Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

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

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of H.R. 3283, the bill just considered.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it has struck me as I have listened to the debate here that there are many myths propagated about CAFTA, the proposed free trade agreement between the Dominican Republic, Central American nations and the United States. One is that we are somehow dropping all of our tariffs across the board. With very few exceptions, the products which CAFTA countries export to the United States have actually entered duty-free for 20 years. By contrast, products that the U.S. has exported to CAFTA countries face steep tariffs. Currently the CAFTA countries apply an average tariff on U.S. industrial goods ranging from 4.1 percent in Nicaragua to 7.8 percent in the Dominican Republic. What we are doing here is creating a two-way street for trade between the United States and CAFTA countries. This is a big trade issue for Pennsylvania because merchandise exports to CAFTA countries totaled $353 million from Pennsylvania in 2004, the ninth largest among the 50 States. And Pennsylvania's exports to the CAFTA region have grown 21 percent between 2000 and 2004. I sympathize with the concerns that have been raised by CAFTA critics, but if we look at the details I think this is an agreement that we can afford to pass.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I, along with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), was considering proposing an amendment to restore funds for the Community Service Block Grant program. Earlier this year, 121 of my colleagues and I sent a letter to the chairman and to the ranking member respectfully requesting that adequate funding be provided for the CSBG program. Recognizing the challenges that the chairman faced, we were disappointed that the bill provided 50 percent less funding than the previous year.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the chairman is absolutely right. We do not intend to diminish attention and concern for other programs within this measure, which we recognize represents a very tight balancing act. However, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the House the ramifications of cutting this vital program. CSBG ensures that America's low-income families and communities have access to quality programs that help meet their local needs. If this cut were to take place, current and future services would be eliminated or disrupted for about 6.5 million low-income individuals and 3 million families, including almost 2 million children. As the chairman knows, CSBG supplies the core funding for more than 1,100 grantees, primarily Community Action Agencies nationwide. A cut in funding would put many important services provided by these agencies at risk. This includes domestic violence services, food banks, health and dental clinics, entrepreneurship skills and financing, asset development, job development and skills training, and youth training. And the list goes on. I would like to use an example of one such organization in my district, the Greater Erie Community Action Committee, or GECAC. This cut would considerably limit GECAC's ability to provide tailor-made services and initiatives that help vulnerable families in Erie, Pennsylvania. An important facet of CSBG is the flexibility that allows GECAC to deliver community-designed responses to our unique needs. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that we have seen great progress for many of America's poorer families as a result of this program. CSBG has provided invaluable assistance to our neediest families and gives individuals the necessary tools to help them get back on their feet.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to discuss this important issue this afternoon.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize John Werkmeister of Meadville, Pennsylvania, as an exceptional history teacher and role model. Mr. Werkmeister has been named one of eight national finalists for the Richard T. Farrell Teacher of Merit Award. This national award is presented every year to an educator who develops and uses innovative and creative teaching methods to enhance students' interest in history. As a teacher at Cambridge Springs High School in Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania, he has shown exemplary commitment to making history education engaging and exciting, while involving his students in the National History Day Program. National History Day is a yearlong program in which students explore historical topics related to an annual theme. Participants qualify for national competition after competing in several local and state competitions. In preparing his students for the program, Mr. Werkmeister's work ethic and research skills provided students with the tools necessary to be successful in competition. Mr. Speaker, I find it heartening that there are educators in this country who devote so much time and effort to shaping the minds of our young people. It is with great pleasure that I recognize Mr. Werkmeister for his dedication to educating the potential leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, today the House will undoubtedly vote down this resolution and signal strong support for remaining in the World Trade Organization. This is the right decision to make. It is the right decision to make because the WTO, and its predecessor, the GATT, have served as a catalyst to reduce both tariff and non-tariff barriers for U.S. exports. Since the formation of the GATT, average tariffs in industrialized countries have gone down from 40 to less than 4 percent; since the creation of the WTO in 1994, U.S. exports have increased by $300 billion. Of course, the WTO has also served as a useful forum to breakdown barriers to U.S. agricultural exports where bilateral negotiations could not. While I will vote against this resolution today, it is not without any reservation. Mr. Speaker, I believe the resolution on the floor today provides the ideal time to pause and reflect on the shortcomings of the current WTO system and on ways both the Congress and the Administration can make changes to the WTO structure so that it works better and rebuilds confidence in the system among our constituencies. I find the lack of any serious effort to reform the current WTO culture and structure to fix the flaws with the unsatisfactory. There are a host of problems with the WTO, and the number of problems is only growing. The WTO completely lacks any degree of transparency; hearings are closed to the public and public transcripts are not released. Where, in a very limited manner, WTO rules permit limited transparency by allowing the assistance and resources of private parties who are supportive of the U.S. government position, the Administration has chosen not to utilize this allowance. Transparency is not the only problem contributing to the WTO's failure to move rules-based trade forward globally, but it is the central factor allowing the WTO and its bureaucrats to escape the scrutiny which would quickly eradicate other abuses in Geneva. Through the lack of transparency, the WTO dispute settlement and Appellate bodies are emboldened to disregard the proper standard of review in disputes involving trade laws, for example. In this way, past WTO panels have issued rogue decisions against the U.S. with no basis or standing in the context of previously negotiated Agreements. This rampant judicial activism is rapidly undermining the support for the WTO. As the WTO is particularly prone to Yankee-bashing, support for the current, broken system is perhaps fading fastest here at home. A slew of activist decisions against the U.S., attacking our trade remedy laws and another decision amounting to micromanagement of U.S. tax policy have come at a steady pace. These decisions have been particularly frustrating to many Members of Congress because of limited opportunity for oversight by Congress of the WTO or its decisions which affect our domestic laws and domestic employers. I, along with several of my Ways and Means colleagues, last Congress introduced the Trade Law Reform Act. This legislation included a provision to establish a WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission. This Commission, composed of retired federal judges, would report to Congress after reviewing WTO decisions adverse to the U.S. in order to determine whether the relevant decision makers failed to follow the applicable standard of review or otherwise abused their mandate. Today, we have spent two hours debating whether Congress should withdraw from the WTO. Yet, absent a new entity to administer and advance rules-based trade, there is no question that we must remain committed to, and engaged in, the WTO. I would submit that instead of debating whether to withdraw from the WTO, Congress should have an active debate on ways we can make the current system work properly, as it was designed to do, and ways to make it better. The U.S. must move swiftly to put an end to judicial activism in the WTO and reorganize the structure and culture of both the Appellate Body and the dispute settlement body. Additionally, the USTR should deputize private parties with a direct and substantial interest in a case to appear and participate in WTO proceedings and devote greater resources to litigation in WTO disputes. Mr. Speaker, Congress must also establish new mechanisms to increase oversight of the WTO.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life of Maurice Horwitz. Born and raised in Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District, Maurice was a man of honor who brought both wisdom and leadership to the city of Butler. A 1930 graduate of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, Maurice went on to become the president of his family's business, Keystone Pipe and Supply, where he displayed an unwavering commitment to innovation and industry. Under his direction, the company flourished, becoming one of the largest international distributors of specialty tubular products. In addition to his strong business ethics, Maurice was known for his generosity in his private life. He had earned a reputation of having a commitment of giving both time and resources to improve the quality of life for his family and his neighbors. He was the embodiment of a renaissance man: a constant learner, a collector, accomplished tennis player, scholar of art history, and a man of culture who sought to bring the joys of the fine arts to the Butler community. He was also known for his devotion to many charitable causes. Maurice served as a director for the Butler County Memorial Hospital, worked with the United Way, and the Butler YMCA. In addition, he served as president and chairman of the board of Irene State Community Mental Health Center, and was chairman of the Tri-State District of the United Jewish Appeal. The life of Maurice Horwitz serves as a role model for us all to follow. He embodied the word service in its finest sense through his kindness, hard work and generosity and will greatly be missed by all. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in commemorating the life of Maurice Horwitz.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the one-hundredth anniversary of Rogers Brothers Corporation. Having a history filled with many innovative achievements, it is my hope to see this company continue on a path of growth and prosperity. Located in Albion, Pennsylvania, in Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District, Rogers Brothers Corporation was founded by Charles, Louis and Hugh Rogers. They started out fabricating steel for bridges. In 1914, they built their first trailer for commercial use. The production of trailers would go on to become their hallmark. The business of trailer production grew with the continued development of the roadway system and World War I. During World War II, Rogers developed special ``tank retriever'' trailers for the federal government, earning the Army-Navy ``E'' Award for excellence in production. They also built a special trailer which was used in the Manhattan Project. Following the war, commercial trailers were further developed with the creation of the innovative Power Lift Detachable Gooseneck. Under the leadership of Betty Rogers Kulyk, and her husband John Kulyk, the company further developed their trailers, creating new and innovative designs for their customers. Throughout their century in business, Rogers has overcome many challenging obstacles, including fires, the Great Depression, labor disputes, and a devastating tornado. However, the company has endured the test of time. In addition, it has remained a family-owned and operated business, a trait that makes them unique in the trailer industry. Today, Rogers trailers can be seen in all 50 states and in 65 countries around the world. The company enjoys an outstanding reputation among their customers, a 100,000 square foot facility, and a quality, all-American made product. Now solidly in its third generation, under the leadership of Lawrence and Mark Kulyk, the company looks to expand their customer and product base, and stay the course for the long haul. America was founded on the principles of hard work and innovation. The very greatness of this Nation is tied to the entrepreneurial spirit of our people. The creativity and innovation of small business, such as Rogers, help to create the very pillars of our economy. Their many achievements and unwavering commitment to excellence in quality production is an outstanding tribute to the very ideals that we hold dear. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Kulyk Family and all of the hard working men and women at Rogers Brothers Corporation on their 100th annIversary.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, at a time when reform is being encouraged from both inside and outside the Arab and Muslim worlds, Morocco has been quietly getting the job done. The April 12th edition of The Wall Street Journal Europe contains an insightful and balanced article on the progress that has been made--as well as the continuing challenges--in Morocco. Reform is a long and oftentimes difficult process, but both the government and the people of Morocco have made a decision about where their future lies. I commend this article to the attention of my colleagues. [From the Wall Street Journal Europe, Apr. 12, 2005] Maghrebian Nights (By Brian M. Carney) Casablanca, Morocco.--There really is a Rick's Cafe in Casablanca. It was opened a year ago by an American expatriate named Kathy Kriger, who decided to stay on after a stint here as a trade attache for the U.S. Commerce Department. Ali Kettani, the man sitting across from me at Rick's, is also a returnee. Although born and raised in Morocco, he'd spent the best part of the last 15 years in Paris and New York as a banker. ``Before the previous king died,'' Mr. Kettani says, ``I would have sworn that I would never have come back to Morocco.'' But here he is, moving back and forth between the U.S. and Morocco to raise American money for a planned $35 million Moroccan private-equity fund, which he says is the first of its kind. Mr. Kettani's renewed enthusiasm for his country is not unusual in this, the country that claims to be America's oldest ally. (Morocco signed a friendship treaty with the U.S. in 1787 that has been in force ever since.) In February, a bilateral free-trade agreement went into effect between the U.S. and Morocco, lowering 95 percent of tariffs between the two countries to zero and phasing out the rest over the next several years. A so-called ``association agreement'' with the EU is likewise gradually lowering trade barriers between Europe and Morocco. Businessmen in the country hope to capitalize on this privileged access to the two largest economies in the world by trading with both. ``The future of Morocco,'' said Ali Belhaj, a businessman and opposition politician, ``is in services, logistics, tourism and agriculture.'' Agriculture is already a substantial chunk of the Moroccan economy, but in the future Mr. Belhaj sees Morocco selling more and more farm products to the U.S. and Europe, thanks to its privileged trade status and low costs. As for services, he offers an example. ``The biggest dental-implant company in Paris is Moroccan. You go to the dentist in Paris, he takes a mold of your teeth and ships it to Casablanca, where the implants are made and shipped back to Paris. We can turn around dental implants in 48 hours.'' For Mr. Belhaj, proximity and good relations with the West are the foundations of Morocco's economic future. Morocco is a potential bridge between the West and the Arab world in more than just economic ways. At a time when U.S. President George W. Bush's Greater Middle East project is viewed by many in both Europe and the Arab world as a ``neoconservative'' pipe dream, Morocco stands out as a country furiously trying to show that Arab ways and a Western, modernizing orientation are not incompatible. Morocco is a nigh-absolute monarchy, but one whose king has been steadily if gradually ceding power to an elected Parliament. The elections in 2002 are generally viewed, both within Morocco and among Western NGOs such as Freedom House, as the first free and fair ones in the country's 1,300-year history. And this year, the Parliament is expected to pass and the king is expected to ratify a law strengthening the role of parties in the country's politics. For Ali Belhaj, a businessman who is trying to found a center-right party dubbed Alliance of Liberties, it is a vital step toward democracy. ``We have 26 parties that get nearly all of their funding from the state,'' Mr. Belhaj says. ``The annual budget for the parties? $1 million. How can you build a democracy like that?'' Even so, he allows that he sees ``the beginnings of democracy in Morocco,'' and would like to see the Parliament strengthened. But in terms of civil rights and freedom of the press, the country has made some real strides, enshrining habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence in law in the last few years. The Parliament is working on a bill to decriminalize libel, meaning disgruntled politicians would no longer be able to lock up journalists for writing things the ruling class would rather not see in print. In Rabat, the country's capital, I spoke to Ahmed Abbadi, the director of Islamic affairs in the Ministry of Religion, about the role of religion in a modernizing Morocco. Last year, Morocco passed a reform of its so-called Family Law. The new law grants women equal status in the family, with equal rights to divorce their husbands, an equal say in family governance and the right to marry without the consent of a male relative. There were Islamist elements who had opposed some of these reforms on religious grounds; I asked Mr. Abbadi what the government's response had been on a religious level. ``We are concerned with finalities,'' he said. ``When you are concerned with finalities, you do not get bogged down with the literal words.'' He continued: ``There is a saying in Islam: `Wherever is the interest of the whole, there is sharia.' '' So bearing in mind the interest of the whole, he said, ``We must determine how to implement the general principles of sharia law in a way that is appropriate to our time.'' In short, the Ministry of Religion determined that the Family Law, giving women broadly equal rights in the family context, was consonant with Morocco's official interpretation of Islam. It's a dose of historical relativism that's badly needed in much of the Arab world. What about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's claims ahead of the Iraqi elections that democracy was unIslamic? ``He does not have the skills, the knowledge or the class to talk about democracy,'' was Mr. Abbadi's response, delivered with just a touch of condescension. And, speaking of Saudi Arabia's fundamentalist brand of Islam, he observed: ``When you have a simple society,'' you wind up with a ``simple, superficial'' interpretation of Islam--``like the `Bedouin Islam' in Saudi Arabia.'' All of which sounded pretty encouraging. So, did Mr. Abbadi see Morocco's flavor of Islam as a model for the rest of the Arab world--a modern, forward-looking alternative to Wahhabist fundamentalism? He didn't want to go that far, but in the end he allowed, ``We believe--humbly--that Morocco could be a model'' for others, although they had no inclination to actively export their interpretation. Morocco is democratizing, liberalizing and modernizing on several fronts. Is it a model for the Arab world? I repeated the question to Bob Holley, a former American diplomat who is now consulting for the Moroccan government in Washington, and who facilitated a number of my meetings in Morocco. ``It's a great sales pitch--Morocco as model for the greater Middle East,'' Mr. Holley noted. But in the end, given its historical, cultural and ethnic particularities, ``I think Morocco's utility as a model is limited,'' he admitted. Mr. Holley may be right, and in any case Morocco's progress is far from perfect or uniform. After the May 16, 2003, suicide bombings in Casablanca, the police rounded up some 2,000 people, a reaction that for some in Morocco harkened back to the bad old days when the government was empowered to imprison anyone it deemed a threat to the public order. (That law, known in the country as Art. 35, has been repealed.) But model Arab democracy or not, Morocco is nevertheless showing what is possible within an Arab monarchy that looks west and north, rather than only east or inward. Back at Rick's Cafe, our table-mate, Dr. Bouthayna Iraqui-Houssaini, who owns a medical-supply company here in Casablanca, offers her own appraisal. ``Not everything is good, but it is all changing. People believe life is getting better,'' she said. And that's not a bad beginning.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, at a time of record-high energy prices, the growth of the economy is at risk, and it is critical that Congress take the necessary steps to put in place a comprehensive energy policy. The bill before us, frankly, is more limited in scope than I would prefer. It is not as ambitious as I would like in creating market incentives to overhaul the energy side of our economy; but, nevertheless, support of this bill is a critical first step for Congress to move forward to meet the critical goal of an effective national energy policy. Its passage will set us on the right path by encouraging the creation of new technologies, by promoting renewable energy sources, by modernizing and expanding our energy infrastructure, including our power energy infrastructure, and encouraging conservation. I believe we need to move forward on this bill. It is long overdue and has been a priority of Congress since this President came into office. The time has come for us to pass an energy bill. Unfortunately, we have seen the vacancy of the debate today, the fact that we are not seeing an alternative being offered by the other side. We have heard about new ideas from them, but all we have been offered is warmed-over rhetoric, and there is no technology available to us that could ever make good use of that. Please pass this legislation. It is long overdue. The time has come for us to put in place a national energy policy.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is a real privilege to rise tonight to take on the role of discussing the statutorily required Humphrey-Hawkins side of this debate; that is, to consider how this budget fits into the overall economic policy of the United States. We have heard so far a very engaging debate, and may I say, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has done an extraordinary job of defending the details of this budget. He has been powerful and persuasive and intelligent and, I think, has made a compelling case. The argument that we are going to make in the next hour has to do more with how this fits into the overall economic priorities of the United States. This in my view is perhaps one of the most important reasons for passing this budget, because as we look at where America is today, as we look at the economic challenges we are facing, it is clear that we need to have a strong and responsible fiscal policy that encourages economic growth, that controls spending, and by controlling spending brings down our deficit over time, reassures capital markets and sends the message that the American economy continues to be the safest place in the world to invest. If we continue on the path directed by this budget resolution, we have an opportunity, I think, to lay the groundwork for an unprecedented expansion and to create opportunity and economic growth in the American economy that is so badly needed in many of our communities, including many parts of my district. There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that the challenges we are facing today are substantial, the deficit is a serious problem and the proposed remedy contained in this budget resolution involves some very strong medicine and, for many individual Members of the House, some very, very difficult policy decisions. We need to pass this resolution because the broad parameters of spending that are the real budget resolution, the blueprint that is the substance of this budget resolution is precisely the vehicle we need to move in the right direction to make sure that we control spending and create the opportunity to continue the economic expansion which is only now just beginning. Over the past few years, America has gone through a challenging time economically. Nowhere is that more evident than in my district, but at the same time there are very encouraging signs. We know that we have been running a deficit. We know we have been running a deficit because, first of all, understandably, we have been in the throes of a recession and we have never run a surplus during a recession. Second of all, we have never run a surplus in wartime. And even as we have been undergoing a very difficult episode, a combination of a slowdown which began during the last administration coupled with the substantial damage to our economy that occurred in the wake of 9/11, at the same time we have had to take on a war on terrorism that was not of our choosing. The combination of these two factors, the loss of revenue because of the slowdown of the economy and at the same time the challenge of meeting the war on terrorism have been a substantial drain on our resources. Yet our underlying economy continues to be sound and clearly we have a path that we can pursue that brings us back toward a balanced budget and providing the kind of policy in place that will continue to meet the needs of America. This budget resolution is precisely what we need. We recognize that an uncontrolled deficit can put pressure on interest rates, increasing the cost of borrowing and putting the brakes on economic growth and investment. Without economic growth, we are not going to be able to generate the revenue to get back to a balanced budget. We also recognize that a lax fiscal policy could further weaken the U.S. dollar in global markets and undermine its standing as the reserve currency of the world economic system. This has been one of the core advantages that America has retained relative to our global competition. That is why the decision we make with this budget is going to be so very, very important. This budget is a blueprint for injecting spending restraint while encouraging economic growth and stability. Its adoption will signal to the financial markets that a fiscally conservative Congress once more is prepared to sally forth to make difficult decisions necessary to control the Federal deficit and maintain our economy on a growth path. This budget vehicle provides fiscal discipline that will strengthen investor confidence in the renascent economy and act as a powerful tonic to continue on the path of economic growth. It provides for controlling spending without raising taxes, which is precisely the formula that has worked for us and can continue to work for us. Mr. Chairman, we recognize that we need to maintain a pro-growth tax policy. That is essential to move America toward a balanced budget. This budget resolution allows us to continue and make permanent the successful tax policies that have allowed us to grow the economy. What it does in a nutshell is it cuts the deficit in half over a 5-year period. Perhaps more importantly, Mr. Chairman, it shrinks over time the national debt relative to the economy. That is the burden on the national economy that the capital markets understand. If we have a national debt that is growing relative to the economy, it will roil capital markets over time if it grows excessively. But what matters to the economy is not the absolute size of the debt, it is the size of the debt relative to the economy. If we can continue to grow the economy and grow the economy faster than the national debt, then that will be a source of confidence and a source of growth in the economy. Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what this budget resolution does in a sound, responsible way. It maintains a strong commitment to economic growth and pro-growth tax policy by controlling discretionary and mandatory spending. Mr. Chairman, I will have further remarks in support of this resolution. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), a fellow member of the Joint Economic Committee. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to be here to make this presentation as required under law by Humphrey-Hawkins because I think it is very important perhaps that the record be set straight. Any Member of the House who is serious about controlling the deficit, about maintaining the forward movement in the economy, growing jobs, and the social justice that could only come through economic growth should be prepared to strongly support this budget resolution. Mr. Chairman, a couple of points I think need to be made in response to the interesting presentations that were made on the other side. First of all, on the issue of jobs. We have heard the criticism that our friends on the other side of the aisle try to blame President Bush for an economic slowdown that he inherited from the Clinton administration that was exacerbated by 9/11. The truth is economic policies that have been adopted by this Congress, working with the administration, have been successful in helping the U.S. economy rebound from the recession into a sustained expansion, with strong growth in the gross domestic product and payroll jobs. Despite all of the problems that this President inherited, the tax relief policies of the past 4 years that our friends on the other side of the aisle are striving to sabotage have helped to restore economic growth and job creation. During 2004, real GDP grew 4.4 percent, the strongest annual performance in 5 years, one of the strongest growth performances of the past 20 years, belying the glooming forecast we have heard on the other side. Private forecasters' projections for real GDP growth for this year are being revised upward. Growth for 2005 is expected to be at a 3.7 percent robust rate. More Americans, Mr. Chairman, are working today than at anytime in our Nation's history, and employment is at a record level of more than 140 million. The unemployment rate in February was 5.4 percent, lower than the averages for each of the last three decades. Payroll employment rose by 2.2 million jobs during 2004. It is up by more than 3 million jobs since May of 2003. Last month, we saw employment gains of 262,000 jobs, more than a quarter of a million new jobs in the month of February alone. This suggests that there is clearly forward motion in the economy. Mr. Chairman, let us compare that to some of our trading partners. Those who last year invoked the Great Depression in describing recent economic conditions have been, after all, often favoring policies that would increase government intervention in the economy. Yet some of those countries where those sorts of policies are applied are not doing as well as we are. Economic growth in Europe is generally slower than that of the United States. The unemployment rate in Europe is much higher than in the U.S. In January of 2005, Europe had an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent, substantially higher than our U.S. level of 5.4 percent. The fact is, by following on a path of high growth and low taxes, we are moving the economy in the right direction, and ultimately, if we are prepared to put in place fiscal policies that restrain the deficit, that will allow us to grow the economy in the right direction. I have heard a couple of extraordinary claims on the floor of the House that we are facing a record debt. I suppose that is true if we look at this in a purely static, green eyeshade perspective, but what really matters with the national debt, as I said before, is its size relative to the economy. The fact remains the national debt today is significantly lower, relative to the economy, than it was in the early 1990s when their party controlled Congress and controlled the reins of spending. We have heard about record deficits, but here again we propose in our budget resolution to cut the deficits in half relative to the size of the economy. That will send the right message to global markets. We have heard a little bit tonight about the trade deficit, and I must say that is something where I have some sympathy with the critics. Our trade deficit is much too high, but those who are making these claims tonight perhaps should be questioning whether they supported the Clinton-era trade policies that this administration inherited and put us firmly on the path to large trade deficits. We have also heard from the other side that they are concerned that there is not enough room in this budget to deal with the problem of the AMT. As cochairman of the Zero AMT Caucus, I have to be sympathetic with their raising the issue, but the fact remains eliminating the AMT is only going to be possible as part of fundamental tax reform. This budget put lays in place, creates the groundwork for us to go forward later this year and take a look at fundamental tax reform. We also, notwithstanding this budget, have every opportunity to move forward later this year and consider the issue of Social Security solvency. I believe that the President is right to raise this issue. Anyone who has studied this issue carefully has to concede that for the long-term health of the Social Security system we have a choice of either going forward with a laissez-faire approach that has long been advocated on the other side and ultimately have to see truly draconian cuts as a result, or if we act now we can put in place reforms that will allow us to preserve existing benefits, also provide a solid retirement for the next generation and do so by improving the rate of return within the Social Security system. Nothing in this budget resolution is inconsistent with that initiative. I am very, very pleased to address the concerns raised by the gentleman from New York about the supposed monolithic government in the Congress that has worked with a Republican administration to do some things that the gentleman finds distasteful. The fact is our economic policies and our economic challenges today are at least partially the result of the gridlock that existed before the last election in which the Senate was at least not able to move forward on key issues like a stimulus bill, like an energy bill, like tort reform, that directly speak to our economic health because of the gridlock implicit in the rules that gave the minority a veto over many of these provisions. Monolithic government is not the issue. The issue here is whether we can move forward and get to a balanced budget ultimately. Our resolution clearly is the one strongest able to do that. We continue to grow the economy without raising taxes, which clearly is the agenda on the other side, raising taxes that would slam the brakes on economic growth. At the same time, it is obvious from the laundry list we have heard tonight if the other side were in the majority we would be contemplating a saturnalia of new spending. I can think of a lot of things that I would love to spend money on in the Federal budget, but the fact remains we need to set tough priorities if we are going to get back to a balanced budget. Our spending resolution does just that. What we provide is low taxes, controlling Federal spending and ultimately the prospect of falling deficits and low debt and ultimately the right economic direction for this country, a true blueprint for economic growth, expansion and opportunity. With that, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Republican budget resolution. Regardless of any concern about any particular program, we need to move forward with the broad outline of spending that this resolution fairly lays out and put it in place so that we are able to get to a balanced budget over time as we reassure capital markets that we are truly committed to controlling spending without raising taxes.

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

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5365) to treat certain arrangements maintained by the YMCA Retirement Fund as church plans for the purposes of certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and for other purposes.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 5365, legislation that I had the privilege to introduce along with the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy). The gentleman from North Dakota and I have been working together for a number of years to make this important clarification, and I appreciate his dedication and leadership on this issue. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and Means for their invaluable assistance in bringing this bill to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to ensure that thousands of pension plan participants and retirees from the YMCA can continue to count on their benefits. It addresses a concern about the technical status of the YMCA pension plan as a church plan, a type of pension plan offered by churches or associations of churches which brings with it a special set of rules and regulations under the Tax Code. While the Y pension plan was founded as and historically has been treated as a church plan, the IRS has on occasion puckishly called its status into question. This bill ensures that its status remains a church plan and that the plan may continue to operate as has been for over 80 years with clear congressional intent. The YMCA pension plan is a significant and important component of the compensation package offered all YMCA employees, most of whom are paid modestly. Every full-time employee of local YMCAs is required to participate to help ensure better retirement security for all of these employees. The YMCA pension plan is important to the YMCA employees and retirees in my district in Pennsylvania, as it is to those plan participants in most likely each and every congressional district across the country. This legislation has a vital impact on more than 3,000 families in Pennsylvania and over 80,000 participants nationwide because it offers them financial and retirement security for their long service on behalf of our Nation's YMCAs, one of our most important organizations operating within communities throughout this country. I am pleased that we are moving forward with this bill today to preserve the status quo, and I encourage all of my colleagues to actively support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will submit the exchange of letters between the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) relating to the jurisdiction of this bill for the Record. Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, November 19, 2004. Hon. William M. Thomas, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Thomas: I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding with respect to consideration of H.R. 5365, to treat certain arrangements maintained by the YMCA Retirement Fund as church plans for the purposes of certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and in addition the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The bill would impact the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) as it applies to certain pension plans within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I do not intend to delay consideration of H.R. 5365, nor will I object to the scheduling of this bill for consideration in the House of Representatives. However, I do so only with the understanding that this procedural route should not be construed to prejudice the Committee on Education and the Workforce's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on these provisions or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future. Furthermore, should these or similar provisions be considered in a conference with the Senate, I would expect Members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce be appointed to the conference committee on those provisions. Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our exchange of letters in the Congressional Record on this bill. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John A. Boehner, Chairman.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I also want to salute the gentleman from North Dakota, who is a valuable ally particularly in dealing with an issue like this that is in a sense relatively straightforward, but deals with the technicalities of the tax law. He has been a great resource to us and to the committee, and it is a privilege for me to be co-sponsoring this legislation with him. Mr. Speaker, I think that if we look at the history of the YMCA in America, we see the premier faith-based organization that has been providing services to people throughout our communities and providing services that have had an enormous cumulative social impact on America. One of the essential components to the YMCA and how it operates is its ability to offer this pension program to its employees. The YMCA does not operate on a broad profit margin. So to be able to offer this program with its tax status is critical to the Y's ability to attract the kind of people who are willing to dedicate themselves to the community. And this I believe is a very important piece of legislation to maintain the status quo, to allow the Y to continue to offer not only an excellent pension to its participants and to all of its hard- working employees but also to continue to be able to offer the quality of services in communities throughout America. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to urge my colleagues to gather together on a bipartisan basis to approve this bill.

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

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5365, the bill just passed.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters between myself and Chairman Thomas for submission into the Record related to debate on H.R. 4520, The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, which took place October 7, 2004. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 7, 2004. Hon. William M. Thomas, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to raise a concern regarding regulations issued several years ago by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in which they apply an expansive new interpretation of the law retroactively. Congress enacted section 263(g) of the Internal Revenue Code as part of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (``ERTA'') to discourage the use of certain ``straddle'' type tax shelters known as ``cash and carry'' transactions. In the Report accompanying ERTA, the Senate Finance Committee noted that ``[t]he committee intends to discourage these transactions, sometime called `cash and carry' shelters, in its legislation.'' The Committee also described the nature of the ``cash and carry'' transactions Congress was trying to discourage, in detail. Twenty years later, on January 17, 2001 the Treasury Department issued a set of proposed regulations under section 263(g), that would expand the scope of 263(g) beyond so- called cash and carry transactions, and states in its effective date section that the new rules apply to ``. . . interest and carrying charges properly allocable to personal property that are paid, incurred, or accrued after the date these regulations are adopted as final . . . for a straddle established on or after January 17, 2001.'' Despite the clear legislative intent, the IRS has attempted to apply the proposed regulations expanding the coverage of 263(g) to transactions undertaken prior to January 17, 2001, and a number of field agents have indicated to taxpayers that absent clear guidance to the contrary, they will continue to apply this expansive interpretation of section 263(g) on a retroactive basis. When the tax writing committees decide to change the law in a way that might affect ongoing transactions our normal practice is to put the public on notice through an announcement. Once we have so acted, it is considered fair to make the change effective on the date of the announcement because taxpayers have been given fair warning. I would like to know if you agree with my conclusion that the IRS should follow rules that are equally fair. If a change in the law which was not made as a result of a legislative mandate is announced in regulations, do you agree that the change should be prospective? Thank you for considering this matter and I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Phil English.