Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, February 13th, I was unavoidably delayed and was unable to cast a vote on H. Res. 157 Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq. I would like the Record to reflect that if I had not been delayed, I would have voted ``no'' on H. Res. 157.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, the manufacturing sector plays a pivotal role in the economic success of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as well as that of the Nation. The pre-eminent association that represents the producers of U.S. advanced manufacturing technology equipment, promotes manufacturing equipment sales both at home and abroad, and tries to shape legislation important to the manufacturing community is AMT--the Association for Manufacturing Technology, led by its President, John B. Byrd III. For the past 32 years, the voice for AMT on Capitol Hill has been the tireless, knowledgeable, and ardent advocate for the association's legislative and regulatory goals, James H. Mack. Jim served AMT as the vice president for Government Relations for 27 years and most recently as vice president--Tax and Economic Policy. He has also been an important aide to former Illinois Governor Richard B. Ogilvie and public affairs manager for Illinois Tool Works in Chicago. After earning his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Wisconsin, Jim demonstrated a life-long commitment to the manufacturing technology industry and its employees--providers of the vital equipment that has made our Nation the manufacturing leader in the world. As Jim retires from this phase of his career, I wish to acknowledge the achievements of a man so many of us know and admire. Lest he be considered merely a master of the Tax Code wearing a smile that always includes a pipe, let me add that I know him to be trustworthy, an honest broker, and all around decent and caring individual. Hats off and continued success to a great American, Jim Mack.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, since the beginning of the year, my office has had the privilege of hosting Clare Ashby as an international trade intern. Clare joined my Washington, D.C. team as part of the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program. Now in its 8th year, the educational exchange program brings 12 distinguished Australian university students to the Nation's capital each year to intern in the office of a Member of Congress. This unique bilateral exchange offers participants the opportunity to not only learn the inner-workings of the U.S. Federal Government but to also develop and maintain new, career-building relationships. Although this is only my first year hosting a student, I am impressed with Clare's intellectual curiosity and have found that she has made a real and substantial contribution in advocating my legislative efforts. As a congressional intern in my office, Clare has actively engaged in open dialogue regarding the challenges of current U.S. trade policy; conducted extensive research and analysis on these same issues; and assisted in the drafting of legislation. Her intellectual breadth and keen ability to understand complex public policy have surely not gone unnoticed. At the same time, Clare has also taken the initiative to help bridge the gap between American and Australian cultures. My office joined Clare in the celebration of Australia Day, where we learned of Australian tradition and history. We also shared a favorite Australian treat, a sweet chocolate biscuit, known as a Tim Tam. During her time with our office, Clare also shared the same birthday as one of my legislative staffers. On that special day, we again celebrated the occasion and shared the stories of our birthday traditions. Madam Speaker, I am proud that my office participated in this year's Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program, as I found it to be a valuable experience on a variety of different levels. It is at this time that I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Clare Ashby for her successful internship in my office. It was an honor to host her and I wish her continued success in her future endeavors.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 58 I was unable to vote due to weather and traffic delays. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 59 I was unable to vote due to weather and traffic delays. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 60, I was unable to vote due to weather and traffic delays. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise, sadly, to oppose this unconscionable power grab in which the Democrats, who claimed they have changed, have clearly indicated that they are back. They are up to the old tricks that they tried 12 years ago when they were thrown out of the majority. Here they are again using the Constitution as a political Handiwipe and extending full voting rights to favored rotten boroughs. Now what is a rotten borough? During the 19th century in Britain, there were municipalities with tiny populations that were given full voting rights, and it took Britain years to get rid of that political inequity. Today, to these people we are talking about extending voting rights to territories that have a fraction of the population of a congressional district, one territory that has the population roughly of Butler County, Pennsylvania, one of my constituencies; one that has roughly the population of Mercer County, Pennsylvania. And to my good friend from Samoa, and he is a good friend, he represents a constituency with roughly the population of Mill Creek Township in Erie County, Pennsylvania, which I represent. And yet he would be given full voting rights within the Committee of the Whole. That is an outrage. Democrats once stood for one man, one vote. Today on the floor of the House, they stand for one Samoan, 10 votes. Vote this down.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed a so-called energy bill that they claim will promote America's energy independence. In reality, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have presented the House Chamber with a placebo that will ultimately reduce domestic energy production, give American energy companies less of a reason to invest in exploration here at home, encourage greater dependence on foreign oil, and damage America's manufacturing base. H.R. 6 has become another political football for the Democratic Party. And, frankly, Mr. Speaker, as The Washington Post rightfully editorialized yesterday, energy policy deserves more serious treatment. The Democrats' solution to America's energy crisis is to single out oil and gas producers for a tax increase. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not likely to impact oil producers' profits in any way, shape, or form. This is energy policy by focus group, not a serious prescription for achieving America's energy future. The one thing that we can be assured that this bill will do is raise prices at the pump for America's consumers. Furthermore, it creates disincentives that will decrease the supply of domestic natural gas and oil and increase our country's energy imports. While H.R. 6 not only forces our country to become more dependent on foreign oil, it will also force America's working families to bear the brunt of increased energy costs. The $6.6 billion tax increase embedded in this bill will inevitably be borne entirely by consumers in the form of higher gasoline and home energy prices. The effects of high gas prices will ripple throughout the economy, increasing prices on everything from electronics to school supplies. Like the Keystone Kops, the House leadership aims at one target but ends up hitting the American public. In addition, the Democrats have yet to detail what exactly they will do with an additional $14 billion in revenue. In my view, such excess revenue will provide the Democratic leadership with a liberal slush fund to curry favor with one industry over another. If Democrats want to invest in new energy technologies, they should debate and define their priorities openly. This, Mr. Speaker, is political pork barrel at its worst. Finally, H.R. 6 is an assault against America's manufacturing base. Using nearly one-third of the Nation's energy, both as fuel and feed stock, energy production is the very heart of American manufacturing. With such an energy-intensive industry, raising energy prices will make domestic manufacturers less competitive in the world market. This is one reason why the National Association of Manufacturers has firmly opposed this bill. By making the oil and gas industries ineligible for the section 199 deduction for domestic manufacturing activities and changing current amortization rates for the geological and geophysical costs incurred in energy exploration, H.R. 6 will further erode the U.S. comparative advantage, forcing more and more of our good-paying manufacturing jobs overseas. Mr. Speaker, I have long advocated for a comprehensive energy policy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase America's access to clean, affordable and dependable energy for their cars, homes and businesses. H.R. 6 is simply not the answer. This legislation is bad energy policy and bad tax policy which explains why the Democratic leadership shoehorned it through the process without a committee markup or even a single public hearing. We must stand up for American manufacturers, stand up for American consumers, and preserve our domestic energy supply. So I urge my colleagues to join me today in opposing H.R. 6 and supporting the Republican alternative. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and a strong advocate of energy policy, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. Weller of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield 3 minutes to a strong advocate of a strong American energy policy, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

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

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a leader in the area of energy policy on the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes). Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I now have the privilege of yielding 2 minutes to a distinguished and very articulate member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a new Member of the House who I think brings a strong perspective on energy policy to this House, the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

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

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in that case, I would welcome the opportunity to allow the gentleman from Washington to allocate some more time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished Member of the House, a leader from Tennessee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, may I yield the gentleman from California 30 seconds to do that?

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield myself, Mr. Speaker, 15 seconds simply to point out to the last gentleman that all they are really doing here is moving forward in some leasing policies that are similar to what Congress has passed before, or at least the House has passed before. And beyond that, they are raising taxes, not saving money. That is going to be felt by consumers across the spectrum Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Pennsylvania delegation who has been a strong advocate for new exploration in the United States, the gentleman, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to reserve the balance of my time until the end of debate and after the other committees have used their time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in response may I yield myself 15 seconds, simply to point out to the majority leader that he is terribly mistaken if he thinks he is repealing a special tax break. In fact, oil and other energy production was treated the same way under the tax bill that was passed as all other manufacturers, and this differential treatment is one of the reasons why the National Association of Manufacturers so strongly opposes this bill. This does not fulfill any of their commitments on energy any more than the underlying rule fulfills their commitment to an open process.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, I reserve the balance of my time until the end of debate and after other committees have used their time.

Mr. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the Speaker for the opportunity he has to preside today. Congratulations. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, Congress passed a Medicare bill that for the first time created an opportunity for many seniors to have access to strong, valuable and persistent prescription drug coverage. Although the legislation was a compromise, and in places an imperfect one, this program has proven to be a success, working for seniors with a range of circumstances and particularly valuable resource for seniors of the most limited means, many of whom are in my district. It falls on us in this Congress to consider ways that we can further strengthen this benefit. Unfortunately, the legislation that we have debated today, H.R. 4, is a huge and real step back and is less of a policy than a bumper sticker. As a member of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over this program, I am deeply disappointed that we had no hearings, no discussion and no opportunity for amendments to produce a real pricing reform bill with teeth and with nuance. While part D is not perfect and can be improved, it is our fundamental responsibility to put in place a policy that might build on the successes of the program, and they are substantial. Independent estimates for the Medicare part D prescription drug benefit for the fiscal year 2008 budget cycle show that net Medicare costs are 30 percent less, about $190 billion lower than were originally predicted when the benefit was created in 2003. In addition, based on strong competitive bidding by health care plans for 2007, average monthly premiums will be approximately $22 for beneficiaries, down from $23 in 2006 if enrollees remain in their current plans. The initial estimate for 2006 premiums was $37. CMS has indicated that beneficiaries are saving on the average of $1,200 annually on their drugs, and these are achievements that must be preserved. Many people in my district like the idea of the legislation which the House Democrats put forward today. I understand how they feel. I have long felt that we could improve on the existing policy and the existing process. But what I found was that the Democrats' plan is more of a political stunt than a solution. And it isn't at all a prescription for real reform, and it is, at best, a placebo, but one that could actually reduce the benefits and the coverage for many individual seniors. To understand why, we need to recognize how much this proposal has been criticized. Even leading liberals like Urban Institute president Robert Reischauer and Brookings Institution senior fellow Alice Rivlin have expressed real qualms about an initiative that limits choices for seniors by putting government bureaucrats in charge of setting prices for prescription drugs. Reischauer recently said to The Washington Post: ``People were worried no private plans would participate. Then, too many plans came forward. Then people said it's going to cost a fortune and the price came in lower than anyone thought. Then people like me said that they are low-balling the prices the first year. They will jack up the rates down the line. And lo and behold, the prices fell again. And the reaction was, we have got to have the government negotiate lower prices. At some point you have to ask, what are we looking for here?'' Rivlin stated: ``It's not clear that a government, particularly this government, would get a better deal from the drug companies by direct negotiations than the drug plans can get on their own, and it might have some negative consequences.'' We also want to recognize that the new majority has claimed that their proposal will provide significant savings, when, in fact, the CBO, nonpartisan, has announced that H.R. 4 would in their view have no budget savings and a negligible effect on Federal spending. The reasons why I felt, as an advocate and caretaker for this program, obliged to oppose H.R. 4 are clear: one, this measure is not going to generate savings for the consumer; two, government price- setting will only drive drugs out of the program and reduce seniors' access to critical drugs that may be central to their treatment as individuals. This plan could potentially, three, limit seniors' access to their community pharmacies. For many seniors, advice from their pharmacist is a critical service that they need to have access to to coordinate their drug uses and find the best coverage. And, four, finally, this plan could lead to increased drug prices for America's vets. Mr. Speaker, I believe we could improve on this legislation, and I will speak next week about some further ideas. I believe that there is a significant difference between the plan we have and the VA plan; and if we don't recognize those differences, we are going to shortchange seniors, and this bill that we voted on today will generate no savings. And I hope when it comes back from the Senate, that there will be an opportunity to substantially correct it, put teeth into it and create a real nuanced policy that will add to the successes of our part D program.