Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. I would, and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for raising this issue and leading this discussion tonight. Every August I go back to my district and I take the time to have a series of town meetings, particularly with seniors. And as I went back this August, I attended meetings at senior centers and I went to Labor Day fairs, and when I talked to seniors this was the single topic that they seemed to be focused on. This is the single issue that seems to directly affect their lives almost regardless of their personal circumstances. Seniors were telling me stories, and too many times that plot included skipped doses or the act of cutting pills in half in order to save money on the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. And in my district in northwestern Pennsylvania it is odd, but senior groups have felt obliged to charter buses to drive more than 2 hours to Canada in search of lower drug costs. That is an extraordinary anamnesis, a trip they should not have to be making, and it is just further evidence that we ought to be putting politics aside and trying to get signed into law a prescription drug plan that will protect seniors and relieve them from the expensive prescription drug market where they simply cannot keep up. We have discussed different plans on the floor of the House, but the one thing we can all agree on is no senior should have to choose between buying food and buying their life-sustaining medicines. What I feel comfortable about is that this House has acted and has moved forward a bipartisan plan that offers a flexible and universal benefit that would really address the needs of seniors. We in the House voted to provide a prescription drug plan under Medicare that really meets the needs of seniors virtually regardless of their circumstances, and we did it in the face of rancorous partisan opposition. We embraced a bipartisan model for extending prescription coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. Beyond that, we also all agree that seniors should have the right to choose whether or not they wish to enroll in the prescription drug benefit or maintain their current coverage. The bipartisan plan that we passed is a balanced market-oriented approach targeted at updating Medicare and providing prescription drug coverage that is affordable, available and voluntary. And I credit the gentleman for having played a critical role in designing this plan. This plan provides options to all seniors, options that allow all seniors to choose affordable coverage that does not compromise their financial security. The plan that the House passed would give seniors the right to choose a coverage plan that best suits their needs through a voluntary and universally offered benefit. On the other hand, as the gentleman alluded to, the plans offered on the other side, including the one offered by the Vice President, would shoehorn seniors, many of whom have private drug coverage which they are happy with, into a one-size- fits few plan. The Gore plan seems to give seniors one shot to choose whether or not to obtain their prescription drug coverage under Medicare. They have to choose at age 64 or forever hold their peace. Under that plan, seniors are forced to take a gamble. At 64 they are asked to predict what the rest of their lives will be like. They are supposed to operate on assumptions that may change. And while their coverage may be adequate now, if heaven forbid illness were to strike and their current plan no longer suited their needs, sorry, under the Gore plan those seniors would be out of luck. In my view, the House-passed plan addressed skyrocketing drug costs in the most effective possible way by providing Medicare beneficiaries real bargaining power through private health care plans that can purchase drugs at discount rates. This is a much more effective approach than rote price controls. Seniors and disabled Americans under the plan the House passed will not have to pay full price for their prescriptions, they will have access to the specific drug, brand name or generic, that their doctor prescribes. Our plan provides Medicare beneficiaries with real bargaining power through group purchasing discounts and pharmaceutical rebates, meaning seniors can lower their drug prices certainly 25, perhaps as high as 40 percent. These will be the best prices on the drugs that their doctors say they need, not the drugs some government bureaucracy dictates. But I would say to the gentleman that I am concerned that other plans, such as the one offered by the administration, cannot give all seniors such a sizable discount on their prescription drugs. The CBO reports that seniors will probably see a discount of about half of what our plan offers. The House-passed plan also is designed to allow seniors who have drug coverage to keep it, and help those who do not, get it. No senior will lose coverage as the result of this bill. Under the House plan, we are trying to help millions of seniors in rural areas without coverage to get it and to get prescription drugs at the best prices, and to have the choice of at least two plans. Mr. Chairman, I feel that this plan is the best and the most flexible. And in Pennsylvania about two million seniors who rely on Medicare could choose to reduce their drug costs by enrolling in programs to supplement Medicare. Our plan gives all seniors the right to choose an affordable prescription drug benefit that best fits their own health care needs. By making it available to everyone, a universal benefit, we are making sure that no senior citizen or disabled American falls through the cracks. Mr. Gore claims to offer seniors a choice, but in reality he offers them a selection of one, one plan, Medicare, take it or leave it. That does not seem like much of a choice to me. The House-passed bill also takes steps to modernize Medicare, and I think that is the core difference. The gentleman had asked me what the differences are, and this, to me, is one of the critical ones. We take the first step to reform Medicare to create an independent commission to administer the prescription drug program. Mr. Gore's plan leaves Washington bureaucrats in control of senior benefits. These are the same bureaucrats who have made bad decisions here in Washington about Medicare+Choice plans like, for example, Security Blue in my district. They have not provided adequate reimbursements to districts like mine; and, as a result, we have seen a decline in benefits under Medicare+Choice and Security Blue. I do not think those bureaucrats are the ones that we should be putting in charge of a Medicare prescription drug benefit making critical decisions that will affect not only pricing but also access to benefits for seniors throughout America. Mr. Speaker, I feel that there is a clear choice here. We have advocated a plan that gives seniors real choices, real flexibility, and allows them to customize their benefits to meet their needs. Mr. Speaker, those are the differences that I think are absolutely critical.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, this is a great privilege. Let me, first of all, thank the gentleman from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the distinguished ranking member, who helped me shepherd this legislation through the committee and through the House of Representatives, with the unanimous support of the entire Pennsylvania delegation, because the person we are honoring today really enjoyed a Statewide reputation in Pennsylvania as an advocate of those with special needs. With every handshake, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Gertrude Barber left an indelible mark, reflective of her compassion and caring not only for those with special needs, but everyone. This native of Erie, a community that I have lived in all of my life and which I represent, touched so many individuals. Her special gift and passion was reserved for the mentally disabled, but through that, she touched the lives of an entire community and reached out and touched many people throughout the State of Pennsylvania. For years, she gave all that she had and more, and she asked no less of the community in which she lived. Even when one met Dr. Gertrude Barber just once, that encounter lasted for a lifetime. For these reasons, we as a community have decided to name the post office in Erie, on East 38th Street, the Gertrude A. Barber Post Office Building. I can again proudly say that every member of the Pennsylvania delegation has cosponsored this bill. Dr. Barber died April 29 at the age of 88. During her life, she impacted not only Erie but our entire Nation. Her influence stretched outside of Erie into neighboring counties, States and everywhere in her path. It is inconceivable for Erie to imagine a life without Dr. Barber. There was something about this extraordinary individual that made one think that she would be around forever. To quote the Erie Times, who eulogized Dr. Barber, ``She was a legend whose name and works will be with us for years to come.'' Dr. Barber served more than 2,850 developmentally disabled clients not only in Erie but throughout the State of Pennsylvania. She knew everyone by name, whether it was a client, volunteer, or staff person. She knew about their lives and the challenges they faced and she truly cared. For those of us who visited her in her office and visited her at the Dr. Gertrude Barber Center, we saw that caring very much in action. The disabled children and adults always came first with her. Whether she was walking with the Governor or even a Member of Congress, Dr. Barber would always take the time to talk to her children. After all, they were every bit as important to her and maybe even more so. A member of a prominent and respected family in Erie, Dr. Barber became a special education teacher in 1933. Focusing on a need in our community, she opened the center that now bears her name in 1952. The Barber Center has since blossomed and flourished under her strong and thoughtful and watchful hand. The Center has dramatically improved the lives of the developmentally disabled. The Center has facilities for autistic and Down syndrome children, classrooms, a library, and many satellite sites. It has sponsored adult literacy and adult job training programs. She and her staff have worked with mental health professionals from 33 countries, many coming to see the methodologies and accomplishments of this Center. As Dr. Barber's dream continued to expand, so did the Center. During her 48 years of service, she established many satellite sites throughout Pennsylvania, including group homes in Philadelphia and in Pittsburgh. She started with a small staff, which grew to 60 in the 1970s, and more than 1,650 across the State today. During her lifetime she was recognized by world leaders, including Pope John Paul II, and Presidents Kennedy and Bush. President Kennedy appointed Dr. Barber as a delegate to the White House Conference on Children and Youth. She was also a member of his Task Force on Mental Retardation. She testified many times before Congress about the needs of people with disabilities and mental retardation. National figures sought out her advice, and she gladly guided them. This is the 10th anniversary of the year that the Americans With Disabilities Act was passed by Congress; and in July, 10 years ago, when President George Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law, he invited Dr. Barber to attend the ceremony. Her invitation was in recognition of the work she put into the caring for the disabled. In 1981, she was on the planning committee for the International Year of Disabled Persons and was a delegate to the White House Conference on Education. Not only did Dr. Barber serve on countless local, State, and Federal committees, but she even established a number of local branches of national advocacy groups for people with mental retardation and related developmental disabilities. She founded the Division of Mental Retardation within the Pennsylvania Federation Council for Exceptional Citizens, the Northwest Council for Exceptional Children and, in Erie County, the ARC. She also served as president of the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens, the Pennsylvania Federation Council for Exceptional Citizens, and the Polk State School Board of Trustees. In her honor, scholarships have been established at Penn State University, Gannon University, Mercyhurst College, and the University of Notre Dame. She was one of the most recognized advocates of people with special needs for generations and she made this her mission. Dr. Barber was truly called to her life's work. She dedicated her life to the thousands of children and adults whom others often treated with disregard. She believed strongly in her dream to transform the lives of the developmentally disabled. Her dream was just one small seed planted in the broad fields of life, but she loved it and protected it. She believed in her dream until it grew and blossomed and gave great joy. She proved without doubt that one person, one extraordinary person, can make a difference. In the new testament, Mr. Speaker, Matthew wrote, ``The house fell, for it was not founded upon a rock.'' Dr. Gertrude Barber was the rock on which her centers for the disabled were built and, in fact, she was the rock on which the disability community in Erie and even throughout the United States could lean. Though she has died, her ideals and her goals live on. It is my great honor to sponsor this legislation to name a post office after her. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring a remarkable woman who has taught so much to so many with her message of caring. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) for managing this bill on the floor, and I would also like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), and the ranking member, as I said, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), for their efforts in committee to make sure that this bill passes and becomes a reality. I hope all my colleagues will support H.R. 4625 in recognition of this remarkable woman.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, expanding government prescription drug programs is one way to ensure Americans have access to the medicine they need. Another way is to educate them to make better choices among health care options so that they are able to get the best health care at a fair price. Part of the education process must include a primer on generic drugs. Most Americans do not take advantage of generic drugs and the substantial cost savings they represent because they do not really know the truth about them. The truth is, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration holds generic drugs and brand drugs to the exact same standards. The FDA requires that generics and brands contain the same active ingredients and deliver the same health benefits. The FDA also monitors generic manufacturing facilities to ensure that their drug products maintain high quality and effectiveness. Generics are safe, effective, and more affordable than brand name drugs. Let's do our part to make sure more Americans are aware of the tremendous health care value they can get from generic pharmaceuticals.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the real estate investment trust industry on the occasion of its 40th anniversary. The REIT was created by this very body and signed into law by President Eisenhower on this date in 1960. A committee report issued that year that through REITs, ``small investors can secure advantages normally available only to those with large resources.'' Since then, REITs have lived up to the vision of this institution, making investment in large-scale commercial real estate accessible to people from all walks of life. Last year, I joined several of my colleagues in co-sponsoring the REIT Modernization Act. The law, which will take effect in 2001, empowers REITs to offer the same range of services as private competitors in the fast-changing real estate marketplace. I also want to take this opportunity to commend the industry's trade association, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, which also came into being four decades ago.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the international playing field is titled against our employers and their workers. Without the Foreign Sales Corporation rule in our tax code, the situation will only be made worse--to the point of being intolerable. With the World Trade Organization's ruling disallowing FSC, we face a double edge sword. By refusing to repeal the FSC, the United States will be inviting massive retaliation against U.S. export trade but if we repeal FSC without adopting alternative legislation, our exporters and their employees will be left high and dry. I urge my colleagues to support the Foreign Sales Corporations Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000, which corrects the problems that the WTO had with FSC while protecting American workers. This legislation grandfathers transactions begun prior to Oct. 1 and allows for manufacturing and/or a binding contract to continue under current FSC law until the end of next year. FSC was made necessary only because the U.S. maintains an archaic worldwide tax system which taxes foreign-source income and because the U.S. taxes export income. Allowing FSC to stand or abolishing it will make an already tough global market next to impossible to compete in for U.S. employers. We must act now to avoid putting American workers onto a playing field for which they are not equipped.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in support of this legislation, the presence of which on the floor is a great tribute to the gentlewoman who chairs our subcommittee and the ranking member and their bipartisan effort to help kids. I am delighted to support this legislation, which in my view speaks to a fundamental congressional responsibility, to provide States with the necessary tools to ensure that families leaving welfare are receiving the child support that they are entitled to. Under this legislation, we give families who have left public assistance first rights to any child support arrears that are owed to them, before Federal and State government are reimbursed for costs incurred while the family was on assistance. This legislation speaks to the confusion of the current distribution rules which are complex, simplifying them to make them easier to understand and lower the administrative burden for the States. I think that we can all agree that the staff time used to decipher these rules would be better spent by trying to increase collections. This bill also includes the creation of a fatherhood grant program, an issue we have addressed here on the floor in the past which would work with low-income fathers to promote marriage, encourage them to play an active role in their child's lives, and help them get better jobs. Ultimately, these children benefit not only from the financial support that a noncustodial parent provides but also from the stability of having both parents involved in their upbringing. This legislation is a mammoth step in the right direction in terms of reforming the child support distribution system. I would encourage all of my colleagues to unite in bipartisan support of this important initiative.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security for his fine work and his defense of Social Security and his defense of the legislation we have before us today. I rise to oppose the substitute, because the substitute is a last gasp attempt by the minority to preserve a tax increase that they passed when there was a deficit and when they were in the majority, and it was passed with their votes alone. The trouble with the substitute that they offer is very simple. It is an attempt to preserve this tax on Social Security benefits against the day when it is inevitably going to be shifted back on to the middle class. Why do I say that? It is because they have not indexed their provisions for inflation. They have raised the caps on what this tax is going to apply to, they have expanded the exemption, but at the same time, they have not indexed those changes for inflation. So over time, we are going to experience the same difficulty that we are facing now. The tax will apply to more and more Social Security recipients, and in the end, I think the only solution to dealing with this Social Security tax that they passed is to repeal it outright. If they want to go after high-income Americans and tax them, there are fairer ways to do it than by taxing Social Security benefits because when we tax Social Security benefits, we violate a principle. Mr. Speaker, Social Security benefits should not be taxed. We should leave in place a healthy Social Security system and leave the benefits completely free from taxation. It is a priority, if we are going to preserve the Social Security system in the long term, to make sure that those benefits are tax free. By preserving this surtax, that they and they alone passed, they are attempting to leave the camel's nose under the tent. We cannot allow that to happen. Mr. Speaker, what we are passing today is fiscally sound, it is a recognition of the fact that we are now running gigantic surpluses, and that having run those surpluses, the time has come to roll back some of those taxes that we have imposed on the taxpayer back when we were running deficits. This is common sense legislation; it is one that enjoys broad support, and I hope that we can have bipartisan support not only to pass this legislation, but also to block the substitute which is a last-ditch attempt to preserve this tax.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his advocacy of the Social Security system. Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamental principle that Social Security benefits should be tax free and today, with this legislation, we make essential progress toward restoring that principle. Seniors should not have to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden for the fiscal problems that have existed here in America. Yet under current law, a retired senior with an annual income of $39,600 that includes their savings, a part-time job, and their Social Security benefits, loses $580 that year because of this tax. It is just not fair. With a non-Social Security surplus that is expected to top $2.17 trillion in hard numbers, our seniors should not have to continue to pay a tax that was established in 1993 when we were operating with record deficits. As a Republican, since the other side has made this such a partisan debate, I should point out that I am pleased to vote to roll back the Social Security tax that was imposed with Democratic votes only. Mr. Speaker, this legislation rolls back the tax on Social Security benefits from 85 percent to 50 percent. If we do not repeal this tax, more than 8 million seniors will have to pay an average of $1,180 in taxes on their benefits in 2001. We must also remember that if we do not pass this bill, more and more seniors each year will be forced to pay. The income thresholds built into the current law are not indexed to inflation, meaning that additional people will pay the tax each year and people of more and more limited means. By 2010, at least 13 million seniors would expect to pay an average of $1,359. Now, some on the tax-hungry left, looking to justify their vote against this vital legislation, may claim that we will be bankrupting Medicare by repealing this tax. This legislation requires the money from the general revenue already earmarked for Medicare be increased to max the amount that would be lost by rolling back this tax. With a surplus of the size that we have, this is no time to argue against repealing this reactionary tax. I challenge everyone who purports to be an advocate of Social Security to vote today to remove this anvil from the shoulders of seniors and celebrate the fact that Congress has finally balanced the budget and run a surplus. Vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4923) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the renewal of distressed communities, to provide for 9 additional empowerment zones and increased tax incentives for empowerment zone development, to encourage investments in new markets, and for other purposes.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is truly landmark legislation. I have listened to some of the criticisms from the other side of the legislation and I have been pleased to see the bipartisan character of its support. Every one of the objections that have been raised to this legislation have been before this House in the past and have been set aside. They should not deter us from moving forward and doing the right thing, because this legislation, Mr. Speaker, will place a new emphasis in this House on distressed communities. It will give those distressed communities and their inhabitants the opportunity to participate in our national growth and in our national opportunity. We have an opportunity to move opportunities to where the needs are. That is something that at a time of rising growth and rising tides, we need to make a priority if our society is going to create opportunity for Americans and focus not only on liberty, but also on equal opportunity. Mr. Speaker, in passing this legislation, we will give thousands of low-income Americans a stake in the American dream. And as we do so, we have an opportunity to greenline many of our distressed communities. All too often in the past, our distressed rural and urban communities have experienced redlining, a loss of opportunity for investment. Today, we are creating incentives which would effectively greenline those communities and attract new investment, new jobs, and new opportunity and create new tools to allow local people to design local institutions to their needs. In western Pennsylvania, we have communities in my district like Farrell, Pennsylvania, and some of the neighborhoods even of my hometown of Erie, who could benefit enormously from these new, nonbureaucratic tools. Mr. Speaker, we have passed many tax bills in this House. We have passed a marriage penalty credit, we have passed pension reform, we have passed a taxpayer Bill of Rights, too. We have passed small business incentives and we voted to eliminate the death tax. We have gotten rid of an antiquated phone tax in action in the House and we will be moving soon to repeal a tax on Social Security benefits. We have passed many tax bills in this House. Why do we not today pass a tax bill to provide relief for those communities who all too often have been left behind? In passing this legislation, we are committing ourselves to a vision of a growing prosperous America and creating a land of opportunity where opportunity truly exists for every American. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), one of the authors of this legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). (Mr. LoBIONDO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), a distinguished supporter of this legislation who has given this legislation a strong bipartisan tilt. (Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), chairman of the Subcommittee on Empowerment of the Committee on Small Business. (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), one of the leaders on the Committee on Ways and Means on the issue of brownfields remediation. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) one of the most active advocates of community renewal legislation over the last few Congresses.

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

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 bill, H.R. 4923.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute the chairman and members of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade and to rise in strong support of H.R. 4868, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act. This is good legislation which represents an important piece of housekeeping in our national trade policy. It is legislation which includes numerous noncontroversial trade provisions. This legislation provides for temporary duty suspensions on a variety of products, including environmentally friendly herbicides and fungicides. Frequently, Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to make technical changes to our trade laws to suspend or reduce tariffs on certain products or chemicals which are not produced domestically. This process is done through the voluntary submission of requests to the Subcommittee on Trade by the administration, by Members of Congress, and by the public, which is then vetted through a public comment period. The subcommittee has done excellent due diligence in producing this product. Should any opposition arise regarding a specific trade provision, they set it aside; and they have presented here a consensus piece of work. In some cases, American companies and farmers clearly need products or chemicals which are not produced in the United States. Under those circumstances, it does not make sense for us to apply tariffs in those situations. Since these products are not manufactured in the U.S., and their sale will not harm any domestic industry, it is neither necessary nor desirable to maintain these tariffs on such goods. A temporary duty suspension makes products more competitive and helps reduce costs for the farmers and the consumers who utilize these product or chemicals. I urge my colleagues to support this miscellaneous trade bill. We think that this is an important addition to our trade policy, and our hope is that this Chamber will embrace this legislation and send it forward.