Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. That is precisely correct. That is something that I think needs to get out to the American people before we have this debate.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. And what is particularly perverse about it, to respond to the gentleman, is we are talking here about permanent tax increases, to provide temporary protection to other taxpayers. Ultimately they have created a series of PAYGO rules that allow them to go in each year, hold certain taxpayers harmless, but at the expense of permanent increases in revenue into the foreseeable future. What they are doing is setting up a system that can be gamed that will permit them to go forward and raise taxes each year without calling it a tax increase where they are trying to avoid the label. I think that is particularly perverse because what it assumes, even as Republicans for years when they were in power each year tried to look for ways of cutting taxes, it seems like the Democrats have set up a PAYGO system by which they will be able to go in each year and justify tax increases. They may call some of it loophole closing, but it is higher taxes, and they are going to be looking for more and more creative ways for generating more revenue for years to come, particularly as the cost of patching under their rules, the cost of patching the AMT each year grows higher.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I think the time has come to put together budgets where the math is accurate, where the math isn't based on phantom revenues, where the math doesn't assume the phaseout of taxes every year, and where the math is not based on applying new taxes to whole new classes of taxpayers, particularly a tax that was intended for the wealthy but increasingly is being targeted to the middle class. I think we need to take this opportunity to make a departure from past practice. As the gentleman knows, when we were in the Ways and Means Committee marking up the unfortunate patch bill that is being brought to the floor tomorrow, I put forward an amendment that was defeated by the majority that was consistent with their budget rules, that would have eliminated the AMT by a date certain. This is something absolutely consistent with their budget practices. They claim to want to get rid of the AMT. But when they had a chance to actually get rid of the alternative minimum tax, they voted us down on straight party lines. This would not have done violence to any of their budget calculations. It would not have required them to adjust their current budget. It would have just required them to acknowledge that they have to stop using the AMT in the outyears to plump up their revenues because they are not entitled to that revenue. Congress never intended to apply this tax, the AMT, to middle-class taxpayers. And the fact that the majority party is so addicted to its revenue that they are not willing to just say no I think tells the entire tale.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about an issue that has been close to my heart since I came to Congress. Clearly, the current tax code is far too complicated. It is riddled with obvious inequities. Its structure punishes savings and investment, which reduces economic and job growth and burdens domestic industries struggling to remain competitive in today's global market. Although the U.S. Treasury Department has called for international tax reform and has advocated policies to advance U.S. competitiveness, increase national savings, and reduce our trade barriers, this Congress has failed to offer a substantive response. Recently, we in the Ways and Means Committee have received a proposal that presents itself as tax reform but is, in fact, as you are going to hear later tonight, a Rube Goldberg device to raise taxes. In this context, it is important to consider other alternatives, and tonight I would like to discuss my own tax proposal which encompasses all of these concerns and would attract a broad cross-section of working Americans. My proposal, the Simplified USA Tax, puts the right incentives in place to grow our economy and to create new jobs. The Simplified USA Tax has three key components: One, it simplifies the tax code by a factor of about 75 percent; two, it takes the taxes off of savings to promote thrift and address a national dearth of savings; and, three, it makes America significantly more competitive, thereby creating and preserving better jobs within our borders. The simplified U.S.A. tax starts out with just three simple low rates, 15 percent at the bottom, 25 percent in the middle, and 30 percent at the top. Through a payroll tax credit to all wage earners, SUSAT effectively lowers the income tax rates to the 7 and 17 percent range for nearly all Americans. Under my proposal, and this is one significant departure from some tax reform blueprints, everyone would get a deduction for mortgage interest on their home. In addition, the SUSAT proposal allows charitable donations and tuition deductions. To further ensure that the new Tax Code would be progressive, my proposal also permits all families to take a generous family credit, and qualifying families to take an additional refundable work credit. These two credits simplify and improve the current child credit and earned income tax credit. I believe the Tax Code must also give Americans a fair opportunity to save part of their earnings. By taking the taxes off of savings, we will increase the savings rate and ultimately reduce the cost of capital. My proposal encourages savings by allowing everyone to contribute to an unlimited Roth IRA. It also repeals the individual and corporate alternative minimum tax, Federal death and gift taxes. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the individual tax system, under my proposal, is designed to be simple. The tax return will be short, only a page or two for most people; but, more importantly, the tax return will be comprehensible. My proposal also contains a new and better way of taxing corporations and other businesses that will allow them to compete and win in global markets in a way that exports American-made products, not American jobs. All businesses are taxed alike under our proposal at an 8 percent rate on the first $150,000 of profit, and a 12 percent on all amounts above that small business level. All businesses will be allowed a credit for the 7.65 percent payroll tax they pay under the current law. One of the most pro-growth elements in SUSAT is that all costs for plant equipment and inventory in the United States will be expensed in the year of purchase. This is important because investment in state-of- the-art equipment is critical to manufacturing in a global economy. The other key component of SUSAT which will make American business more competitive is that it will be border-adjustable. In other words, SUSAT would end the perverse practice unique among our trading partners of taxing our own exports. All export sales income is exempt and all profits earned abroad can be brought back home for reinvestment in America without penalty. Because of a 12 percent import adjustment, all companies that produce abroad and sell back in the U.S. markets will be required to bear the same tax burden as companies that both produce and sell in the U.S. This policy would finally take away the bias in favor of imports built into our current tax structure, which, in my view, contributes dramatically to our trade deficit, which, in my view, continues to rise at record-breaking levels.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have seen this FTA evolve and I have watched it, representing as I do an area of the country where we have seen both the positives and the negatives of globalization and of trade, and I watched this FTA fully prepared to be skeptical. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise in strong support of this free trade agreement on the strength of the fact that it clearly will further advance America's economic as well as political and foreign policy interests. As you know, Mr. Speaker, since 1991 our country's commercial partnership with Peru has been driven by unilateral preferences extended to Peru under the Andean Trade Preference Act. Over the past 16 years, Peru clearly has demonstrated its commitment to that agreement in both terms of political and institutional resources. After making significant strides in shifting away from production and shipment of illegal drugs, Peru has become a proven ally and has established itself as a steadfast partner in combating narcotics trafficking, countering regional terror groups, and helping to supply America's energy needs. Approval of this trade agreement will be a critical signal to the Peruvian people and not only help to promote closer ties but to open the door to a new era of trade for our country. We recognize that the Peruvian economy is roughly the size of the State of Louisiana that the distinguished ranking member represents. It is roughly the size of Louisiana as of 2005. While Peru is not an enormous market, it is still a significant opportunity for U.S. exports. In 2006, 98 percent of Peruvian exports entered the United States duty-free under the Andean trade pact. The U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement levels the playing field by moving beyond one-way preferences to full partnership and reciprocal commitments under which U.S. exports also benefit from duty-free treatment. Under this agreement, 80 percent of U.S. exports would become duty-free from day one and other tariffs on exports would be phased out. The International Trade Commission has estimated that U.S. exports to Peru will grow by $1.1 billion, or more than double the estimated growth of imports from Peru. Additionally, the ITC estimates that the big winners in the U.S. economy will be value-added products, especially in the machinery and equipment sector. The largest import gains from Peru, the ITC estimates, will be inputs, such as basic metals as gold and copper. In addition to being economically complementary, this agreement will provide substantial new opportunities for American farmers' agricultural exports, break down barriers facing U.S. service providers, and strengthen protections for workers. In fact, the U.S.- Peru Trade Promotion Agreement marks a significant milestone with its inclusion of the most advanced labor obligations of any bilateral or regional trade agreement. Specifically, this trade pact will require Peru to adopt and maintain fundamental labor rights, as stated in the International Labor Organization Declaration Principles and Rights at Work. This includes freedom of association, collective bargaining rights, the abolition of child labor, among others. Mr. Speaker, these standards are an enforceable part of the agreement, and that is in itself a seminal reform. Mr. Speaker, there are additional components that I think make this FTA particularly compelling, including enforceable environmental standards. This is a high standard agreement that furthers the commercial and foreign interests of the United States of America. What this is not, and I emphasize this to my constituents, this is not another NAFTA. This is not a threat to our manufacturing base. I think this is precisely the kind of agreement that many of us have argued for for years. Isn't it time, if we want a stronger trade policy, that we take ``yes'' for an answer? If we embrace this free trade agreement, we have an opportunity to use it as a model for future trade agreements, and that in turn will strengthen the hand and level the playing field for American companies and American workers. For all of my colleagues who share that goal, please vote for this FTA. Please send that message.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), a true advocate of the veterans, as well as all of the military facilities in his district.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, at this point, it would be my honor to yield 4 minutes to a leader in our committee who made a seminal contribution to the SSI component of this legislation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds). (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we cannot express enough the tremendous debt of gratitude we owe the brave men and women who defend our freedoms every day. It is with great honor that I join my colleagues on the House floor today and help lead the debate on H.R. 3997, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act. This legislation is more than a simple cleanup of some of the disincentives, distortions and oversights that have disadvantaged our active duty military and veterans in the Tax Code. This legislation is significant because it sends a clear message that even as many of our best and brightest are currently in harm's way in theaters where they are facing hostile fire, this Congress is prepared to work on a bipartisan basis to consider every option and every opportunity to improve the lives of their families and their predecessors. The $2.3 billion tax package which was reported out of the House Ways and Means Committee last week will bolster tax and Social Security benefits for military servicemembers, veterans and volunteers. This important measure will allow our active military men and women to benefit from the earned income tax credit by allowing them to pair their nontaxable combat pay with their earned income. H.R. 3997 will ease the financial burden of losing a loved one by allowing survivors to put military death benefits into Roth IRAs without limitations. Furthermore, this legislation will ensure military Reservists will have the opportunity to make penalty-free withdrawals from their retirement plans, including 401(k) and IRA accounts. If deployed, these men and women will be able to provide the financial footing their families may depend on during their absence. I am also pleased that the majority, in bringing this bill to the floor today, included in it an amendment I offered and withdrew in committee. I appreciate the bipartisan support displayed on this critical issue. Specifically, my provision will expand Social Security income benefits to our aged, disabled and blind veterans. Under current law, the Social Security Administration counts annuities paid by State governments to veterans who are blind, disabled or aged as earned income. As a result, veterans in certain States like Pennsylvania, which provides paralyzed vets with an $1,800-per-year annuity, may be denied Federal benefits or receive a lower amount than veterans in States that do not provide such annuities. H.R. 3997 will correct this inequity in the law and ensure that annuities awarded by States to vets with certain disabilities are disregarded when determining SSI benefits. Madam Speaker, the dedication and bravery made by American soldiers have allowed us to exercise our everyday freedoms. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, and it is our duty in Congress to make sure that veterans rights and interests are protected and served. As many of us prepare for this upcoming Veterans Day, this legislation reaches our Chamber at the proper time and includes the right incentives to help our men and women in uniform. Overall, this legislation is a bundle of commonsense changes to help those who have contributed to the defense of our country and the protection of our freedoms. I am proud to be a supporter of this initiative, and I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, at this point, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a leader on our committee, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee and a strong advocate of the cause of veterans, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a strong advocate of the cause of veterans.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the other gentleman, does he have just one more speaker?

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In conclusion, I believe the case has been made compellingly that this legislation consists of many components, but they have been developed within the Ways and Means Committee as a benefit for our veterans and our active duty military. I don't believe there is a great controversy here. What I do believe is there is a lesson. When Republicans and Democrats work together on a bipartisan basis, when they put aside political posturing, when they put aside ideological poses, when they insist on procedural fairness, then I think we can find common ground to move forward on things that are genuinely important. I want to particularly credit the chairman of our committee, Mr. Rangel, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of our Select Revenue Subcommittee, for having moved this legislation forward and having set a very high standard. And I would like to take credit for the fact that there has been substantial Republican participation in the development of this bill. This bill, I think, is important to move forward now, but not only for what it consists of, but for what it symbolizes, and that is what this Chamber can achieve when both parties work together. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1032, the Motion to Recommit with Instructions on H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007. I was delayed due to a meeting with constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as the United States enters a new era of trade liberalization, where foreign competition and an evolving international market challenge the historic preeminence of America's manufacturing base, Congress must be vigilant in upholding its commitment to working people and update the safety-net programs that were created to help America's families stay afloat during challenging and troubling economic times. As the growing global economy continues to reduce barriers to trade, domestic employers are forced to respond to new opportunities and challenges alike. The Trade Adjustment Assistance programs collectively assist in the transition involved in overcoming these challenges. Today, Mr. Speaker, the House passed landmark legislation to extend these critical safety-net programs to American workers and employers who have suffered from foreign trade. The reauthorization of these programs represents an opportunity for significant reform and enhancement and will serve as one of the milestones that can be a foundation for strengthening U.S. trade policy. Since 1975, over 3 million American workers have been certified for assistance under the TAA for Workers program, and more than 2 million workers have directly received assistance. In the last 10 years, the TAA for Firms program has saved more than 60,000 jobs. In my district in western Pennsylvania, more than 20 companies have gone through the program and, as a result, have been able to save and even create new jobs for local workers. Clearly, the TAA programs as a group have an impressive record of success. And the bill that we voted on today, although not designed exactly as I would have preferred, is a strong step forward in strengthening these programs so that they are more efficient, more robust, more flexible and more user friendly. H.R. 3920 would move to overhaul and reauthorize the TAA for Workers, Firms and Farmers programs for an additional 5 years, through 2012. Importantly, the measure would speed the delivery of benefits by establishing an automatic industry certification system for workers negatively impacted by trade. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the TAA certification process has been a bureaucratic nightmare of red tape that has plagued the program for a long time. H.R. 3920 would replace the current sluggish and Byzantine system which requires the Department of Labor to individually approve the petitions for assistance for these workers. The establishment of an automatic industry certification alone will be a dramatic improvement on current law. In addition, the bipartisan measure would extend eligibility to service workers, such as engineers, boost health care benefits, and improve wage insurance programs. In fact, many of these provisions rather closely mirror legislation that I introduced early this year, H.R. 910, the American Competitiveness and Adjustment Act. As cochair of the TAA Coalition, I have long advocated for the strengthening and streamlining of these critical safety-net programs, and I am proud to have been a part of today's House action, which has been years in the making. By expanding and clarifying benefits, cutting through mountains of red tape and channeling the right resources toward retraining, H.R. 3920 represents the most important restructuring of TAA since the program's inception. In my view, the Congress has a fundamental obligation to American employers and workers to devote the time necessary to make significant improvements to the program this year. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance these commonsense improvements to vastly accelerate and enhance the opportunities afforded workers displaced by trade, as well as augment the competitiveness of American employers before they are forced to furlough workers. TAA has proven to be a lifeline for American workers displaced by trade. It has prevented thousands of American companies from surrendering to the often increased pressure of the international marketplace, despite their innate ability to compete on a level playing field and to succeed in doing so. House passage of this bill clears the first hurdle in helping to make TAA better for the future. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Senate to act swiftly on this critical issue. American workers, employers and indeed our economy cannot wait.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1010 on H.R. 3224, 1011 on H. Res. 573, and 1012 on H. Res. 747, I was detained due to traffic and was not able to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all 3.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and certifying in the process that I am PAYGO compliant, something that will come as a source of great relief to my wife, among others. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule before us today. Very simply, it puts protecting deadbeat taxpayers ahead of shielding unsuspecting citizens from additional taxes and penalties resulting from the majority's inaction on the AMT. Yesterday, I offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the underlying bill. My amendment would have addressed the severe consequences to middle-class taxpayers come next April as a result of the majority's inaction on the alternative minimum tax. As has been noted here, this amendment was fully compliant with PAYGO rules of the House, but it was dismissed out of hand by the majority. As a result, I am here today to strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question on the rule so it can be amended to incorporate consideration of the English substitute. The fact remains that the clock is ticking, and without a minimum amount of effort by this majority in Congress, millions of taxpayers will not only be socked with an unsuspected bill from the tax man in the form of the AMT, they will also be slapped with punitive penalties by the IRS for not withholding enough as AMT taxpayers. My amendment would have created a safe harbor for those taxpayers and not penalized them for something that they did not know they would be subjected to; and, frankly, something they never should have been subject to in the first place. Let's put this in more concrete terms, Mr. Speaker. There are now less than 30 legislative days left in this Congress. So far a bill has yet to be introduced by the majority to spare 23 million American taxpayers from unintentionally being subject to the alternative minimum tax. Now, after having 10 months of the year to deal with this impending explosion of increased taxes on working families, the majority has done absolutely nothing. This is the longest period of time the AMT has been pushed aside, and it is incomprehensible that we're not addressing the fallout from this inaction today, even as forms are being prepared to send out to taxpayers. Working families should not have to pay the price for the majority's inaction on the AMT. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they can't afford to. I oppose this rule because it embraces the misplaced priorities of the majority to chase phantasms rather than deliver real and meaningful legislation to spare working families from a huge tax increase that was never intended for them. My substitute would strike the repeal of the private debt collection program and put in place a safe harbor for unsuspecting taxpayers about to be clobbered by the AMT and then again by penalties. Otherwise, my substitute would leave the bill unchanged. Mr. Speaker, we have to come to grips with the fact that we have to address the AMT. We must do it now. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and bring a rule to the floor that addresses the immediate and pressing needs of working families in this country.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak on a bill that he has spent an extraordinary amount of time on and is most timely. The bill before us today is really a question of bringing fairness to the Tax Code. At its heart it puts those taxpayers that have been placed in the tough situation of declining property values and perhaps even foreclosure in a better position to be able to stay in their homes. Under current law, a homeowner must pay taxes at ordinary income rates on the fictitious income never realized by the homeowner when a lender forgives part of the debt owed on a mortgage. It is simply unfair that when lenders do the right thing and try to work to keep working families in their homes during tough times, that the taxman then comes and presents that family with a bill on money that they never saw. The kicker, Mr. Speaker, is that were the homeowner to realize a gain on selling their home, the situation is a very different matter. In that instance, the seller of the home would be only required to pay tax, and at the capital gains rate versus the income tax rate on the amount above an exclusion. Yet, for the homeowner facing a short sale or participating in a debt forgiveness proposal in order to keep them in their home, no such help is extended through the Tax Code. This bill provides a major step toward helping taxpayers, our constituents, facing this difficult situation. And, Mr. Speaker, it does it while maintaining tight controls to ensure that this change will not be abused by those looking to game the system. In short, given the situation facing so many of our constituents in this uncertain housing and credit market, this is a needed change for working families and for our economy as a whole. In States such as Pennsylvania, where delinquency rates are climbing by the quarter, this will serve to keep people in their homes. Homeownership is a major part of the equation when it comes to building savings and ownership in our society, and we shouldn't permit our Tax Code to unnecessarily stand in the way of enabling working families to participate in the ownership society. I urge my colleagues to make this bill law as soon as possible.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3087, the Tanner-Abercrombie-English Iraq planning bill. And I want to thank my two colleagues at the front end of that title, particularly, for their extraordinary efforts to move this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, it is important that Congress speak with a clear voice on Iraq. The American people need to know that their representatives are trying to seek out the best policy to protect American interests overseas and reduce our footprint in that troubled country. The Iraqi Government needs to know that the U.S. Congress is not prepared for our Nation to carry the burden of defending Iraq's security indefinitely and that that must become an Iraqi undertaking. Our allies need to know that we remain committed to the war on terror, and that although Congress may be deeply divided on the means to pursuing our goal, that ultimately, politics ends at the water's edge. This bill sends important signals. It sends a signal to our troops that their deployment is purposeful and that we're prepared to respond to changing conditions. It sends a strong bipartisan message that Congress is ready to respond to changing circumstances on the ground and recognizing the coming and necessary transition of our role in Iraq from combat operations to strategic support. Secretary Gates has already acknowledged that DOD would have little difficulty complying with the terms of this bill, so this legislation simply calls on the administration to make transparent the planning processes that prudent military leaders would undertake normally as a matter of course. Our legislation is a very simple bill, but it is still significant. H.R. 3087 has gained support from a broad spectrum of Members of this body, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. It cleared the Armed Services Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues to use this important bill as a launching pad for a new debate in the House on how we may find a new way forward in Iraq, while keeping faith with our troops, with our constituents, with our allies, with the Iraq nation and with all who stand for order and democracy in the face of the creeping menace of terrorism. The message we send today will be heard in our hometowns, on the battlefields of Iraq, and all around the world. That message is that we in this Chamber are prepared to stand together to do what it takes to forge a strong, sustainable and bipartisan U.S. policy in Iraq.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we have had, I think, a very good debate today on the energy tax bill, and I admire the passion on the other side, even if I don't associate myself with all of its particulars. I believe the debate offered Members a chance to hear both good and bad about what is in this bill. The very bad, huge tax increases on American oil and gas companies and on domestic production and the green bond slush fund are removed from our substitute in this motion to recommit. But the fact that I strongly oppose the bill put together by the other side does not mean that the tax code can't play a constructive and creative role in promoting conservation and increasing the use of renewable and alternative fuels. The motion to recommit provides Members of the House with the opportunity to consider a different approach on these issues. This motion would extend many current law provisions designed to encourage the production of alternative fuels and the conservation of energy, many of which the majority saw fit to include in their bill. But several current tax provisions encouraging energy conservation will expire if H.R. 2776 is enacted in its current form, including incentives for individuals to make energy efficiency upgrades in their home, to install solar power and solar water heating capacity, and to purchase hybrid and other fuel-efficient vehicles. I believe the extension of these consumer-based tax credits is important, and I regret that the majority chose not to include them in their bill and rejected, on a party-line vote in committee, an effort to restore the tax credit for making energy efficiency upgrades to existing homes. It is unfortunate that the majority has become so enamored of their tax credit slush fund program that they forgot the tax credits for consumers are highly effective. For example, 2007 hybrid vehicle sales in the United States are projected to be double the level from 2005, the year Republicans first enacted the credit. In addition, my substitute would extend the section 45 production tax credit that has helped increase the amount of electricity generated from sources like wind and biomass and landfill gas. But unlike the bill before us, H.R. 2776 as reported by the committee, my substitute does not reduce the value of the wind credit. Many supporters of the credit, even those who have endorsed the extension provided by the bill, have expressed real reservations that the ``haircut'' given to the credit, that it could threaten the continued rapid expansion of this promising alternative to fossil fuel- powered electricity generation. Finally, let me highlight the fact that the motion to recommit does justice to America's greatest energy source, coal. This country's vast reserves of coal can continue to fuel America's economic engine for decades, even centuries to come. More than half of the electricity in America comes from coal. It would be irresponsible, if not irrational, to ignore this inconvenient truth. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the substitute would extend and reauthorize the advanced coal and coal gasification investment tax credits. These credits reward companies for investing in promising technologies that convert coal into clean-burning natural gas. By placing a new carbon sequestration requirement on these projects, the provision helps secure our energy security while protecting our environment at the same time. The credit also helps manufacturers who depend on natural gas as a feedstock, because it will ensure a secure, reliable and affordable source of this vital commodity. In doing so, we can help keep the high- paying manufacturing jobs that rely on natural gas right here in the United States. And Mr. Speaker, if Members want to vote for an energy bill that might actually increase the supply of energy, that might actually lower the price of gasoline or heating oil, that will encourage the clean development of our Nation's most abundant energy source, coal, you have your chance right now. Join us in voting for this motion to recommit.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).