Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment to H.R. 2076 offered by my colleagues, Messrs. Hefley and Solomon. I support the proposed funding level for the programs and administrative expenses of the Economic Development Administration [EDA]. The EDA has effectively operated the Trade Adjustment Assistance Center and maintaining this mutual relationship is essential to continue to protect American workers and manufacturers nationwide who have been severely impacted by foreign imports. I have been a strong advocate of retaining adequate funding levels for both the EDA and the Trade Adjustment Assistance [TAA] program. Over 23,000 manufacturing firms in my home State of Pennsylvania rely on TAA. I was pleased to see that in an era of tremendous fiscal constraint, the Committee disagreed with President Clinton's recommendation to eliminate the program and chose to include sufficient resources to provide strategic protection for our domestic workforce in a competitive world economy. The number of jobs and amount of company sales supported by TAA is impressive, particularly relative to the modest amount of Federal investment. In Pennsylvania, this private/public partnership has resulted in the protection or creation of approximately 6,000 jobs and $485 million in company sales. Moreover, nationwide TAA has resulted in the reinvestment of $742 into the economy (including Federal tax revenues) for every Federal dollar appropriated for the program. That's a solid investment by any standard. I urge my colleagues to protect U.S. manufacturing by continuing TAA funding through the able administration of the EDA. TAA and other services provided by the EDA will allow our companies to compete with imports, and expand into the global marketplace.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment, and let me say I am going to keep my remarks very brief. But I think this is a very significant amendment. By protecting and continuing the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, we will be supporting local historic preservation. In my view, this is extremely important because this is the sort of activity that protects our cultural treasures. We are voting tonight, if we vote for this amendment, for our historical buildings and properties, for our archaeological sites, for our cultural districts, and for a council which has demonstrated that it can be a catalyst for local preservation efforts. May I note that this amendment provides no additional cost to the taxpayers. What we are doing is transferring resources for the bureaucrats to historic preservation, and I think that is very important. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to honor Gerald W. Olson, a distinguished policy officer from Lawrence Park, who is retiring tomorrow, July 14, 1995, after 28 years of outstanding service to his community. Mr. Olson began his career as a part time police officer at the age of 27. In addition to serving on the Lawrence Park police force, he also protected his community as a volunteer fireman. While working to make our streets safer, Gerald is also heavily involved in Little League and American Legion Baseball. A hero can be defined in many different ways. A soldier who is courageous in the face of death on a battlefield, a person who gives selflessly for the benefit of the whole or someone who makes a positive difference in the lives of others. Perhaps the most heroic act is to live your life in a honorable way. Gerald Olson has served his community in many facets and has shown that you can have an impact on the world even if you do so quietly, without the fanfare. He has been a role model to the children of his community and an example to us all.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and as a freshman, to welcome the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] to our committee and to our party, an event so seismic that it has made the minority leader an advocate of minority rights on the House floor, and made the minority leader a reader of the Washington Times, which is extraordinary. Mr. Speaker, I realize that some of the speakers on the other side have tried to stay on message and frighten senior citizens, but what they have omitted and what I would like to say is that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] is qualified, he is a principled advocate of taxpayers, and that is why so many here are opposed to him. He is an effective leader who has a skill that he demonstrated, prior to switching, of working across party lines, and that is something that ought to be learned on the other side. Additionally, they have left out the fact that this ratio is fair, even if it is annoying to the advocates of higher taxes and the opponents of welfare reform. The American people will not be fooled.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 310 and H.R. 313.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to honor David W. Howe, a World War II fighter ace, who is being laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery today. David W. Howe began his flying career in Canada in 1941 when he joined the Royal Air Force. After he completed his training, he was sent to England to fight the Nazis with the Royal Air Force. In 1943, when the United States began looking for experienced American pilots, David Howe became part of the famed American Eagle Squadron. He was a member of a elite group of ``double-breasted'' pilots who wore wings from the the United States Air Force as well as Royal Air Force. As part of the Eighth Air Force, Howe's fighter squadron flew much needed cover for bomber groups attacking German targets across Europe. By the end of World War II, Howe had received the Distinguished Flying Cross with two oak leaf clusters, the Air Medal with 13 oak leaf clusters and a Presidential Unit Citation. Howe flew 117 combat missions and was credited with shooting down nine enemy aircraft and destroying German trains as well as other ground targets. Perhaps what best illustrates the heroism of David W. Howe is the story of an incident that occurred near the end of World War II. Howe barely escaped certain death when a new Nazi jet fighter was in pursuit of his propeller driven P-51 Mustang fighter. Knowing that it was impossible to outrun the German Messerschmitt 262, Howe turned his fighter into a steep dive, gaining needed speed, then abruptly flew under a bridge. The pursuing jet, unable to make the same maneuver, hit the bridge. Howe's superior flying skills and fighting spirit truly make him a flying ace and one of America's finest that ensured the defeat of the Nazi forces. After the war, Howe returned to his wife and family in Erie, PA. Saddened by the number of friends that he had lost in the war, he did not fly for several years. Flying, though, remained his first love and, in 1951, he joined Bell Aircraft and trained to become a test pilot for experimental aircraft. He became the very first American pilot to test a Vertical Takeoff and Landing [VTOL] jet. Because of the unique principle of the aircraft, Howe was forced to teach himself how to fly it. That plane now hangs on display in the Smithsonian Museum at the Garber Facility in Suitland, MD. Howe was a co-pilot of a specially outfitted B-50 bomber carrying an X-2 rocket plane that exploded just under the mother ship's bomb bay in 1953, in a test flight over Lake Ontario. The blast killed the X-2's pilot and a scanner on the B-50. Howe and other crew members fought to bring the big bomber, which was on fire and had lost all hydraulics, back to the base without any further loss of life. The bomber was later deemed beyond repair. David W. Howe passed away on May 22, 1995, after suffering from a massive stroke. Every generation of Americans has been called to send their finest into battle, and at every call, the finest have responded, fully prepared to give their ``last full measure of devotion.'' Many, far too many, have given their lives on the world's battlefields. Many more, like Capt. David W. Howe, have served with extraordinary distinction and were able to return home and continue giving to their families, communities and Nation in ways far too numerous to record. Today, I am thankful that David W. Howe's service continued beyond far away battlefields and touched so many lives in our community. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1590, a bill to require the Medicare trustees to submit to Congress real legislative recommendations that will keep Medicare from going broke. Mr. Speaker, prior to taking office, in my previous career, I served as a public trustee of a major municipal pension system, and in that pension system I felt I had the fiduciary responsibility to preserve that system by recommending certain courses of action. Unfortunately, the Medicare trustees currently have no legal obligation, notwithstanding their moral obligation, to use their expertise to guide Congress in preserving Medicare. The trustees have told us notwithstanding what you have heard on the floor today unambiguously that the Medicare part A fund will go bankrupt by 2002. Now we need the trustees to give us real options on how we can continue to grow Medicare at a rate where we can preserve it for future generations, and also protect the benefits of senior citizens. The Clinton trustees, Donna Shalala, Robert Reich, Robert Rubin, Shirley Chater, have so far refused to offer Congress any real options. This bill would make them do it. Let us vote for it.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of two bills, H.R. 370 and H.R. 97.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time for Congress to make small business stronger and more competitive, and the best way to do that is by passing House Resolution 1215, the Republican tax plan. This legislation will help small business continue its critical role as the largest producer of jobs in our country. The Republican tax plan increases the amount of capital equipment that a small business can expense, doubling it over a period of time to lower the cost of capital equipment, for cost of capital for equipment, used by small business. This assists cash-starved small businesses that need to make strategic capital investments to survive, and it encourages small business growth. What this legislation does is it makes American workers more productive and more internationally competitive. This legislation is pro small business, it is pro worker. It is time we passed it.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest today to this debate, and I found it on the other side to be disappointing. We have heard from a number of people on the other side that this is the wrong time to cut taxes, but I can tell you in my district in northwestern Pennsylvania we need tax relief, and we need jobs. This bill helps small business, it helps manufacturing, and it improves the job prospects of working families. According to the McGraw-Hill study it would create 1.7 million jobs, and that is one of the strongest arguments for passing it today. It helps with small business expensing. It helps the most dynamic sector of our economy by encouraging investment in equipment. It provides help to cash-starved firms that need to make investments to stay internationally competitive, and it allows workers to achieve a degree of productivity that ultimately will protect their jobs. It repeals the alternative minimum tax which is a relic of tax policy past that kills jobs. It imposes high taxes on firms that are actually losing money, and it hurts cyclical industries like manufacturing, disproportionately. It reduces their competitiveness by kicking them when they are down, penalizing companies that need to invest to recover. This provision is no longer needed in the tax law because we have repealed those provisions in the tax law that previously had created abuses that it was intended to correct. We repealed safe harbor leasing in 1982. We repealed the investment tax credit in 1986, and we have made fundamental changes in accounting and depreciation. This bill would also make necessary reductions in the capital gains tax to unlock resources for investment. This tax change would free up capital for small business and entrepreneurs, providing the economy with seed corn, with new investment to build the economy of the future. We need this bill, Mr. Chairman, and when we hear criticisms from the other side let us remember they voted for the largest tax increase in American history, and they support higher taxes today, and they have offered us no alternative.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 1215, the Republican tax program, helps working families, promotes economic growth, and creates jobs, it also helps millions of working senior citizens. Current law imposes harsh penalties on senior citizens, particularly those who continue to work beyond the age of 65. Today working seniors face higher, more punishing tax rates than millionaires in our tax system. Currently seniors who work after age 65 lose $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn above $11,280. These are not rich people. The Social Security earnings limitation has pushed many older Americans out of the work force and slowed economic growth. H.R. 1215 increases the earnings limitation by almost $19,000 to $30,000, thereby eliminating the bias against older Americans who want to remain attached to the work force and it does so without increasing the deficit.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support of the Inglis amendment. As someone who ran as a supporter of term limits and committed myself to limit my own term of service, I believe this amendment would be a huge improvement on current law and would be a major improvement for this institution. I believe that term limits will help circulate new blood and new ideas into Congress, and for that reason it has been the focus of enormous vilification by the political establishment, of lobbyists, of political careerists and members of the news media. I believe that congressional term limits will be a catalyst for change and a seminal reform which will return this institution back to a citizen legislature, the way the founders conceived it. I have heard many speeches to day by Members of this body, whom I regard very highly, that he will be losing enormous experience by instituting term limits. But I would argue to them that the experience that this institution needs is not of this institution, it is from the professions, it is from the business community, it is from the core of our neighborhoods and our communities. There are experiences that we need here that are underrepresented that in my view would be brought in by term limits. This institution was established to contain citizens from all walks of life serving their country. In my view, term limits will make congress a more diverse institution that deliberates issues, not merely brokers of power.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a strong supporter of congressional term limits who has promised to voluntarily limit his own tenure, and I rise to congratulate those Members of the other party who have gone against their leadership and have joined us in support of term limits. Unfortunately, it is obvious that there is one party in the House that is sympathetic to term limits and one party that is violently opposed to term limits. I urge my Democratic colleagues to vote in favor of term limits to give us the votes to pass the amendment. Over 70 percent of Americans are in favor of term limits, and if we are truly a representative institution I believe our voting should reflect that. This is your chance to prove that you are responsive to the public and to the national interest, and not just part of inside the Washington Beltway.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to authorize the Congressional Medal of Honor be given posthumously to Brevet Brig. Gen. Strong Vincent for his actions in the defense of Little Round Top at the Battle of Gettysburg. General Vincent's heroic leadership was responsible for the speedy placement of his brigade and tenacious defense against overwhelming odds. General Vincent directed the men defending Little Round Top to ``hold against all hazards.'' Without the leadership of Gen. Strong Vincent the Confederate Army would have taken Little Round Top, enabling them to place their artillery at the top of the hill and attack the flank of the Union Army. If Little Round Top would have fallen, the Battle of Gettysburg would have had a different ending. Gen. Strong Vincent was mortally wounded while rallying the 16th Michigan Regiment to reorganize and hold their ground. General Vincent acted above and beyond the call of duty and saved the day for the Union Army at the Battle of Gettysburg. For these important reasons, I am pleased to offer this bill to the House.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, well, I agree with the last speech that a college education is an important strategic investment. That is why today I am introducing the Tuition Account Assistance Act of 1995. This bipartisan bill will eliminate the tax liability on the value of State prepurchased college tuition credits. Our TAP program in Pennsylvania has been hurt by the IRS when it treats appreciated credits purchased in this program as a capital gain. This bill will enable middle-class families to save for their children's education without capital gains penalties, and it is supported by Pennsylvania's State system of higher education. While the program in the State of Pennsylvania is relatively young, several other States with similar programs have had problems with the capital gains tax including Florida and Michigan. To me, this issue highlights how capital gains tax affects the middle class. One thing that has been lost in some of this floor discussion is that nearly 60 percent of tax returns claiming a capital gain were filed by taxpayers with less than $50,000 income.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Tuition Account Assistance Act of 1995. It is my sincere hope that this legislation will help clarify the middle-class benefits of capital gains tax reduction. This legislation would enable parents or guardians to save for their children's education through a State college tuition-savings program without tax penalties. This legislation would also encourage States to adopt tuition savings programs if they do not currently have them, and States who do would benefit from an additional incentive for participation. It is time to quite penalizing families who are trying to save for their children's education. In September, 1993, my home State of Pennsylvania started a program to provide for the advance purchase of college tuition credits. Tuition credit prices are set annually based on current tuition prices, expected tuition inflation and the expected earnings of the fund. The program allows the credits to be used anytime after they mature. Unfortunately, any increase in the value of the credits are subject to Federal income taxation. The purchaser will incur a tax liability when the credits are used, or in the event of a refund. While Pennsylvania's program is new and participants are not yet able to use the credits, when they do, they will be met with a huge tax burden. Other States who have this type of program are all too familiar with the disincentive this liability is to the program, and States who are contemplating starting a program are thinking twice. For these important reasons, I am pleased to offer this bill to the House.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as I have reviewed this so-called Deal substitute, and we do know there is no Clinton bill; I will concede that point; I can understand why there was no bill offered in committee, and I can understand why there was no bill passed by the other side of the aisle last session. What they have offered here is a tax and spend approach to welfare reform which is not going to fly because it is tied to the existing failed welfare system. This bill has cash flow problems because under it cash flows to minors, cash flows to aliens, cash flows to welfare families who have additional kids, and States are even required to pay cash to some who are not working. Mr. Chairman, State flexibility is gutted under this bill. States need to come back to Washington to get permission to reform their welfare system. Power stays with the HHS bureaucracy, and under this bill, under this existing entitlement structure, the welfare system was preserved like a fly in amber. There is also a $1.5 billion unfunded mandate on the States, and let us talk about taxes. I say to my colleagues, ``You may want to wake up. This is an applause line for you because we're going to talk about how you're raising taxes. You raise taxes on working moms in families with a $60,000 income range. You impose taxes on AFDC benefits and food stamps.''

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing wetlands legislation intended to replace section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Section 404 governs wetlands regulation and has long been in need of review and reform. The new section would classify wetlands by their function and value, and balance the farmers' and landowners' property rights with the need to protect our Nation's functionally important wetlands. I strongly disagree with the current wetlands regulation process. The present section 404 is a bureaucratic quagmire that fails economically, constitutionally, and environmentally: Local development is constrained to spare the destruction of marginal wetlands, private property rights are ignored as Government declares citizens' property unusable, and State programs offer little to no incentive for local land owners to preserve and enhance vital wetlands. The new legislation surpasses the current 404 program in many ways. Most importantly, the legislation recognizes that not all wetlands are the same. Wetlands would be classified into three types with the most valuable class being more strictly regulated than under current law. The middle class would be treated similarly to current law, but benefiting from the injection of a new balancing approach to the system. The third class, which provides no wetland functions and values, would be virtually unregulated. The legislation also makes important strides in recognizing the rights of private property owners. For farmers, prior converted cropland would not be included within the scope of the wetlands regulation. Furthermore, land owners, who have lost the right to use a portion of their land due to a Government taking, would have the option to seek compensation at fair market value and transfer that the title to the Government, or to retain the title to the property land abide by the prohibition established for type A wetlands. In addition, the legislation also provides for the protection and growth of our Nation's most functionally important wetlands. First, States are required to develop mitigation programs to enhance wetlands growth. Second, this legislation expands the list of activity that require permits in type A wetlands. For all of these important reasons, I am pleased to offer this bill to the House.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the Family Responsibility Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I urge them to vote in supporting it, to reduce dependency, to slash bureaucracy, to promote personal responsibility, and to strengthen families. Our legislation maintains the safety net for the poor, but in reforming the welfare system, it will sound the death knell for the failed liberal welfare state. Our bill is a mainstream approach, and I urge Members not to be deluded by the harsh, partisan, intemperate rhetoric they have heard here today. Our bill is tough on bureaucracy, not on kids. Our bill is cruel to the status quo, not the under class. I heard my colleague from Michigan characterize this bill as extreme. Perhaps in Washington it is considered extreme to give power to the States instead of elevating the HHS bureaucracy. But this I believe is a mainstream proposal. It is also a compassionate proposal. The current welfare system is not compassionate and we need to stop measuring compassion by how many checks we cut, by how many bureaucrats we employ, by the size of our appropriations. Instead, we need to start measuring compassion by how few people are on AFDC and on welfare and on food stamps and by the access every child has to hope, to independence, and to opportunity. We have offered here, in my view, a tough love approach to welfare reform. It is a sound one. Our reform plan has a tough work requirement that will reintroduce many families to the dignity of work. Our bill stops subsidizing out-of-wedlock births. Our bill establishes real time limits to welfare, 2 years, and then up to 5 years, if someone stays in a work program. And talking to people in my district, they feel those time limits are fair. Our bill cracks down on deadbeat dads with tough new child support enforcement. Our bill links welfare rights to community responsibilities and cuts bureaucracy, consolidating a Byzantine maze of Federal welfare programs into four flexible block grants. Our legislation bars cash to unwed parents but it provides other services to those parents. And our bill guarantees funding to the States so that they will be able to provide those services.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Alternative Minimum Tax Repeal Act of 1995. It is my sincere hope that this legislation will provide a starting point for this Congress to consider eliminating economic distortions caused by the Tax Code and encourage new investment in manufacturing. This legislation would repeal the alternative minimum tax that was created as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. This tax is a major impediment to growing manufacturing firms in the chemical, electronic equipment, energy, metal, paper, steel, and transportation industries. It is a parallel tax system that takes away a portion of a company's depreciation deductions if their income as computed under the alternative minimum formula is higher than their income calculated under the regular tax system. While it was designed and intended to prevent otherwise profitable companies from escaping taxation altogether through the use of exclusions, deductions, and credits, it has instead resulted in large interest-free loans to the Government by companies that experienced real economic losses during the early 1990's. Congress never intended for companies to incur a permanent increase in tax liability due to this tax. Put simply, the alternative minimum tax is not working as it was intended. While many members of the House Ways and Means Committee, on which I serve, are very concerned about this tax, by introducing this legislation I hope to ignite a broader interest in this exact type of much needed tax reform. I am pleased to offer this bill to the House.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 831. In it we propose to permanently expand access to health care for farmers and other small business people and to finance it by closing a grotesque tax loophole whose time has come and gone. The tax preference we are eliminating does not help the underclass. It does not help the poor and disadvantaged. It only helps the rich and well- connected who know how to game the system. The American people cannot understand why we have a tax loophole that allows investors in a $2.3 billion conglomerate to save over $500 million on their taxes in order to give a $2 million profit to one businessman who happens to be a minority. That businessman as it turns out is the same retired Federal bureaucrat who designed this tax program in the first place. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to end this abuse, improve health care for the self-employed, and pass this bill.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution offered by my colleague from Illinois. During my campaign, Mr. Speaker, I promised the voters in my district that I would work to balance the Federal budget. The new reform Congress has an unprecedented opportunity to put a decisive end, once and for all, to the Government's unlimited power to spend and borrow. It is time we apply to the Federal budget the common discipline of the family budget. I have yet to meet a single individual in my district who does not agree that Government spending is out of control and that something needs to be done about it. We actually hear Members of this body who will argue that a balanced budget amendment is a dangerous idea. How do they justify this argument? They will prey on the vulnerabilities of the voters. They will say that those in favor of this amendment will balance the budget at the expense of older Americans by cutting Social Security. This is simply nonsense. We need to streamline Government in areas which have been abused, inflated and mismanaged before even considering sacrificing a fragile vital program like Social Security. At a time when some are talking about a new covenant we should signal our clear intent to honor our social contract with those who have participated in and contributed to the Social Security system. I support this amendment.