Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, today I will introduce the Medicare Laboratory Services Access Act of 2001. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this important legislation by my colleague from Florida, Representative Peter Deutsch. Laboratory testing is an essential component of the health services we provide to our seniors. The health care needs of Medicare beneficiaries require them to have assured access to the full range of diagnostic laboratory tests. This measure would help ensure that the community laboratories that serve our nation's seniors have the resources necessary to continue to provide life-saving laboratory services. This legislation also seeks to remedy a financial burden imposed by new regulations requiring safe needles and related practices. Laboratory tests facilitate early detection and accurate diagnoses which in turn result in more effective and less costly treatment. As a majority of the currently available tests to diagnose and treat diseases in the Medicare population involve taking and analyzing a specimen--or sample--from the beneficiary for laboratory analysis, health care providers rely on the accurate and timely collection of specimens to ensure adequate diagnosis and treatment. In fact, laboratory tests only account for 1.6% of the total Medicare budget but are used in 70% of medical decision-making. Yet, underpayment for specimen collection currently threatens the ability of community laboratories to continue to provide this much-needed service. In 1984, Congress established a policy to provide for a ``nominal fee'' that was to cover the costs associated with collecting the sample on which a clinical diagnostic laboratory test was performed and paid for under the Medicare program. That fee was established 17 years ago at a rate of $3.00 and has not been increased, even for inflationary factors since that time. Our nation has seen amazing medical breakthroughs in technology while simultaneously the environments in which health care providers work has become more and more regulated. Further exacerbating the pressures on laboratories is that the available population of phlebotomists--the folks trained to draw blood--continues to shrink. The combination of increasing costs, eroding reimbursement levels, fewer available health care workers with a growing population of Medicare beneficiaries threatens the Medicare program's ongoing ability to provide essential laboratory services, especially in rural areas and remote sites such as nursing homes. In January 2001, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) implemented new blood borne pathogen rules designed to improve worker safety. Yet, no additional funds have been provided to implement these requirements. While I fully support new requirements for hospitals and other health-care facilities to identify and provide safer sharps systems as these policies help protect public health, we need to assist laboratories with these additional costs. This legislation would provide a modest increase in the specimen collection fee--an increase that would help offset the costs of these important new regulations and recognize inflationary increases over the past 17 years. The Medicare Laboratory Services Access Act of 2001 increases the Medicare specimen collection payment for FY 2002 to $5.25--the amount the payment would be today had it been indexed annually to the CPI-U. For subsequent years, the bill allows for an annual adjustment based on the CPI-U. I urge my colleagues to join us in the effort to bolster our community-based system of care for Medicare beneficiaries. I am pleased that my bill is supported by a number of national organizations, including the leading providers of clinical laboratory services. Groups endorsing this legislation include: American Association of Bioanalysts, the American Association for Clinical Chemists, the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, the American Clinical Laboratory Association, the American Medical Technologists, the American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science, the American Society of Clinical Pathologists, the American Society for Microbiology, Becton Dickinson, and Quest Diagnostics. This important measure will help ensure Medicare beneficiaries access to the quality laboratory services they need and deserve.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the United States made a commitment to the Andean region, and today we have an indispensable opportunity to renew that commitment. Renewing and expanding the Andean Trade Preference Act will promote broad-based economic development in the region, as well as develop viable economic alternatives to coca cultivation and cocaine production. Beyond that, and very importantly, H.R. 3009 eliminates the U.S. tariffs on the import of tuna from Andean nations. The tariffs on tuna are among the highest and most anticonsumer anywhere in our system: 10 percent when packed in water, 35 percent when packed in oil. The irony is, the domestic industry that these tariffs allegedly protect has largely moved offshore. The only major U.S. production center remaining is in American Samoa where StarKist employs 2,700; and Thai Union, a foreign competitor, employs 2,500. It is worth noting that domestic production of tuna totals 30 million cases per year, which is only two- thirds of the U.S. demand, so we expect to import a significant amount of our tuna. Mr. Speaker, clearly no dumping of tuna in U.S. markets will occur as a result of this legislation and no operational capacity will be shifted out of American Samoa either. The western tropical Pacific is and will remain the best tuna fishing grounds, and StarKist has made it clear that they are prepared to pick up any job losses that might result in their competitor facility. Given these economic statistics, U.S. trade policy during the last 8 years has supported reducing tuna tariffs. Ironically, Ecuador, which is not part of NAFTA or CBI, is still facing these high tuna tariffs, whereas the participants in those agreements are not. Yet Ecuador is the only nation in all of Latin America and the Caribbean to be certified by the U.S. Department of Commerce as being in compliance, as ``dolphin safe'' and in compliance with the eastern Pacific tuna conservation measures. Environmental groups active on the ``dolphin safe'' issues support the inclusion of this legislation. To quote the Earth Island Institute, the leading environmental group on dolphin-safe fishing, ``By reducing tuna tariffs for Ecuador, Congress can reward that country for their efforts to protect dolphins. Furthermore, by reducing tuna tariffs, Congress can provide incentives to other nations to protect marine mammals.'' Contrary to some allegations that are made here, including tuna in this bill will not adversely affect the job situation in the United States. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, the original ATPA agreement ``does not appear to have had an adverse impact on or have constituted a significant threat to U.S. employment.'' This is a win-win for us. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill and move it forward as an important part of our commitment to our partners in Latin America.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, today Representative Karen Thurman and I will introduce legislation that takes a key step toward addressing an issue of fundamental importance to our nation's retirees. Achieving a stable retirement income is a challenge being faced by a growing number of Americans. Today's retirement savings will become retirement spending that will have to last 20, 25, even 30 years or more. Yet America's personal savings rate has declined over the last decade from 5 percent to less than I percent. In the meantime, Social Security, the traditional safety net for retirees, will be under significant strain in the decades to come as America's retired population doubles. These challenges underscore the importance of Americans personally managing their retirement savings. The legislation we are introducing, The Lifetime Annuity Payout (LAP) act, encourages people to use an annuity to provide retirement income. An annuity is a retirement tool that offers a steady stream of income for life--much like Social Security. The proposal calls for annuity payouts to be taxed at capital gains rates instead of ordinary income rates if the owner of an individual annuity elects lifetime payments from his or her contract. The challenges for retirees are quite real. Actuarial predictions estimate one-fifth of today's 35-year-olds who reach retirement age can expect to live into their 90s. Yet current financial planning models and tax laws often encourage retirees to spend down their assets by the time they reach their 80s. Americans need to receive a substantial portion of their retirement income in a guaranteed stream of income they can never outlive. Traditional pension plans, where the employers assumed all the investment risks and guaranteed workers lifetime income in retirement, are declining. Defined contribution plans are on the rise, but these plans do not always guarantee retirement income for life. Annuities allow retirees to convert all or a portion of their savings into a steady stream of lifetime retirement income. That is why The Lifetime Annuity Payout Act is sound public policy. It provides an incentive for people to use an annuity to ensure their hard-earned savings last throughout retirement, no matter how long they live. This proposal is an important step in bringing our nation's retirement system in line with 21st century challenges. Like any solid retirement plan, our reform efforts must be comprehensive. They should account for accumulated funds in pensions, IRAs, 401(k)s, and other qualified plans. They need to help retirees manage their savings to last a lifetime. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has already taken great strides to reform America's private pension system. The bill we introduce today complements previous efforts to encourage accumulation in qualified plans. The Lifetime Annuity Payout Act will help Americans manage those accumulated funds to provide for a stable standard of living in retirement.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I especially want it thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his extraordinary efforts to move this legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy once said, ``Every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated.'' That is not the case. Mr. Speaker, across the United States thousands of children each day are abused and neglected. According to the most recent statistics, 826,000 children were the victims of neglect and abuse in 1999. That works out to about 12 children out of every 1,000. In Pennsylvania alone, more than 5,000 children each year are the victims of significant negligence or abuse. If you think about it, that is a cumulative burden to our society that is truly massive. It is a massive cumulative burden with multiplying social problems and costs. Mr. Speaker, I know this is not how we wish to be treated, let alone how we wish our children to be treated. The Safe and Stable Families Act of 2001 authorizes funding to protect the Nation's children from that abuse with funding rising from $305 million to $505 million. Under this plan, Pennsylvania will receive at least $13.6 million to support vital programs that give children a safe start, enhancing preventive services for families in crisis, as well as family reunification and adoption promotion service. This legislation provides States with the tools that they need to preserve and support families, promote adoption and provide overall support for children. This legislation is critical because it shows that Congress is committed to ensuring that all children live in safe, permanent and loving homes. Through this legislation we also create a Federal program that will allow local governments to reach out to the children of prisoners, developing outreach or mentoring programs. This bill works to ensure the safety and welfare of children while strengthening and preserving the family. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill so that every child, regardless of race, religion or socioeconomic status, has a safe place to call home, a stable family life and the opportunity to achieve the American dream.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), a strong supporter of this resolution and a strong advocate of American interests in trade. (Mr. OTTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 262) expressing the sense of Congress that the President, at the WTO round of negotiations to be held at Doha, Qatar, from November 9-13, 2001, and at any subsequent round of negotiations, should preserve the ability of the United States to enforce rigorously its trade laws and should ensure that United States exports are not subject to the abusive use of trade laws by other countries.

Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 262.

Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the WTO negotiations in Qatar later this week are going to be enormously important. They are going to create an opportunity to move the world trading system in a direction which will allow us to provide not only freer trade but also fairer trade. We see an opportunity for a new agenda to emerge for the WTO out of this discussion, a new round which we think will yield positive results for America as well as the balance of our trading partners. But as we move forward and see that agenda take shape, it is very important that the United States Congress weigh-in particularly on one issue which should not be included on that agenda and has been long negotiated and long established. Here I am referring to the antidumping code. As we engage in a new round of global trade talks, we do not want to see a reopening of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws which have already been negotiated to a conclusion through the WTO. The history, Madam Speaker, is quite clear on this point. In a previous round, we had an opportunity to negotiate and to compromise, and all parties signed off on an antidumping code that establishes clear parameters by which domestic antidumping protections can be established, administered and moved forward fairly to all parties concerned. We in America have maintained our antidumping laws well within those parameters, and we have every right to do so. We have not only an opportunity but also an obligation to maintain strong laws on the books that allow us to provide for a level playing field for American workers and American companies and insist that international standards be followed when it comes to trade practices. We have an opportunity and an obligation, in short, to police our own markets, and that is all that we have done. I went to the Seattle WTO conclave, which unfortunately did not yield a new round of talks, and at Seattle my role, as part of the official delegation, was to argue against a rising chorus of our trading partners who wanted to reopen the antidumping code, who saw the new round as an opportunity to water down antidumping and countervailing duties, who saw this as an opportunity to open up American markets in a way that would provide us with few options if faced with unfair trading practices. The Seattle Round never materialized, but this weekend we have an opportunity in Qatar to see a new round initiated. Once again, some of our trading partners have come forward. All too often those trading partners, which have a history of having been guilty of dumping on our markets, have been found guilty in the past of having engaged in unfair trading practices as well as some partners who, we suspect, may simply want to muddy the waters, who do not want to go forward on some of the issues that are difficult to them, so they want to reintroduce other issues to slow down the process. So far, the Bush administration has adopted a strong position, and I salute them. They have had the courage to say that the antidumping code has already been negotiated and it should be left off the agenda of the new round. I salute them for their firmness on this point, and I propose that the House, through this resolution, join them in offering strong support for the notion that the antidumping laws should not be included as part of this WTO round. As I said, some countries found guilty in the past of dumping in the U.S. market are desperately trying to reopen the U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws despite the best efforts of the Bush administration. In my view, this would be counterproductive for the United States. I urge my colleagues in the House to take the same bold stance as the Bush administration by supporting this resolution today. I urge my colleagues to put the House on record as strongly opposed to including the antidumping and countervailing duty laws on the agenda of a new WTO negotiating round. This would send a clear and unambiguous message to our trading partners, we will not tolerate unfair trading practices, we will provide a level playing field for our workers, and we will not leave our markets vulnerable to predatory trade practices. Our antidumping and countervailing duty protections are, in my view, absolutely essential for allowing this country to participate in the world trading system; they are important for policing our markets, and they are very important for ensuring that our partners' trade practices conform to the international standards that they have agreed to and that they play by the rules. This resolution moves in the direction of providing better fair trade for American workers and for American companies at a time when we are clearly entering a recession. I hope it will enjoy strong support. It already enjoys strong bipartisan support. I want to thank my colleagues for that. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlemen who have participated in this debate today, because their presence here has highlighted the importance of this resolution in sending a message to the world that the United States Congress feels very strongly that the U.S. needs to have strong antidumping protections, needs to have a strong trade policy, and is fully prepared to take that position and stress it this coming weekend in Doha. I particularly want to thank the American Iron and Steel Institute for their support of our resolution. I want to thank the Steel Caucus, of which I am chairman and of which the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) is vice chairman. I want to particularly single him out for thanks for his participation not only in this effort, but in all of the efforts of the Steel Caucus and his photo finish appearance on the floor today from traveling. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for his wisdom and his institutional memory. He has been a major figure in all of our trade debates of the last few years, and we look forward to his major contribution in the coming days to the trade debates that are before us. I also want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), my friend, who has really been an extraordinary advocate of strengthening the antidumping laws, and I have had the privilege of the working with him on this issue now in two different Congresses. I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio who spoke earlier for giving me the opportunity to correct the record, since he created the impression that this resolution was in some way binding the Bush administration, restricting the Bush administration and the position they might take in the negotiations on the next WTO Round. Nothing could be further from the truth. Madam Speaker, what is fairly clear from the record is that this administration has consistently come out against putting our antidumping laws on the chopping block and negotiating them away. They have consistently been advocates of a stronger trade policy for America. They have been consistently willing to stand up for steel. As chairman of the Steel Caucus, I would like to take a moment right now to thank them for having the courage to stand up at considerable political expense in some circles to themselves and being willing to fight for American steel workers, fight for our basic capacity to produce our own steel. That is so fundamental to us as a strategic asset and our American steel-making capacity, if it survives in coming years, will be much through the effort of this Bush administration. So Mr. Zoellick, when he goes to Doha, will have a strong record as a friend of steel, as a friend of American workers and American manufacturers, and also as a strong advocate of a firm U.S. position when it comes to the antidumping laws. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I think we all look at the trade issue from the perspective of our local communities. I come from northwestern Pennsylvania, from a community with the largest concentration of manufacturing jobs in our entire State, also the largest concentration of export-related jobs in our State. We have seen a winnowing out of this manufacturing capacity. Over the last few months, we have lost permanently 6 percent of our manufacturing base, and that was before the announcement of just a week ago that International Paper is closing a plant that has sustained our community as a major source of jobs for the last 100 years. Madam Speaker, looking at this from northwestern Pennsylvania, we know we have neighbors in need. We know we have workers throughout America who have had good skilled jobs, whose jobs have been at risk; and in many cases, they have recently lost them. Madam Speaker, I imagine many of those workers are at home watching this debate; and I would like to be able to reassure them, send them a strong message, even as we send our trading partners a strong message, that this Congress will not stand by while some of our trading partners try to get us to negotiate away an important part of the trade protections that we are currently allowed to have under international law. Madam Speaker, I urge the passage of this resolution to send a strong, bipartisan message that this Congress is committed to a strong trade policy. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I would like to publicly thank both gentlemen from California for their excellent efforts in this area. Madam Speaker, Shakespeare wrote ``Time's glory is to calm contending kings, to unmask falsehood, and bring truth to light.'' The truth is a powerful foundation for freedom, and it is a powerful weapon on behalf of freedom. I propose that we enlist it in the current conflict in Afghanistan. That is why I rise in strong support of H.R. 2998, the Radio Free Afghanistan Act. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I recognize the need to counter the negative propaganda that the Taliban government is force-feeding the Afghan people. We must let the Afghan people know the truth about the war we are fighting and what the United States is prepared to do to help them as innocent victims of the Taliban regime. The people need to know the truth about the cause and effect of harboring the agents of terrorism. The people of Afghanistan are not hearing our message, but instead are being filled with the lies of the Taliban. This has to stop. We must let them know that the war we are fighting is not with them, but rather with the Taliban, who have been systematically stripping away the common individual's liberties since they came to power. During the Cold War, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) noted, similar radio broadcasts spread information and ideas, including the presentation of the democratic ideal, which proved fatal to the Eastern Bloc. I believe this same tool can be devastating to the Taliban. These radio broadcasts are absolutely essential to this freedom struggle. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the spread of truth and vote in favor of this legislation, because, as we know, only the truth shall set us free.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, but I would like to acknowledge the fine work the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), who just spoke on the floor, has done on behalf of steel. I think there is a need, though, to correct the record. There has been an impression provided here that somehow this stimulus package overlooks the problems in steel, but let us look at the specifics. Bethlehem Steel, which has just declared bankruptcy, under this bill would receive $35 million in AMT relief, it would receive relief on its NOLs, and it would receive benefits from cost recovery reform. They are still trying to pour money, pour capital into improving their facilities. They have to to survive. This would assist them and steel companies all over the country. The gentlewoman from Cleveland had brought up her concern about steel. LTV would receive $46 million in AMT refunds under this bill. They have $1 billion in NOLs hanging out there and they would also benefit from cost recovery reform.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I have listened with growing disappointment to the bipartisan inflection coming from the other side, because I represent Erie County, Pennsylvania. That is my home community, and we have experienced a 6 percent drop in manufacturing employment in the last few months. Just last week, roughly 800 jobs were permanently eliminated. Mr. Speaker, we need to move today not only to retain jobs, but to also encourage new job growth. The alternative being offered by the other side does not really do a lot to help grow the economy. The underlying bill does. That is why I rise in strong support of it. By increasing the opportunities for businesses, particularly manufacturers, to expense their capital purchases for most appreciable property, our bill does just that. Huge additional amounts of business capital investment are going to be necessary to restart the economy. We know that productivity is spurred by investment in innovative capital equipment. The sooner manufacturers can recapture the cost of their equipment, the sooner they will be passing higher wages on to employees, lower costs on to consumers, and create good-paying jobs. I strongly support H.R. 3090 because it encourages an investment in jobs through cost-recovery reform. Businesses want to invest in the most productive capital equipment, but the current Tax Code impairs their ability to do it. The current tax depreciation rules needlessly and haphazardly increase the cost of all productive machinery and equipment, including new advanced technologies. The result is to impair productivity and wage growth. Mr. Speaker, this bill also repeals the corporate AMT, the kick-them- when-they-are-down tax, the tax that is a dead drag on the productivity of the American economy that has been killing America's manufacturing sector. Critics have somehow suggested that this is a giveaway to large companies. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely ridiculous. While it makes good political rhetoric, it could not be further from the truth. The reality, once we get beyond bumper sticker tax policy, is that the corporate AMT is a job killer that has never worked. An economic slowdown, such as the one we are experiencing, increases the number of companies who are adversely affected by the corporate AMT. With a downturn in the economy, the AMT puts employers at a major disadvantage and threatens thousands of jobs. Since I came to Congress, I have been advocating repealing the corporate AMT because it is a dead drag on the growth of the economy, and its elimination is going to lift the entire economy. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we move forward on a bipartisan basis and adopt this stimulus bill so we can give a stimulus to the manufacturing economy and get us back on a growth path.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture for considering this amendment and, through it, the plight of a group of farmers in Erie County, Pennsylvania, in a truly unique situation in the Nation. My amendment rights a wrong that left many of our local farmers holding the bag because of a clerical error by the Federal Government. Last year, the Department of Agriculture ruled that our farmers were ineligible for the Federal Loan Deficiency Program payments because their applications were filled out improperly, notwithstanding the fact that they carefully followed the instructions of the local farm service office. Erie County farmers were told by the Department that they needed to repay the thousands of dollars with interest to the Federal Government. The catch is that the farmers would have qualified for the payments by all understandings if they had simply filled out the forms correctly. This amendment, which was scored by the CBO to cost $2,000, would therefore round to zero. This amendment does not affect budget authority, only outlays, meaning it is clearly not in violation of rule 302(f). This amendment simply waives the debt for those farmers who did not repay the money, while refunding those who have already submitted their payments. We must ensure that not one of our farmers is held responsible for the Federal Government's mistake. The money these farmers received under this program is vital to the local farm community. Agriculture is the number one industry in our State, our region, and in Erie County. Farming is a vital part of our local and national economy, and we cannot allow a clerical error caused by the supervision of the Federal Department of Agriculture to cost many farmers their livelihood and impose on others such a Draconian burden. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the committee for their willingness to work with me to ensure that our local farmers are not punished for a bureaucratic mistake.

Mr. ENGLISH. I thank the chairman.

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

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, during the past 60 years, we have gone to war four times, landed on the moon, seen the rise and fall of the Berlin Wall. During the past 60 years, presidents have been shot and assassinated, computers were invented, presidents resigned and were impeached and the pope was shot. During the past 60 years, we've added two states to the union and amended the U.S. Constitution six times. During the past 60 years, WISR 680 AM has kept residents of Butler County up to date on those events and more, becoming a part of the community in the process. WISR brought visits to Butler County by figures such as First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and presidential candidate John F. Kennedy into people's homes as well as provided an outlet for opinions by local residents. WISR was licensed to broadcast by the Federal Communications Commission on Sept. 26, 1941. It was one of the first radio stations in northwestern Pennsylvania to focus on regional, local and community news as well as broadcast local editorials. It was also the first in the area to develop a local talk radio format. Hosts such as Dave Malarkey and before him Larry Berg offered the community a valuable outlet for the views. The Rosenblum family owned the station for 55 years and the station call letters stand for Isaac Samuel Rosenblum, the father of the station founder, David. As a local, family run station, the station has supported and continues to back countless charity and community events. I join the Butler area community in congratulating WISR for delivering quality news and talk radio to the area for 60 years. As a radio station, WISR was not only responsible for delivering the news but also took on an important role in shaping our community. I hope that the future allows many, many more generations of Butler area residents to learn to tune into to WISR.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, Psalm 71 says, ``Bring to a shameful end those who attack me. Cover with contempt and scorn those who seek my ruin.'' On Tuesday, September 11, war was declared on the United States without provocation. Tonight we rise to accept that challenge which we did not seek, but to which we respond with resolution. We are prepared to defend our soil, our institutions and our peaceful communities. We did not seek this conflict, but we stand fully prepared to finish it and restore justice and peace. To do this, we are prepared to place in the hands of our leadership the full power and resources of the U.S. military and the authority to challenge the evil that has descended this week upon our Nation, wherever it may hide. We as a Nation have not bent in the face of adversity, but we have bristled at the challenge to our freedoms. We cannot allow this challenge to go unanswered. I urge my colleagues to fully support, without qualification, the President and the men and women in uniform as the men and women of our Armed Forces prepare to defend our liberty, knowing that we realize we are asking them to sacrifice much and are confident that they are up to this daunting task.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman not only for giving me the opportunity to speak but also for preparing on short notice this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the evil people who perpetrated the acts of terror this week made no distinction between civilian and military targets and casualties. Under these circumstances, neither should the Tax Code. As many have noted on the floor of the House, the United States is clearly at war; but, Mr. Speaker, this is a new kind of war, one that treats civilian buildings the same way as previous combatants treated military targets. In this war, civilian targets are not avoided by our enemies but are in fact sought out. We already have provisions in the Tax Code which recognize the special risks that our military personnel face in time of war. What this bill does is extend the same tax treatment to civilian victims of Tuesday's attacks. As with military personnel killed in the line of duty, under this legislation we will exempt all individuals who are killed as a result of a military or terrorist act from Federal income taxes. Likewise, we will reduce estate taxes for civilians killed in Tuesday's attacks, just as we do for military personnel. Finally, we will exempt from Federal taxation any compensation or assistance payments victims' families receive from either the airlines or from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mr. Speaker, this is the right thing to do, and this is the least we can do at this moment. In the days and weeks ahead, this House will be called upon to do even more to bind the Nation's wounds, but today we make a good start with this crucial assistance to our friends and neighbors whose lives were decimated by Tuesday's attack.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, we all have heroes in our lives. Whether it's a figure from history such as Winston Churchill or a sports star such as Michael Jordan, as a society we admire these people for their accomplishments. But in our own communities, there also are heroes, whose efforts should not go unnoticed. Corry Patrolman Rodney J. Medeiros, Corporal Michael E. Wieliczko and Patrolman Kevin E. Goode are indeed heroes. In this Erie County hamlet and beyond, they are the people who risk their safety to ensure ours. Responding to what was suspected to be a hostile situation, the three men, who have more than 29 years of service between them, arrived to find an apartment building engulfed in flames. Hearing the desperate cries of frightened children trapped inside, they kicked in a door to help two teen-agers. Learning that two more children--just 1 and 3 years old--remained trapped inside, they again re-entered the flames and smoke to locate and rescue the toddlers. Fearing that more people may be trapped inside the blaze, the men entered the building for a third time until the intensity of the fire forced them out, just as the stairwell was about to collapse, which would've trapped our heroes. These men acted out of not only instinct but out of compassion for others. Webster's Dictionary defines a hero as ``one that shows great courage or an object of extreme admiration and devotion; an idol.'' It also says they are ``legendary figures endowed with a great ability and strength.'' Gentlemen, you are legends. Mr. Speaker, our community recognizes their courage and the sacrifices these men were willing to make in protecting the lives of others. I was honored to attend a ceremony where Mr. Medeiros was presented with the Medal of Honor while Mr. Wieliczko and Mr. Goode were presented with Medals of Valor. These men care enough about their community to dedicate their lives to helping others. I applaud their heroism and dedication. And I join the City of Corry in saying thank you.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of an energy crisis brought on by years of ignoring the potential problems. During the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will increase by 33 percent and the demand for electricity will rise by 45 percent. At this rate, the demands for energy will far outweigh the supply if we do not enact a comprehensive energy plan. With that I urge my colleagues to support the Securing America's Future Energy Act which emphasizes conservation, infrastructure upgrades and further development of traditional fossil fuels. I would like to take a moment and focus on some of the conservation aspects of H.R. 4. This bill provides a tax credit for residential solar energy use, which not only encourages the use of solar energy but it will reduce electric bills and the load on the electric grid. Through tax incentives, H.R. 4 also encourages the development and use of clean cars by increasing technology and reducing costs. Studies indicate that 275,000 alternative fuel vehicles will be purchased because of this bill, reducing gasoline consumption and the effects of greenhouse gases. Conservation is also emphasized in H.R. 4 through tax credits for energy efficient appliances, homes and businesses. Use of super energy efficient appliances in all households would save more than 200 trillion BTUs, which is equivalent to taking 2.3 million cars off the road. If all households upgraded their insulation, electric consumption would be reduced by 7 percent. As you can see, this bill provides valuable tools to promote conservation among Americans. I realize, Mr. Chairman that conservation alone will not go far enough, but neither will drilling. In fact, 37.5 percent of this bill stresses conservation, while 23.8 percent focuses on production and 38.7 percent on reliability. That is why I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4 because it is a well-balanced plan that provides for the future energy needs of America.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, in 1996 Congress provided patients with options to save for their health care needs and manage their own health care needs by creating medical savings accounts. But certain limitations placed on those accounts never allowed patients to fully realize the promise of MSAs. Today, I urge my colleagues to make those accounts permanent and repeal the limitations put on them by supporting this amendment, this pro-consumer amendment. This amendment allows any size company to offer MSAs and also allows individuals to purchase MSAs, giving more people the power to choose the health care professionals, services and products that best meet their needs as individuals. It allows MSAs to be offered under cafeteria plans that will greatly expand the number of consumers that can be reached by MSAs and treat MSAs like other health care plans. Many insurers have been reluctant to offer medical savings accounts because the cap limits the size of the market in which MSAs can be offered. We would repeal that cap. That is fundamentally pro-consumer legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, our relationship with Jordan is a strategic one, and that alone is reason enough for this trade agreement to be desirable. But H.R. 2603 is also a model for how we can pursue a balanced trade relationship with a developing country whose legal system and workplace environment is radically different from our own. This trade agreement with Jordan represents the first free trade agreement with an Arab Nation and will give us closer trade ties to the Arab world. Trading with Jordan will be mutually beneficial and strengthen them as our ally. But Jordan also represents a country that plays a critical role in the Middle East peace process. Beyond that, this agreement negotiated by the last administration provides us with a sensible and balanced approach to addressing blue and green issues in trade agreements, discouraging a race to the bottom by countries seeking to attract investment and lure jobs. This agreement will benefit not only Jordanians, but American workers by creating an export market for high value-added U.S. products in a nation that cannot make these products for themselves. The bill phases out all tariffs during a 10-year period and establishes the first-ever bilateral commitment regarding e-commerce. It also addresses intellectual property rights and the protections for copyrights, trademarks and patents, as well as makes a specific commitment to opening markets in the services sector. But as a truly inclusive trade agreement, H.R. 2603 addresses various labor and environmental concerns. This agreement does not seek to place further labor and environmental regulations on Jordan, but rather, requires that they enforce the law that they already have on their books. Jordan cannot relax environmental standards to attract trade, and they have agreed to fully enforce national labor laws. This agreement provides us with a model, perhaps not the only one, but a very promising one, for engaging in fair trade with a developing country, and I urge my colleagues to support it.