Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a very distinguished advocate of American workers. (Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a distinguished advocate of fair trade.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, sometimes great nations are called on to assume great responsibilities. As the greatest nation on earth, and the target of fundamentalist terror on 9/11, we have been obliged to assume the mantle of leadership in a global war on terrorism. That conflict, for better or for worse, has brought us and our allies into Iraq and Afghanistan. We now have an obligation to support the aspiration of those peoples for a free society and a free economy. Unfortunately, the regimes that have been removed in both countries have left their people in such a wretched position that it requires an active intervention by the U.S. to restore their economic potential. It is our responsibility to help these peoples as much as we helped Western Europe after World War II in the hope they will join us in the community of free nations. The part of this appropriation measure that I wish to speak on is not the military expenditures. There are many of my colleagues who are better qualified to speak on such matters. Today, I rise in support of the social investments and economic assistance which we are offering Iraq and Afghanistan--$20 billion for two countries devastated by decades of dictatorship. This appropriation finances the improvement of water resources and sanitation including drinking water for millions of Iraqis with funds to provide these services to both rural and urban Iraq. This appropriation measure would allow Iraq to restore much of their budget for the critical transportation infrastructure destroyed by war and allowed to deteriorate by a rogue regime. This measure would also provide for the critical investments in civil society necessary to allow Iraqis to restore order, including funds to adequately recruit, train and equip police, border security, civil defense and traffic police. This measure will rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure and put its oil economy back on course. For the record, America did not go to Iraq for oil. But Iraq's vast oil reserves are key to its economic resurrection and a keystone to stability in the region. If these countries are to become bulwarks of freedom, resistant to the influence of Islamic fundamentalism, we need to give the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan the tools they need to put themselves on a sound footing. Iraq in particular has been devastated by decades of dictatorship and U.N. sanctions. I would have preferred to be in the position of a lender, extending to Iraq credits rather than direct investments in order to allow the use of their natural economic strengths and huge mineral resources and put themselves on a sound footing. Yet, so large are the dictator's debts against the limited revenues available, I believe what Iraq needs now is our direct assistance, not the weight of additional IOU's. I hope that the French, Russians and others will also see their way to write down those Iraqi debts that they hold. Until then, we should accept the obligation that springs from being a great nation, a good neighbor, and global defender of freedom to support a prostrate people and give them an opportunity to revive their nation's fortunes. This vote will be one of the most important that I cast. It may be one of the most controversial. But, if America is to truly lead by example, adhere to its principles and assume the responsibility that comes with national greatness while serving our national interests in every corner of the world, then we must make this contribution now, for their sake, for ours and for the sake of future generations.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, sometimes great nations are called on to assume great responsibilities. As the greatest Nation on earth and as the target of fundamentalist terror on 9/11, we have been obliged to assume the mantle of leadership in a global war on terrorism. That conflict for better or for worse has brought us and brought our allies to Iraq and Afghanistan. We now have a fundamental obligation to support the aspiration of those peoples for a free society and a free economy. Unfortunately, the regimes that have been removed in both countries have left their people in such a wretched position that it requires an active intervention by the U.S. to restore their economic potential. It is our responsibility to help these peoples as much as we helped western Europe after World War II in the hope that they will join us eventually in the community of free nations. The part of this appropriation measure that I wish to speak to is not the one dealing with military expenditures. There are many of my colleagues who are better equipped, better qualified, to speak to that. Today I rise in support of the social investments and economic assistance which we are offering Iraq and Afghanistan, $20 billion for two countries devastated by decades of dictatorship. This appropriation finances the improvement of water resources and sanitation, including drinking water for millions of Iraqis. This appropriation measure would allow Iraq to restore much of their budget for the critical transportation infrastructure destroyed by the war and allowed to deteriorate by a rogue regime. This measure would provide for critical investments in civil society necessary to allow Iraqis to restore order. It would also rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure and put its oil economy back on course. And, for the record, America did not go to Iraq for oil, but Iraq's vast oil reserves are key to its economic resurrection and a keystone to stability in the region. If these countries are to become bulwarks of freedom, resistant to the influence of Islamic fundamentalism, we need to give the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan the tools they need to put themselves on a sound footing. Iraq, in particular, has been devastated by decades of dictatorship and U.N. sanctions. Frankly, I would have preferred to be in a position of being a lender, extending to Iraq credits rather than direct loans in order to allow the use of their natural economic strengths and huge mineral resources to put themselves on a sound footing. Yet, so large are the dictator's debts against the limited revenues available, I believe what Iraq needs now is direct assistance, not the weight of additional IOUs. I hope that our allies will see their way to write down those Iraqi debts that they hold. Until then, we have to accept the obligation that springs from being a great Nation, a good neighbor and a global defender of freedom to support a prostrate people to give them an opportunity to revive their nation's fortunes. This vote will be one of the most important that I ever cast. It certainly is going to be among the most controversial. But if America is to truly lead by example, adhere to its principles and to assume the responsibility that comes with national greatness and national interests in every corner of the world, then we must make this contribution now for their sake, for ours, and for the sake of future generations.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of President Bush's steel policy which was implemented in March, 2002, to provide the domestic steel industry with a 3-year safeguard program against a crushing surge of steel imports that had begun in 1998. As chairman of the Congressional Steel Caucus, I have seen firsthand and heard testimony from many steel employers on the extent of the economic devastation that the industry suffered as a result of the import surge. In my view, President Bush took the courageous position to stand up for the steel industry and acted to help restore the steel industry to its competitive footing, something that, unfortunately, the previous administration had not chosen to do. On September 19, the International Trade Commission issued a mid-term review of the 201 safeguard, which confirmed what many of us had predicted for some time, that President Bush's steel policy is working and showing substantial results. In short, the ITC mid-term review of the President's steel policy is a win for the administration and a win for steel employers and workers. Since 2002, we have seen the domestic industry begin a heroic recovery and restructuring of the industry and groundbreaking new labor agreements. Yet critics of the steel program argue that steel consumers have unduly suffered from the tariffs imposed on selected imports, and they have clamored for the elimination of the President's program. In my view, the ITC report quells those critics' voices and shows, demonstrating very clearly, that the section 201 safeguard has had minimal impact on the steel-consuming industries. The ITC report reveals that the domestic steel industry has been doing the right things to get their companies into top shape so they could compete globally. Steel prices have stabilized at a sustainable level after an initial price spike immediately following the implementation of tariffs. This reaffirms the administration's policy and their decision to allow numerous exemptions from the tariff structure. Serious attempts to restructure, reach groundbreaking agreements between management and labor and significant capital investments have been taken by industry, but, frankly, they cannot stop there. The 201 safeguard program must remain in place for the full 3 years and allow the industry to finish what it has begun and truly recover from devastating import surges. Mr. Speaker, this really boils down to jobs. The 201 safeguard has stopped the hemorrhaging of jobs among steel producers, and the ITC report found that steel-consuming jobs have not been put at risk by this policy. Since this most recent crisis in the steel sector began, over 54,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs and over 30 steel companies have had to close their doors. We developed trade remedy laws like the 201 safeguard specifically to help our companies endure unfair import surges like the one that caused this crisis in the steel industry. We must not allow unfair foreign trade to push our steelworkers out of jobs and force more and more of our good-paying jobs offshore. I am pleased that the ITC found at core that President Bush's steel policy is good for the industry, it is good for America, and it is good for America's industrial base. We must remain vigilant and police our markets for the sake of our steel industry, manufacturers, and the entire American economy. I want to thank President Bush for standing up for steel, and I urge him to stick with it.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for all of his efforts on behalf of those who are in the welfare system, and I also thank the gentleman occupying the chair, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for his long and successful efforts to reform the welfare system. Mr. Speaker, since we first overhauled this country's failed welfare system back in 1996, some three million children have risen out of poverty. Today I rise to support this legislation as an important transition to the full reauthorization of those important reforms. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the number of American children experiencing hunger has plummeted to half its number of what it was in 1995. When States and local governments shifted their focus from writing checks to encouraging work, welfare case loads fell by 60 percent, as we predicted. As a result, 3.5 million fewer Americans live their lives in poverty than was the case back in 1995 when this process started. However, some 2 million recipients remain dependent on welfare assistance, and many still do not participate in work or in training programs. While the success of past welfare reform initiatives are inspiring, and give lie to some of the claims we heard when we went through this process made by the other side, it is obvious that more work still needs to be done. The House has passed the right kind of reauthorization of welfare reform boosted by tougher work requirements and reinvigorated work incentives for States and welfare recipients. Full check sanction, marriage promotion, and other enhancements will only make welfare reform more effective. We realize that some have come to oppose this legislation, some that had been listed on the other side of the aisle. But, in our view, we are going to stand fast to see this reform through. Some opponents of welfare reform clearly are trying to run out the clock on this reauthorization so they can turn back the clock to the days of dependence. We will resist their efforts. These opponents of effective social policy have essentially filibustered our efforts to fight poverty and support economic independence for America's poor. I am, Mr. Speaker, very encouraged by the Senate Committee on Finance's recent approval of TANF reauthorization, and I now implore the Senate to work toward final passage of this crucial legislation. We have an opportunity to write a final chapter on welfare reform, the most successful social reform of the latter part of the 20th century. And much of the credit I want to give today goes to the gentleman sitting in the Chair, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the last speaker. Since he refused to yield for a question, perhaps if he could briefly answer a question on my time. I would yield myself such time as necessary, if he will answer that question. The gentleman made in his statement the claim that he knew that the House bill, or we should have known that the House bill, which was far more generous than the instruction provides for as a policy, that provides far more tax relief to working families, that provides much more well-rounded tax policy than is contained in their motion to instruct or in the Senate version, he said that we were in some way culpable because in passing this bill already and acting on this issue already, we should know that the Senate is not going to act accordingly. May I ask the gentleman, how does he know that as a freshman?

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it has been painful for me to sit here and listen to some of the partisan rhetoric, which I think has trivialized a very serious issue. If this is about compassion, the House has already gone on record in a very compassionate way. The issue here, I would suggest to the gentleman from Tennessee, is really one of a more immediate nature, whether his party is going to continue to stand for maintaining a high level of taxation on working families. I am sad to say with this instruction to conferees, they are clearly going on record in favor of more taxes. Mr. Speaker, accordingly, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct the conferees. First, I want to set the record straight and commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Republican leadership for already taking swift and meaningful action on the expansion of the child tax credit in June. My freshman colleague from Ohio may have overlooked the fact that we have already voted on this issue. Contrary to what the minority has been arguing here tonight, the House took clear action on this issue and moved specific legislation forward in order to maximize the number of families that benefit from the jobs and growth plan. The motion to instruct before us actually takes several steps back from the policy that we already adopted in June. It reduces the tax benefits and it reduces the number of working families that would benefit accordingly. The motion, for example, calls for the child credit to drop, to be reduced from $1,000 to $700 after the 2004 election. Now, I have to think that is a coincidence. But under their motion, millions of low- and middle-income families will receive a smaller child tax credit right after the elections. The House-passed bill ensures that the child credit remains at the $1,000 level throughout the decade. That is not only compassionate, it is good tax policy. This is a necessary and, in my view, reasonable element of the House-passed bill because it locks in the Federal commitment to this policy for future years. If we truly support compassionately helping families with the costs of raising their children, then let us extend this policy beyond next year. When debating the jobs and growth plan, I listened with interest to my colleagues on the other side howl that the child tax credit was set to expire in 2004. I was pleased to hear that they expressed such strong support for long-term tax relief. Now I am sorry to see the truth becomes clear. They are singing a very different tune. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct does not eliminate the marriage penalty and the child credit until 2010. Even then it only does so for 1 year. Now you see the tax relief, now you do not. Under the motion, millions of children will be denied the child credit simply because their parents are married. The House-passed bill benefits middle-income families by eliminating the child credit immediately. That is compassion, Mr. Speaker. I want to make one more thing very clear because this has been raised previously. The House-passed bill does not deny the child credit to military families. That is a matter clearly in the record. Military families, including those who are deployed abroad today, are already receiving a refundable child credit and will continue to receive a refundable child credit under the House-passed bill. The motion to instruct would only increase the refundable child credit for some military families by allowing them to take into account tax-free income when they compute their refundable credit. The House- passed bill provides more tax relief to military families because it includes $806 million of military tax benefits. And that, in my view, is something we need to remain committed to in the House of Representatives. These provisions have passed the House on numerous occasions and are awaiting action in the Senate. I believe our tax system imposes too high a burden, not only on our military families, but also working families in places like Erie, Pennsylvania. This imposes a real and substantial social cost. And at a time when we are in an economic slowdown, I think it clearly applies a very substantial economic cost. The House-passed All American Tax Relief Act, which the other side has conveniently forgotten about, proposes a direct solution to the needs of families struggling with the burden of dependence by offering a comprehensive expansion of the child tax credit. The motion to instruct wrecks the House-passed bill. It guts it and it should be defeated convincingly to show that we are still on record in support of relief for working families. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining, and I believe the gentleman has the right to close.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to the debate I am afraid that the speakers on the other side from over and over again overlooked some basic points. First, they talk as if the House had not acted, but the House in timely fashion has acted and has passed a bill to extend the child tax credit to these families. Second of all, we have done what the President asked for and more. And we are now in a position to move forward I think and make a compelling argument to the Senate at a time when the economy is slow that they should be considering, in fact, more relief. And what is more, one of things that I pointed out in my remarks and none of the speakers chose to address on the other side, was the fact that after all, this motion to recommit would effectively cut back on the tax benefits that the House has already chosen to extend. And to put that into context and allow people to judge the relative compassion, to use the other side's rhetoric, let me just suggest the following examples: Under our bill we would extend the $1,000 child credit immediately and for good. But under their proposal in the year 2005, that $1,000 child tax credit would drop down to $700. That is a tax increase on working families after the election. And that is a fact that the other side has not chosen to engage on. That is a very significant tax increase for working families. When you consider that in Erie, Pennsylvania, a cop with three dependents would see his taxes go up or her taxes go up $900 dollars in the year 2005 under their proposal relative to ours. Two young teachers with two very young dependent children would see their taxes go up $600 in the year 2005. I know people in these circumstances. I know people in my neighborhood who have had to face this tax burden and are facing exactly those circumstances trying to raise their kids with limited resources. What this motion to recommit does is force a tax increase on them after the 2004 election. I think that is bad social policy and it is bad economic policy. And I am immensely proud that this House has already gone on record in favor of addressing this issue, has done so eloquently. And I hope tomorrow when we have an opportunity to vote finally on this recommittal motion that the House will clearly go on record opposing this motion to recommit. I thank the gentleman for his eloquence tonight. It has been a great debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), one of my most distinguished colleagues.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is really not being responsive. May I say, I believe the House has adopted the correct policy. What this motion would do is gut that policy and remove some of the tax relief that I believe is essential for working families, particularly those who are the object supposedly of compassion on the other side. Mr. Speaker, I think the important thing to understand here is that the House has already acted. We have already laid out and I have laid out in my remarks exactly what the House position is. The gentlemen are advocating a policy that would roll back that tax policy, and all of the remarks so far have not been responsive to my arguments. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend the votes this evening for H.R. 2309 and H.R. 1533. Had I been able to attend, I would have voted ``yea'' for H.R. 2309. Had I been able to attend, I would have voted ``yea'' for H.R. 1533.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will again yield, I want to thank the chairman for clarifying these points. Let me say that having participated in the process of vetting these two treaties, I believe they have been examined with a fine degree of concern, particularly for their impact on the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. I feel very strongly that what we have here is the best kind of treaty that we can have to expand our economy, open up markets, and allow for trade on a very fair and balanced basis, with transparency and provisions that are very clearly enforceable. So I want to thank the gentleman for his comments and add my voice to the long list of those who are urging that these two agreements be passed to create opportunities, to create good-paying American jobs, and to promote healthy trade relationships with two of our better trading partners.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that as a very important parting shot, because that provides, I think, a greater level of protection and transparency by requiring any changes go through congressional oversight and the full legislative process. I thank the gentleman for his points of clarification.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, that is most reassuring. On another point, if the gentleman will continue to yield, reading the proposal that is before us, can the administration add products to the ISI list as it sees fit without congressional approval and oversight?

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as we have studied this treaty, and as I have talked to people in northwestern Pennsylvania who have had an interest in the results of this trade agreement, I have heard concerns regarding the so-called integrated sourcing initiative. Is it true that this provision can be used to openly transship products from China to the United States duty free?

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

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, unlike any of the speakers on the other side, I was also in the room. I saw what was said. I saw what was implied. And I saw the behavior of the chairman close up. May I say what is embarrassing the House today is not the behavior of the chairman. I think he did what in his judgment was right to proceed with what became a very contentious hearing. What I am very unhappy about is the fact that this resolution has even been brought to the floor. It is an embarrassment to this institution.