Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the research and development tax credit has been extended repeatedly by members of the other side and members of this side for nearly 30 years, and it has not been paid for in those extensions. But what does that really mean? Well, what we have done in America, which no other country has done, is we have taken a valuable tax policy like that, something that should be certain and dependable, and made it temporary. Not only do we make it temporary, we allow it to expire for a year at a time. So over this 30-year period, employers, innovators, businesses, and companies have not known whether they can count on this policy in order to do something really important. I heard Mr. Brady talk about the medical innovation and how critical that is to making peoples' lives better. I think of Big Rapids, Michigan, and Wolverine Worldwide, which makes military footwear and boots. They are constantly innovating that so that our military servicemen and -women have the best possible equipment on their feet. You can imagine the kinds of climates that we find our military in and how important this is. But if companies like that don't know whether this tax policy is dependable, yet we extend it 30 years backwards retroactively and forward for a year, then we allow it to expire for a year, it absolutely makes no sense. By allowing it to expire repeatedly, we have called into question whether this R&D credit is available at all. I would just say by supporting permanent policies--the reason it is so important to make this permanent, we can actually promote certainty for American businesses, and we need to generate certainly greater economic growth. The reason we are seeing the worst recovery since the Depression, 0.1 percent economic growth, none of us should be satisfied with that, and I don't think any of us are. We can generate more growth by making these things permanent. So we need to wake up to the reality and start offering some concrete solutions that really strengthen the economy and help hardworking taxpayers. Let me just say the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which is our referee on these matters, says that if we make the credit permanent that actually more research and development will take place, the kind of innovation that really puts America at the forefront of job creation and an economy that is strong and vibrant, that up to 10 percent more research and development will occur. We certainly need more of that, because that is more jobs, more innovation, and higher wages. Let me just say that the President of the United States voted to extend the research and development tax credit unpaid for when he was a Senator. He signed legislation twice to extend the research and development tax credit unpaid for. I think 30 years of uncertainty has actually been a detriment--a detriment to U.S. business employers and certainly their employees because the jobs they provide are so dependent on our being at the cutting edge. Look, this is the 21st century. We can't live in the past as if these policies don't matter. This is a very competitive world, and most of our constituents understand the kind of competition that we face. We need to make this permanent. We need to do it now. Let's do something positive and good for America, something that we have repeatedly done. Let's be honest about it. Since we are going to extend it at some point temporarily another 2 years, let's make this permanent. Let's make this certain. Let's make this something that our employers can depend on so they can create the kind of jobs that we haven't seen. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Andrew Liveris in recognition of his 60th birthday on Monday, May 5, 2014. Originally from Darwin, Australia, Andrew currently resides in my hometown of Midland, Michigan with his wife Paula and three children. Mr. Liveris has been an instrumental figure at The Dow Chemical Company for over 35 years, serving in a myriad of positions spanning three continents. He is currently the company's President, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer. Under his guidance, the Company has continued unparalleled success across the globe, in addition to being a key employer in Midland. He is a true visionary and an innovative leader in the field of manufacturing. In addition to his success at Dow, Mr. Liveris has carried on and expanded the company's culture of community outreach to improve the quality of life of all Midland residents. The company continues to play a crucial role in the vitalization of the City of Midland, sponsoring local events such as the Dow Tennis Invitational and the Midland Community Center's Dow RunWalk. With strategic planning and a focus on the lives of those within the company and the community, Mr. Liveris has taken to new heights, the important relationship, and friendship, between Dow and Midland. On a national scale, Mr. Liveris is an advocate for expanding the important role of manufacturing in our economy and his expertise expands well beyond his work at Dow. He serves as co-chair of President Obama's Advanced Manufacturing Partnership in the United States, where he continues to present viable business policy solutions for economic growth. As a successful business leader and community organizer, Mr. Liveris has received numerous awards including the Chemical Industry Medal by the Society of Chemical Industry, the CEO of the Year award at the Platts Global Energy Awards, and the George E. Davis Medal by the Institution of Chemical Engineers. Most notably, he has been identified for his influence in the global chemical markets as a Top Power Player by the ICIS Chemical Business magazine for several consecutive years. On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan, I am honored today to recognize Andrew Liveris in celebration of his 60th birthday and to thank him for his continued work in Michigan, the nation, and abroad. I wish him many years of continued health, happiness, and success.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, let me just make one thing really clear. The legislation before the House is really to address the problems of ObamaCare, which have reduced hours and reduced wages for workers in America. If you really cared about the loss of work hours, which this motion purports to do, you vote for this bill because it is ObamaCare that is causing workers to go from 40 to 30 hours. If you really cared about the deficit--and we know what ObamaCare does in the long term; it increases the deficit hugely--you would support this bill so that you can get a job, a job that you can work 40 hours, so that you can increase your income. And then you can pay taxes on that income, and then our economy and our country will be better off, and the American Dream won't be in jeopardy. Vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 530, I call up the bill (H.R. 2575) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 30-hour threshold for classification as a full-time employee for purposes of the employer mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and replace it with 40 hours, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2575.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I rise in support of restoring Americans' work hours so they can see bigger paychecks and more opportunities. ObamaCare places an unprecedented government regulation on workers, changing the definition of ``full-time work'' from 40 hours per week to 30 hours. As a direct result, Americans across the country are having their hours cut at work, and they are seeing smaller paychecks. At a time when the costs of groceries, gas, and health care keep increasing, lower paychecks are simply unacceptable. The bill we have before us today, the Save American Workers Act, would repeal ObamaCare's 30-hour workweek definition of ``full-time employment'' and would restore the traditional definition of a 40-hour workweek. Today, we are voting to restore hours and wages and to give businesses and their workers some relief from the burdens of ObamaCare. This is a critical step in creating an America that works. I hear about the effects of ObamaCare from workers and employers across mid-Michigan. Recently, Central Michigan University was forced to cut back student employees' hours. As one student said: Students use that money to pay for finances and school, and I think it's going to become increasingly harder for them to pay for school when we can only work 25 hours. A faculty member at a community college in my district wrote to me recently, and said: I hold two part-time positions . . . Today, I was informed I cannot continue to do both jobs because of ObamaCare laws. Beginning in August, I will no longer be advising and will lose approximately one-third of my income. Last year, I bought a house, a house I now fear I will no longer be able to afford. By forcing employers to shift workers from full time to part time, the 30-hour rule is destroying hardworking Americans' abilities to earn more during these tough economic times. At a time when the President is calling on Congress to increase wages, it is his health care law that is forcing Americans to see smaller paychecks. ObamaCare is putting full-time work and the potential to earn more wages out of the reach of millions of Americans. Those who are hit the hardest are low-income Americans who are already struggling in these tough economic times. According to a Hoover Institution study, 2.6 million Americans making under $30,000 a year are most at risk of having their hours and wages cut as a result of the 30-hour rule. Of that, over 60 percent are women, and 90 percent do not have a college degree. The administration has made exceptions and has implemented delays for big businesses and political allies. Why not American workers and job creators? The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed the bill we are considering today will reduce ObamaCare's unacceptable burden on job creators and will increase wages for American workers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Save American Workers Act will increase cash wages for American workers by $75 billion, repeal $63.4 billion in ObamaCare tax increases, and reduce the number of employers subject to penalties related to ObamaCare. I applaud Congressman Todd Young, a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, for his work on this legislation. It is time to vote in support of Americans who are facing higher bills and smaller paychecks. I urge my colleagues to join me in a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) to control.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to strongly support H.R. 4015, the SGR Repeal and Provider Payment Modernization Act, as amended. The Ways and Means Committee and Energy and Commerce Committee and Senate Finance Committee have worked in a bipartisan manner to develop a permanent physician payment fix repeal. Years of hearings, discussion drafts, and ongoing dialogues with stakeholders have resulted in H.R. 4015, a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on SGR replacement policy. This bill has over 100 cosponsors, has the support of 18 Members of the House Doctors Caucus, and 600 national and State organizations representing physicians and other professionals. There is a reason for all of this support. H.R. 4015 has a lot to like. It repeals the outdated SGR formula and gives seniors the certainty that they will have access to their doctors. It incentivizes better care and better results for seniors that rely on the Medicare program, and it breaks the cycle of uncertainty for doctors and their patients, providing permanent relief and improving how Medicare pays doctors. We must not let this opportunity pass by. Time is short. If we do not act, in just 2 weeks, doctors will see a 24 percent cut in their Medicare reimbursement, jeopardizing seniors' access to care. We must safeguard taxpayer dollars. That is why we pay for permanent repeal by delaying the health care law's individual mandate for 5 years. Americans across the country are facing higher costs, losing the coverage they have and like, and are seeing smaller paychecks as a result of ObamaCare. Last week, the administration announced that it would continue to expand certain exemptions from the individual mandate for 2 years. This proposal would extend that further--would extend further what the administration is already doing and give all Americans relief from the mandates and penalties of ObamaCare. It is only fair. I urge all members to support H.R. 4105. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) control the remainder of the time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas for yielding. I rise today in support of H.R. 4118, the SIMPLE Fairness Act, which would give Americans some much-needed relief from the added costs of ObamaCare. I don't need to remind the American people about the failed launch of the health care law, but a failed Web site is the least of Americans' health concerns. Millions of Americans, including over 200,000 in my home State of Michigan, went out to the mailbox and found that the health care plan they had and liked was canceled. Millions of Americans are having their hours and wages cut as employers try to struggle with this complex law. Many find that they can no longer access the care that they relied on from their local doctor or hospital. Millions of Americans are left wondering what happened to their promised $2,500 reduction in premiums. And next year, millions more will see their premiums skyrocket again due to the administration's failure to meet their own enrollment goals. The American people have paid over and over for this health care law. They have paid higher premiums, and they have paid by having their hours cut back and their paychecks decreased. The last thing this law should do is penalize Americans for being unable to purchase a plan on healthcare.gov either because of multiple Web failures or that they were unable to find an affordable plan. The Obama administration unilaterally exempted businesses from the employer mandate tax for 2014. SIMPLE Fairness demands that Congress provide the same relief to hardworking Americans. When Congress can act to provide some relief for hardworking Americans, we should. Every Member here has heard from a frustrated constituent. This shouldn't and need not be a partisan fight. Granting relief to hardworking Americans is only fair. Voting ``yes'' on H.R. 4118 is the right thing to do for the people we represent.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bill offered by my colleague and friend, Mr. Dan Benishek of Michigan. The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is not just a Michigan but a national treasure. It is enjoyed by over 1 million visitors from across the State, country, and world each year. In fact, in 2011, Sleeping Bear was voted the ``most beautiful place in America'' by a poll conducted by ``Good Morning America.'' This bill is the product of years of work between members of the public, the National Park Service, and local, State, and Federal officials. It strikes a careful balance between conservation and recreation. In addition to protecting this vital natural resource, the bill ensures that the beaches of Lake Michigan will be accessible to the public and that hunting and fishing rights, as well as boating access, will be maintained. I hope the rest of the House will join me today in supporting the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act so that this national treasure can be enjoyed to its fullest now and for many generations to come.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 487, I call up the bill (H.R. 3865) to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from modifying the standard for determining whether an organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare for purposes of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3865.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3865, the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act of 2014, to stop the IRS and Treasury from restricting free speech activities of social welfare organizations that have been in place for over 50 years. Last May, we learned that the IRS targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. For over 9 months, committee investigators have reviewed hundreds of thousands of internal IRS documents and interviewed IRS officials regarding the targeting. Our investigation is not yet over, and the Ways and Means Committee continues to wait for the IRS to turn over Lois Lerner's emails. Despite the ongoing investigations both in Congress and by the inspector general, last November Treasury rushed forward with proposed new regulations to stifle 501(c)(4) groups, upending rules that have been in place for over half a century. Under the proposed rule, social welfare organizations would face additional, unprecedented scrutiny for engaging in the most basic nonpartisan political activity, such as organizing nonpartisan get-out- the-vote drives, registering voters, or hosting candidate forums in their neighborhood. If the Treasury Department and the IRS have their way, these sorts of activities would jeopardize the tax-exempt status of social welfare organizations. Making matters worse, the administration is pushing the proposed rule based on a false premise. Treasury issued these rules under the premise of ``considerable confusion'' in the tax-exempt application process. They use the term considerable confusion to justify their actions. However, the committee's investigation has found no evidence that confusion caused the IRS to systematically target conservative groups. In fact, we found evidence to the contrary, that IRS workers in Cincinnati flagged Tea Party cases for Washington, D.C., because of ``media attention.'' Before Washington got involved, front-line IRS employees were already processing and approving Tea Party applications with no intrusive questionnaires or signs of confusion. In addition to being based on a false premise, the proposed rule was drafted in secrecy and long before the administration's proclaimed need for clarity. Our investigation has discovered that Treasury and the IRS were working on these new rules behind closed doors for years--well before the targeting came to light. While the administration claims that the proposed rule is a response to the inspector general's audit report, IRS employees told committee staff in transcribed interviews that discussions about the rule started much earlier, in the spring of 2011. Further, a June 2012 email between Treasury officials and then-IRS director of tax exempt organizations, Lois Lerner, shows that these potential regulations were being discussed off plan--meaning that the plans for the regulations were to be discussed behind closed doors. This type of behavior raises serious questions about the integrity of the rulemaking process and counsels for putting a hold on the draft rules. The intent of the rules proposed by the Obama administration is clear: to legalize the IRS' inappropriate targeting of conservative groups. These proposed rules severely limit groups' rights to engage in public debate by labeling activities such as candidate forums, get-out- the-vote efforts, and voter registration as ``political activity'' for 501(c)(4) groups. However, 501(c)(3)'s--which are not allowed to engage in my political activity--and labor unions are free to continue to engage in these activities without limitation. It is clear that the American people are also concerned that these proposed rules would squash their First Amendment rights. Treasury has received over 94,000 comments on the rule so far, which is the most they have ever received on any rule ever. Given the American public's significant interest in the proposed rules, it is imperative that Treasury put a hold on them until the investigations into the targeting are complete so that all the facts are known and the public has ample opportunity to be heard. This legislation will ensure that Treasury does not rush this rule into effect this year, allows the ongoing investigations to issue findings on the targeting, helps us to stop the IRS' targeting of taxpayers based on their personal beliefs, and is a commonsense step to preserve these groups' ability to engage in public debate. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' to this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) control the remainder of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I seek the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit actually allows and perpetuates the targeting of Americans by the Internal Revenue Service. This motion to recommit permits the government to restrict the free speech of Americans. I can't stand for this. The American people can't stand for this and should not stand for this. Vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 478, I call up the bill (S. 540) to designate the Air Route Traffic Control Center located in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the ``Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center,'' and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S. 540.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The last time I stood on the floor to talk about a ``clean'' debt limit increase, I did so to prove that we could do better. It was an effort to implore my Democrat colleagues in the House and the Senate to heed the warnings of the President's own fiscal commission, also known as the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which clearly noted how our economy and hardworking taxpayers would suffer under the mountain of debt Washington was racking up. My position is unchanged. I remain as committed as ever to grappling with our debt; to making the tough decisions to reform, improve, strengthen, and protect our entitlement programs; and, most importantly, to getting this economy back on track so hardworking taxpayers start seeing their pay go up and those in need of a job can find one. In fact, that work is underway at the Ways and Means Committee where we posted for public comment bipartisan proposals to reform Medicare and Social Security so that they are viable for seniors and taxpayers, not only today but well into the future. Regrettably, over the last 3 years, Democrats have hardened their position. The President, Senate Democrats, and House Democrats will not even entertain a discussion--let alone a negotiation--over what reforms we can make along with a debt limit increase. They have become unyielding. Democrats are totally adamant: extend the debt limit or default. That is the position of today's Democrat Party: don't negotiate, don't reach out across the aisle, ignore the past, which clearly shows the debt limit typically passes with other reforms. Mr. Speaker, I remember serving when Bill Clinton was President. Those were different times. Despite our different opinions, we were able to find common solutions for the American people. We balanced the budget, reformed our Nation's welfare laws, and helped break the cycle of dependency by placing an emphasis on work. Today, Democrats openly cheer that their health care law will lead to less work. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed the Democrats have walked away from the table, and I am disappointed we are not engaged in a more serious debate today. But as disappointed as I am, I cannot, in good conscience, let the Democrats' refusal to engage lead to a default. For that reason, and that reason alone, I will vote ``yes'' today. But today's legislation is hardly a solution to our looming debt crisis. That is why the Ways and Means Committee will continue to carefully review and advance policies that not only reform our entitlement programs, providing greater protection for seniors and greater savings for hardworking taxpayers, but also policies that will create a stronger economy with more jobs and higher wages for workers. It is only through a combination of such policies that we can truly solve this problem. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Budget Control Act was signed into law on August 2. On August 5, Standard & Poor's downgraded the United States credit rating and did so because: The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the President recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics. There have been some speakers who have come to this floor who said we were downgraded because of brinksmanship. We were downgraded because there were those of us who wanted to see some approach to fiscal responsibility in our debt limit negotiations. Clearly, that is revisionist history, and the facts bear out. Standard & Poor's own quote was it was because we didn't go far enough, not because we tried to address our medium term and long-term debt. So this reinforces my point. We can't be satisfied with just increasing the debt limit. I realize that is where we are today, and as I have said, I will vote for this legislation, but as another speaker has said, they have viewed this as nonnegotiable, and what we really need to do is reach across the aisle and work together to find long- term solutions to both our medium term and long-term debt obligations so that these programs, like Medicare and Social Security, these valuable programs that serve many of our citizens, are not only viable and there today, but there well into the future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I point out to my friends on the other side that, in recent memory, there have been seven instances where debt limits were part of other major pieces of legislation. For example, in the first Bush administration, there was a Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Act; in the Clinton administration, there was the Reconciliations Act, as well as the Contract with America Advancement Act; in the Obama administration, there was stimulus, Pay-As-You-Go, Budget Control Act. This has happened seven times in recent history. What is different? Why can't it happen now? Well, the difference is that you had both parties willing to come together and negotiate major pieces of legislation that would help to address the short-term, medium-term, and long-term drivers of our debt. What we have now is a very open admission that it is absolutely nonnegotiable. There is a straight increase in the debt limit without any legislation, even though this happened seven times in the past. So I would just say that debt limit increases are often parts of larger pieces of legislation and it would not be unusual. And it is, I think, a sad day when the other side has a take-it-or-leave-it approach and is unwilling to come together with the Republicans to find a way to bring other legislation to the floor that will help address the drivers of our debt. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.