Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I first yield myself 15 seconds to thank the gentleman from New York for his presentation. It was very thoughtful. I want to associate myself with his remarks. We appreciate his making this debate very bipartisan, and I welcome him to get involved in our Zero AMT Caucus and try to work on a bipartisan basis to deal with this problem. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to yield 5 minutes to another gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), who has put an extraordinary amount of time in on this issue, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, my colleague.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to thank the gentleman for his salute to the simplicity of the economic substance doctrine, and we look forward to the vote on the substitute. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I am simply going to build on the introduction and comments of my friend, the gentleman from Illinois. We have already heard about what this underlying bill is about. H.R. 4181 is one of the fundamental tax equity issues that will come up in this Congress. We are talking about extending and making permanent the relief that we have extended to working couples and end permanently the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, this is not a vote about mortgaging our future, about Iraq, about macroeconomic policy, or even about the budget deficit. This is a narrow, important issue that speaks to fundamental tax equity for working families, and I speak from experience on this. Twelve years ago when my wife and I were married, she was a teacher, I was a staffer for the State legislature working for someone who is now a colleague of mine. When we got married, we ended up paying several thousand more dollars in taxes. That was an absolute absurdity. When we ran the figures, we were astounded to find this marriage tax penalty, and I am proud to say since I have come to Congress, I have been fighting consistently on the Committee on Ways and Means to permanently correct this problem. Now, our friends on the other side want the revenue. They do not want to provide the relief to the families. They want this important fix to our tax system to expire next year and effectively raise taxes on working families, not on multimillionaires. Give me a break. I was not a multimillionaire a few years ago when I was first contending with this. This is not a reckless policy, as our friend from New York characterized it. This is about fundamental tax fairness. And if our friends on the other side of the aisle are in favor of that, if our friends on the other side of the aisle are against punishing families who happen to choose to get married, then I think they need to join us in supporting this fundamental, straightforward tax reform bill that I think draws a clear contrast between the two parties.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 4090.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution, which I believe strikes an appropriate balance between funding our national priorities and cutting the budget deficit in half over the next four years. America stands at a pivotal point in history where we are leading a global war against the scourge of terrorism and driving the world's economic growth. We have already laid the groundwork for economic growth through the President's tax program. As a result, growth averaged 6.1 percent in the second half of 2003, the fastest growth in consecutive quarters since 1984. The Budget Committee has presented to us a framework which allows us to build upon this foundation. This resolution allows us to make permanent the expiring tax relief while upholding our commitment to national priorities at home and abroad. The House Republican budget proposal offers a very different blueprint than what would have been offered by our colleagues from the other side of the aisle. It solidifies a pro-growth policy while assuring there will be no tax increase over the next five years. It takes into account the needs of our troops as well as the veterans who have already fought for our country. I'd also like to call attention to the fact that we've included an increase in total veterans spending of $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2005 and removed some of the fees that the President's budget had included for veterans services--fees which veterans communities have opposed. This is a strong budget that reflects strong priorities and moves us in the direction of fiscal balance.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to an Op-Ed article published in The Washington Times on March 4 authored by Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, one of our consistent allies in the fight against international terrorism. I had the pleasure to meet President Nazarbayev in December 2001 during his official visit to the United States and ever since I closely follow the development of this country. I know that Kazakhstan has achieved significant progress in implementing political, social and economic reforms during the dozen years of their independence. Recent evaluation by The Economist magazine shows Kazakhstan to be among the five most dynamically developing countries in the world with an annual GDP growth of 10.1 percent. Of course Kazakhstan faces challenges on its path to true democracy, and a lot remains to be done. Nevertheless, Kazakhstan is well on the road to a free market economy and a functioning democracy. Significantly, as a Muslim-majority country, it is also showing the world how to promote a religiously tolerant, and open, society. It goes without saying that converting from a communist economy to a free-market system in a little more than a decade is, under any circumstances, a formidable challenge. In the wake of the September 11 attacks on the United States, President Nazarbayev has been one of the first to support us in the fight against the global evil of international terrorism. During Operation Enduring Freedom, his government gave the United States fly- over and landing rights as America led the fight for freedom and democracy in Afghanistan. Kazakhstan was the first and still the only Central Asian country to contribute troops to the multinational peacekeeping force in Iraq. I believe it is in our nation's interest to continue to support Kazakhstan, a country whose actions have demonstrated its commitment to global security, nuclear nonproliferation, stability, and tolerance for ethnic and religious minorities. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that in Kazakhstan we have a crucial ally. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Congressional Record and urge all of my colleagues to read it carefully. [From The Washington Times, Mar. 4, 2004] Progress in Kazakhstan (By Nursultan Nazarbayev) There can be few greater challenges than to attempt to complete in little more than a decade a political process that in the West took many decades, if not centuries. But this is what Kazakhstan has been attempting since becoming independent in 1991. In the United States, markets preceded democracy. In Kazakhstan, however, we have sought to lay the foundations of a market economy, civil society and democracy simultaneously. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, we believed this was the only way to pursue economic growth and raise living standards while maintaining stability. Without all three, there was little realistic expectation that an oil-rich state the size of Western Europe, but with a population smaller than that of Holland, could remain free. Our actions in the early 1990s, including the decision to remove our arsenal of nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union, laid the foundations of our stability and prosperity. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld commented during his visit to my country last week, had Saddam Hussein followed Kazakhstan's example, the war in Iraq never would have been fought. We are now a key ally of the United States in Central Asia and a force for stability and security in the region. Having set our sights on radical change, we had to rely primarily on our own resources, building new civic institutions from scratch, freeing industry from the shackles of state ownership and fashioning political reform in a way that reflected Kazakhstan's wide religious and ethnic diversity. Today, 90 percent of the Kazakh economy is in private hands. Growth has averaged 10 percent over the last four years and is projected to continue at comparable levels. Our financial institutions approach Western standards of efficiency. Poverty is steadily being tackled, unemployment is falling, and sound macroeconomic policy has ensured low levels of inflation. Meanwhile, oil exports are rising by 15 percent each year. With the world's energy needs set to double during the present century, there is international recognition that Kazakhstan is emerging as an important and responsible player in international energy markets. In the longer term, however, we know that oil wealth by itself will not ensure prosperity or guarantee inter-ethnic harmony. Only a broadly based, flexible economy will enable us to address the challenges of rural poverty, provide modern standards of health care, employment and pensions, and tackle the illegal shipment of people, drugs, weapons and extremist ideas from neighboring countries. Economic reform will, we hope, be further stimulated by Kazakhstan's forthcoming entry into the World Trade Organization. My country's growing participation in international institutions provides an important learning opportunity. But we are not expecting a free lunch. As President Bush wrote in his recent letter to me, the United States is ``grateful for Kazakhstan's continued assistance in the war on terror.'' We have given robust support, allowing our air space to be used and granting emergency landing rights during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Currently, our troops assist in the peaceful reconstruction of Iraq. After centuries during which the big decisions came from Moscow via a complex bureaucratic chain, freedom and personal responsibility are new concepts to us. But our record should leave no doubt about our intentions. Democratic reform and measures to enhance human rights must not, however, be introduced in a way that undermines stability. We cannot afford to disturb the atmosphere of religious and inter-ethnic tolerance that every visitor to our country, including his holiness, the pope, and the chief rabbi of Israel, notices immediately. To those who say the pace of political change is too slow, I offer this personal assurance: We have not given up on reform. This is amply demonstrated by the decision made just a few weeks ago to impose a moratorium on the death penalty and by new legislative proposals to ensure free and fair elections this fall. Indeed, we hope that our twin record of external engagement and internal reform may persuade many countries to support our chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in 2009. When friends tell me that we are still not moving quickly enough, I am tempted to reply: ``Bearing in mind how far and how quickly we have traveled, how much faster would you like us to go? In steering the infant Kazakh democracy, the accelerator has been used far more than the brake. Please remember also just how long your own societies took to complete the processes on which we are now embarked.''

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I am unable to be present for recorded votes today due to health reasons. However, if I had been present, I would have voted in the affirmative on rollcall vote Nos. 12, 13 and 14.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a true advocate for Pennsylvania's hospitals and patients. For over twenty-five years Scott Malan has tirelessly advocated for increasing the quality of health care available to Americans. He has done so quite successfully, Mr. Speaker. Most recently, Mr. Malan served as vice president for legislative services at the Hospital Association of Pennsylvania. In this capacity, Mr. Malan directed federal advocacy campaigns, saving Pennsylvania hospitals hundreds of millions of dollars and increasing the quality of care for Pennsylvanians. Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of working with Mr. Malan on numerous initiatives over the past few years. In fact, we worked closely to include in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 provisions which will ensure that Pennsylvania hospitals in rural areas are able to continue to provide quality care to Pennsylvanians. We also worked to include provisions to increase indirect graduate medical education payments to hospitals in order to ensure Americans have access to the most innovative care available. Mr. Speaker, due to Mr. Malan's diligent efforts and the steadfast work of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation, these provisions will be signed into law today by President Bush. While it may seem, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Malan is at the top of his game, in fact he is currently soaring to new heights. Mr. Malan has brought the expertise and knowledge he has amassed over the past twenty-five years to Triad Strategies, one of Pennsylvania's largest government relations firms. While at Triad Strategies, Mr. Malan will undoubtedly continue to advance policies which will enrich the lives of every American by working to ensure affordable, quality health care in this country. Mr. Speaker, I wish Mr. Malan the best in his future endeavors and thank him for the dedication he has displayed over the past years to making the lives of my constituents better.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight without any messianic pretensions to urge my colleagues to cast a vote for our seniors and support improved health care by voting for this bipartisan Medicare bill. Mr. Speaker, today we have the best, and perhaps the last, opportunity to provide America's seniors with a voluntary and affordable prescription drug benefit as a part of Medicare. This is an unprecedented expansion of an entitlement program that will make life easier and health care better for many millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge this legislation is not perfect. There are things I wanted to see included that are not in the bill. Yet, I am convinced that this is the best and most realistic compromise Medicare bill that Congress has so far developed. There are some here, I realize, who would make the perfect enemy of the good. But when you strip away all of the rhetoric and the partisanship, it really comes down to this: Do you support adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, or not? In my district in western Pennsylvania, we have a diverse population of seniors. Some live on very low incomes and qualify for our State prescription drug benefit, PACE. Others are happy with their own private health plans, and some live in areas where there is only one hospital within a reasonable driving range. This bill helps all of these seniors by offering a benefit that wraps around PACE, allows seniors to selectively participate in the Medicare plan, and includes a number of provisions to ensure that rural health facilities remain open and accessible. Mr. Speaker, in 1965, our predecessors took the courageous and compassionate step of creating this important program. Now we have the best opportunity in years to build on their work by guaranteeing access to lifesaving drugs for our seniors. It is time for Congress to put people over politics and pass this Medicare bill. I urge my colleagues to join AARP, America's doctors, America's hospitals, and major health care providers and vote ``yes'' on prescription drugs for our seniors.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me time. As this institution moves forward to complete its business for the year, I think it is particularly important that we pause to pass this legislation that provides very critical tax relief and other important continuations of policy that I think reflect where this institution has been going, not only on tax policy but also on economic policy generally. Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to a couple of very important provisions that have been folded into this bill. I think one of the most important things we could do right now is to extend our tax treatment of net operating losses for companies, particularly in the wake of the long period, hopefully ending now, of companies having to attack against an ocean of red ink. I think it is particularly important now, particularly as our economy is beginning to grow again and beginning to grow again at a significant rate, that we give companies the relief they need on their net operating losses. We have an opportunity here, I think, to give an additional boost to a lot of tax sensitive manufacturing concerns. And particularly, I wanted to say as chairman of the Congressional Steel Caucus, at a time when we are concerning ourselves with the health of the steel industry, it would be most helpful if we could liberalize the treatment of net operating losses and help not only steel companies, but also manufacturers generally in this economy trying to bounce back from an extended recession. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note as the gentleman on the other side of the aisle did, that this bill contains a very important provision providing Permanent Normal Trade Relations for the Republic of Armenia. Armenia emerged from the wreck of the Soviet Union with great potential, and they have done an enormous amount to liberalize their society and liberalize their economy. This institution needs to recognize that and take the additional step of stripping away those outdated Jackson-Vanik restrictions. With that, I would urge that my colleagues pass this legislation and send a strong message that this body is prepared to go forward on the tax front and the trade front and do what it needs to do.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 602 and 603 on November 4, 2003. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: ``Yea'' on H. Con. Res. 176--Supporting Financial Planning Week. ``Yea'' on H. Con. Res. 94--Direct Support Professional Recognition.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote for rollcall vote No. 591 on October 30. Had I been able, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. First, to respond to the gentleman, I point out that this administration has been willing to take on China on these issues, particularly on the currency manipulation, in a way that the last administration certainly did not. At a time like this, when the administration is directly involved with negotiations with the Chinese, this is precisely the kind of resolution that is not only appropriate, but is important to provide to show support. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) who has been a leader in the fight on Chinese trade issues.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 414) to encourage the People's Republic of China to fulfill its commitments under international trade agreements, support the United States manufacturing sector, and establish monetary and financial market reforms.

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

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, currently before the House is House Resolution 414, to urge China to live up to its international obligations which it has agreed to undertake upon joining the World Trade Organization in 2001. We consider this with a sense of urgency as we are running an historically large trade deficit and an enormous bilateral trade deficit with China. Mr. Speaker, our trade deficit with China has doubled since 1998, and is likely to exceed $120 billion this year. It has become the single largest bilateral trade deficit in the world. And the most conspicuous feature of our lopsided trade partnership with China is China's state- sponsored mercantilism which has cost this country millions of manufacturing jobs. When the Clinton administration embraced China's entry into the WTO, many of us hoped that China would adopt the disciplines of the global rules-based trading system. Unfortunately, we have been sorely disappointed. China continues to flout global trade rules at the expense of our manufacturers and workers. This cannot be allowed to stand. Americans can compete with any economic power in the world, provided there is a level playing field. Mr. Speaker, our resolution would: One, show broad support for the administration's efforts to get China to abide by its international trade obligations; two, put Congress on record urging China to follow global trade rules; three, commit to working with the administration to encourage China to modernize its financial system and allow a flexible exchange rate; four, urge the administration to continue intensive discussions with Chinese leaders towards establishing a market-based valuation of their currency; and, five, state that the United States Government should intensify efforts to promote innovation, reduce costs, and level the playing field for the manufacturing sector. Mr. Speaker, here are the facts, the IMF, APEC, and the group of seven finance ministers all have stressed the importance of allowing for greater flexibility in exchange rates. In the last month, every top official in the administration's economic and trade team, including President Bush himself, has visited China and implored its leaders to bring its trading practices up to global standards and allow their currency value to be dictated by the market. Still, China's leaders have continued to stall. Our message today is the same as the administration's. They have told China time and time again if they want to have a healthy trade relationship with the United States, then they must be prepared to follow the rules. The message we are carrying today is among the most important that Congress will communicate this year. It is essential for the economic future of the next generation, for the future of good paying jobs in places like my home in northwestern Pennsylvania where we make things for a living, that we get this right. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this has been an edifying debate. I particularly want to salute my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan on the other side of the aisle, who has been attentive to the issue of China trade for a long time and has been an example to many of us, including many of us on my side of the aisle. I must say, though, I think the record needs to be made clear and this resolution needs to be put in context. It is more than a weak exhortation; it is an expression of support for the administration's efforts at a very critical time to challenge China and encourage them to float their currency and liberalize their trading regime. We sent Secretaries over to China to do more than give speeches. They have delivered a very powerful message, and it appears that the Chinese are beginning to listen. But I agree with the people on the other side: more needs to be done. Our message today, Mr. Speaker, is that Congress will not stand on the sidelines while our industrial base is eroded and manufacturing jobs are lost forever. Some adopt the rhetorical convention that criticism of China's trade policies amounts to protectionism. But Adam Smith himself would not have recognized China as a free market bulwark. The term that he would have used to describe China's economic policies is mercantilistic, and mercantilism has no place in today's global marketplace which is guided by a rules-based system where ``beggar thy neighbor'' is not part of the equation. The goal of this resolution today is to encourage the leveling of the playing field in our trade relationship and create fair opportunities for both our employers and our employees. This is a resolution that should ultimately unite Members with diverse districts and diverse philosophical backgrounds. It has drawn support from the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the United Steelworkers of America, and the American Iron and Steel Institute. Mr. Speaker, this is precisely why I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to send a message to the administration, send a message to China, and send a message to the world that we are watching and we are proceeding from here, starting with this resolution, proceeding with hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means later this week, and proceeding from here with a much stronger trade policy that is determined to fight for our industrial base.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules and one of the most distinguished advocates of free trade in the Chamber.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a distinguished advocate of the interest of American workers. (Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers beyond reserving the right to close.

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 the subject of H. Res. 414, the resolution just debated.