Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Ewing Amendment to H.R. 417. This amendment is a vital component to any meaningful campaign finance reform passed by the House today. True advocates of campaign finance reform favor legislation that can survive legal challenge and remain balanced, that is, without unduly favoring one party or ideolgical grouping over another. Many provisions of the Shays-Meehan bill that are most susceptible to unfavorable legal review are those most critical to the maintenance of this balance. The Ewing Amendment fixes this by subjecting the entire Shays-Meehan bill to a rigorous test of Constitutionality. Non-severability is the true test of sincere reform. If my colleagues who support the Shays- Meehan bill really believe in the campaign finance reform package they are touting as the one real reform being debated today, I urge them to vote for this amendment.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Thomas substitute to H.R. 417. This substitute amendment makes meaningful reforms to the current system that are balanced, constitutional and have an actual chance of being signed into law. The banning of foreign soft money improved enforcement ability of the FEC and increased candidate and party disclosure by means of electronic filing and public Internet posting are all much- needed reforms that both parties agree are necessary. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Thomas substitute, because although it is limited in scope, it provides a fair and balanced reform to the current system and has the potential to pass the Senate this year and become law. By contrast with the Shays-Meehan placebo, the Thomas substitute would make changes that would not unduly favor one party or one philosophy over another after facing judicial scrutiny. Unlike Shays-Meehan, the Thomas substitute will not add to the overwhelming advantage that incumbents have over challengers. Shays-Meehan is ultimately an incumbent protection bill. It will reduce competition in congressional elections and further sap the vitality of our political process. Although proponents of Shays-Meehan claim it is the only reform package that has a chance of being enacted, the reality is that the Senate is likely to block the Shays-Meehan bill much as it did last year when a nearly identical measure was reported out of the House. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to send something to the Senate that we have a chance of putting into law this year and deserves to be put into law and deals with real abuses in a very balanced and constitutional way. I urge a vote for the Thomas substitute for all of those who are true supporters of campaign finance reform.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shaw- Calvert amendment. This key amendment requires candidates to raise their money locally thereby aligning constituent and donor interest. 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 is a seminal change that should be coupled with anti-bundling reforms to restrict gaming of PAC donor limits and a requirement that half of a candidate's contributions come from an individual rather than PACs to achieve truly viable reform. In considering campaign finance legislation, we should consider the practical effects of the bill, not the stated intentions of its proponents. By limiting the ability of all candidates to raise money, Shays-Meehan rewards candidate committees with a broad, already- established donor base. Specifically, incumbents, Shays-Meehan is clearly the incumbent protection bill in this debate. Because Shays-Meehan tilts the field to incumbents, this amendment is necessary to help correct this fatal flaw by forcing incumbents and challengers to raise half their money at home and compete on a level playing field. I urge all my colleagues and all true friends of campaign finance reform to vote in favor of this amendment. However, without additional perfecting amendments, I, for one, cannot support Shays-Meehan this evening. And I feel bad about that. I hope this amendment is successful.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to rise in strong support of the taxpayer refund and relief act. Let me say, I have trouble believing some of the arguments I am hearing on the other side. Tax cuts for the wealthy, special-interest legislation. This is much-needed tax relief that provides tax relief for virtually every American household and in many ways and especially for the middle class. For example, it makes the dream of higher education more accessible for millions of students in the struggling middle class. This legislation makes college more affordable by extending tax breaks on student loans, by permitting private universities to offer tax- deferred, prepaid tuition plans, and by exempting the earnings of all tuition plans from taxation. It also eliminates the 60-month limitation on student loan interest deductions. This is critical to college graduates struggling to pay off student loans as they begin their careers, and it extends the tax exclusion for employer-provided tuition assistance. This is important legislation to make education more affordable; yet we have heard the demagoguery on the other side. I hope that my colleagues are persuaded that this is legislation that provides middle-class tax relief where and when it is needed at a time when we are clearly running a surplus, yet setting aside the needed resources to put Social Security on a sound footing and save Medicare. We have done it. It is time for a tax break for the middle class.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), for the opportunity to speak and I congratulate him on his extraordinary tax bill that we bring to the floor today. The Financial Freedom Act of 1999 legislation is a huge step toward restoring the American dream for millions of American families, the rhetoric on the other side notwithstanding. What they do not get is that in a market economy, robust economic growth is the most important catalyst for social justice. A growing economy means greater opportunity for all and greater access for the American dream. The Financial Freedom Act will stimulate economic growth by rewarding savings and investment and reducing the tax burden on the American economy. It does this by reducing all, all, individual income tax rates, cutting the capital gains tax, allowing small business a larger write-off on investments to create jobs and repealing the AMT, the most anti-growth feature in the current Tax Code. Mr. Speaker, it would also benefit communities and industries that have been passed by in the current prosperity. It contains tax relief for family farms and tax relief for our beleaguered domestic steel industry. It also calls for the creation of new American renewal communities in some of our most distressed localities where investment in old neighborhoods and new firms would be greenlined under this bill and low-income residents would be given new incentives to save through family development accounts for the thrifty. Finally, the Financial Freedom Act of 1999, instead of cutting education funding, makes college more affordable by extending tax breaks on student loans, permitting private universities to offer tax- deferred prepaid tuition plans and exempting the earnings of all college tuition plans from taxation. In doing so, it makes the dream of higher education more accessible for millions of students in the struggling middle class. Mr. Speaker, now that the House Republicans have set aside an unprecedented $1.9 trillion for Social Security and Medicare, programs that they looted like Visigoths when they were in the majority. We embark today on an effort to return some $790 billion to the American taxpayer, growing the economy, and creating individual opportunity in the process. This legislation is much needed and well-deserved tax relief for the American people. I urge all of my colleagues to set aside the empty partisan rhetoric and to vote in favor of this important legislation. Strike a blow for a growing economy. Strike a blow for the middle class. Vote for this legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade for yielding me this time. It is a privilege for me to rise in support of this legislation. America has an enormous stake in our long-term relationship with Africa, a relationship which can and must be mutually beneficial. Many will note that our experience in Africa since the colonial period in some respects has been disappointing. Despite our well-intentioned efforts in sending billions in foreign aid to this continent, poverty had over many years increased and economies had stagnated. Yet Africa has recently seen a modest but promising return to economic growth and a growing embrace of economic reforms and market capitalism. We need to encourage this. By opening our markets and looking to Africa as a market for our goods, we can do more to lift Africa out of poverty and help build its economic self-sufficiency while at the same time increasing our exports and creating jobs right here in America. By passing this bill, we can buttress the economic reforms now being embraced by sub-Saharan Africa and stimulate much needed economic growth and investment. The notion of Africa as an export market for America's products is not an exotic one. In the period between 1993 and 1997 in my own congressional district, the city of Erie benefited from $49 million in exports to Africa and the State of Pennsylvania currently ranks in the top 10 States in exports to the region. Our investment in sub-Saharan Africa is a win-win situation that will promote stability in the region, increase economic prosperity and encourage development and growth. I am happy to be a cosponsor of this legislation which I believe is critical in shaping our long-term relationship with Africa.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1802, the Foster Care Independence Act. This is bipartisan legislation that is aimed at one of the most vulnerable populations in our society, children who age out of foster care. This legislation is vital because it provides States with increased funding and gives them greater flexibility to help these children who are faced with decisions about their future, whether it is finding a job or continuing their education. It is important that we help these young adults make the transition from foster care to self-sufficiency. Many of these children when they reach the age of 18 will be balancing a checkbook, paying bills and working for the first time. Under this legislation, States can provide guidance and training to help these children with their newfound responsibilities. In addition, it encourages personal savings by these clients by increasing the savings threshold from $1,000 to $10,000. This amount is assets or savings that foster care children can have while maintaining their benefits. We should encourage them to save to build for their future. H.R. 1802 also encourages States to provide Medicaid coverage to 18- through 20-year-olds who have aged out of the foster care system. This legislation, in a nutshell, is a common sense and compassionate approach to helping these young adults make the transition to adulthood and self-sufficiency. I urge my colleagues strongly to support it. I thank the gentlewoman and I commend her for bringing this legislation as a bipartisan product to the floor of the House so promptly, and I commend the gentleman from Maryland for his seminal role in developing this legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and I read what we vote for, and we are offering this charitable choice amendment to level the playing field for faith-based organizations by giving them the opportunity to compete with other private entities and providing juvenile justice services. Religious organizations we know play a critical role in every community and offer unique ways in dealing with young people's needs. These organizations should have the right to compete for these grants. The charitable choice amendment empowers faith-based organizations to participate in providing juvenile services, but at the same time it guarantees tolerance of the religious beliefs of individuals participating in those programs. It gives the beneficiary of services the right to object to receiving services from a religious organization and find an alternative provider. No recipients of juvenile justice services will be forced to accept services from a faith-based provider. Under current law, any organization who is eligible and receiving a grant from the Federal Government cannot discriminate against a beneficiary because of religious affiliation. And this amendment would apply that standard to faith-based providers, as well. In addition, it clarifies that a religious provider receiving grant money may not discriminate against an employee because of religious affiliation. This proposal respects religious diversity even as it attracts new perspectives for treating juvenile offenders. I challenge my colleagues to look into their heart and support this provision.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to honor President Lee Teng-hui of the Republic of China on Taiwan. President Lee has announced that he will sponsor an aid package amounting to US$300 million for the refugees in Kosovo. He should be highly commended for his leadership. President Lee's generosity should inspire other wealthy nations of the world to open their hearts and pockets to help the war-torn region. Taiwan is a geographically small nation, yet its government and people have large, unselfish hearts. They recognize the need for generosity toward the Kosovars, and they are always more than willing to help the less fortunate throughout the world. President Lee's offer of financial assistance to Kosovo is very generous, and Taiwan should be recognized by the United States and the entire world for this selfless, charitable action.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation. Its time has come. This is legislation that is a seminal first step in ensuring that Social Security's retirement safety net will be there for our seniors when they need it. By putting all of the Social Security surpluses into a lockbox, we ensure that Social Security surpluses are not diverted into new spending or new programs by Congress. Under this legislation Congress could only use non-Social Security surpluses, real surpluses, for spending increases and tax cuts. In effect, it ends the smoke and mirrors of the budget process by not allowing the Social Security surpluses to be invaded. This legislation commits Congress to setting aside $1.8 trillion for Social Security and Medicare over the next 10 years. These resources are an essential component of any viable proposal to rescue Social Security. I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, for many of us who came to Congress in 1994, elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility and reform, it is a source of wonder and considerable pride that America now has something that a generation of national leaders had only dreamt of, and that is a balanced Federal budget. The current surplus is a major public benefit, opening long-term vistas of a debt-free America with a higher growth rate, lower interest rates and a cornucopia of economic opportunity. It was achieved through the disciplined efforts of a fiscally conservative Congress dedicated to reining in Washington's spending counterculture. We now know we can balance the budget, but we can only realize the long-term benefits of a balanced Federal budget if we keep it balanced. This will require changes in the way that Congress appropriates tax dollars. As Members of Congress, we need to look at real budgetary reform which will promote accountability in the appropriations process when we consider how to spend taxpayers' dollars. With this in mind, my friend, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. John Baldacci), and I have introduced House Joint Resolution 9, a proposed constitutional amendment that would provide a line item veto to the President of the United States in his consideration of any appropriation. This is important, bipartisan, and fiscally responsible legislation that deserves the prompt attention of this House. For too long presidents have had to adopt an all-or-nothing approach when considering action on bills containing appropriations. This presents a predicament for them when good policies and necessary investments are overloaded by unnecessary spending proposals. This line item veto has had a long history in the U.S. Congress. The first proposal was introduced in 1876. President Grant endorsed the mechanism in response to the common practice of Congress attaching riders to appropriations bills. In 1938, the House approved a line item veto amendment to the independent offices appropriations bill by voice vote, but the amendment was rejected by the other body. It did not come until 1996, in this reform Congress, that the line item veto act was finally signed into law by the President, and this law became effective in 1997. Unfortunately, after the President first invoked this new authority in August of 1997, the Supreme Court weighed the constitutionality of this law when it upheld a District Court ruling declaring the line item veto law unconstitutional. Those of us who support the line item veto have come to recognize that in order to authorize a line item veto, a constitutional amendment must be passed, and that is why I stand before my colleagues today. My legislation will correct an imbalance in our budgetary process long recognized, permitting a president committed to cutting unnecessary spending to do so surgically, using a scalpel instead of a broad sword. Madam Speaker, the line item veto is a powerful weapon in the cause of fiscal responsibility. It flushes out special interests, pork barrel spending buried in the depths of large appropriations and forces them to be considered individually, on their own merits, in the light of day. It allows a determined chief executive to challenge specific expenditures no matter how powerful their champions of the legislative process. Currently, constitutions in 43 States, including my own commonwealth of Pennsylvania, provide for a line item veto, usually confined to appropriations bills. These constitutions allow the governor the power to eliminate discrete spending provisions in legislation that comes to his desk for his signature. Governors have successfully utilized this power on the State level and it is now time to give this power to the President to cut unnecessary spending. Already, Madam Speaker, this amendment has been endorsed by a number of prominent national organizations, including the National Taxpayers Union, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Citizens for a Sound Economy and Citizens Against Government Waste. More importantly, in my view, the line item veto enjoys broad support from millions of taxpayers who are frustrated by the ponderous size and unbridled waste of the Federal Government. Their call to action deserves to be heard. Madam Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this reform legislation and supporting this important amendment in restoring accountability to the process.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, the headlines are very grim today. We are facing in America a record trade deficit, one that threatens to cut the economic growth rate of this country. This is in the context of an international economic malaise in which unfair trade practices and naked mercantilism have proliferated on the part of our trading partners. What America needs, Mr. Speaker, is not only a stronger trade policy but stronger legal protections put in place to guarantee a level playing field in this challenging international environment. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and six bipartisan cosponsors, the Fair Trade Law Enhancement Act of 1999. This bill takes a broad approach to trade law reform and includes important necessary changes to the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. These reforms are essential if we are going to keep the trade laws effective and relevant to current conditions in a newly turbulent global economy. America's trade laws have long been critically important to U.S. jobs in both the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. These laws form the last line of defense for U.S. industries, which must operate on market- based principles even though their foreign competitors frequently do not, against injury caused by unfairly traded imports. The basic covenant at the heart of U.S. trade policy holds that while America maintains an open market to fairly traded goods of any origin, our trade laws will ensure that our industries and workers will not be subject to injury from unfairly traded imports. Unfortunately, American industry and our working men and women have suffered because we have failed to update these laws even as the world economy continues to change. The trade laws must now be strengthened to prevent unfairly traded imports from undermining our manufacturing and agricultural base. The last general reform of the U.S. trade laws, unconnected to any particular trade agreement, occurred more than a decade ago. In that time, the problems to which these laws must respond have changed considerably, as underscored by the recent Asian and Russian economic disasters and the steel trade crisis that has ensued. It has become painfully clear, for example, that the current trade laws are not capable of responding to the kinds of sudden import surges, causing dramatic and rapid injury, which now seem to be part of the international economic scene. The reforms in my bill are fully consistent with WTO rules and fall into three categories: One, amendments to the safeguard law; two, amendments to the antidumping and countervailing duty laws; and, three, provisions establishing a steel import notification program. The safeguard amendments update the remedy in section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 to make it more effective for U.S. industries trying to deal with damage in import surges. In particular, the amendments conform some of section 201's unnecessarily stringent standards to the more appropriate standards in the WTO safeguards agreement. The antidumping and countervailing duty law amendments would amend Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 in light of some of the new global economic realities and conditions to which those laws must now respond. Some of these changes reverse flawed court decisions that have limited the laws' remedial reach in a manner never contemplated by Congress. Again, the primary focus of these reforms is to eliminate unnecessary obstacles American manufacturers and farmers face in securing relief under current law, and to assure through WTO-consistent means that U.S. firms and workers can face their foreign competitors on a level playing field. Having effective and up-to-date trade laws in place is important to internationally competitive U.S. farm and manufacturing industries, especially the steel industry, where international trade has been more heavily distorted by subsidies, closed markets cartelization and dumping than any other economic sector. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Fair Trade Law Enforcement Act of 1999. These fundamental reforms will help keep a credible and effective deterrent against unfair trade in place into the next millennium, and they deserve enthusiastic support from friends of America's manufacturers and farmers and workers all over.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of the preservation and extension of a very important benefit to all taxpaying Americans. We all know the significance of today, April 15th. And as lamentable as today is for every hard-working American who strives to save income for themselves and their families, there is one component of the federal tax code every citizen should be granted. I am speaking about the tax deduction for interest paid on debt secured by the purchase of a home. Owning a home, Mr. Speaker, has to be, without doubt, the one goal every American shares. And far be it for the federal government to stand in the way of that goal. What better way could the federal government assist with this dream than by granting every American a tax deduction on interest paid on a home mortgage. The benefits of home ownership are many. Most importantly, home ownership strengthens neighborhoods and families. It strengthens neighborhoods in that those who live in a home will also invest in the area in which they live, thereby supporting vibrant and prosperous communities. And owning a home financially strengthens families, especially for parents who work hard to provide for their children. Homes, Mr. Speaker, for families all across this land that live in one and hope to own one, are the greatest institutions our nation can build. That is why I rise today in strong support of, and encourage all members of this body to support, a resolution my colleague, Representative Roukema, will introduce on the extension to every American of a tax deduction for interest paid on debt secured by a first or second home. Home ownership is the backbone of our great nation and must remain a dream within the grasp of every American.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing legislation I sponsored last year that would promote fair competition in electricity markets. Many states have passed or are considering plans to allow customers to choose among competing providers of electricity. Although action on certain aspects of competition should be left to states, the federal government needs to address competition issues as they relate to the Internal Revenue Code. The use of tax-exempt bonds and other tax exemptions granted to government-owned utilities are a significant problem in integrating them into the competitive marketplace. Such exemptions, in the context of competition, subsidize the costs of a competitor, giving it an unfair advantage against all private, tax-paying participants. I believe that if government-owned utilities want to compete in the open marketplace, then they must be restricted in issuing tax-exempt bonds and should give up income tax exemptions on sales outside their traditional service territory. Tax-free financing and exemption from federal income taxes pose no problem to electric competition if, and only if, government-owned utilities limit the use of these subsidies to serving their traditional service areas. My legislation, The Private Sector Enhancement and Taxpayer Protection Act of 1999, addresses these concerns by prohibiting tax- free bonds from being used to finance generation and transmission by government-owned utilities if such utilities choose to compete in open electricity markets. If such utilities elect to do so, any sales outside of their traditional service area should be, like other commercial operations, subject to federal income tax. This legislation will not affect government-owned utilities that do not elect to sell generation or provide transmission in the new competitive marketplace. Since the vast majority of municipal utilities, of which there are more than 2,000, do not generate electricity, this bill will not affect them. This bill does not affect rural electric cooperatives or federal government utilities. My bill attempts to address the issue of large government-owned utilities that want to act like, and compete with, taxpaying entities in the electric marketplace. In a somewhat similar approach, the Administration has addressed the issue in their FY2000 budget proposal. I believe my legislation is a balanced, fair approach to establishing a level playing field for all power companies with none enjoying any special tax or financial advantages. I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding the time. I rise today to applaud the House leadership's decision to bring this bill to the full House of Representatives. I believe that the crisis facing the U.S. steel industry and the lack of an effective response by the Clinton-Gore administration has forced Congress today to take action. I very much regret that circumstances have brought us to the point that Congressional action was necessary. I believe, and I think that many of the parties agree, that it would not be necessary for us to even consider this legislation today if the administration had used all of the tools available to it under current law and consistent with all of our international obligations. I support this legislation. I urge its passage by the full House of Representatives, and I call on my colleagues to stand up for steel. I have come to the conclusion that we need firm legislative action. Passage of H.R. 975 meets the test of addressing the current crisis in the short term and the import monitoring language that would help the U.S. steel industry and its workers discern future import surges while there is still time to prevent unnecessary damage to our economy. I believe that there is additional room for further legislative action in the future. This is a good starting point. Let us be clear on something, Mr. Speaker. This legislation is not protectionism and its opponents are not here truly advocating free trade. The steel market is the most distorted on earth, with our competitors using a welter of preferences and subsidies to wall out their domestic steel producers from competition. America has the most efficient steel sector on earth. But in the current trade climate, our steel producers are at risk because of the predatory trade practices of our competitors. In the face of naked mercantilism, American steel needs help. I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that at this late date the administration and its representatives are actually threatening a veto of this bill and arguing that we should consider other legislative approaches to deal with this pressing issue. I was a primary cosponsor of the Trade Fairness Act, which was recently introduced, and we would have been more than pleased to have had the administration's support while we were advocating this legislation and recruiting cosponsors. This approach is entirely WTO compliant and could not be colored as sending any sort of protectionist signal to our trading partners. Yet the administration was silent on our proposal and declined numerous opportunities to support it or work with Members from both the Republican and Democratic sides of the aisle to offer constructive criticism to strengthen and advance the legislation. What has happened to cause this renewed focus by the administration on the steel crisis? We have put together a bipartisan coalition of over 200 members who are forcing this issue and that is why we are seeing action today.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), a strong friend of steel.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to yield one minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a friend of steel.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), probably the most aggressive leader in this body on this issue and the chairman of the Congressional Steel Caucus.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), a strong friend of steel.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 598. This resolution calls on the administration to act. That is exactly what this issue really boils down to. We in Congress can look at this issue all we want, but without the administration enforcing the laws that we pass, it will be for naught. This resolution is in response to the crisis facing the U.S. steel industry. But it is not just steel. It is not just the 100,000 jobs that are directly related to the steel industry that may be affected by this growing crisis. It is also about the many other industries that may similarly face import challenges that will arise from the financial crises around the world. This issue is not about protectionism. On a level playing field, American steel producers can compete with anyone in the world. The real issue is whether we are prepared to regard with indifference the wholesale dumping of subsidized and devalued foreign steel products into our domestic market and whether our basic industries are allowed to compete in a marketplace with rules, or a Hobbesian state of nature. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution as a means to send a powerful message to our trading partners that Congress will not tolerate predatory trading practices and a strong message to the Clinton administration that the time has come for concrete action to protect American jobs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. 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 resolution, House Resolution 598, now under consideration.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and ask that he be allowed to further yield that time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield all my remaining time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the prime sponsor of this legislation, to close debate.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 589, I hereby give notice that the following suspensions will be considered today: Senate Concurrent Resolution 120, Eney, Chestnut, Gibson Memorial Building; and Senate Concurrent Resolution 83, remembering the contributions of George Washington to the Nation.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

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