Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I was curious to listen to some of the arguments on the other side. They are kind of fascinating to me, because, Mr. Chairman, I served as the first chief of staff for the first woman to ever serve in the Republican Conference in the Pennsylvania Senate. I do not think anyone on the floor of this House has a stronger record than I do of promoting women in high office, and I can tell my colleagues, my old boss got elected at the age of 28 to a State Senate seat half the size of a congressional seat, on a shoestring and without bundling. It is ridiculous to argue that bundling somehow has something to do with few women being in Congress. Quite the contrary. Bundling favors incumbents, and women as challengers would benefit from the reduction in the practice of bundling. In the past, the authors of this substitute have opposed the practice of bundling. Unfortunately, tonight they have chosen to support this widely acknowledged abuse by opposing this amendment, along with many other worthy amendments necessary to perfect this substitute and restore balance to this campaign finance reform proposal. For those of my colleagues who in the past have supported legislation that included anti-bundling provisions, including the Farr legislation, including the earlier Shays-Meehan legislation, my colleagues are already on record opposing bundling. Do not flip-flop tonight. Remember, instead, the statement of Common Cause, which, as of today was printed on their Web site, and I quote: ``Bundling, thus, is harmful because it is a way around the contributional limits for both individuals and PACs. It allows individuals and PACs to get credit from candidates for delivering the kind of big money that the contribution limits are intended to deter.'' Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fundamental reform and it is fundamental to perfecting this legislation. I urge any Member who is serious about campaign finance reform to support it. It is the right thing to do. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the English amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to offer an amendment that speaks to an issue fundamental to campaign finance reform, one that would close a gaping loophole in the existing campaign laws through which a torrent of special interest cash has poured in every recent election. My amendment is a basic reform of the current system and something that the Shays-Meehan substitute unfortunately does not address. Bundling is the process by which special interest groups solicit funds from donors around the country and then deliver the money in large bundles. It is a way of avoiding limits on donations to campaigns. The Center for Responsive Politics identified at least 32 bundles in excess of $20,000 that went to House Members during the 1994 election cycle. The center surveying this practice wrote that bundling is ``as predictable as the sunrise.'' This practice undermines the whole established structure of campaign finance. My amendment simply states that intermediaries cannot engage in this practice. They can only provide advice to individuals about making a contribution. In the past, opposition to bundling was close to a consensus issue among supporters of campaign finance reform. In the past, most campaign finance reform proposals have included some kind of antibundling language; indeed, earlier versions of Shays-Meehan included bundling restrictions. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, to close this terrible conduit for cash. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will keep my remarks brief, but I rise in strong support of the Hinchey amendment. The purpose of the VERA methodology, as I have understood it, is to transform VHA into a fully integrated system of health care delivery that ensures that funding follows veterans. I agree with that overarching goal. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the VA must take into account population shifts and an increase in the veterans population in certain States. But from my perspective in VISN 4 in Pennsylvania, we cannot force these changes so quickly. We need to take into account the fact that the care that veterans receive at their VA hospital cannot be jeopardized in this process. The shifting of funds has already caused many veterans hospitals to reevaluate every dollar spent, and this has resulted in staff buyouts and budgetary shortfalls. With regard to the comments of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), whom I regard highly, I visit my two veterans hospitals on a regular basis and I have put a human face on this issue. As we debate this issue, I think it is important to remember that these veterans rely on the veterans health care system and they deserve the best quality of care possible. Mr. Chairman, I can tell my colleagues that in Pennsylvania the reform that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) advocates are being implemented in our hospitals. But we have a rural veterans population. We need to give the hospitals time to bring the veterans into the system so they can justify their dollars. We need to improve utilization, and we need time to allow the veterans hospitals to do that. To give them that time, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment to prohibit the use of VA funds to implement VERA at this time. The fact is, it is not working, and veterans' health care is at risk.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Today, Madam Speaker, we take up legislation that is freighted with more emotion and ideology than almost any other that this Congress may consider this year. Yet the outcome of this debate will shape our relations with one of the great nations of the world and our opportunities in the world's greatest emerging market. It will play a major role in shaping the economic and strategic geography of the next century, a century which, I believe, will be dominated by American ideals, American innovation and American culture, but only through engagement. Our relationship with China is, obviously, in a difficult phase. We have disagreements of the most fundamental sort over trade, human rights and arms proliferation, and the Chinese Government has been justly criticized for their abominable record in each of these areas. But the proponents of this resolution offer as a blanket solution to these disputes the disruption of normal trade relations with China; in effect, cutting off our growing trade opportunities in the vast emerging market of mainland China, while treating the People's Republic as a pariah on a par with a few rogue nations. Not one of the proponents of isolating China has answered the fundamental question: How will ending normal trade relations address the problems facing Sino-American relations? It will not address the problem of marketing access. Clearly, that is a problem. But the solution to opening up Chinese markets is to negotiate their entry into the World Trade Organization on a liberal basis; it is not ending normal trade relations. Clearly, there is a problem with intellectual property rights. It is intolerable that in the past the Chinese have tolerated piracy within their borders of American products and American technology. But the solution is selective pressure, which has worked recently; it is not ending normal trade relations. Clearly, there is a problem with human rights, and I do not want to minimize this, including political rights and religious freedom. The solution is to promote reform from within China, promoted by contact; not by ending contact. And here I want to quote Wang Dan, the eloquent veteran of Tiananmen Square and of the gulag, who wrote recently in Newsweek that, ``Economic change does influence political change. China's economic development will be good for the West as well as for the Chinese people. China needs Most Favored Nation trade status with the United States, and it should fully enter the world trading system. The terms of that entry must be negotiated, of course, but in any case the rest of the world must not break its contact with China.'' Madam Speaker, in my view, American ideals are infectious. Through engagement we can introduce them decisively to the largest and most important developing nation. I urge my colleagues to look at this issue dispassionately and to vote to continue the engagement that is the sole catalyst for Chinese reform, that will strengthen human rights and build a durable market economy that American products can enter and compete in. Oppose this ill-conceived resolution and ill-conceived policy, not for their sake but for our sake.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a privilege to engage the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), my friend, the subcommittee chairman, in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the subcommittee felt, understandably so, that they had to closely follow the recommendations of the Judicial Conference when deciding on courthouse priorities in this appropriation. As the gentleman is well aware, because we have discussed it at length, the Federal courthouse complex in my hometown of Erie, Pennsylvania, is badly in need of renovation and expansion. Repair and renovation of this courthouse is a strong community priority that enjoys active support by the Federal judges who work there, the GSA, as well as most of our local elected officials. Recognizing that the committee had severely limited funds to work with this year on new courthouse construction projects, does the chairman agree to consider this project for funding for the fiscal year 2000 legislation?

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for all of his efforts on our behalf, for his willingness to consider this project, and I look forward to supporting this appropriation and working with him in the future to make sure that the Erie project goes forward.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) for yielding this time to me. Today the House completes an ambitious project it only undertook last year, the first comprehensive overhaul of the Internal Revenue Service since Harry Truman served in the White House. I rise in strong support of the conference report on the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. It will protect taxpayers by increasing oversight of the agency, hold employees of the IRS accountable for their actions and create a new arsenal of taxpayer protections. These reforms go a long way toward restoring the basic rights of all Americans who deal with the IRS. My colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who more than any other Member of this Chamber is responsible for this package has detailed some of its provisions. The major ones: The burden of proof is shifted; an independent board is created to oversee IRS policies; an innocent spouse provision is added; and new incentives are created to encourage the filing electronically of tax returns which will save millions of dollars for the taxpayers. I also want to note there is an important unrelated truth-in-labeling provision included in this conference report, an important trade provision that will substitute the term ``normal trade relations'' in place of the currently used and much misunderstood ``most-favored- nation'' status with regard to trade. This will go far to improve the accuracy and tenor of our debates on trade issues. Mr. Speaker, this is long-awaited, bipartisan legislation that should be swiftly acted on by both the House and Senate and hopefully receive the President's signature. I rise in strong support of this legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the opportunity to appear here on behalf of this conference report. Let me tell you why I think this is important. I believe very strongly that families who save to put their kids through school, whether it is primary, secondary school, or college, whether it is a private institution or a public institution, should be able to save without having those savings taxed. It is not a big tax break. It is a very important principle that we are beginning to enshrine in the law, and this conference committee report moves strongly forward in that direction. I believe anyone in this chamber who shares that principle and shares that belief should be prepared to support this legislation. It is perfectly consistent, I might add, with tax reform, because this is just the beginning of the kind of tax change and tax incentive that tax reform should enshrine more broadly in the tax code. So we have heard some rhetoric here today from the opposition to this legislation: disgraceful, embarrassing, fertilizer. Mr. Speaker, I am going to leave the fertilizer on the other side of the aisle, and, instead, rise in strong support of this conference committee report that will promote education savings and promote education excellence. This conference agreement will allow tax-free expenditures from education IRAs for elementary and secondary school expenses as well as higher education costs. The agreement would increase the maximum annual amount of contributions for education IRAs to $2,000, which is what it should have been in the first place. One extremely important provision in this conference report addresses the need for tax relief for prepaid tuition programs, an issue that I have advocated since I came to this Congress. I believe that people should be able to use State prepaid tuition programs for postsecondary education without a tax penalty; that we move in the direction of liberalizing the tax treatment of those programs. This legislation will also allow both the contributions and earnings on distributions from qualified State tuition programs to be tax free, provided funds are used for higher education purposes. In addition, private colleges or a group of private colleges may ultimately offer similar prepaid tuition programs. I have long advocated the equal treatment for private colleges and universities. While we still have a ways to go to establish tax equity for these schools, this recognition puts a mark in the law moving in that direction. There are several other important provisions in this conference report, including the extension of section 127, employer provided education assistance through 2002. That in itself makes this legislation worth voting for, even if you do not agree or are not enthusiastic with all of the other provisions. Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation. It may be disgraceful or embarrassing to the other side of the aisle to have this kind of bill coming out under Republican authorship. I can tell you this, I think this moves us in the right direction of making higher education more affordable, of making basic education more easy to save for with a better tax treatment. We are moving in the right direction. I think it will be instructive to see how many people in the end stand up against this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to participate in this debate.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, our tax system hangs like an albatross around the neck of the American taxpayer, stifling savings and productive investment, and arbitrarily punishing or subsidizing activity and making the process of paying taxes nightmarishly complex even for those of modest means. In my view, the time has come to replace our current tax system. But we will never do it unless we overcome the inertia of the legislative process, unless we override the influence of the entrenched special interests who have a stake in the complexity of the Tax Code and who savor gridlock on this issue, and unless and until we force the issue and put everyone's feet to the fire. We propose to do that today. I rise in strong support of the Tax Code Termination Act, legislation that will finally give American taxpayers a solid time line for fundamental tax reform. Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong advocate of replacing our current Tax Code with a system that is fairer, radically simpler, eliminates the bias against savings, and will allow the U.S. to be more competitive internationally. I am prepared to accept the challenge of the gentleman from California to put forward my proposal this year. But replacing the Tax Code will be an enormous undertaking, and the time line for consideration should not be put off one more day. I challenge my colleagues, if they do not believe we can replace the current Tax Code with something simpler and fairer that will meet the needs of the American public, then vote against this bill. If they feel that any tax reform inevitably is going to be an improvement, as I do, vote for this legislation and put our feet to the fire.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means' Subcommittee on Human Resources that will build on efforts initiated in our subcommittee to further strengthen our Nation's child support system. I appreciate that H.R. 3150 provides for a new Federal priority for child support debt. Under our amendment, though, if credit card companies obtain payments from parents who owe past due child support, the companies are required to distribute the payment to custodial mothers, if they surface at a later date, and invoke their legal claim to the money already obtained by the companies. This amendment will protect approximately 150,000 mothers who are owed child support and whose children's father was involved in a bankruptcy. In my view, this is a critical part of closing the loop, offering additional protection to mothers and their children, and making sure that these collections will go forward. I hope this amendment will pass with bipartisan support.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), who more than anyone has put in long years to bring this legislation to the floor. It is a great tribute to him and his efforts. Mr. Speaker, 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. 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 unnecessarily reduce workforce participation and economic opportunity for many Americans whose disability should not bar them from gainful employment. Mr. Speaker, in my view the time has come to empower these Americans to participate fully in the broad emporium of our national economy. I rise in strong support of the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Act. This bipartisan bill establishes a new program that will provide SSDI and SSI disabled beneficiaries with a ticket to a variety of support services, enabling these beneficiaries to reenter the workforce. Private sector providers, known as employment networks, would be established to assist beneficiaries, and the Social Security Administration would contract with program managers to administer the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program nationwide. The program will include vocational rehabilitation and employment services, and beneficiaries would be in a position to choose the service provider that they would like to participate in. This will create competition and improve quality. The Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program would pay employment networks for results, rather than merely for the cost of their services. It also contains a significant demonstration project that allows the disabled to maintain their benefits while earning more at work than allowed under current law. Right now, we have a situation which I consider obscene. Once a Social Security disability beneficiary reaches an income level of only $500 a month, all of their cash benefits are cut off. This has the effect of retarding workforce participation by recipients and punishing hard work and ambition among some of our most vulnerable citizens. Under this bill, Social Security would be required to conduct a demonstration project to study the effects of replacing that income cliff with a $1 for $2 withholding of benefits for earnings at the current cutoff level. Instead of a cliff, it would be a slope, and we know intuitively that more people would be able to participate. This is balanced and much-needed legislation that finally begins to address the needs of disabled individuals who want to work, but are discouraged from doing so by a variety of irrational roadblocks. I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern with new IRS regulations that undermine competition in the evolving electricity market. The regulations, which became effective in February of this year, greatly expand the role of government-owned utilities as provider in the electricity marketplace. These regulations harm competition and reduce federal, state and local tax revenues. In response to these new regulations, I am introducing legislation today to help remedy this situation. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues, Rep. William Jefferson and Rep. Phil Crane, both distinguished Members of the House Ways and Means Committee. This legislation would stipulate that government-owned utilities that choose to sell beyond their service territory will be denied the use of tax-exempt debt and their general income tax exemption to support their electricity sales. In an era of evolving competition, there is no place for such government subsidies which not only harm the federal treasury but displace state and local tax revenues as well. To deal with the dilemma that has arisen with respect to this issue, I want to clarify what my legislation will do as well as what it will not do. First, the legislation deals only with government-owned utilities that are selling excess electric generation outside of their service area. To put that in context, there are approximately 2,200 utilities in this nation that are owned by state or local governments. My bill will impact less than 30 of these government-owned utilities, those with excess generation capacity who chose to sell to persons other than their historic customers. My legislation will help level the playing field between government- owned electric utilities and all other electricity suppliers in the new competitive marketplace. The legislation, however, will not affect the vast majority of government-owned utilities. As I mentioned earlier, less than 30 large, aggressive utilities that want to sell electric generation outside of their service territory will be affected. My bill will not affect federally-owned utilities such as the Bonneville Power Administration nor rural electric cooperatives. Most importantly, it will not affect the vast majority of bonds issued by local municipalities which serve legitimate governmental purposes (such as police, fire, hospitals and other services) which benefit persons who reside in the service territory. If a government-owned utility wants to compete in the open electricity marketplace, then they must give up their use of tax-exempt bonds and give up their income tax exemptions on sales outside of their historic service territory. Mr. Speaker, let me note that my bill will in no way affect the ability of a municipality to annex new service territory and engage in growth consistent with state rules and regulations. And finally, let me state that my bill will in no way affect existing tax-exempt bonds or current bond holders.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, while I salute the intention of the authors of this legislation, I rise to strongly oppose this bill, freighted as it is with unintended consequences. This legislation would put our foreign policy and our trade policy on auto pilot to be dictated by an unelected bureaucrat in the bowels of the State Department. It would insert America into a surprising range of domestic policy disputes in Muslim nations where Shihites suppress Shunites, or vice versa, in Germany, in France, in Greece, in Turkey, Mexico, even in Egypt and Israel. But most importantly, Mr. Chairman, if we are to pursue the dubious course of using clumsy, unilateral trade sanctions indiscriminately to change the domestic policies of our trading partners, why is it that under this bill we would restrict our ability to export to offending nations but not their ability to export to the United States? This bill would increase our trade deficit. And in the end, the only human rights that this legislation is certain to affect is the right of many American workers to earn a living. Vote it down. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3806, the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act. Like every American, I am committed to continued U.S. leadership on religious freedom. But, I am deeply concerned that this bill--however well intentioned--could backfire badly. In addition, I am deeply worried that a one size-fits-all strategy, based on using unilateral U.S. sanctions to promote Christianity and religious freedom, could put American interests and security at risk. If implemented, this legislation could impose U.S. sanctions over such longstanding allies as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Great Britain, Mexico, Greece and Germany. This bill could also oblige us to impose U.S. economic sanctions on the world's key emerging powers--China and Russia. U.S. sanctions could be profoundly destabilizing from the standpoint of ensuring continued global peace. Scenario 1: Should the United States impose economic sanctions of Saudi Arabia--a key ally--because it has put down a riot by Iranian Shiites who are on pilgrimage to the holy sites of Mecca? Scenario 2: Should the United States sanction Israel, because it has imprisoned Hamas terrorists who engage in violence against the innocent in the name of Islamic fundamentalism? As Members of Congress, we need to look long and hard before we push America into each and every religious conflict through unilateral economic sanctions, which history shows can backfire on American interests.