Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. In my district in western Pennsylvania, most working families and retirees depend on Social Security as the keystone of their retirement security. These families are clearly at risk because of the grim shadow of looming bankruptcy that has fallen on Social Security, casting doubt on its long-term viability. The collapse of Social Security is not immediate, but it is inevitable without major changes in the program, changes that will become more draconian the longer they are postponed. We in Congress have a fundamental responsibility to move quickly and decisively, free of cant and partisanship, to place Social Security on a sound financial footing. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3546, legislation to establish a national dialogue on Social Security and a bipartisan panel to design long-term Social Security reform. Under this legislation, a national dialogue would be convened to engage the American public through regional conferences and through national internet exchanges in understanding the current program, the problems it faces and the need to find solutions that will be workable for all generations. In addition, a bipartisan panel would be created to design a single package of long-range Social Security reforms to restore the solvency of the system and maintain retirement income security. The process of Social Security reform created in this bill is the best hope to yield, through engagement of the American public, a solution which restores the long-term viability of the Social Security retirement system in a manner beneficial to every generation and every class. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill as the first step on the path of fulfilling our obligation as trustees and custodians of a system that has literally transformed the face of poverty among older Americans.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that acknowledgment. I would like to associate myself with the gentleman from New York, as a friend of Africa, who supports this legislation that establishes a transitional path from development assistance to economic reliance for sub-Saharan African countries committed to economic and political reform. Sadly, the story of sub-Sahara Africa in the past few decades has too often been one of economic decline and stagnation, fostered by statist economic policies too often imbedded by the perverse design of well- intentioned international aid programs. In recent years, this grim vista has given way to mild regional economic growth. This legislation would promote further growth by creating new incentives for economic reform and by bolstering free economies and free institutions. H.R. 1432 develops a partnership between the competitive U.S. private sector and the creative sub-Saharan African private sector to help stimulate growth in Africa, while increasing economic opportunities and jobs back home. This legislation establishes a cooperative forum between our countries to facilitate high-level discussions of bilateral and multilateral trade and investment policy initiatives. The bill extends GSP benefits to those countries eligible to participate in the bill for the next 10 years. On top of that, quotas on textile and apparel projects from Kenya and Mauritius are eliminated after these countries adopt a visa system to guard against transshipment. There is very strong language in this bill to protect the American economy against transshipment. These provisions will not, as has been argued on the floor of this House, lead to a surge of apparel and textile imports into the U.S. that damages American workers. In fact, given that these imports account for less than 1 percent of total imports of such goods, removing the tariffs and quotas would only increase these imports by less than another 1 percent. The import- sensitive products, as determined by the ITC, would be excluded from duty-free treatment altogether. This legislation would create 200,000 new jobs in Africa, without significant job loss to the U.S. economy. It would reduce the dependence of this poverty-wracked region on direct U.S. financial assistance. I urge its passage.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3130, legislation that will improve child support collection efforts and at the same time save many States from facing a draconian penalty. H.R. 3130 builds on the child support provisions that were included in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act that completely revamped our welfare system. Our new welfare laws ensure that children receive the support that they are due on time and in full by achieving three major goals: By establishing uniform State tracking procedures, by taking strong measures to establish paternity, and funding and ensuring tough child support enforcement. Our new welfare laws enable States to track deadbeat dads who flee across State lines. States will now have directories of new hires with information used to establish paternity, modify and enforce support orders and reduce fraud, and at the same time State information is now being transmitted to the Federal Parent Locator Service for data matched with other States. Cracking down on deadbeat dads has been a priority. Our commitment is strengthened even further through the legislation we are voting on today. We need to recognize under a 1988 law, States face the termination of almost all of their welfare funding if they fail to meet certain deadlines, including October 31 of this year, to implement automated data processing systems for child support collections. This devastating penalty will occur in at least 16 States under current law, including my home State of Pennsylvania, if this legislation is not passed. Let us recognize, H.R. 3130 in no way lets States off the hook. Too often in the past Congress has enacted laws that threaten to penalize States for failing to meet Federal requirements, but backed down when it came time to follow through. Today we are not doing that. This bill strikes the right balance by penalizing States that miss the deadline for establishing effective computer systems while ensuring that these penalties are legitimate and balanced and do not hurt the very children we are trying to help. In my view, the bipartisan Child Support Performance and Incentive Act before us today protects children by improving child support payment requirements and at the same time protects States by creating an alternative penalty system.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think it arises out of the justified pride of the authors, but I do not think we need to really define here the nationhood of Puerto Rico. The real issue before us is Puerto Rican self-determination. I strongly support the underlying bill, H.R. 856, which would allow us to move forward and allow Puerto Rico to make a strong and clear decision on its own destiny. Since the founding of our Nation, the concept of self-determination has been a central value of how we define ourselves as Americans and what we expect of other nations. As our Nation has grown, we have championed these values abroad. Today, we ask the developing democracies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to empower their citizens. We demand similar rights for communities like Taiwan and Tibet where the national right of self-determination has been challenged. We confront those nations like North Korea and Cuba that actively repress the natural right of self-determination by their own citizens. I believe that we must now extend this same principle to Puerto Rico, a territory of the United States since 1917 and a commonwealth since 1952. As a commonwealth, the citizens of Puerto Rico exist in political twilight. They are not incorporated as a U.S. State and are not represented in Congress as such. But, they do not exist as a separate nation either. The U.S. flag proudly flies over San Juan and its citizens have fought alongside of us in war. Today, the U.S. House of Representatives has an historic opportunity to express how much we appreciate the rich and positive contributions by the citizens of Puerto Rico. I sincerely believe we are a better nation due to their presence. To show our gratitude and our respect, we must pass H.R. 856. The legislation provides a non-biased, three-way ballot allowing the residents of Puerto Rico to choose between the current commonwealth status which is not permanent or to move towards independence or statehood. It is important to note that this bill does not create a self-executing process towards statehood. I also want to emphasize that the U.S. Congress would be the ultimate authority in deciding whether to ratify a possible choice of statehood by the citizens of Puerto Rico. I join House Resources Committee Chairman Don Young and the bill's bipartisan list of cosponsors in support of the referendum since it serves the national interest and begins the end to Puerto Rico's ambiguous territory status. Historically, the United States has advanced democratic self-determination procedures in its territories on terms acceptable to the U.S. Congress. The referenda enabled the residents to achieve the equality of full citizenship, through either statehood or independence. Since World War II, Congress has fulfilled this responsibility with respect to the Philippines, Hawaii and Alaska, but not with respect to Puerto Rico--the largest and most populous U.S. territory. Much confusion and misinformation has been deliberately raised by the bills opponents in hopes of dooming its passage. If you listen to the opponents of H.R. 856 and those who oppose a fully self-governing Puerto Rico, they would have you believe that this bill is a vote on statehood. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chairman Don Young, the primary author of the bill, went to great lengths to make any change in Puerto Rico's political status gradual and subject to terms acceptable to Congress. As the United States strives to uphold the responsibility of being a beacon of democracy, we must undo the last vestiges of colonialism. After 100 years since Puerto Rico joined us in association, the United States should let the people of Puerto Rico exercise the liberty and independence of decision that our flag represents. The time to do the right thing is now. We cannot forget that 3.8 million citizens--the residents of Puerto Rico--have second-class status within our democracy. I call on my colleagues to support H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, and to respect the rights of the people of Puerto Rico.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, just quickly, that is not the sort of partisan advantage I would seek, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, if the opponents of this resolution are successful, it will indeed have a chilling effect. It will have a chilling effect on efforts to open up and provide sunshine into every area of government, because the issue before us is basically a sunshine issue. Every supporter of open government and public accountability should be prepared to support this resolution. This is about the illegal efforts by some in the current administration to draft a sweeping and radical health care bill in secret. Operative word: In secret. Whether one likes the legislation or not, it is problematic that the task force that is referenced in this resolution had meetings closed to the public. They proceeded cloaked in a shroud of secrecy. If one is doing good work and in the public interest, one should have nothing to hide. This issue is also about telling the truth. When that does not happen, the guilty should be punished, not the innocent. Judge Lamberth I think was compelling on this point when he found improper behavior, and let me specifically reference some things from his decision. He said, ``Government's responses were preposterous, incomplete and inadequate.'' Elsewhere he said, ``The court finds clear and convincing evidence that sanctions should be imposed because of the government's misconduct in this case.'' Elsewhere he says, ``It is clear that the decisions here were made at the highest levels of government and that the government itself is, and should be, accountable when its officials run amok. The executive branch of the government working in tandem was dishonest with this court and the government must now face the consequences of its misconduct.'' Finally, Mr. Chairman, Judge Lamberth wrote, ``It seems that some government officials never learn that the cover-up can be worse than the underlying conduct. Most shocking to this court and deeply disappointing is that the Department of Justice would participate in such conduct. This type of conduct is reprehensible and the government must be held accountable for it.'' Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, Judge Lamberth imposed the sanctions on Mr. Magaziner, and this $285,000 punishment, in my view, should be covered by the guilty party, not borne by the taxpayers. This is a very simple issue. If one believes that this outrage should be swept under the carpet, if one thinks that Mr. Magaziner's penalty should be paid by the taxpayers, then by all means vote no on this resolution. If one wants the House to go strongly on record opposing this cover-up and insisting that the taxpayers not foot the bill for Mr. Magaziner's penalty, then I think the Members of this House have an obligation to vote aye. To the opponents of this resolution, whom I very much respect, I would suggest to them, do not change the subject. The ends do not justify the means. If this were a Republican administration engaged in this kind of conduct, I think their outrage would be palpable here.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this legislation before the House today provides valuable support for a growing American economy. The programs that are reauthorized under Senate bill 1139 play a limited, but beneficial, role in promoting the most dynamic sector of the American economy, and that is small business. Mr. Speaker, recent experience with domestic job creation is consistent. Two-thirds of the new jobs created in America are created by small employers. Small business is a critical source of economic expansion across the country whether in inner cities, developing suburbs, or rural areas. The entrepreneurship of small employers is a critical source of economic opportunity and growth in communities throughout America. Today millions of small firms and risk-taking individuals are building the economy of the next century, the economy that our children will inherit and will provide their link to the American dream. The programs under the Small Business Administration that we are reauthorizing today will not by themselves create the American economy of the future; however by linking small businesses to sources of credit and technical assistance, the SBA has the potential to nurture entrepreneurship and promote more successful business starts and expansions. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the enactment of this legislation. While this Congress continues to have an aggressive agenda of encouraging small business growth through regulatory reform and tax relief, this legislation guarantees the continuation of limited, targeted, programmatic support for small businesses by the Federal Government. As a member of the Committee on Small Business, I am acutely aware that the SBA still has a long way to go to realize its potential as a strong advocate and clearinghouse for the small business community. Nevertheless, it is important that we continue the agency's successful programs, such as the Small Business Development Centers in order to encourage job creation and job retention in the most dynamic and competitive sector of America's economy.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, this year, one of my constituents, Peg Dumbaugh, is retiring as president of the Butler Area School District School Board. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to her fine work not only during her 4 years on the school board, but during her many years of service in the Butler Area School System. In November 1993, Peg Dumbaugh was elected to the Butler Area School Board for a 4-year term, and she was uniquely qualified to fill the position. For some years, she has been a former high school English teacher in the Butler school system, and had been the faculty adviser for the school newspaper, the Skyliner. After leaving the classroom, she has jointed the Butler Area School District's administrative team as Coordinator of School-Community Relations. During her tenure in that position, Mrs. Dumbaugh had initiated the Distinguished Graduate project, which each year recognizes an outstanding graduate of the Butler Area School District. One of the most notable of these distinguished Butler graduates is Dr. William J. Perry, our former Secretary of Defense. Finally, upon retirement from the school system, Mrs. Dumbaugh did free-lance work in journalism for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, among other things covering Butler Area School District school board meetings. With this rich background of diverse and relevant experiences, Peg Dumbaugh became one of the nine elected members of the Butler Area School Board overseeing a school system that is the 21st largest school district out of the 501 school districts in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Butler Area School District covers 150 square miles, with an administration office building, 14 schools, nearly 9,000 students, and with a budget for the 1997-1998 school year of over $58 million. During Mrs. Dumbaugh's term as a school director, the Butler Area School District implemented a $4.8 million instructional technology plan; introducing foreign language instruction and computer keyboarding in the junior high school curriculum; introduced Latin and Japanese foreign language instruction in the intermediate high school curriculum; and put together an excellent school supervisory and management team. And at a time when school buildings all over the country are struggling with structural problems, leaking roofs, and faulty plumbing, the Butler Area School District during Peg Dumbaugh's tenure has completed five renovation and expansion projects, is now completing a sixth, and has four more scheduled for spring of 1998. This, Mr. Speaker, is good management. Perhaps Peg Dumbaugh's most significant contribution to the school district as a school director comes through her 4-year chairmanship of the board's Policy and Legislation Committee. As chair of this committee, Peg Dumbaugh guided the district through a complete and very much needed revision of its policy manual, ensuring that school district policies were consistent, well-documented, and uniformly enforceable. But what is not so obvious in a simple recounting of Peg Dumbaugh's accomplishments as a school director is the quiet and thoroughgoing dedication that she has brought to everything she has done. As an elected school board director in a job that pays absolutely nothing, Peg Dumbaugh has spent literally thousands of hours working for the benefit of the Butler Area School District. She has had the kind of quiet dedication that we really are speaking about when we speak of values--to dedicate yourself to the task, to thoroughly do your homework, to quietly and consistently demonstrate the courage of your convictions in situations where others would cave in to the pressure of special interest groups, and to do all of this without asking, but what's in it for me? As a Butler Area School District director, Peg Dumbaugh has personified what we all wish for in the education system--the unwavering determination to provide a quality education to every student.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on Thanksgiving this year, the New York's Macy's parade will step off, headed by a band from Pennsylvania's 21st District. The Butler High School Golden Tornado Marching Band is the proud representative of the Butler Area School District, and the community of Butler. The community, located 40 miles north of Pittsburgh, supports the band with over $84,000 in new uniforms, 10 buses, 2 equipment trucks, and a van to transport the band to its performances. The band, led by Mr. Vincent James Sanzotti, has four directors, a dance team advser, and a twirler adviser. They provide not only the technical skills, but that important, intangible ingredient of leadership and inspiration that are so necessary to success. Mr. Sanzotti and his colleagues are privileged to work with the youth of Butler. This year the band has 367 young men and women in its ranks. Day in, day out, these kids practice, and practice hard. That determined work has paid off with a long, winning tradition. The Golden Tornado has won a slew of first place awards in competitions and parades over the years. It has even been featured in four different Pittsburgh Steelers performances. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the Butler Golden Tornado Marching Band, and the fact that they will be leading the Macy's parade. Our televisions often carry stories of youths in trouble. On Thanksgiving Day our television sets will show 367 Butler teenagers who are making music, not trouble.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. It is stunning, but the IRS is the only place in the American system of law where a citizen is guilty until proven innocent. Traditionally, the taxpayer, when notified by the IRS that his tax payments failed, in their view, to satisfy his tax obligation, carried the burden of proof in demonstrating that his tax payment is accurate. The presumption is for the IRS and against the taxpayer. In my view, this is just plain wrong. This legislation addresses that issue. This legislation, which is based on the recommendations of the Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Oversight, creates 28 new taxpayer rights essential to restoring to the individuals a sense of fairness in their dealings with the IRS. In my view, the most important of these is a shift in the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS in any court proceedings where factual information is disputed. Let me be clear about this. The taxpayer is still required to cooperate. The taxpayer is still required to provide the information which is in the taxpayer's control. But those taxpayers who do cooperate and who provide all the necessary information see a shift back in an appropriate way in the burden of proof. From my standpoint, this will dramatically restore fairness in this situation. Also, H.R. 2676 creates an independent citizen board to hold the IRS accountable for change. The IRS sees a variety of new taxpayer rights, including a right to sue the IRS for negligence, a right to know when you are being audited and why, and expanded rights for citizen spouses. This legislation is so important to move us forward to change the system, to change the IRS in a way that I think is very fundamental. I support this legislation. I am excited about it. I appreciate the chance, Mr. Speaker, to rise in support of it.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in response to the last speaker, I would point out that Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote that, ``A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.'' I think President Clinton must have meditated on Emerson when he recently flip-flopped on reforming the Internal Revenue Service. Although the Clinton administration originally opposed IRS restructuring, the President wisely sacrificed consistency and jumped on the bandwagon of the IRS reform bill developed by the Committee on Ways and Means. Building on the recommendation of the bipartisan Kerry-Portman Commission, this reform legislation would overhaul IRS management by placing the agency under an independent oversight board. It would expand taxpayer protections by enacting 28 new taxpayer rights, including the right to sue for negligence, to collect legal fees, to be notified of the reasons for an audit. For the first time, taxpayers in advanced IRS proceedings will be considered innocent until proven guilty. This IRS reform bill is essential.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as the Japanese Government continues to systematically deny Japanese consumers fair and competitive access to America's Eastman Kodak Company's film and paper products, it is critical to maintain pressure on the administration to resolve this case. This case has far-reaching ramifications for our Nation's export potential. With that in mind, I respectfully submit the following article outlining the importance of a positive resolution of this case for my home State of Pennsylvania. [From the Harrisburg Patriot News, Oct. 17, 1997] Kodak's Difficulties Reveal Japan's Trade Barriers (By Clifford L. Jones) In the current and continuing congressional debate over foreign trade, the issue foremost in everyone's mind is the assurance that as trade barriers fall, they must fall equally for every trading partner. American workers, American companies are not afraid of competition, but we must insist on fairness in foreign markets. Unfortunately, one of America's long-time trading partners continues to stick its thumb in the eye of American business. Japan continues to insist on tilting the playing field in their favor. That practice must be brought to an end, if not by Japan then mandated by enforcement actions by the World Trade Organization. And, if the World Trade Organization refuses to act in the face of blatant disregard for fairness in the marketplace, then America must rethink its actions in trade matters. In a few months, the World Trade Organization, the international arbiter of free and fair trading, is expected to settle a dispute that could affect every family in Pennsylvania. The United States government has charged the Japanese government with systematic denial of fair and competitive access to Japanese consumers by America's Eastman Kodak Company. Although this case involves photographic film and paper, it could just as easily have been brought on behalf of chemicals, telecommunications, agriculture or medical technology. There is a growing list of American industries thwarted by Japan's regulations which effectively protect Japanese business from foreign competition. This case is important to all Americans, not just for Kodak employees, because exports are increasingly vital to our nation's economic well-being. By expanding sales of American products overseas, we create new jobs, higher incomes and a better standard of living at home. If the United States wins this case, other companies, including many in Pennsylvania, should find it easier to enter the Japanese market. The United States has brought a fundamental challenge to the Japanese way of doing business. For 30 years, Japan has sought the benefits of lower tariffs to create new overseas markets for its own goods while firmly establishing restrictions on the entry of American products into its marketplace. For three decades, through three rounds of international negotiations, the Japanese government has promised and, yet, refused to eliminate major trade barriers. It has replaced formal trade barriers with a complex series of laws and regulations. In fact, after the first round of negotiations in 1967, the Japanese Cabinet stated that it would be a ``basic necessity'' to protect domestic industry from foreign competition. Kodak's on-going problems with marketing in Japan are indicators of the difficulties encountered by most U.S. industries as they attempt to compete fairly in Japan. In the last three decades Kodak has invested significant resources in the Japanese market and yet Kodak has managed to secure a market share nowhere near what it is in every other market in the free world. Something, quite obviously, is wrong. Kodak's market share is not the result of Japanese preference for domestic brands. Most Japanese consumers simply are unable to find Kodak products in stores. Unlike Japanese makers of photographic paper and film with totally free and fair access to the U.S. market, Kodak is able to reach only a small percentage of the market in Japan. Unbelievably, Japan has consistently refused to even discuss this situation with the United States, one of its staunchest allies. Common sense tells us that if trade barriers fall, foreign firms should capture a larger share of the market. In other countries when governments have honored their commitments, to free trade, Kodak's share has risen. This has not happened in Japan. The Kodak case is also important to our relationship with such East Asian nations as China, Taiwan and South Korea, all of whom are following to some degree the Japanese model of export-led growth in combination with a protected domestic market. If the United States case is successful, it will send a firm warning to other nations that they, too, must honor their commitments to free trade--or suffer the consequences. Recognizing the historic nature of the case the European Union is supporting the United States before the World Trade Organization. I believe that the evidence supporting Kodak is overwhelming and there is only one reasonable conclusion. Let's hope for the sake of U.S. industry and for American workers that the World Trade Organization arrives at that conclusion. Such a determination will have the additional benefit of calming many of the congressional fears over proposals for continuing America's and the world's march to free trade.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in my area of northwestern Pennsylvania one of the biggest challenges facing the middle class is the affordability of education, and this is something that affects middle-class families across a range of circumstances. It is the single biggest barrier to the next generation being able to penetrate through and achieve the American dream. Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of educational tax relief for all stages of schooling, I rise in strong support of this legislation, the Gingrich-Coverdale approach with education savings accounts for private and public schools. This legislation allows parents to establish a tax-free savings account to be used for a child's education at any school from kindergarten through high school on to college. This legislation will expand the education savings account provisions included in our tax bill of this year by, first of all, increasing from $500 to $2,500 per year the maximum amount of contributions that can be made to an education savings account; second of all, to include elementary and secondary school expenses; third, to allow corporate entities as parties to be able to contribute to an ESA on someone's behalf. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in supporting this legislation to renew our commitment to helping families afford the full range of educational expenses demanded through our children's lifetimes. There are no, to coin the term of the previous speaker, ``college boy sophisticated games'' here. This is tax relief that a broad range of families can access. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I realize the left wing of this body hates this proposal. They think that any resources that are diverted into private institutions, even through tax-free accounts, is a use of public funds. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my Democrat colleagues, ``Folks, it is not your money.'' Mr. Speaker, if people want to send their kids with their resources to private or parochial schools, they should be able to through this tax-free account. This is critical to diversity in education, and it is critical to restoring the American dream. I realize this provision was originally in our tax bill and it was stripped out because the President threatened to veto the entire tax bill if this was in the bill. Mr. Speaker, today I want to say to the President, Go ahead, make our day. Veto this bill if you think it is bad for families to use their own resources to put their kids through school.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on the eve of Taiwan's National Day, I wish to pay tribute to President Lee Teng-hui of the Republic of China. This first democratically elected head of state in Chinese history has recently led his country through major constitutional reforms and visited several Central American countries in his effort to shore up diplomatic support for Taiwan. In addition, President Lee has announced that Dr. Jason Hu, Taiwan's top diplomat in Washington, will become Taiwan's new Foreign Minister. I believe Dr. Hu is the right person to help President Lee win more international friends in the months and years ahead. Even though Taiwan is a major political and economic power in the world, it hasn't received proper international recognition. In his new position as foreign minister, Dr. Hu will have the right platform to tell the world why Taiwan deserves a much louder voice in the international arena. Best wishes and good luck to both President Lee and Representative Hu.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, making education affordable, whether at the college level or at the primary and secondary level, has to be one of the primary concerns of Congress. Our Republican tax bill adopted this year contained provisions that provided real tax relief for families that were paying tuition. But unfortunately, at the end of the conference with the administration, the administration demanded that key provisions be stripped out or that the bill would be vetoed. Specifically the Clinton administration opposed tax relief for prepaid tuition plans like we have in Pennsylvania and tax relief in the form of a parent and student savings account plus, which would provide up to $2,000 a year for an education savings account with the buildup of interest to be tax free. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the legislation introduced by Speaker Gingrich in the House and Senator Coverdell in the Senate to create an education savings account to make education affordable and make the American dream more accessible. Mr. President, please realize this issue is not going to go away. We will not go away until working families and students get the tax relief they deserve. We are going to push this issue this year.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this tax relief package. In most respects this package is similar to what the Committee on Ways and Means passed last month. It provides significant relief to working taxpayers and middle class taxpayers who are facing the highest tax burden in American history. Many of us who were elected in 1994 came to Congress pledged to reduce the tax burden on middle class taxpayers and people who work for a living. Today we stand on the brink finally of fulfilling that pledge. This will be the first tax cut for the middle class since 1981, and not a moment too soon. This is not as large a tax cut as many of us on the Republican side had originally argued for, but the net tax cut of $94 billion is more than the White House was originally willing to subscribe to. That we have it here today is a tribute to the persistence of a pro-growth, antitax majority in this House which I am proud to be associated with. Our tax cut includes a child tax credit to provide tax relief to families with incomes as low as $18,000; tuition tax relief which makes college more affordable for a lot of middle class families; an expanded IRA to encourage retirement savings; a capital gains tax cut to stimulate growth and opportunity by providing more seed corn for the economy; and I think this is a tribute to the persistence of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] as well, small business tax relief and also tax incentives for home ownership. Mr. Speaker, in summary, this tax package for working families in places like Erie, PA means restoring the American dream and making it a little more achievable. This is a big win for the middle class. Today we are going to hear from the left wing in Congress that this bill is inadequate. They do not want tax cuts. But watch your tax return. If you are a middle class taxpayer, this tax cut is for you.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, briefly, I rise as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and as the former principal tax staffer for the Senate Republicans in Pennsylvania in strong opposition to this amendment. We have to realize that these revenue estimates that are done by the Joint Committee on Taxation are critical to our policymaking and critical for the minority and the majority. There have been 2,000 revenue requests per year heaped on the Joint Committee, and so far they only have the staff resources to process about 50 percent of them. In the last 2 years, we have asked the Joint Committee to assume additional responsibilities in connection with the Line Item Veto Act and unfunded mandates legislation. We adopted a new House rule that requires the Joint Committee on Taxation to analyze the macroeconomic effects of such proposed legislation, and we have added additional responsibilities. The lack of revenue estimates stifles tax policy, it reduces input from rank and file Members. Because, let us face it, members of the tax committee have, in all probability, easier access to revenue estimates from the Joint Committee. Also, I think it is fair to say that this gives the minority a better shot at getting revenue estimates. Let us understand that revenue estimates are important and that a vote for this amendment by reducing access to revenue estimates is a vote against tax relief, in my view. And more importantly, it is also a vote against tax reform, which is something that I hope the Committee on Ways and Means will have an opportunity to take up during this Congress. It will require many revenue estimates because it is going to be extremely complicated. In my view, if any Member of this body strongly supports tax reform, tax simplification, streamlining our tax system, they should vote against this amendment.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2003.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. That is exactly my point, Mr. Chairman. And this should be a good green vote, to vote for this tax act.

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

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Taxpayer Relief Act, legislation that will provide tax relief to people who pay taxes. Under this plan, 76 percent of the tax relief goes to people who make less than $75,000 a year, and over $100 billion of the tax relief out of $135 billion in our bill goes to the child tax credit and education tax relief. Our tax cut plan makes the Tax Code a little fairer, not only by helping families, but also by encouraging economic growth and by creating and protecting good paying American jobs. One of the ways we do this is by reforming the AMT. Now, the AMT is what is called the alternative minimum tax, but it should be called the anti-manufacturing tax. The AMT is one of the biggest tax barriers to the competitiveness of the American manufacturing sector. It penalizes companies that try to invest in jobs and improve their productivity. It directly penalizes companies that create the most desirable jobs in America by taxing companies when they buy equipment rather than taxing them on their profits. The AMT tax penalty directly encourages companies to create new jobs offshore. It is a job killer, stunting new job creation and imperiling existing good paying jobs right here in America. The AMT even hurts the environment. It imposes what amounts to a 22 percent tax penalty on companies that invest in pollution control equipment. Because it does all of these things to companies in a down cycle, the AMT is really the ``kick-them-when-they-are-down'' tax, hitting basic industries and union workers when they are more vulnerable. If we reform the AMT as proposed in this bill, studies have shown that it will increase the GDP growth by 1.6 percent and increase business investment by 7.9 percent. That will allow us to build a high-wage economy for the next century and restore the American dream for millions of working families. If my colleagues care about these things, I urge you to vote for this bill.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of several reconciliation changes contained in the proposed manager's amendment that will be self-executed in this rule. The amendment contains an additional $1 billion in relief for low- income seniors from the cost of their part B Medicare premiums. This change will further strengthen our bipartisan plan to save Medicare. the amendment also provides credible protections for participants in workfare programs. Specifically, it would strengthen minimum wage requirements, clarify the 40-hour work week, and adopt strong nondiscrimination provisions relating to age, race, gender, and disability. It also protects other workers with strong nondisplacement language. The amendment contains other improvements, especially its designation of $100 million to empower states and extend Medicaid benefits for children affected by Social Security eligibility changes. This is a useful and balanced amendment, and I urge adoption of the rule.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Balanced Budget Act, in part because this legislation contains a vital $3 billion welfare-to- work grant program to create a path for long-term welfare recipients to enter the work force. For welfare reform to work, we have to give the States and the localities the flexible tools they need to provide a transition for people to leave welfare, to escape the poverty trap, and to enter the mainstream of the American economy. This program, developed in the Committee on Ways and Means, does just that. Mr. Speaker, the focus of this funding is on areas with the highest concentrations of poverty, unemployment, and welfare enrollment, so resources will be available to those areas with the greatest need. We know we do not have sufficient programs for incentives currently to help welfare recipients with little work experience successfully enter the work force. This program, coupled with the expanded work opportunity tax credit and the new welfare-to-work credit contained in the tax section of our budget, create real opportunities for the able- bodied poor to participate in the productive economy. It will encourage State policy creativity in developing local solutions to move people from welfare to work. There is also a strong workfare provision in this bill. Just to remind the folks on the other side of the aisle, it contains protections for minimum wage. It contains protections for the 40-hour work week, for antidiscrimination legislation, protections for health and safety, protections for nondisplacement and a grievance procedure. To listen to the speeches on the floor this morning, we would think they have not read the bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially those representing depressed urban communities, to support this legislation and provide the assistance their constituents need to get out of the welfare trap.