Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit on H.R. 5618 has a provision to pay for the extended unemployment benefits proposed in the underlying bill. We think it is important to help long-term unemployed people, and we want to do it without adding another $34 billion to the Nation's record $13 trillion debt. We know that the stimulus hasn't worked. In its wake, nearly 3 million private-sector jobs were lost, unemployed soared to 10 percent nationwide, and 48 out of 50 States lost jobs. So this motion to recommit pays for the $34 billion in Federal unemployment costs by cutting that much in unspent stimulus spending. Only a portion of the $1 trillion stimulus has been paid out, $414 billion as of June 18, as reported by the official Recovery Act Web site. That leaves hundreds of billions of dollars unspent and available to offset this bill. I would like to quote from the Statement of Administration Policy last November: ``Fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. The administration therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill.'' That statement was about the only one of the eight unemployment benefits extender bills so far that was actually paid for. But the same can and should be said about this motion. It is fiscally responsible, and it is central to the recovery of our economy and job creation. I would also like to read a quote from Speaker Pelosi that appeared in Congress Daily AM on Monday. She said, ``I am hard-put to pass any more initiatives here unless there is some reasonable prospect of success on the Senate side.'' Well, there isn't a reasonable prospect of success on the Senate side unless we adopt this motion to recommit. Just last night, the Senate rejected the unpaid-for version of this bill. Rejecting this motion ensures this bill will die in the Senate and that hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans will continue to go without their unemployment benefits. I urge all Members to join me in supporting this motion to recommit, which will help today's unemployed workers and improve the future for our children and grandchildren by not adding to our debt. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Here we go again. Another month, another bill extending unemployment benefits and extending the Federal deficit. Only this time, the Democrats have waited now almost an entire month since these programs last expired to come up with a plan for how to extend them, leaving hundreds of thousands of long-term unemployed people without needed benefits. And it's all because the Democrats refuse to pay for these benefits, despite record Federal deficits. Madam Speaker, I'm one of many on this side who support helping long- term unemployed people. I voted for these benefits. Even though my home State of Michigan recently ended its 4-year run, the highest unemployment rate in the Nation, the pain suffered by our residents remains real. But the American people know it isn't right to simply add the cost of this spending to our already overdrawn national credit card. They want to help those in need. They also know that someone has to pay when the government spends money. That assistance must not put our fiscal house, as a Nation, in even worse shape. And we're already in terrible shape, thanks to the other side. The Democrats' trillion-dollar stimulus plan created millions of unemployed workers, instead of millions of promised jobs. We can and should cut that ineffective stimulus spending to pay for extending UI benefits, as my colleague, Mr. Heller of Nevada, has proposed. Stimulus hasn't worked. In its wake, nearly 3 million private-sector jobs were lost. Unemployment soared to 10 percent nationwide, and 48 out of 50 states lost jobs. The only thing we stimulated is more government jobs. Even Democrats now question the wisdom of all that spending, as is evidenced by the fact the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee proposed last week to cut some of it to pay for expending other expired policies. But instead of that commonsense approach, our colleagues on the other side have brought up this unpaid-for bill, under a process that prevents any amendment, including an effort to pay for this spending. So I expect, because of those reasons, this bill will be defeated. And they know that. They want a campaign issue. Not because Members on both sides oppose helping the unemployed, but because Members reflecting what they're hearing from their constituents, listening to the people they represent, are opposed to adding another $33 billion to our $13 trillion mountain of national debt. Our national debt is now more than 90 percent of our total economy. Look around the world. Countries are sinking in debt. Yet, the Democrat leaders of this House seem among the last to recognize that this reckless spending cannot go on forever. I urge my colleagues to oppose this deficit-extending bill today so that we can bring up a real bill that allows us to pass and actually pay for these benefits for the long-term unemployed. That's the only road out of this policy dead-end into which the other side's spending ways have driven us. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

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

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I said in my opening comments, there are many people on this side who have and do support helping the long-term unemployed. I voted for these benefits. This will represent the eighth extension of unemployment benefits since July of 2008. Of those eight bills, one has been paid for. I heard my friend on the other side so eloquently speak of the forgotten man. What about the future of this country? What about the children and grandchildren who are going to be left paying this debt? The issue isn't should we extend benefits to the unemployed. The issue is should they be paid for or should they simply add to the deficit and further compound our problems. I happen to serve on the debt commission, the fiscal responsibility commission. We had testimony there from an expert who analyzed 200 years of world history and every country in the world and said that when your national debt gets to 90 percent of your GDP, which we're at now, you end up hurting the economic growth of the country by about 1 percent, and in America, that means 1 million jobs. That means by adding to the debt and deficit, we're costing jobs. Now, what we need to do is help grow this economy, and let me just say that these unemployment insurance benefits are not paid for in this bill. Of the $34 billion that would be spent on UI, not a penny is paid for. This bill is declared an emergency, and therefore, this $34 billion will be added to our already record $13 trillion debt, but it doesn't have to be that way. The House actually passed, as I mentioned, one extension bill last fall that was fully paid for, and here's what a colleague of mine on the Ways and Means Committee, a senior Democrat, said in a press release, and this is also found on his Web site: ``In passing the legislation . . . the bill does not increase the deficit . . . the extension is fully paid for.'' And here is what the Statement of Administration Policy said about that bill: ``Fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. The administration therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill.'' So, by the administration's logic, the fiscally irresponsible bill before us undermines the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. Let's vote ``no'' on this bill today so that we can come back tomorrow and pass a bill that extends unemployment benefits that is fully paid for and does not jeopardize the future of this country and the need for economic growth that is so important to getting us out of this recession. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding and for the introduction of this very timely resolution. Last weekend, in a free and open democratic process, Colombia elected a new President. The people of Colombia should be commended for continuing their long tradition of democracy. President-elect Santos is a strong U.S. ally who will continue Colombia's efforts to strengthen the rule of law, restore peace and stability, and promote economic growth for all Colombians. Colombia's progress is undeniable and its workers are safer now than ever before. So, while we should be reaffirming our alliance today, we should also be strengthening that alliance by passing the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. The United States already offers Colombia almost total duty-free access to the U.S. market, yet American exports face significant tariffs entering the Colombian market. The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement would lift these barriers and level the playing field, increasing U.S. exports by at least $1 billion. The Administration and Congressional Democrats have instead allowed this agreement to languish and this valuable ally to twist in the wind. As a result, U.S. employers have paid over $2.8 billion in unnecessary duties on American exports to Colombia. Those duties would vanish under the agreement and would allow U.S. employers to use this cash to create new job opportunities. But that's not the worst of it. In disregarding our agreement, the Administration and Congressional leadership have allowed other countries to race ahead of us, giving foreign workers a competitive advantage. American farmers are already experiencing the ramifications of this inaction. U.S. farmers have lost millions in potential exports to Colombia; those sales are instead being made by farmers in Argentina and Brazil, because those countries already have an agreement in place with Colombia. The damage to American workers and farmers will only get worse if Colombia's agreements with Canada, the EU, and others go into effect before our agreement. There is absolutely no reason for this to happen. The U.S.-Colombia agreement was signed over 1,300 days ago. The United States had a huge head start that the Administration and leadership has willfully conceded. For over a year now, the Administration has promised to find a way forward on this Agreement and present Colombia with the list of things it needed to do. The Colombians are still waiting for that list. If the Administration is serious about doubling exports and creating jobs, it must to do what's necessary to bring this Agreement up for a vote.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference agreement. I am deeply concerned that Iran continues to pursue nuclear capabilities in defiance of the international community. Such actions pose a profound threat to our national security interests. I have repeatedly supported efforts to give U.S. Presidents the tools and capabilities needed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and engaging in terrorism, and I continue to do so today through this conference agreement. In pursuing the critical goal of preventing Iran's nuclear proliferation, I am pleased that the conference agreement expands the sanctions available to the President to include refined petroleum resources. In addition, the severe financial restrictions imposed under this agreement will prevent banks from doing business with blacklisted Iranian entities. However, while domestic sanctions are critical, it is also important that our allies participate in an international coalition so that combating Iran's nuclear proliferation is a powerful multilateral effort. This conference agreement encourages this vital endeavor. The original House bill, like other Iran sanctions bills that have preceded it in this chamber, was referred to the Ways & Means Committee. I am pleased that as a conferee, I have been able to work with my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee to address the issues in our jurisdiction in a way that maintains the strength of the bill. This has been a bipartisan and productive effort resulting in a robust agreement that takes powerful action against Iran, gives the Administration the best chance at continuing to cultivate and maintain international multilateral pressure, and is consistent with our trade obligations. I thank Chairman Levin for his valuable efforts, as well as Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, in achieving this exemplary outcome and urge my colleagues to support this conference agreement.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, today, my district laid to rest a local hero, a man who truly embodied the community spirit that makes our country so great. George Hoddy, an extraordinarily accomplished businessman, booster, and philanthropist in Owosso, Michigan, died on Sunday at the age of 105. His life is an example for all Americans. He moved to Owosso in 1936 as an enterprising young man, driven by a truly American spirit to provide jobs and help Owosso recover from the Great Depression. He founded Universal Electric Company in Owosso, becoming a community icon and providing steady employment for thousands. George was a constant innovator, developing ideas and obtaining 32 patents in the small-motor field. Not content with simply being a business leader, George was also icon in many-community organizations. A run-down of just a few of those include Memorial Healthcare, the Rotary Club, the Boy Scouts, Shiawassee YMCA and YWCA, Shiawassee United Way, Owosso-Corunna Area Chamber of Commerce, Owosso Industrial Development Corporation, the Shiawassee Foundation. His service truly was life-long: he was a Mason for more than 80 years. And there are many more. George's involvement illustrates how working together and giving back can better one's community. One of his crowning achievements was to encourage Baker College to come to Owosso. He served as the original Board of Regents chair for Baker College of Owosso. Most recently, he donated his home and four other buildings to the school, and established a scholarship in his and wife Lois's names there. He has been, rightly, called an ``honorary founding father'' by Owosso's Mayor. George Hoddy's belief in and commitment to the founding strengths our nation; free enterprise, limited government, and involvement in his community made him a giant among men. I valued his friendship and counsel. His life was one to be truly celebrated.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, with the unemployment rate stuck at nearly 10 percent, far too many Americans and small businesses are struggling to get by. While the bill before us contains some very limited benefits, it does little to help small businesses create the jobs so many Americans desperately need. The motion to recommit the underlying bill keeps the underlying bill intact and provides real help to Americans by repealing one of the most onerous provisions of the new health care law, the individual mandate that, while exempting illegal immigrants, forces Americans to buy government-approved health insurance or pay a tax if they don't. The Federal Government has never required its citizens to purchase a particular product before, and doing so with health insurance violates the basic principles of freedom and individual choice. No American should be forced to buy or purchase health insurance they don't want or can't afford. This provision is so controversial that 20 States and the Nation's leading small business organization, the National Federation of Independent Business, have filed a lawsuit questioning its constitutionality. While legal experts will soon start arguing that case, we already know that the individual mandate tax penalty will fall hardest on middle- and low-income Americans. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2016, nearly 75 percent of the Americans who pay this tax will have household incomes below 500 percent of the Federal poverty level. That's roughly $73,000 for a married couple with no children. CBO also tells us that the Democrats' health care law will increase premiums for millions of Americans by up to 13 percent. That's a premium increase of about $2,100. As the Democrats' health care bill drives up the cots of health care premiums even higher, it will become more and more unaffordable for American families to comply with the mandate. Repealing this mandate will directly benefit millions of Americans and uphold the freedoms upon which this Nation was founded. It has the added benefit of eliminating the need for the IRS to hire thousands of additional employees, possibly as many as 16,000, just to enforce the new health care law. The recently enacted health care law is bad for workers, bad for employers, and bad for America. Clearly, we need to repeal and replace this law with commonsense reforms that will actually lower health care costs and let Americans keep the plan they have and like. And let me remind my colleagues of a quote from then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama. And I quote, ``A mandate means that in some fashion everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. . . . But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can't afford it.'' This health care law increases premiums by $2,100 for millions of American families and requires them to buy this government-approved insurance that they cannot afford. I urge my colleagues to stand with the American people and vote for the motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I am, in its present form.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I thank the gentleman for those comments. He makes a very important point. In closing, I just want to say that we look at the costs that the individual mandate particularly is going to hit hard on small businesses and how difficult that's going to make it for them to continue to be able to expand and hire workers. And we know that the small business health care tax credit is virtually a fraud; that 90 percent of small businesses won't be able to qualify for that because, again, that's so narrowly drafted that there's the rhetoric of being able to say, Aren't we doing all these great things? But the reality is there's nothing there. Let me just say that at the end of 2010, when all the individual income tax rates increase, as well as on dividends and capital gains, that's going to hit small business particularly hard because most small businesses file as individuals. And that's going to make it much more difficult for them to expand. It's going to make it much more difficult for them to hire and much more difficult for job creation to occur. Also, I would say that another difficult problem is that this bill, while it generates $7 billion in tax revenue, it only provides about $3.5 billion in tax relief. So, again, taxes are being raised permanently for temporary spending in other parts of our economy, and it's my understanding that most of that extra revenue will be used to help pay for another TARP-like program--TARP III as some call it-- that's going to be coming our way. So, again, with our unemployment rate continuing to be at a lingering 10 percent, the difficulty our small business, the engines of economic growth and job creation are facing, the help they need, this bill is not enough. Again, it takes us down a road of higher spending that our Nation cannot afford at this time. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill is going to spend taxpayers' money. I believe we have an obligation, if we're going to spend taxpayers' money, that we do it effectively. On Friday night, the Treasury released a report that in 2015 our debt will exceed the gross domestic product of this country. We've had expert testimony before the Debt Commission that said when your debt gets to 90 percent of GDP, you lose 1 percent off economic growth, which translates into 1 million jobs. This bill, because of how narrowly focused it is, how narrowly drafted it is, virtually no small businesses will take advantage of the exclusion of capital gains because they have to be C corporations. And if there is one trend we've seen, it's that businesses are being organized as passed-through entities now. That's how America, particularly small business America, is being organized. So while this is great rhetoric, this bill isn't going to be effective in doing anything. And let me just say, I heard the former chairman say that Republicans just say no. On the health care bill, we had a viable alternative. In fact, I will say the vote on the health care bill was bipartisan opposition, only majority partisanship support for that legislation. Whether it's been stimulus or health care or energy, we have had viable alternatives on the floor that we have brought forward. On this particular bill, I think that better work could have been done, more effective work could have been done. And, frankly, in this era of the highest debt ever this country has seen, I think we have an obligation that if we're going to spend taxpayers' dollars, it's done in an effective way and a way that gets results, and this bill falls short. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker. I agree with much of what some of the speakers have said today about the importance of small business and the job creation that small business has been responsible for. You can see statistics where 80 percent of the job creation in recent years has been because of small business. Certainly, if we're going to recover as an economy, small business will lead the way, and needs to recover. And we've seen over the past few years the way small business has been organized. Increasingly, they're pass-through entities. The vast majority of small businesses are pass-through entities. So what does the majority do? They pass a small business bill that doesn't apply to the majority of small businesses. This provision here, which is the bulk of the bill that excludes capital gains on the sale of certain small business stocks, only applies to qualified small businesses. Well, what is a qualified small business? A C corporation. That's how most large businesses are organized. So this bill won't do anything. Again, while we have record debt, the largest in the history of this country, well over $13 trillion and an estimate from the Treasury Department that, in 2015, the debt will exceed the size of the entire economy of the United States for the first time in history--before we spend taxpayer dollars, we ought to do it in a way that's effective. There are things that we could do for small business. I will say the majority has made this bill better than it was the first time by dropping some of the controversial provisions that would have potentially caused our trading partners to retaliate against us. Obviously, closing the black liquor provision is something that I think every Republican supports as well. That's a good thing. But the fact that this legislation is not where it should be doesn't mean that we should just look the other way and pass it, because it doesn't meet the standard that this Congress should be meeting in this difficult economic time. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield the customary 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, this bill contains many positive features but also some negative ones, and thus, I reluctantly plan to oppose it. Like my friend on the other side of the aisle, I'm pleased to see that it does include some tax relief, albeit limited, for small businesses, including provisions championed by both Republicans and Democrats. I'm also pleased, unlike earlier versions of this legislation, the most objectionable revenue raiser, a provision that could provoke retaliation by other countries and that even the Obama administration officials warned would violate our international treaty obligations, has been dropped from this bill. But despite those positive features, I will be voting against this bill for several important reasons. First, while the tax relief in here is welcome, it's not enough and won't actually help small businesses create the jobs we need to reduce our stubbornly high unemployment rate. While I would certainly support further lowering taxes on small businesses, the last thing they need is higher taxes, which is exactly what they are facing from this Congress. Just last month, the majority pushed through an $11.2 billion tax hike on certain small businesses that would subject their profits to employment taxes, and at the end of 2010, all individual income tax rates, as well as taxes on dividends and capital gains, are scheduled to rise dramatically. Because so many small businesses pay taxes at the individual level, the fear of these increases is chilling expansion and hiring and, therefore, job creation. So the majority's record on tax policy affecting small businesses is spotty at best. Second, this bill, like others before it, provides a stark reminder of the majority's view of the Ways and Means Committee as an ATM machine to fund other spending. Here, the majority is seeking to generate $7.1 billion in additional tax revenue but would only provide $3.6 billion in tax relief over the next decade. The rest of the money raised will be used to offset the cost of another bill, H.R. 4297, which was reported by the Financial Services Committee, that creates another TARP-like program. Some might call it TARP III. While I'm glad the majority found offsets that are less economically damaging than some that have previously passed the House, the practice of using permanent changes in tax receipts to fund temporary spending is disappointing and portends further and larger tax hikes in the future, perhaps as soon as the end of this month when the majority hopes to complete action on a financial system reform bill. Mr. Speaker, especially with the unemployment rate continuing to hover near 10 percent, our small businesses, the engine of economic growth and job creation, need help, but this bill isn't enough, and it takes us further down the dangerous road of higher spending our Nation cannot afford. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to respond to my friend from Michigan, the chairman, and say it's really about the reality of this legislation, not just the rhetoric. And while excluding capital gains on the sale of small business stock is a great provision, the problem is this is drafted so narrowly that the small businesses have to be C corporations. And as we know, only a fraction of small businesses will be considered qualified small businesses to take advantage of this provision. This is the largest piece of this so-called ``small business relief'' bill. And while it's great to talk about, the reality of it is going to be very limited. As I said in my statement, there are some positive things in this bill. Obviously, closing the Black Liquor 3 loophole is something I support, but on balance, because the bill isn't really going to do anything to create jobs, A, and, B, because there are, again, going to be temporary provisions that are paid for with permanent tax increases, and, third, the revenue raiser on the estate tax area on the Grantor Retained Annuity Trust is really one that ought to be reserved for when we have to deal with estate tax reform. As you know, the law has expired. There are bills moving through the Congress to reinstate the estate tax. This really is appropriate to that area. I think it is absolutely unconscionable that we've gone all this time with no estate tax, with everyone understanding that the majority is going to create a retroactive death tax bill that's going to try to come back through the beginning of the year. This is where that provision should be. So, again, I reluctantly oppose this bill. I think there are some good things in it; unfortunately, they don't go far enough. I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).