Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act. Let us be clear what this is about today. The other side says it is for marriage penalty tax reform, but they have opposed it every time it has come up for a vote. They have opposed it today in its purest form when the reform benefits 25 million couples, especially in the middle- and lower-income brackets. We have heard all kinds of excuses from them: It is not the right flavor of reform. There have been no hearings. It will hurt Social Security and Medicare. It is politics, this from the politics free zone on the other side of the aisle. We have heard the beltway excuses. Now let us look at the facts. Thanks to the Republican majority, we have already walled off the revenue for Social Security and Medicare. The fact is that under this bill, one dime of the real surplus outside of Social Security and Medicare, just one dime, will be spent to help those who are unfairly penalized simply because they say, I do. Just 13 days ago, the President stood before us in this very chamber proclaiming that he was for this reform; but this week he is threatening a veto. And the other side of the aisle said they are for it, but today we have heard the excuses. Mr. Speaker, if not now, then when is the appropriate time to use one dime of the real surplus to provide significant tax relief for married couples, including 52,000 couples in my district in western Pennsylvania? Let us be clear on this. This vote will define forever who is for solving this problem and who is against reform. If one is for reform, vote for the bill. Let us understand what is really going on here. Those who are opposed to this commonsense tax reform do not want to pass this because they would rather spend the money on their priorities rather than allow married couples to spend the money they earn.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) has brought a lot of passion to this debate. But I sense that she seems to fear that, in a free and open competition for funds in which religious and other faith-based organizations are playing on a level playing field, the usual suspects may not get all the money. There is no question this fatherhood legislation will bring lots of new organizations into play, most of which have never before received government funding. As long as that competition is fair, what can be wrong with more competition? Let us recognize the major provision of title II is the multicity fatherhood project. Only organizations that have experience in organizing and conducting fatherhood programs and in coordinating with local agencies are eligible for this money. These are very reasonable requirements, directly relating to achieving program success. The committee required that at least one of the projects use the technique of employing married couples who live and work in the service delivery area to serve as role models. Based on our hearings, this innovative approach was judged to hold a great deal of potential for success, and the committee, therefore, wants to test this model through rigorous experimentation. Also in this provision is a clearinghouse which we feel is absolutely essential. If we are going to learn from the experience with fatherhood programs, experience which is already developing, then we need to have a national clearinghouse that will allow that information and that experience to be disseminated to communities that can learn and profit from the example. We urge the rejection of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time in opposition.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to look carefully at this issue. I think it is relatively straightforward. This amendment would vastly strengthen this bill. It would introduce expertise into the evaluation process. In the end, it would bring fathers closer to their children. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I make that commitment absolutely. I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for his support and his thoughtful analysis of this issue, and I would be delighted to work with him and work with the rest of the subcommittee on that point.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment has two parts. First, it requires that individuals who serve on the selection panels created under this act have some background in programs for fathers, programs for the poor, programs for children, program administration or program research. This amendment ensures that only individuals who have professional experience related to social programs evaluate which fatherhood programs should be funded under this act. Second, this amendment encourages the payment of child support by helping fathers with visitation. The intent of this legislation is to select programs which will have the greatest chance of promoting marriage, improving parent effectiveness, and helping fathers with employment. This legislation gives preference to those programs which promote the payment of child support by helping fathers in a variety of ways. My amendment would add one more way to promote payment of child support specifically by helping fathers arrange and maintain a schedule of regular visits to their children. This amendment encourages fathers to have a more active role in their children's lives, both financially and by spending more time with their children. Under this amendment, the real winners are the children. This amendment, I understand, has bipartisan support and has no budgetary impact. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, listening to the debate on this particular amendment on the floor, I am constrained one more time to reread what is actually in the bill on the floor before us that addresses this issue already: ``Nondiscrimination. The provisions of this section shall be applied and administered so as to ensure that mothers, expectant mothers, and married mothers are eligible for benefits and services under projects awarded grants under this section on the same basis as fathers, expectant fathers, and married fathers.'' Mr. Chairman, we have heard some curious arguments today. We do not hear the same arguments applied to other programs such as maternal and Child Health Block Grants, the Women, Infants and Children program, and the Violence Against Women Act. Mr. Chairman, I think the point here is we already have a level playing field. We are not creating a new bureaucracy. This is a very lean program in which the money will go directly to projects at the local level and do so on a nondiscriminatory basis. This program is not being created in isolation. This fits nicely and directly into many of the efforts that are already going on at the local level and also at existing welfare-to-work programs. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment is unnecessary and it overlooks a fundamental reality and that is the benefits from this legislation will go beyond the father by enabling the father to provide help and support for the mother; and most importantly, it will benefit their child by providing two caring, supportive parents active in their lives. This bill, without this amendment, is a solid social initiative. This amendment, I believe, simply muddies the waters; and it should be categorically rejected. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, simply to clarify the point that the language in this bill already provides for nondiscrimination. If I can read from the actual language of the bill that is currently on the floor: ``Nondiscrimination. The provisions of this section shall be applied and administered so as to ensure that mothers, expectant mothers, and married mothers are eligible for benefits and services under projects awarded grants under this section on the same basis as fathers, expectant fathers, and married fathers.'' Mr. Chairman, this is a red herring. There is no issue here. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her path- breaking work on this issue, and let me add for the sake of the gentleman from New York who has now left the floor, it is probably worth noting that neither a minimum wage increase nor health care reform nor welfare reform came to the floor the last time his party was in the majority. But that is beside the point this morning. We have gathered today on a bipartisan basis in support of the Fathers Count Act, a real social reform that I think will add greatly to the quality of life in this country. This legislation takes welfare reform to the next level. It recognizes that since the 1960s, the family unit has been under siege from an intrusive and wayward welfare state. We have seen the breakup of low-income families and a breakup that has led to the rise of a large underclass. This legislation builds on the success of the welfare reform that we passed in 1996 and moves in the direction of reknitting family bonds. This legislation builds support infrastructure to strengthen the institution of fatherhood and provides support for new innovative local community-based programs that address this problem. These are programs that would counsel and mentor low-income fathers; that would promote good parenting practices; that stress the importance of honoring child support obligations and point the way for fathers to become effective providers through meaningful participation in the workforce. Let me say that, in my view, this may be one of the most important social reforms that we consider during my term in Congress, and it is one that complements welfare-to-work; that strengthens family and promotes necessary innovation and social policy. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about poverty in America to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). I think it is noteworthy that what he has offered is a requirement that these fatherhood projects provide education on alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, as well as the effect of abusing such substances and information about HIV/AIDS. I think we can all agree that this is a valuable addition to this bill and a valuable addition to this debate. Mr. Chairman, I serve in a district that abuts on that of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), and let me say I am very grateful for his long-standing interest in these issues. He has been, I think, a real leader in the House focusing on these issues for many, many years, and he has been an inspiration to me. Let me just say, in addition, that I think his amendment strongly adds to this bill. I think it gives this bill an additional push and I, for one, strongly support its inclusion in the final language. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to manage the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to this amendment.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, having examined this amendment, I am inclined to agree with it, and I rise in support of it. What this amendment does is it allows more people to participate in welfare-to-work and it allows States to use more funds for welfare-to- work programs for low-income custodial parents who do not receive TANF. This provides greater flexibility to the States. And given that flexibility was the hallmark of our 1996 welfare reform bill, I believe that this is consistent with its spirit. I support this amendment.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the members of The Mighty Eighth who served in the Armed Forces during World War II. They, along with the other armed services, answered the call to defend our homes and our loved ones, and to crush Hitler's dream to rule the world. The Eighth Air Force was our premier fighting outfit. It took the war directly to the heartland of Nazi Germany from bases across East Anglia. America called on them and these brave men answered our country's cry for help--the call to strike out tyranny and injustice. The Mighty Eighth airmen stepped forward from all walks of life. They gave it everything they had--some with their lives, but all with their hearts-- for the freedom we celebrate today. Imagine, if you will, the most horrible conditions. Flying over enemy territory in broad daylight in an unarmored bomber. It is freezing cold, about 30 degrees below zero, your life line is your flightsuit and your oxygen mask. The bombers fly in a tight square formation as a defense against Nazi fighter planes. There is a constant danger of colliding with the other bombers. Now, imagine dozens of Nazi fighters coming from all directions. It had to be terrifying for these young airmen, but they bravely carried on. These are the people who risked their lives for our country and the freedom we now enjoy. From humble beginnings, The Mighty Eighth formed shortly after the United States entered World War II. It included 200,000 people--40 bomb groups, 15 fighter groups, and two photo reconnaissance groups. They hailed from all over the United States including young men from the 21st Congressional district of Pennsylvania. Their mission was to help the Royal Air Force destroy the military and industrial power of Nazi Germany. They were young, patriotic, and inexperienced. They were determined to give the United States the best that they had to give. The faced nearly impossible odds. They were pitted against the German Air Force who were superbly trained and very experienced at destroying everything in their path. The Luftwaffe, as the German Air Force was called, had already devastated most of Europe. During those early years of World War II, they were the shock troops sent against Hitler. They opened a second front against the Nazis, long before the invasion of Europe. They tied-up hundreds of thousands of German troops, manning more than 10,000 anti-aircraft guns. By the admission of Hitler's armaments czar, Albert Speer, the second front ``was the greatest battle lost by the German side.'' Massive air battles followed, involving both fighters and bombers, and more than 26,000 of the Mighty Eighth lost their lives. More than 18,000 were wounded and over 28,000 became Prisoners of War in the valiant defense of our country. Despite the heavy losses they suffered, The Mighty Eighth established the enviable record of never, never being turned back by enemy action. The ferocious war that was waged by the Royal Air Force and the Eighth AAF before D-Day, gave the Allied Forces complete superiority over the Normandy Beaches. They created the conditions that helped lead to the success of the D-Day landings. On the morning of June 6, 1944, some 1,250 bombers from the Eighth Air Force struck beach targets in preparation of the invasion. Throughout the day, all operational Eighth Air Force fighters provided air cover and attacked both road and rail targets. At the end of the war, 90 percent of Germany's infrastructure was demolished. The oil industry was demolished, and the transportation systems were in pieces. With the help of The Mighty Eighth, the Luftwaffe was destroyed! Their exploits added a glowing volume to the chronicles of military history but it came at a terrible cost. What they endured saved the lives of thousands and thousands in the ground forces. They made the invasion of Europe possible. The Mighty Eighth, played a vital role in the elimination of a deadly threat from the Nazi plague. This is the legacy of The Mighty Eighth, many of whom are no longer with us. We honor these aging heroes because they preserved freedom for us, their children and for generations to come.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, it seems axiomatic that every American should have the right to aspire to the American dream. In America, every citizen should have the opportunity to participate in our economy to the extent of their talent or abilities in order to claim their stake in the American dream. Unfortunately, many individuals with disabilities have had the American dream recede beyond their reach, not because of physical limitations, but because of roadblocks created within our system of social services. These artificial barriers unfairly and arbitrarily reduce work force participation and economic opportunity for many of these Americans who want to work. Mr. Speaker, the time has come to empower these Americans to participate fully in the cornucopia of our national economy. I rise in strong support of this legislation, a bill that would empower citizens with disabilities by improving their access to the job market, extending their health care coverage when they participate in the work force, and by selectively liberalizing the Social Security earnings limit. These changes are long overdue and need to be regarded as an initial modest step in the direction of giving those among us with disabilities greater control over their own destiny and ultimately freedom.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Goss- Coburn-Shadegg substitute. This amendment arguably provides better health care quality standards than the Dingell-Norwood plan and better protection for working families by, among other things, including emergency ambulance services in the prudent lay persons standard for emergency care coverage, to ensure that patients are not worried about calling their insurance company before calling an ambulance; by reducing the time limits in expedited cases from 72 hours to 48 hours; by providing broader access to all cancer clinical trials; by providing for a voluntary alternative dispute resolution system, binding arbitration for those who do not want to go to court; by guaranteeing pathology and laboratory services; by creating a panel to establish network adequacy standards, to ensure that each plan has enough doctors in specialties for plan participants; by prohibiting plans from considering FDA-approved drugs or medical devices, experimental or investigational; and by protecting employers from indiscriminately being held liable in lawsuits. Health care access will suffer if employers or even trade unions are exposed to legal liability for providing health care coverage for workers. Goss-Coburn has a commonsense liability provision that holds HMOs responsible, but also caps damages and puts time limits on lawsuits.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, in Pennsylvania in 1998, roughly 10 percent of the population did not have health insurance of any sort, and these were not just the indigent, they were small business people, they were self-employed, people who simply could not afford the premiums. This legislation contains an element fundamental to any balanced debate on health care policy. It would make health care coverage more accessible, not for 160,000, for millions, and, in doing so, blunt the impact of any cost increases that might result from the imposition of health care quality standards. American families are concerned about their health care. We in Congress must recognize that their concern relates to both the quality of health care and its cost. We cannot and we should not address one without the other. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not a poison pill for health care reform, but an essential ingredient to any balanced approach to health care policy. For those of us who support a market oriented incremental approach to improving our health care system, this represents an important step toward the goal of universal access to affordable care.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shaw- Calvert-Gallegly amendment to H.R. 417. This key amendment requires candidates to raise their money locally, thereby aligning constituent and donor interests. I have supported similar legislation in previous sessions of Congress. In fact, during the 105th Congress, I drafted a similar amendment to this one. By requiring candidates to raise 50 percent of their contributions within their home State, we not only give the public a greater voice in elections, but also limit the power of Washington special interests. This change should be coupled with antibundling reforms to restrict gaming of PAC donor limits and a requirement that half of a candidate's contributions come from individuals rather than PAC's to achieve more meaningful reform. In considering campaign finance legislation, we should consider the practical effects of the bill, not simply the promises of its proponents. By limiting the ability of all candidates to raise money, the Shays-Meehan proposal rewards candidate committees with broad, already established donor files. The only committees with that type of donor file are incumbents. Because the Shays-Meehan proposal tilts the field to incumbents, this amendment is necessary to help correct this potentially fatal flaw by forcing incumbents and challengers to compete on a level playing field. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. However, without these additional amendments, I cannot support the passage of Shays-Meehan.