Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. And may I confirm again that the gentleman is prepared to close?

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Thank you. In that case, I yield the balance of our time to a member of the Ways and Means Committee and the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I am indeed, in its current form.

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

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 3162. Yesterday, I joined my colleague, the gentlelady from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) in the introduction of a bill which embodied the Senate version of SCHIP reauthorization. I am proud to be an original cosponsor; I fully support that legislation. Unlike the bill we are debating today, the Senate version is far less pernicious and does not raid low-income seniors to pay for an expansion of coverage for middle-class families. Proposed Medicare cuts in this legislation could have a devastating impact on access to Medicare Advantage plans. The seniors that use these plans, if they didn't experience an outright loss of coverage, would, at minimum, experience higher premiums, benefit cuts, or both. According to an April 2007 study by Emory University researchers Ken Thorpe and Adam Atherly, 3 million people would lose their access to MA coverage if Congress sets MA payments at the same level as payments for traditional Medicare. Moving from the macro numbers to the practical effects of seniors in my district, it causes even more concern. Over 15,000 seniors in Butler County, Pennsylvania would experience a 15 percent cut in their plan's reimbursement. Nearly 15,000 seniors in Erie County would experience a 29 percent cut, and over 8,000 seniors in Mercer County would be impacted by a 17 percent cut in their plan's reimbursement should this bill be passed. This blatant raid on seniors' pocketbooks contained in this bill is enough to warrant a vote in opposition. But, Mr. Speaker, the most troubling factor in this bill is that this raid on seniors is being used to pay, in many cases, for families with incomes as high as over $82,000 a year. At a time when so many seniors are tightening their belts on fixed incomes, raiding their pocketbooks to pay for health care for middle-class households is simply not right. I have been a supporter of SCHIP from the beginning. I have trumpeted its success. But this SCHIP reauthorization has been hijacked by people who have a different agenda. We will have another vote on this when it comes back from the other Chamber and from conference. I am voting ``no'' on this wrongheaded approach on a very important issue.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The rule waives all points of order on the underlying bill to shield the Democratic Leadership's attempt to bypass the rules of the House and the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Clause 5(a) of Rule 21 states that, ``a bill or joint resolution carrying a tax or tariff measure may not be reported by a committee not having jurisdiction to report tax or tariff measures.'' Yet, the bill before us today was not reported by such a committee, only by the Committee on Agriculture. Specifically, Section 1303 of the bill would change the administration of U.S. tariff rate quotas for imports of sugar so that the tariff rate quotas no longer apply on a yearly basis, but rather on a semi- annual or even quarterly basis for certain imports. Under this provision, importers who wish to import sugar into the United States outside of the narrow time period specified in the bill would be required to pay the over-quota tariff rate rather than the in- quota tariff rate to which they would otherwise be entitled. Thus, this provision would increase the tariff rate on these imports from 1.46 cents per kilogram to 33.87 cents per kilogram: an increase in the tariff rate of over 2,000 percent. In effect, this bill changes the tariff classification of these imports because it changes the tariff to which these imports are subject based on when they are imported into the United States. As a result, this language would affect the amount of tariff revenue collected, thus triggering clause 5(a) of rule 21. Completely egregious in its own right on the merits, the inclusion of this provision also flies smack in the face of the rules of the House and should not be included in the bill today. But, sadly today we are precluded from raising a point of order against this provision as a result of this rule. Mr. Speaker the rule also contains a self-executing tax increase that will put the squeeze on investment in the U.S. and cost America jobs. Also not considered by the Committee on Ways and Means, this provision, masquerading as a way to keep jobs here, will in fact send jobs overseas. The practical effect of this amendment is that employers like BASF in Evans City, Pennsylvania will be at a direct disadvantage simply because they have chosen to locate a manufacturing plant in the U.S.-- and employ U.S. workers--but have a parent company based in Germany. Similarly, companies throughout my district would be indirectly affected as a result of some of their customers--companies like Honda and Sony among others--being disadvantaged by this provision. In addition, this provision completely disregards obligations made under international tax treaties. Mr. Speaker, American workers deserve better, American employers deserve better, and our treaty partners deserve better. I urge a ``no'' vote on this most misguided rule.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

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

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today would redirect a very modest amount of funds from NOAA to the United States International Trade Commission, we hope to good effect. The ITC serves on the frontline in the trade war against unfair and illegal imports. The Commission, an independent, quasi-judicial Federal agency, is part of America's critical network of ``trade cops.'' The Commission investigates the effects of dumped and subsidized imports on domestic employers and American workers, and conducts global safeguard investigations on import surges. The Commission also adjudicates cases involving infringement by imports of intellectual property rights. Very simply, this amendment presents a clear choice and a simple one: Jobs for constituents in industries threatened by illegal and predatory trade practices, or more money for administration and bureaucracy. Whatever an individual Member's views on international trade, no one can disagree with the notion that the United States is becoming more and more integrated into the global marketplace. U.S. exports are increasing; and, perhaps unfortunately, so are imports. Unfortunately, all too often countries do not fulfill their promises to stay within the rules of the global trading system. These rulebreakers do not only cheat the system at our expense, but their action has the effect of costing America jobs. It is precisely for these reasons that we have laws on the books to police our markets, to combat illegal trade practices like dumping, subsidies and intellectual property theft. These laws, however, are only as good as the enforcement mechanism that sustains them. There are countless examples of employers in congressional districts across the country that are being adversely affected by illegal trade practices. Everything from Channellock pliers in my district, or the Club in your car, to Zippo lighters are under assault by intellectual pirates. Everything from tires to lemon juice to honey to live swine to furniture to computer chips is under assault by illegal subsidies or dumping. And everything from steel pipe, hangers and brake drums and rotors are under assault from Chinese import surges. These industries illustrate the range of American employers that turn to the Commission to hear their case when our trading partners run afoul of their obligations. And because of the volume of cases before the Commission, which is exploding, it is incumbent upon us to provide the necessary resources to our trade cops. Intellectual property cases before the Commission have more than tripled since fiscal year 2000. The Commission expects an increase in dumping and antisubsidy investigations for the fiscal year 2008 compared to a relative decline in 2005 and 2006. Also, the Commission will be tasked with examining the economywide economic impact that pending FTAs will have on our country. All of these facets of the Commission are far too important not to put the necessary resources into the Commission to allow it to complete its mission. If we are concerned about the effects that illegal and unfair trade is having on the average working American, this amendment is the very least we can do. Again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment presents a simple choice, jobs for constituents in industries threatened by illegal and predatory trade practices, or more money for administration and bureaucracy. I choose American jobs, and I hope my colleagues join me in passing this amendment.

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

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in March 2003 the United States set out, with the overwhelming support of the American people, to remove Saddam Husein from power and establish a stable democracy in Iraq that would no longer threaten our nation or its neighbors. Coalition forces led by the finest military in the world, quickly accomplished the first goal. Unfortunately the conflict did not end at that point. Future generations of military scholars will use this administration's conduct of military, diplomatic and reconstruction efforts in Iraq between June 2003 and November 2006 as a case study in how not to fight a war. The American people are justifiably disillusioned with almost every aspect of the conduct of our operations in Iraq for the past four years. The near sole exception to this disappointment is the pride which all Americans share in the dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. Time does not permit a full catalogue of errors, nor would a demonstration of 20-20 hindsight provide a positive contribution to this discussion. It is sufficient to recognize that by March 2006 forward thinking members of Congress recognized the need for a change of direction and asked the United States Institute of Peace to form an Iraq Study Group, ISG, to conduct a forward-looking, independent assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact on the surrounding region, and consequences for U.S. interests. On December 6th 2006, the Iraq Study Group presented a report to Congress containing 79 specific recommendations in support of three broad equally important strategies designed to reinforce each other: A change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly. Prompt action by the Iraqi government to achieve milestones-- particularly on national reconciliation; and New and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region. Significantly, the ISG specifically rejected proposals for a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. combat forces or a major sustained increase in troop levels. Unfortunately; the ISG report recommendations, which I immediately endorsed, was equally immediately rejected by both advocates of withdrawal and proponents of continued engagement. President Bush announced plans to ``surge'' 21,500 combat troops to Iraq and Democrats in Congress announced plans to cut off funding for the troops in the field unless the President agreed to an almost immediate withdrawal. I opposed both of these policies when they were announced, oppose them now and will continue to oppose them in the future. President Bush and the Democrats in Congress both need to step back from their respective ideologically driven positions and focus on developing bipartisan legislation, based on recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, that will refocus U.S. operation in Iraq on helping the Iraqi people reconcile with each other and achieve a level of internal security that will make our continued presence unnecessary. We must shift the emphasis of U.S. military efforts from conducting combat operations to training the Iraqi security forces. We must demand that Iraqi government leaders set aside their sectarian differences and cooperate in governing their country for the greater good of all its citizens. Finally, we must work with governments in the region to eliminate the external threats to Iraqi security, particularly the foreign terrorists infiltrating from Syria and Iran. Both President Bush and the Democrat leadership have paid lip service to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group while steadfastly avoiding or actively opposing any effort to actually implement them. In early January 2007 President Bush took a single line in the ISG report regarding possible support for a SHORT TERM redeployment of U.S. combat forces to stabilize Baghdad and used it to justify a long term escalation of troop levels by over 20,000 soldiers. I immediately joined with several of my colleagues in sending a letter to the President expressing our opposition to this policy and shortly thereafter voted in favor of a Congressional resolution disapproving the surge. At almost the same time, the democrats in Congress seized upon another line in the ISG report acknowledging the United States should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq and used it to justify a series of resolutions to cut off funding for the troops in the field. I have voted against each and every one of these efforts. Neither President Bush nor the democrats in Congress has ever made any serious effort to implement the ISG recommendations. In fact, the Democrat leadership in the House has consistently used a series of parliamentary maneuvers to prevent the subject from even being discussed. On June 6, 2007, I joined 45 of my colleagues as an original cosponsor of H.R. 2574, legislation to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. This legislation would establish as United States policy: A new diplomatic offensive in the region that includes the creation of the Iraq International Support Group; Giving the highest priority to training, equipping and advising the Iraqi military and security forces; Assessing the full budgetary and personnel impact of the war in Iraq on the U.S. military; Accelerating and increasing oil production and accountability including equitable distribution of oil revenues in Iraq; Implementing and oversight of economic reconstruction programs in Iraq with the creation of a new Senior Advisor for Economic Reconstruction; Ensuring that the President includes the cost of the war in his annual budget request; and Setting conditions that could lead to redeployment of U.S. combat brigades not needed for force protection as early as the first quarter of 2008 if diplomatic, infrastructure and security benchmarks are met. Last night I joined with Congressman Wolf to ask the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment that would substitute the proposals in The Iraq Study Group Recommendations Implementation Act for the fatally flawed language in H.R. 2956. On the directions of the Democrat leadership the Rules committee refused to even allow discussion of these proposals by voting 9-4 along party lines to not allow our amendment. In the absence of cooperation between President Bush and the democrat leadership in Congress, our enemies have been emboldened and our allies have become discouraged. Sectarian violence continues to plague the Iraqi people. Iranian special operations forces are openly training insurgent forces, Turkey has massed nearly 140,000 troops on Iraq's northern border and Syria continues to serve as a conduit for both illicit arms and foreign fighters. Meanwhile the democratically elected Iraqi government, in which our leaders took such pride just 18 months ago, has degenerated into a state of near paralysis. President Maliki becomes increasingly more marginalized with each passing day. The various ministries are riddled with corruption, incompetence and tribal rivalries. Finally, the Iraqi parliament has become so terrified of retribution they refuse to enact, or even vote on, any legislative proposal that cannot command the support of 100 percent of all sectarian leaders. This is a recipe not for progress but for disaster. Under these circumstances, the democrat leaders in Congress bring us a partisan political statement masquerading as a not very substantive legislative proposal. I for one refuse to participate in their tawdry charade and will therefore vote NO on this legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 615, on passage of H.R. 986, Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act, I was unable to be present for the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this rule. In the panoply of public policy issues, there is no more important question than starting or ending an armed conflict. The decision we make today will determine whether men and women will live or die, not only on the battlefields of Iraq but also potentially in the cities of Europe and America. The discussion that we conduct today should transcend crass political partnership and narrow ideology to reflect our deepest concern for the Nation and, indeed, for the community of nations. The House of Representatives today should be prepared to engage in a free and fair debate regarding all of the potential options for the future conduct of combat operations and diplomatic initiatives in Iraq and the broader Middle East. We should be discussing the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. We should be examining some of the ideas laid out by Senator Lugar. We should be considering the suggestion of Congresswoman Heather Wilson and I that we made to the President recently encouraging him to convene a high- level summit of Iraqi sectarian leaders. We should exclude no viable alternative, even that offered by my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). The legislation we will consider later today does have the potential to serve as a starting point of determining a new course of action in Iraq, but it is badly flawed, and it needs substantial improvement, and unfortunately, that will not be possible. The rule the Democrats have laid before the House today demonstrates their motivations are, at core, political. And I remember when politics ended at the water's edge. They do not offer us an open rule, allowing full and free debate. They don't even allow us a structured rule, permitting, at the very least, discussion of some of the major alternatives that I've outlined. Mr. Speaker, we all know that certain parties want things from this debate today. They've already recorded their robo calls, purchased airtime for their attack ads. They've scheduled buses for their rent-a- mobs. And the last thing they really desire is a free, open and informed debate that might result in a unified policy regarding our Nation's future efforts in Iraq. They seek not to unite our Nation but to divide it. The people who bring this rule to the floor today do not allow amendments because they're afraid. They're afraid that some of these amendments might prevail. They're afraid that, given viable alternatives, some Members of their own party will choose cooperation over confrontation. Mostly, they are afraid they might lose a major issue for their campaign to maintain their majority. Their fear may or may not be justified, but its very existence is a sad commentary on their faith in the Members of their own party, this body, and the American people. I remind my colleagues that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Reject this cynical rule. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let's have a full and fair debate on this, the most critical issue of our generation.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2608, the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act; and I was particularly pleased to cosponsor this legislation. And I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in supporting it. Mr. Speaker, the United States has been a welcoming Nation to individuals and families fleeing oppression and tyranny in their own country. Repeatedly we've opened our doors to refugees from places like Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Cuba, China and Vietnam. And more recently, we've taken in dissidents from African dictatorships, Islamic theocracies, the Balkans, Latin America's strongmen, and nations suffering from near total anarchy. We've not discriminated at any time according to race, religion or politics. We have simply asked refugees to demonstrate that they would face violence or oppression at home for any of these reasons, and then made them welcome here in a new home. This is an important part of the American tradition. Unfortunately, refugees often arrive in this country with severe health problems or advanced age. Many of them have spent time in prison or in re-education camps. Some, like the Hmong tribesmen who testified before our subcommittee, have shed their own blood in defense of American values or foreign policy and have been severely punished by their own governments for doing so. Often these health problems leave refugees with limited job prospects or ability to gain the skills necessary to compete for employment. This is particularly true of elderly refugees who may have difficulty learning English. As the chairman and ranking member have explained at length, under current law, these refugees lose their eligibility for SSI benefits, which is often their primary source of income, after they've lived in the United States for 7 years, unless they become citizens. Unfortunately, between the now infamous bureaucracy at the State Department, the difficulties of learning English, and a cap on green cards for refugees, many of these individuals are unable, through no fault of their own, to complete the immigration process in the required 7 years. Mr. Speaker, we did not welcome these refugees to our shores only to see them starve in our streets, nor should we impose the burden of their support on local governments or private sector nonprofit organizations. I am extremely proud that many of these individuals have chosen to make their new homes in northwestern Pennsylvania, particularly my hometown of Erie, Pennsylvania, which enjoys a national reputation for welcoming refugees. But our local communities have very limited resources with which to assist large numbers of low-income refugees. H.R. 2608 wisely recognizes the Federal nature of our obligation to help these people build a new life. It is compassionate yet responsible legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Visclosky about a critical issue relating to my district, and I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and the minority ranking member's leadership on the issue before us. If I could direct this to Chairman Visclosky, as you know, being from the Great Lakes region, there is an ever-constant threat of shoreline erosion on the coast of the Great Lakes. My district is home to Pennsylvania's only shoreline on the Great Lakes on Lake Erie. Each year it is of vital importance that sand, displaced by winter storms, be renourished and redistributed on that shoreline. Without annual nourishment, the shoreline would erode to the point where natural resources and habitats are jeopardized or even lost. Perhaps the most vivid example of this is Presque Isle. Presque Isle is a unique ecosystem and truly a natural gem. Every year as a State park it receives over 3.4 million visitors and it receives more visitors annually than any national park other than Yosemite. Every year since 1975, the shoreline of this unique feature has received truckloads of replacement sand. This sand has kept the bird sanctuary at Gull Point effectively from eroding away. Birds that have been sighted here or call the sanctuary home include federally endangered species such as the piping plover. Without sand, however, Gull Point and other areas of Presque Isle's shoreline will be washed away, leaving these vulnerable species with even less habitat for recovery. While there are no specific project allocations in this bill at this time, I encourage the subcommittee to allocate sufficient funds to the Army Corps of Engineers' construction account and make every effort to afford the beach nourishment project at Presque Isle at Erie, Pennsylvania, the resources required to be able to restore the sand lost from winter storms. And also, as part of an ongoing Federal commitment, a Federal-State partnership which has existed since the Reagan administration. I thank the gentleman and welcome his consideration. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, for those who question the role of religious expression and religious faith in our national history and in our public square, I rise tonight to read a nationally broadcast prayer that was read on D-Day, June 6, 1944, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as our troops landed at Normandy. I am reading this prayer in the House tonight to both commemorate this event and to honor the men and women of our Armed Forces. ``Almighty God, our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. ``Lead them straight and true. Give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. ``They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph. ``They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war. ``For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home. ``Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom. ``And for us at home, fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them, help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice. ``Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts. ``Give us strength, too, strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our Armed Forces. ``And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be. ``And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in thee; faith in our sons, faith in each other, faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment, let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose. ``With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace, a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men, and a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. ``Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen.''

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, the students of Sugar Grove Elementary School in Warren County, Pennsylvania are making great strides in promoting the importance of physical activity and living a healthy lifestyle within their school's student body. As a 2006 recipient of the Keystone Healthy Zone School mini-grant, the elementary school has launched a Walking Club to incorporate nutrition and physical fitness into their learning environment. This year, the Sugar Grove Elementary School Walking Club established a goal to cover 100 miles by the end of the school year. To achieve this, students dedicated the first 15 minutes of their daily recess to walking. Rain or shine, outside or inside, the students of Sugar Grove Elementary School kept their commitment to healthy well-being and rigorously incorporated exercise into their daily school routine. To encourage students along the way, the Pennsylvania Advocates for Nutrition and Activity (PANA) awarded the Sugar Grove Elementary School with a walking shoe charm for every file mile mark they crossed. In addition, the outstanding leadership of the school's administrators and teachers as well as the guidance and support of local community volunteers helped to further motivate the students as they strived to achieve their goal. On May 31, 2007 the Sugar Grove Elementary School will cross the finish line and achieve their goal of 100 miles. Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me at this time in congratulating the students of Sugar Grove Elementary School for their grand achievement. I wish them all continued success in their future endeavors.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, from April 28-30, 2007, more than 1200 students from across the country visited Washington, D.C. to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, the most extensive educational program in the country developed to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. I am proud to announce that a class from Corry Area High School represented the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our Nation's capitol and compete at the national level. While in Washington, the students participated in a three-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. It is important to note that independent studies of the We the People program indicate that alumni of this nationally acclaimed program display a greater political tolerance and commitment to the principles and values of the Constitution and Bill of Rights than do students using traditional textbooks and approaches. With various reports and surveys that reveal the lack of civic knowledge and engagement, I am pleased to support such an outstanding program that continues to produce an enlightened and responsible citizenry. Madam Speaker, the names of these outstanding students from Corry Area High School are: Andrew Blair, Kelsie Boyd, Karen Costello, Abe Herr, Tom Jaggi, Kaisy Kafferlin, Melissa Kimmy, Maggie Mulligan, Mathias Otten, Abby Pelc, Kathryn Robbins, Kim Sperry, Kari Swart, Andrea Vandervort, Lindsey White, and Alexis Wojcicehowski. I also wish to commend the teacher of the class, Craig Dean, who is responsible for preparing these young constitutional experts for the national finals. Also worthy of special recognition is Beth Specker, the state coordinator, and Marlene Shellito, the district coordinator, who are among those responsible for implementing the We the People program in my state. I congratulate these students on their exceptional achievement at the We the People national finals.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I am in its current form.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the motion to commit is very simple and self-explanatory, but at the same time, it is also very timely. It comes at a time when there are legitimate and growing concerns about the pending change in tax policy in America and how it might affect the most dynamic sector of the American economy, and that is, after all, small business. We know that literally 80 percent of the small businesses, 80 percent of the jobs that are created in the economy in America are created in small business, as has been defined under statute. We are anticipating that as this body moves forward and has passed a budget from the majority that implies the largest tax increase in American history, implies the phaseout of tax policies that have grown the economy since 2001, implies that in order to deal with the pending challenge of the AMT, that there is going to be a massive increase in personal rates, particularly at the high end, that affects subchapter S small businesses. We think that it is very important now to require the SBA administrator, under this motion, to consider small businesses as economically disadvantaged if they demonstrate an adverse impact due to the expiration of this tax relief. After all, who in this body could possibly be against accounting for and recognizing through an SBA designation the impact on such a vital portion of our economy before haphazardly increasing taxes through what we anticipate is going to be the father of all tax increases. This is, I think, a huge challenge for us, and it is a challenge which we should adjust this program to acknowledge. I am concerned that if we see a change in our tax policies on this scale, that it is going to have a huge impact on small businesses in districts like mine. For example, the potential change in tax policy could dramatically downsize the section 179 small business expensing provision. This allows small businesses to immediately expense critical capital investment, allowing them to remain competitive in the global economy, allowing them to put money back into the their hands, back into their production line, back into the hands of small business, an immediate write-off that demonstrably creates jobs right here in America. Without the help of section 179, many of our small businesses are at an enormous competitive disadvantage. Section 179 was once described to me by an economist as one of the most progrowth features currently in the Tax Code. The notion that we would allow it to lapse to its previous level is particularly troubling and I think requires us to prepare the SBA for the impact that these tax policy changes could have. All this motion to recommit is seeking to do is to give small businesses a tool to enhance their success in the marketplace, despite the potential for being hammered by a Brobdingnagian set of tax increases required by the budget that we are going to be facing. By offering this motion to recommit, we feel that the underlying bill ought to also lay before Congress a way to determine whether or not the tax increases that will be proposed by this budget will move small business backwards and also provide for a tool, but in a very small way, to counteract that. Every Member of this body should join me in supporting this motion to recommit if they care about the future ability of small businesses in their districts to grow, to survive, to compete and add new jobs. I urge the adoption of this motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the tax increase that's coming. Now, we know that in the budget that the Democratic majority put together in the House, they posited the largest tax increase in American history. But that's not the tax increase that I have been referring to. The tax increase I am talking about is something that had its genesis in the 1960s, was renewed in the 1980s, was never insulated against inflation and has been allowed to run riot across the American Tax Code. The tax increase I am talking about is the alternative minimum tax. In the late 1960s, the alternative minimum tax was created to deal with, at most, several hundred dread taxpayers. They were the people at the very pinnacle of the American economy who somehow were able to position themselves using a hyper-complicated Tax Code, using it to free themselves almost completely or, in some cases, completely, of tax liability. In the late 1960s, correctly, Congress, looking at the complexity of the Tax Code and looking at this outcome, thought that isn't fair. So they created an alternative calculation that would provide that everyone pay at least a certain tax liability. That policy was renewed and actually expanded in the late 1980s when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives. In the process, this alternative minimum tax was applied to what was then very high-income thresholds. Lo and behold, it was never indexed to inflation. Accordingly, more and more people have fallen under this alternative unfavorable tax calculation, which I am going to talk about in this hour, and more and more people that we would consider to be middle class have found themselves under the alternative minimum tax. More and more small business owners have seen the incentives that they expected to get for making investments in the economy stripped away. More and more families have seen pro-family tax policies taken away from them by the alternative minimum tax. Far from applying to a few hundred taxpayers, today the alternative minimum tax is applied to nearly 3 million taxpayers. But in past Congresses, quietly, we have moved to at least protect the people who would have been hit in recent years with additional tax liabilities from being covered. We have put in place a series of patches, patches that would protect taxpayers that we wanted to give tax relief from being hit with the AMT. Those patches have become more expensive. To apply the annual patch next year, we would have to, in effect, set aside $47 billion to do it. But if we don't do it, not a few hundred taxpayers, not 3 million taxpayers, but 23 million taxpayers in America, including a significant part of the middle class, would have to pay the AMT. That, frankly, is flat-out unfair and unsustainable. It's a tax increase that Congress had never intended and that the last few Congresses have acted to protect the middle class against. Yet what has happened here, we find that the majority, the House Democrats, particularly, and their budget, haven't set aside a dime for a patch to deal with the AMT. They want to spend the money, even as they want to spend the money from the lapsing of some of the tax policies that we put in place at the beginning of the decade. They don't call it a tax increase, but they take the money and run. By not fixing, by not patching the AMT, implicit in their budget is a major tax increase on top of that, on a major part of the middle class. Yet it's far worse than that, because we have been hearing recently in the committee that I serve on, the Ways and Means committee, that some in the majority want to make changes in the AMT, supposedly to reform it. But they do it by raising taxes elsewhere, and that's what I am here tonight to argue against. If we deal with the AMT, not by controlling spending and by putting in place a long-term fix, but by simply raising taxes, we run the risk of having a dramatic impact on the economy. I have some numbers here that I think put this into a fairly dramatic perspective. As we have looked at the bracket creep, we have seen many middle class families, particularly in communities with higher taxes and higher standards of living, paying, potentially, the AMT. What we have looked at is that some of the proposals that have been laid out there would provide AMT tax relief to middle class taxpayers by increasing the tax burden. Specifically, we understand that some in our committee are considering an AMT exemption for families earning up to $250,000. That sounds great, but it also, potentially, will raise taxes at the high end. We have just had an election in France. In France, one of the issues was that their economy hasn't been very dynamic because of their top tax rate. The top tax rate in France is about 48 percent. Unfortunately, fixing the AMT would require so much revenue that if it's only done through raising the top rate, our top tax rate would be in the range of 48 percent. That would be a significant break on the economy. Let me put this into a local perspective. I represent a district where not many people are in the highest income levels, but we have many local businesses and many local manufacturers that are subchapter S companies. They are closely held relationships, and they exist, basically, and pay personal income tax rates. This would, in effect, on some of our most dynamic job-creating local companies put the brake on their growth. This is a direct tax on jobs in the emerging economy. As such, it is a real concern in a place like northwestern Pennsylvania where we have mainly people who are working class and middle class and very few high- income people. We think that this would have a big impact directly on our local economy. Ladies and gentlemen, I am very concerned that we get this right, and I am also very concerned, not only that we fix the AMT but also that we do it in the right way. Now, we have a proposal, and I think it's very important to realize there is a proposal out there to repeal the individual AMT. I am a cochairman of the zero AMT caucus, and I am prime sponsor of a bill, H.R. 1366, that would flat out repeal the AMT. In my view, the AMT is a Frankenstein's monster, which over the years has affected more and more taxpayers by subjecting them to a parallel tax system that arbitrarily and sometimes unpredictably deprives them of tax preferences and incentives that they have planned for. In effect, the AMT runs the risk of punishing millions of middle class Americans every year with a tax that is, as I have said, was intended only for a handful of the highest level earners. My legislation once and for all would rid the Tax Code of this arcane and unfair tax policy and remove a significant barrier for economic growth in the American economy. The AMT is not only a source of higher taxes; it's a source of complexity in the Tax Code. Getting rid of it is a priority for many of those who have advocated a simpler Tax Code. The AMT, I believe, is unfair on the face of it, because it is now applied to a whole host of taxpayers that Congress had originally told them, this will never apply to you. While the structural features of the regular income tax are indexed to inflation, the AMT is not. As a result, as incomes have risen over the past 20 years, more and more taxpayers have fallen into the AMT. I think that Congress needs to act now. Act now to repeal the AMT or at very least to patch it. As I said earlier, it would take $47 billion, which is a lot of money, but in a $3 trillion budget, it's something that we could find the room to do. Patching for 2 years would cost, they estimate, $110 billion. That's also something that's expensive, but it's something that we should be prepared to do. An alternative approach would be to make the AMT a temporary tax provision. I have argued potentially for doing that if Congress does not have the will to pursue flat out repeal. But the idea of getting rid of the AMT by simply raising taxes is very, very dangerous. I was always struck by a quote from H.L. Mencken, ``When a new source of taxation is found, it never means, in practice, that an old source is abandoned. It merely means that the politicians have two ways of milking the taxpayer where they previously only had one before.'' I think that the unfortunate thing about the AMT is that it is generating now so much revenue that people in Washington are afraid to do away with it. I think we need to have an aggressive approach to getting rid of the AMT that does not simply shift the tax burden more to taxpayers. We need to come up with a creative way of dealing with this problem. I believe that there is the will to do it. I have offered to work across party lines with my colleagues on the other side, and I want to extend that offer again today. I do think that if we approach this as something that has to be fixed through a combination of savings and maybe other changes in tax policy, there is going to be a range of ways that we could deal with this problem and certainly to protect the middle class from the AMT falling on it. But we are concerned when we hear the press reports that suggest that the House Democrats simply want to use this to raise taxes. Here is what in effect they are doing. They are taking that additional 20 million taxpayers and they are effectively holding them hostage for a higher tax level which is going to generate revenue for them to fulfill their campaign promises. We think that there has got to be a better way of doing that. We are also concerned that the AMT can become a locomotive, recognizing that many taxpayers will otherwise be hit by liabilities that AMT relief will become a basis for running through a bill that generates much higher levels of revenue, in effect, manufactures a crisis. That way, the AMT bill becomes a locomotive for driving much higher taxes in the economy. Today, I would argue very simply, Mr. Speaker, that Washington take a very high percentage of what people earn in America today. The problem and the source of our national deficit is not the fact that we don't generate enough revenue. In fact, revenue has been growing steadily on a year-to-year basis. The problem is not that we haven't entertained tax increases, because in effect we have been passing and adopting tax policies; curiously, through lower capital gains rates we have been generating more revenue from capital gains. The problem has not been a lack of revenue. It has been a lack of spending restraint. And, unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle have approached the AMT problem exclusively as one that needs to be dealt with through revenue. I think people need to understand what level of taxpayer we are talking about here. The AMT would be applied to people who are authentically middle class. I am struck here by the fact that if we look today, Washington is left to deal with this growing monster that is the AMT that is going to ensnare 23 million Americans come April 15, 2008. It operates as a parallel tax system, and in effect it takes away from taxpayers some preferences that Congress had firmly intended to them. This, I think, represents something that is fundamentally unfair. We are talking here that, for the year 2006, under the AMT, the basic exemption from the AMT is only $62,550 for joint returns. This is not, in my view, a wealthy couple. It is $42,500 for a single and head-of- household returns, which in turn is subtracted to obtain AMT taxable income. It is the income above that that pushes people into the AMT. These exemption levels, as I have pointed out, are the result of a patch that past Congresses have enacted. In other words, they are temporary and are scheduled to revert in 2007 to their prior levels of $45,000 for joint returns and $35,750 for unmarried taxpayers. The basic AMT exemption is phased out for taxpayers with high levels of AMT income. A two-tiered rate structure of 26 percent and 28 percent is assessed against AMT taxable income. The taxpayer then, and this is how it works, compares his AMT tax liability to his regular tax liability and pays the greater of the two. As a result, middle-class Americans, hardworking families, are falling victim to what was, and always was, intended to be a policy that was aimed at the wealthiest and which ultimately at the end of the day is simply bad tax policy. We think that we need to do a better job of dealing with the AMT, but to do that, simply raising taxes, is the wrong way to go. How high would taxes have to go to deal with the AMT problem? I am struck by an estimate by the Urban Institute in Brookings Tax Policy Center that took a look at this question and came back with some startling figures. They argue that, in order to repeal the AMT, the majority, if they were to do that simply through tax increases, would have to increase the top three brackets very substantially. This study estimates that the majority would have to increase the 28 percent, 33 percent, and 35 percent brackets to 32.2 percent, 38 percent, and 40.3 percent respectively. On top of the already enormous tax increase in the Democrats' budget, this level is confiscatory tax policy and it is a recipe, in our view, for a quick and nasty economic slowdown. Well, I sincerely believe that there is the potential for a bipartisan consensus here. I think what we are seeing is a setup for much higher taxes; and that is why I am here on the floor tonight, to blow the whistle on it. In my own district, in Pennsylvania's Third Congressional District, in 2005, a little over 2,700 taxpayers were impacted by the AMT. By contrast, if Congress does not act, in 2007, roughly 18,500 taxpayers will be hit with the AMT. This is a serious tax bite, and it has to be dealt with in a serious way and not simply by raising taxes. Mr. Speaker, the AMT is a classical example of the rule of unintended consequences. The fundamental reason for the spread of the AMT is that the exemption amount was never indexed to inflation. As a result, the AMT spread rapidly before the 2001 and 2003 tax laws were adopted, and it would have continued spreading without those laws. It is projected to spread further after 2010, even if those laws are sunset. Taxpayers who move on the AMT in 2007 through 2010, due to the 2001 and 2003 tax laws, will still enjoy a net tax cut from those laws. The most recent attempts to deal with the AMT have been through the use of patches; yet, I would argue that a more comprehensive solution is more desirable. You know, it is also important to realize, we had an opportunity to repeal the AMT in 1999. It passed the House and it passed the Senate. It was part of a broader tax bill, and it was recognized at that time to be a very important priority. Repealing it at that time was something that we knew we could afford to do; yet, in 1999, the Clinton administration vetoed that legislation. Unfortunately, some of those who now want to deal with the AMT by raising taxes voted to sustain that veto, voted in effect to leave in place a tax that was never intended for the middle class. The individual AMT doesn't just affect individuals. It also hurts small businesses. The many small businesses that pay the individual AMT lose the benefit of important tax incentives, such as the R&D tax credit, the work opportunity tax credit, accelerated depreciation, and many other general business tax credits. It is, anyone who has been in it and any accountant will tell you, ridiculously complicated and arbitrary. It is almost impossible for the average taxpayer and small business owner to calculate the AMT without help from a tax preparer or from tax software. If we are serious about dealing with the problem of complexity in the Tax Code, one of the quickest things that we could do, one of the simplest things that we could do is flat-out repeal the AMT. We think this is something that ought to be of direct interest to us today, and we are very concerned that this real problem is being commandeered by those who simply want to raise taxes. Our solution is that we want to see action today. We want to see both parties come together and talk about this problem honestly, not just discuss plans to raise taxes behind closed doors. We want to see an opportunity here today to discuss how we can use fiscal discipline and restrained spending to get rid of the AMT, or to potentially sunset it and phase it out over time. It is not too late to do that. We believe that there are ways to deal with the AMT as an alternative that don't require us to bring our top tax rates up to the level of France. I believe that there are means of dealing with this problem without sucker punching our economy. I believe that we have the opportunity to deal with this problem fairly and honesty without presuming a tax increase. We tend to forget this in Washington, but when somebody is paying out more in taxes, that is a tax increase. Whether that tax increase was the phaseout of a tax provision that was put into the law years ago and simply not renewed, whether that change in tax policy is something that was a policy from the 1960s that was never adjusted or modernized, the fact is we anticipate a tax increase unless we show fiscal restraint this year. And the Democratic budget, in addition to positing the largest tax increase in American history, has manufactured this AMT crisis and created a challenge for us that the Democrats are apparently proposing to respond to simply by raising taxes. When people hear that the only folks experiencing the tax increase are going to be the highest income people, that doesn't tell the whole story, because so many jobs are tied up in companies that are also taxed at those rates. This is a challenge that I think requires an authentic bipartisan solution, not just a tax increase. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas such time as he may consume.