tax cuts, growth that continues today as we saw in this past quarter when GDP grew at a healthy 4.3 percent rate. Yet over this prospect, the AMT, which the other side when they could, never adjusted for inflation, hangs like a sword of Damocles, threatening to wipe out tax relief and incentives for growth currently in the Tax Code. If we do not move with this legislation, the AMT will suddenly fall on 11 million taxpayers, hitting them with an average tax increase of $1,520. If we do not act, married couples will see their AMT exemption snap back from $58,000 to $45,000, while single individuals will see their AMT exemption drop from $40,250 to $33,750. I use these figures to make clear to everyone, these are not wealthy people. These are middle-class Americans who would be slapped with a very steep tax increase that they would not know about until tax day when they learned that the tax exemptions that they thought they could take, the same tax exemptions we intended them to take, would no longer apply. This legislation comes at a critical time. As we begin to examine options for fundamental tax reform that will promote economic growth long term in our country, we need to extend AMT relief for this coming year and ensure that the middle class is not facing a tax increase. This will buy us time to truly reform the AMT and I hope eventually to repeal this perverse and complicated tax provision. I hope the other side will set aside their sterile arguments about distributional effects and eschew populace poses. We have already seen some rhetoric on the floor about fig leaves and tax cuts. This is not a tax cut. This legislation provides an avoidance of a tax increase, a tax increase that the other side could have fixed when they were in the majority and never did. We need to step up to the plate and make sure that this mistake does not happen, that this tax increase does not fall on the American people at this very critical time.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition and remembrance of the life of Reverend Monsignor Robert D. Goodill, who tragically died on April 1, 2005 from injuries sustained in a car accident while in Mexico. For nearly seven decades, Reverend Monsignor Goodill selflessly served the citizens of northwestern Pennsylvania, acting as both a community leader and spiritual counselor for countless individuals. He was a man deeply devoted to his church and his community, dedicating the entirety of his life to the betterment of both. Reverend Monsignor Robert D. Goodill was born in Erie, Pennsylvania on October 23, 1912. He attended St. Patrick grade school and later attended Cathedral Preparatory School. In 1935, Reverend Monsignor graduated from Catholic University of America with an M.A. in Philosophy. Following his ordainment as a priest at Our Lady of Humility Church in Rome, Goodill was assigned as a parochial vicar at St. Brigid Parish in Meadville, PA. Rev. Monsignor Goodill entered military service in 1943. He served as a chaplain in the U.S. Navy during World War II and again from 1952 to 1954 during the Korean Conflict, being named Naval Chaplain of the year in 1953. In 1954, Goodill was appointed as the founding pastor of Erie, Pennsylvania's St. Luke Church, a position he held until his retirement in 1985. In 1994, after five decades of loyal service to the church, Pope John Paul II named him a prelate of Honor with the title of Monsignor. The dedication Reverend Monsignor continually demonstrated for his church, community, and nation warrant this body's recognition. As a community leader, spiritual counselor, and war veteran, Reverend Monsignor Goodill's life embodied the American ideals of service, commitment, and sacrifice. With his unfortunate passing, the people of my district, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the nation have lost a truly exceptional and beloved man.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and giving me the opportunity to rise here today to advocate a piece of legislation that is symbolic, but it is important symbolism; and it is particularly important to the residents of a community of mine, Warren County, that I have acquired since the last reapportionment. I share that area with my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) who is with us here today and who has cosponsored this bill. We rise to honor the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, Congressman Bill Clinger. You have heard from some of our other colleagues how Bill Clinger has been a major leader in the House of Representatives, how he served nine terms, how he came to Congress with a background in economic development and became a very powerful advocate of rural concerns, how he was born and raised in Warren, Pennsylvania, and it is our intention to name the post office in Warren after him. For a generation of political leaders in northwestern Pennsylvania, Bill Clinger has been an inspiration to us, someone who has brought a profound sense of civic responsibility to everything he has done, prior to coming to Congress, in Congress, and since he left Congress, particularly with his service to the Chautauqua Institution. His chairmanship of the House Committee on Government Reform allowed him to help establish concrete reforms to ensure government accountability, gaining the respect of Members from both sides of the aisle. Chairman Clinger helped usher through historic legislation, such as a measured curb on Federally funded mandates, line item veto authority, and a bill to reduce the paperwork burden that the Federal Government imposes on governments, individuals, and private businesses. For those of us who had the privilege of working with Bill Clinger, he has always been an inspiration to us, and we thought it was appropriate to take perhaps the signal Federal building in the community in which he grew up and name it after him, so that everyone in Warren could remember how Warren and northwestern Pennsylvania has produced leadership of the first order in Congress. It is my privilege to submit the bulk of my remarks for the Record, but I am proud to be here with my colleague from Pennsylvania, with the gentleman from Nevada, and the gentleman from the other side of the aisle to provide a manifestation of how much Bill Clinger has meant to this institution, to the community that he grew up in, and how it is worth our while to take a few minutes out in the House business to acknowledge those who have really made a difference. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished former Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, Congressman Bill Clinger. Chairman Clinger was a major leader in the House of Representatives, having acquired the reputation as a strong voice for government reform during his nine illustrious terms. Clinger represented what is now Pennsylvania's 5th Congressional District from 1979 to 1997--the seat now held by my distinguished colleague John Peterson. Chairman Clinger was born and raised in Warren, Pennsylvania, where he attended the local public schools and graduated from the Hill High School in Pottstown. After being admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 1965, Clinger ran a private law practice in Warren before being elected to the 96th Congress in 1978. An inspiration to many in the House, he exemplified excellence in civic duty, championing rural interests and rural economic development. After ascending to Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, he helped establish concrete reforms to ensure government accountability, gaining the respect of members from both sides of the aisle. Chairman Clinger helped usher through historic legislation such as a measure to curb unfunded Federal mandates, line-item veto authority and a bill to reduce the paperwork burden that the Federal Government imposes on governments, individuals, and private businesses. I had the honor of serving with Chairman Clinger during my freshman term in Congress. He was an important figure in my early political career, providing an example of dignified leadership throughout a demanding and tumultuous period of Congressional oversight. Since his retirement from the House, Chairman Clinger has continued his dedication to public service. He has shared his expertise in oversight through his teachings at Johns Hopkins University and while serving on boards for organizations such as Council on Excellence in Government, Citizens Against Government Waste and many others. One of Chairman Clinger's most notable accomplishments in recent years has been his service as Chairman of the Board of Trustees to the renowned Chautauqua Institution, located in southwestern New York State. The historic Chautauqua Institution is a tremendously valuable organization, providing a national forum for open discussions that probe contemporary political, religious and community issues. I believe this undertaking is reflective of my good friend's character--displaying his commitment to the competent and thoughtful pursuit of understanding. He has shown a continued dedication to excellence and integrity at all levels of government and tirelessly fights on behalf of representative accountability. His decorated service to the community is held in high regard by many. I believe that naming the post office at 210 West 3rd Avenue in Warren, Pennsylvania is a modest tribute to a true public servant. I urge the support of my colleagues and the swift passage of this legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the 100th Bomb Group of the 8th Air Corps. Having a history filled with grand achievements, it is with great pride that I commend these brave soldiers for their service and sacrifice during America's greatest war in history, World War II. Flying its first mission in June 1943, the 100th Bomb Group concentrated its military efforts against airfields, submarine facilities, and aircraft industries in both France and Germany. During this time, the coalition was active in many valiant air raids including the bombing of Rujkan, Norway, which delayed the completion of heavy water for the German atomic bomb. Throughout eight noble missions to Germany, the troop experienced their heaviest losses, earning them the nickname, ``The Bloody Hundredth.'' The 100th Bomb Group of the 8th Air Corps, however, did not lose hope. The group went on to fight in many renowned battles of World War II, including the Battle of the Bulge and the allied invasion of Normandy, which came to be known as D-day. Overall, this courageous troop flew 306 missions, lost 229 planes and sacrificed 785 men which were either killed or deemed Missing in Action, MIA. On April 20, 1945, the group flew its last combat mission to Oranienburg, Berlin, with no losses. The freedom of the United States of America has depended upon the courage of men and women like the 100th Bomb Group, 8th Air Corps, for over 200 years. As members of the greatest military in the world, their time and efforts did not go unnoticed. The 100th Bomb Group received two Presidential Unit Citations for their efforts in Regensburg and Berlin, Germany, as well as the French Croix de Guerre with Palm for their distinguished service in France during World War II. On October 1, the 100th Bomb Group of the 8th Air Corps will meet in Pittsburgh, PA, to celebrate its 60th anniversary and renew relationships of its members. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating the 100th Bomb Group of the 8th Air Corps on its 60th anniversary of the year of their final combat mission.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for bringing to the floor so promptly this very important stop-gap legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act. This legislation provides immediate critical assistance to the families who have been gravely facing the overwhelming hardships in the aftermath of the worst natural disaster in our history. The States which have been affected under this bill would see a 20 percent boost in TANF funds through 2006. This is an increase of $83 million for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. As a Pennsylvanian, I think that is only fair. In the last few days we have seen an outpouring of support from every region of the country. This legislation immediately releases $4.2 billion in TANF funds for payments to all States, funds which would not normally be available until the first quarter of fiscal year 2006. The legislation waives current spending restrictions for all States when delegating unspent prior-year TANF funds. This means that the States affected by the hurricane and the States lending a helping hand will have the flexibility to spend their funds on what they need at this particular time. States will also have access to $2 billion in TANF contingency funds so that they can provide emergency cash assistance to evacuees. We are also providing that the affected areas would be available to adapt by waiving the work requirements and time limits for hurricane victims receiving short-term TANF assistance. By waiving these program rules, families will be able to focus on rebuilding their lives. We recognize that the number one priority for the families devastated by this hurricane is to make sure that their families are safe, that they have even the basic necessities of life. The number one priority for us in Congress is to provide the necessary relief to make this happen, and this legislation moves that process forward.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a crisis, a crisis of crushing proportions in terms of lives lost and property destroyed. Time is clearly of the essence, and I commend Speaker Hastert for calling Congress back into session over this holiday weekend. While we are still assessing the full extent of the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, we know that the damage is severe and that the response must be strong and steady. The legislation that we have just passed in the House will provide financial assistance to the victims who have borne the brunt of this devastating storm. It will allow the Federal Emergency Management Agency adequate resources to continue operating and to restore order in the affected areas. Rescuing and evacuating those who are trapped, getting food, drinking water and medical care to those who are stranded, should be our top priority, and this funding is essential to accommodate some of those basic initiatives. The image we have all seen on television and in the newspapers only begins to convey the desperation of those in and around the areas that have been hit. My heart goes out to those families, and I am pleased that Congress has answered the call here today and sent and guaranteed the much-needed resources. On behalf of western Pennsylvania, an area where we are familiar with Mother Nature and how tough she can be, I am here to express our solidarity with the people in those communities that have been hardest hit. The economic impact of Katrina also looms over us as we move forward, and as gas and other oil prices spiral out of control this natural disaster certainly has the potential to become a serious economic challenge as well. We need to take action in Congress to alleviate the short-term crisis that has been caused by Katrina. It will likely take the next several weeks and perhaps longer before we know the full extent and the true extent of the damage and begin to repair our critical energy infrastructure. We recognize already that electricity remains sparse in some communities, limiting the capacity of refineries to operate. In addition, distribution pipelines also lack capacity, so refined products are unable to reach local gas stations. The production and delivery problem will, without a doubt, have significant impact on consumers and a ripple effect on the economy. We in Congress I think need to anticipate that and respond. I think it is essential that we act to address any fuel shortage and act decisively to blunt its nationwide consequences. While our supply chain is coming back online, Congress needs to carefully consider options for managing the energy supply and the price of gasoline, such as giving the President the authority to fight price gouging for oil and oil by-products, and manage strategy fuel supplies. Further, we ought to consider a temporary suspension of the Federal gas tax to give consumers at least a small break from the unanticipated increases. Any temporary measures we can engage will ameliorate the enormous impact of the present situation, and these need to be carefully thought through. For now, however, we have to quickly move forward, as we have done with this emergency appropriations bill today, which will help the victims who have suffered most from the devastation of this storm. This storm is a challenge to the Nation, and I urge the American people to pull together and to help each other get through this. I encourage people to donate what they can to the charity of their choice and do what they independently can do to conserve energy. I believe this will test us and perhaps also show us at our best.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 387, I call up the bill (H.R. 3283) to enhance resources to enforce United States trade rights, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. No, and I thank the gentleman for raising this issue, Madam Speaker, because it has been raised during this debate. It is well understood that World Trade Organization agreements and WTO dispute settlement decisions are not self-executing, that is, they are not binding on the United States in and of themselves. Congress must enact any changes to U.S. law resulting from WTO agreements or WTO decisions.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is correct.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. No, and I thank the gentleman. This provision does not force the Commerce Department to do anything inconsistent with U.S. law. Instead, it is designed to provide flexibility to Commerce in interpreting the law.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. That is correct.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. No. Agencies are presumed to act in good faith when implementing a statute in accordance with international obligations. There is no additional requirement.

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

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise with mixed feelings because in a different setting, I might be very sympathetic to the argument the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is making. I have been involved myself in the fight to specifically challenge the Chinese on currency issues, but I am disappointed in the timing of this motion, particularly in view of China's recent and very modest actions to move forward on currency, and with the fact that in this context, this motion would function effectively as a poison pill that might very well kill the bill in the Senate. On the substance, the motion from the other side of the aisle seeks to force the administration to bring a section 301 case against China based on its old currency peg to the dollar. It would also force the administration to use a very narrow and simplistic definition of currency manipulation in its foreign exchange reports. My understanding is the USTR rightly rejected this petition twice in the past because it would hinder the efforts to change China's former currency regime. In fact, China's recent steps in moving in the direction of a float, however limited, have made it very clear that the timing on this provision is not good. I would argue that my bill requires that the USTR instead report to Congress every 6 months on the degree to which the new mechanism moves the currency closer to a market-based representation of its value and requires Treasury to reconsider how it currently defines currency manipulation. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) might argue that in a sense all that this does is force the United States to bring a WTO case against China on grounds that China is manipulating its currency. However, the motion itself does not appear designed to force the United States to bring a WTO case. In fact, the motion's definition of currency manipulation clearly bears no relationship to the WTO rules. Instead, this proposal from the other side of the aisle would force the United States to take unilateral action under section 301, which would potentially place us in violation of WTO rules. Section 301 mandates specific actions, including possibly trade retaliation if a foreign act or measure: one, violates or is inconsistent with a trade agreement such as the WTO agreements; or, two, is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. These are separate grounds for taking mandatory action under section 301. The recommittal defines currency manipulation using a fabricated definition as ``unjustifiable.'' Thus, it appears that this initiative is really intended to force the United States to take action under the second prong of section 301, not the prong intended to be used where there are potential WTO violations. The intent thus appears to be to force the U.S. to impose sanctions without a WTO finding of a breach, thus allowing China to shift the focus from China's currency policies to claims of U.S. breaches of the WTO. In the current context, in my view, that would not be helpful. Accordingly, with great regret and acknowledging that my colleague from Maryland has been serious about moving forward in the area of currency reform and challenging the Chinese, I feel that his motion to recommit comes up short, and I would urge all of my colleagues to vote it down. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me say I do not look particularly becoming in a fig leaf; and the gentleman from New Jersey, who is hanging his hat on the fig leaf that has been introduced by the other side, which is not taken seriously by anyone, does not look particularly becoming hanging back behind that either. I would urge everyone who in this Chamber is as concerned as I am about the problems of China trade to vote for this rule and to vote for this bill. This bill should be allowed to move forward today. It got 240 votes yesterday, and I thank all of those involved who have made it possible. This, I believe, is the key trade vote of the year. And contrary to the propaganda we have heard from elsewhere, it is not largely symbolic. Yet yesterday, over 270 of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle voted ``no.'' Let me tell the Members what the significance was of their vote. They voted against extending countervailing duties to China and other nonmarket economies that we regularly apply to other market countries that we trade with. They voted against closing the bond loophole under antidumping. They voted against a comprehensive audit system for China, how they follow their trade obligations. They voted against authorizing new funds for trade cops. They also voted against clarifying Congress's opposition to efforts to water down our domestic trade law protections in the current WTO rules negotiations. And, finally, they voted against requiring the Treasury to clarify its definition of currency manipulation in the context of the very modest change that the Chinese have now put forward. This is commonsense legislation. It was intended as consensus legislation, and it certainly did not materialize out of nowhere because all of these components we have been familiar with for years. It is just that the minority in the Committee on Ways and Means never had much interest in issues like CVD before. The rule underlying this debate is consistent with Ways and Means traditions, sought and supported by both parties when they were in the majority. So this is not about stifling debate. This is about moving a bill forward. Simply by offering silly process arguments like the other side did yesterday is not enough. Offering a fig leaf alternative, a bill dropped in the same day that we announced the consensus we had worked forward, is not enough. The truth was blurted out, may I tell the Members, Mr. Speaker, today in The Hill magazine in which it quoted a spokesman for the Committee on Ways and Means Democrats as saying: ``The minority's near unified opposition to the bill stemmed as much from its role in the CAFTA battle as from the strength of its content.'' This is all about cynicism. This is all about politics being played by their side of the aisle. They would rather stop a significant first step in dealing with China if it inconveniences their strategy on CAFTA. In other words, they are more worried about dealing with another trade agreement, dealing with five countries whose combined economy is smaller than that of the Czech Republic, than dealing with the real problem and the real threat in Beijing. This is cynical. This is outrageous. And I urge all of my colleagues, including those intrepid Democrats who supported us on this bill yesterday, to join with us to get it through today; and if they want to vote ``no,'' let them do it. That is democracy, but the voters will hold them accountable.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. I rise to provide clarifying remarks about the reporting requirements by the International Trade Commission, related to China's exchange rate regime. The intention is that Congress be provided with a report that will better inform us in the exercise of our policy-making responsibilities on these issues. Section 8 calls for a study from the U.S. International Trade Commission within 12 months, regarding the trade and economic relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China. We want the ITC to look closely at the effect of China's economic policies on our trade with China, as well as other factors that affect U.S.-China trade, with a focus on key U.S. industries that compete with Chinese producers or service providers. Among other things, we would like the ITC to examine the relationship of China's foreign exchange rate regime to its financial, trade, foreign investment, and industrial policies. We believe these policies are all interrelated and would like an explanation of how they operate and how they are related to one another. The ITC should discuss not only the regime of a fixed peg to the U.S. dollar that China has maintained in recent years, but China's recently announced revaluation and peg to a basket of currencies, as well as any further modifications in their foreign exchange rate regime. The ITC should also describe the range of expert opinion concerning China's foreign exchange rate regime and U.S. and Chinese trade patterns and the U.S. economy in general. We expect the ITC to focus on the area of its expertise, i.e. trade issues, and leave questions related to appropriate currency policy to those institutions better suited to answer such questions, such as the U.S. Department of Treasury. However, we want the Commission to provide additional analyses, to the extent feasible, that may help us better understand the nature of the relationship between the currency regime and U.S. China trade flows, particularly if the ITC thinks such analysis might help other institutions provide better analysis of broader policy questions. The ITC should certainly consult with the Department of the Treasury, the President's Council on Economic Advisors, and the Congressional Budget Office, all of which have performed economic analyses on currency matters.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Chairman Oxley, and I have discussed section 6 of my bill that requires the Department of the Treasury to provide a report on how Section 40 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act ``can be better clarified administratively to provide for improved and more predictable evaluation.'' We share the understanding that the Bretton Woods Agreements Act implements the international agreements that established the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group. As such, there is limited scope of action for the United States Government acting ``administratively'' to change how the IMF and the World Bank Group operate internally in order to achieve ``improved and more predictable evaluation.'' Therefore, to clarify this provision, our intent here is that any report prepared by the Treasury Department would respect these limits. It is also our understanding and intent that any report by the Treasury Department pursuant to this section should provide insight regarding how the Treasury Department and the United States Executive Directors to the IMF and the World Bank Group seek to promote U.S. exchange rate policies within those organizations. I note that substantially similar language has been considered by the Secretary of the Treasury in the past and those limitations were respected. The Department of the Treasury currently provides some of this information to the United States Congress in other forms. We believe that a discussion of U.S. policy and actions within the IMF and the World Bank Group would be a helpful addition to the policy debate in the U.S. Congress. However, we are not requesting that the Treasury Department submit a report suggesting that the United States Government alone can work administratively to improve IMF and World Bank Group analysis and policy.