Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to and remember the life of an outstanding individual, Mr. Robert G. Heft of Saginaw, MI, who I am sad to report passed away this week. Mr. Heft, who liked to be called simply ``Bob,'' was a man whose innovation and patriotism created a legacy that reaches even into outer space. Bob was the man behind a true representation of patriotism, the symbol of our Nation that flies proudly today above this very building, across the country, around the world, and yes, is even on the moon. Using his mother's sewing machine and a hot iron, Bob created the first fifty-star flag as an assignment for school. His teacher originally gave him a B minus, so they made a deal: if Bob's design was accepted by Congress, he would change the grade to an A. So Bob sent his prototype to his Governor and Congressman. Then, one morning in 1958, Bob received a very special phone call. On the other end of the line was President Dwight D. Eisenhower, personally calling the high schooler to tell him that Bob's version of the American Flag was picked by the President to replace the 48-star flag as the official design for our recently-expanded Nation. Bob's flag was chosen from more than 190,000 entries submitted. Bob was there with the President on July 4, 1960, when the flag was flown for the first time. What began as a history project later became the longest-serving flag in American History, an American icon, and the true face of freedom. Bob's work is an inspiration to our students that each morning recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And yes, it was his flag that just a few years later was launched and planted on the Moon, a perpetual reminder that our citizens' innovative talents know no bounds. Bob's service to our Nation did not end there though. He was a longtime Professor at Northwest State Community College in Archbold, Ohio. After his retirement, Bob served as mayor of Napoleon, Ohio for 14 years, becoming the longest serving mayor in the town's history. During this time, Bob also became a popular motivational speaker, going to schools and veterans' groups all over the country to tell his unique stories. The many that met him said that Bob emanated a true warmth and love for his country. I wish to extend my sincere thanks to Bob Heft, a true patriot throughout his life. I also wish to extend my deepest condolences to his family and friends. Though most citizens may have never met him, all have been touched by the symbol of American freedom that he created, and has become part of the integral fabric of this country.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Albert Einstein once said, ``The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'' Yet even though their stimulus bill hasn't created a single job and has resulted in 10 percent unemployment, House Democrats have brought to the floor today a stimulus II bill that explicitly amends, continues, or expands numerous provisions of their failed stimulus I bill. And here's a graphic depiction of this insanity. How does spending more on the Bureau of Reclamation create jobs now when it didn't before? How does transit capital assistance create jobs now when it didn't before? And how do more loan guarantees create jobs now when they didn't before? This is a ``son of stimulus'' bill. Let's stop the insanity. Vote ``no.''

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I thank the gentleman from Nevada for yielding, and also I want to thank him for his leadership on the Ways and Means Committee this year. The bill before us is a candid admission by the majority that their tax, borrow, and spend ways have driven America deeper and deeper into debt. In fact, because of the failed trillion-dollar stimulus spending bill, America's unemployment is higher than predicted and revenues are lower. But that hasn't stopped the majority from continuing to spend, spend, spend. Just last week, the majority rolled six major spending bills into one omnibus bill that increased, on average, Federal spending by 11 percent. Now, the bill before us asks us to increase the debt limit another $290 billion. The American people are asking: where are the jobs? But all they have been shown is more deficits and more debt. Let's be honest with the American people. It really isn't $290 billion the majority wants to increase the debt limit by. It's more like $1.8 trillion. In a few short months, we'll be right back here voting on another bill to increase the debt limit, probably by another $1.5 trillion. At the end of 2007, the public debt equaled 65 percent of our gross domestic product, or GDP. By the end of 2009, the figure will exceed 83 percent, and according to President Obama's own budget projections, it will exceed 100 percent of gross domestic product by 2011. Think about it: at the rate the majority is spending, the Federal debt in 2011 will exceed the value of all goods and services produced by the economy that year. This isn't just a Democrat or a Republican problem. It's a huge problem for every single American. It threatens our economic recovery and our future prosperity. So let's remember the words of then-Senator Obama in 2006 who warned of the dangers of raising the debt limit without addressing the underlying cause. Here is what he said: ``The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. ``Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means `that the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'' Americans do indeed deserve better than what they have received this year. But rather than heed that warning, Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey recently said: ``We don't really have a choice. The bill's already been run up; the credit card has already been used. When you get the bill in the mail, you need to pay it.'' The gentleman from Wisconsin was correct: the credit card has been used. But this legislation doesn't pay the bill. It doesn't even make the minimum monthly payment. It simply asks for more credit. After going on a $1.4 trillion deficit spending binge and maxing out the taxpayers' credit cards, Democrats are now asking to increase the credit limit. We should not be asking for more credit. We should be developing a plan to control Federal spending so that future generations are not trapped under this mountain of debt. Until we see a plan to actually address this underlying problem, as then-Senator Obama warned we must, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2194. I am deeply concerned that Iran continues to pursue nuclear capabilities in defiance of the international community. The Iranian leader's abhorrent statements against America and Israel are outrageous. Both current and previous Administrations view Iran as a profound threat to U.S. national security interests, a view that reflects my position as well. We must address the situation. I have continually supported efforts to give U.S. Presidents the tools and capabilities needed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and I continue to do so today. I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of H.R. 2194. I believe we need to expand sanctions to refined petroleum resources to prevent Iran's nuclear proliferation. 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 multilateral effort. This bill, like other Iran sanctions bills that have preceded it in this chamber, was referred to the Ways & Means Committee. Usually on Iran bills, Foreign Affairs and Ways & Means discuss and agree jointly on the provisions in the bill that fall within the jurisdiction of my Committee. These conversations have always been very productive in the past. This process provides the best possible outcome, because it respects the strength and thrust of the bill, as well as positions the legislation to give our Administration the best chance at continuing to cultivate and maintain international multilateral pressure. We are still in the midst of that process for the bill now under consideration, and the bill we are voting on reflects the starting point of that process, not the end result. The aspects of the bill within the jurisdiction of Ways & Means that the two Committees are still discussing include the bill's provisions addressing the President's waiver authority, the structure and content of the additional mandatory sanctions, and certain definitions. Although we have not completed our discussions, I can nevertheless offer my full support to this bill because of the Foreign Affairs Chairman's commitment to continue working with the Ways & Means Committee on these outstanding issues. In light of that commitment, it is my expectation that bona fide, good-faith discussions between Ways & Means and Foreign Affairs will continue as this legislation proceeds in the legislative process.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CAMP. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I urge my colleagues to support the Andean Trade Preference Extension Act of 2009, which will extend the Andean trade preferences, as we know as ATPA, and also the Generalized System of Preferences, we also refer to as GSP, for an additional year. However, I do think it's important to note my disappointment that we did not put a message specifically putting Ecuador on notice that its behavior and its receipt of continued benefits is at serious risk. There is a deteriorating investment climate in Ecuador as well as their repudiation of the bilateral investment treaty. I think it's very important that while it is understood in this legislation that there is language maintaining a review, I am concerned that there is not specific language aimed at challenging Ecuador's actions. I do think this is a change from current law and it's a step backward. I think it's important to send a strong message that any central tenet of a preference program is that the participants uphold their commitments to the rule of law as well as their commitments to the U.S. on investment and other matters. So as a result of this, I believe preference programs should not be viewed as an entitlement; that they are based upon meeting certain criteria as I mentioned, particularly, as others have said, the observance of labor and environmental laws, certainly actions to prevent the distortion of investment as well as the support and enforcement of intellectual property laws as well as reasonable access to markets. However, I do think despite these concerns, this legislation is extremely important. It is essential that we extend this for another year. I think that this is an important step to take, and I will support its passage. I look forward to working with the administration as well as my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin, as we continue to address trade issues in the coming year.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me be blunt. We can and should be doing much more to advance our trade agenda and to create much needed jobs for American workers. This year, America's trade agenda has stalled, and it has had a chilling effect on our economy, on job creation and on global commerce, in some cases, even weakening our national security interests. The delay in considering the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement alone has cost U.S. exporters and their workers over $2.4 billion in unnecessary tariffs. Last week, the President said there would be a renewed focus on trade next year. I welcome that commitment, and I stand ready to prepare our free trade agreements for congressional consideration. In the meantime, we still have valuable work to do. Although we are not dealing with any of our pending free trade agreements today, we are considering important trade programs which protect our own interests and which help advance developing nations--extensions of the Generalized System of Preferences and the Andean Trade Preference Act. Make no mistake; the legislation before us is far from perfect, but it is a chance to ensure that the trade agenda does not slide further backward. By supporting this bill, we are sending a signal to the world that America is ready and willing to engage. I am a strong supporter of our trade preference programs. These programs are vital, particularly as we struggle with the global recession and with the collapse in international trade. Allowing these preference programs to lapse would be a mistake that would encourage the rest of the world, which is already passing us by when it comes to new trade agreements, to increase their lead on us, and we cannot allow that to happen. As I noted, this legislation should have been stronger to provide greater certainty to American employers doing business in developing countries, something sorely needed in this economic climate. I would have preferred to see a 2-year extension of that program instead of the 1-year extension before us, but I think we all agree that a 1-year extension is better than no extension at all. I would also have preferred to see a continuation of the bipartisan provision in the current Andean Trade Promotion Act program that requires enhanced oversight over Ecuador's compliance with the eligibility criteria. Unfortunately, this legislation fails to recognize the serious questions that surround Ecuador's compliance with the eligibility criteria for this program. The 2008 bipartisan extension of ATPA extended benefits for Ecuador but required the administration to issue a report on Ecuador's compliance with eligibility criteria. This report, released on June 30 of this year by the Obama administration, highlighted multiple concerns, which I share. Specifically, the report raised questions about Ecuador's compliance with its international investment obligations. The report raised concerns about Ecuador's decision to increase certain import duties above their bound levels and impose quotas on imports. None of these issues have been resolved. In fact, they have gotten worse. Despite failure by Ecuador to address the issues raised in the Obama administration report, the majority has inexplicably stripped out last year's reporting requirement. For all the talk from the other side about enforcement and compliance, this legislation fails to address legitimate concerns our workers and employers face in Ecuador. While the legislation requires reporting for all of the Andean countries, I am disappointed that the majority has decided not to engage in specific oversight of a country clearly falling short of our expectations. As 2009 comes to a close, there will be many retrospectives on the year. One focus ought to be on whether Washington advanced a pro- growth, pro-job trade agenda. The answer is clearly ``no.'' We started the year with the passage of a new Trade Adjustment Assistance program, showing what can be achieved when there is a bipartisan, bicameral commitment. We should all be very proud of what we have done for workers who are trying to adjust to the global economy. But until today, there has been absolutely no positive movement on the trade agenda since TAA. While I am encouraged the majority decided to extend two trade preference programs, the failure to make this legislation as robust as it could have been shows the need to return next year to the sort of bipartisanship that we saw on TAA. I urge the majority to make that happen, and I am committed to doing my part. Madam Speaker, we owe the American people a better result. Today's legislation gives us the first opportunity to build on the President's words to us at the White House last week, in which he acknowledged the importance of trade in creating jobs, but it represents the bare minimum. I urge my colleagues to support a robust trade agenda that creates opportunities for American workers. For that reason, I support passage of this legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. CAMP. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. CAMP. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who has been a leader in the effort to restore the local sales tax deduction.

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

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

Mr. CAMP. To close, Mr. Speaker, the American people don't need to be reminded of the dire economic situation we face today. The American people know unemployment at 10 percent remains far too high. They know it's tough to make ends meet without having to pay higher taxes. They know higher taxes on investment, on business investment, won't create jobs. In fact, it will hurt job creation. The American people need not be reminded of those things, but apparently the majority does. Nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats enacted their so-called stimulus bill. Unemployment is 25 percent higher than the administration promised, and yet the bill before us proposes to add a new $24.6 billion tax on business investment. Now, frankly, I wish we could end this year-end process we go through, and I know the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee gave an interview yesterday where he suggested a way out of this year-end extenders process we find ourselves in. I look forward to working with the chairman to try to find a solution to this problem. The bottom line is the decision we are faced with today means we should be encouraging business investment, not discouraging it through higher taxes. I would just say to my friend that our motion to recommit would not repeal the international banking disclosure provisions. In fact, Republicans share the majority's concern about the illegal use of offshore accounts to evade U.S. taxes. Tax evasion is a Federal crime and individuals who break the law by illegally hiding their income in offshore accounts and any financial institutions that facilitate that tax evasion should be aggressively pursued and punished to the fullest extent of the law. If loopholes exist in law that allow tax cheats to illegally hide assets offshore, obviously Republicans stand ready to help close those loopholes in an appropriate way. As I said, our motion to recommit would retain the language in the majority's bill on that provision. Again, these extensions of tax relief, which in many cases are policies Republicans passed and voted for when we were in the majority, they are helpful, and they are important to do, but they are temporary. They last 1 year. In order to get that done, the majority would increase taxes on economic investment. Let's just be clear about this. It changes how business income has been taxed for decades, making it so that income that is currently taxed at a rate of 15 percent would be taxed at 35 percent, more than doubling that tax in an economic recession. It places one of the highest taxes on investment found anywhere in the world, and its reach and scope will increase taxes on everyone from the largest investors to the local real estate partnerships, again, permanent tax increases for 1 year of tax relief. With that, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, this point of order illustrates the dangers raised by the majority's PAYGO rule and its decision at the start of this Congress to prohibit us from offering motions to recommit that are not PAYGO compliant, something that all minorities, Republican and Democrat, over the last many years have been permitted to do in prior sessions, including as recently as last year. The majority has asserted the motion to recommit violates clause 10 of rule XXI, known as the PAYGO rule, which requires amendments, including those contained in a motion to recommit, to be budget neutral. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that his point of order should be overturned because it precludes the House from considering the merits of a different approach to the underlying bill, one that would let the American people keep more of their hard-earned income. By contrast, granting the PAYGO point of order would prevent the House from considering whether to extend this tax relief, as it has done many times before, without offsets. We should be encouraging business investment, not discouraging it through higher taxes. Let's be clear. This carried interest tax of over $25 billion changes how business income has been taxed for decades, making income currently taxed at 15 percent up to 30 percent, more than doubling it. Mr. Speaker, granting this point of order would foreclose the House from even considering whether it might want to pass this bill with fewer offsets or further tax relief. Accordingly, I ask that you overrule the point of order and allow the House to debate and vote on our alternative, which would provide additional tax relief for families and small businesses without some of the most objectionable offsets found in the underlying bill.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is the tradition of this House to annually extend certain tax relief items, everything from a research and development tax credit to incentives for the manufacture, purchase and use of alternative fuels, to credits that help offset out-of-pocket expenses for teachers that they incur buying materials for their classrooms. I helped write many of these provisions, and if the bill before us were truly a tax extenders bill, I'd be voting for it, as I have in previous years. However, the Democrats seemingly have never met a tax cut they liked; and, thus, the Democrats have turned tax extenders into tax extenders and tax raisers. I want each of my colleagues to think about that for a minute. The bill before us proposes permanent tax increases and just 1 year of tax relief. Unemployment is at 10 percent. Nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs since the start of the year. The economy is continuing to hemorrhage thousands of jobs every month. Small businesses continue to struggle as credit markets remain tight. And this proposes to raise taxes on economic investment. Just yesterday the President called for a Stimulus II package to help small businesses and to help start job creation. Part of that was to cut capital gains taxes on investments in small businesses, showing he understands the importance of capital to growing business and creating jobs. By contrast, this bill changes how carried interest has been treated for decades, and it is nothing short of a new tax on the very investments needed to start a new business and create economic growth in this country. So while Democrats claim they want to stimulate growth, they are actually increasing taxes in a way that will discourage job creation. And they left more than two dozen expiring tax relief provisions out of the bill, including the biggest of them all, the AMT patch. So in addition to the tax increases within this bill, there are, by omission, close to 30 tax increases that Americans will face next year because of the bill's shortcomings, including higher taxes for small businesses and approximately $2,600 in higher taxes for millions of middle class families. While some of those admissions might be justified, I'm disappointed that, once again, the Ways and Means Committee held neither a hearing nor a mark-up to consider legislation within our jurisdiction. Given the disconnect between House Democrats' rhetoric on jobs and their votes for tax increases, it is no wonder employers are confused. New investments aren't being made, and unemployment remains high. I support tax extenders, and that's what we should pass today, not this tax- increasing, job-killing bill before us. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. CAMP. At this time I am prepared to close if the gentleman has no further speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. What we're being offered here is temporary tax relief for 1 year paid for with permanent tax increases. And I would just say that while the majority disingenuously portrays this provision as targeting only rich Wall Street financiers, it actually goes well beyond that, affecting investments and transactions along Main Street as well. This extremely broad provision applies not only to private equity firms and hedge funds, but also to real estate partnerships that invest in every congressional district and venture capital funds that help finance start-up, high-tech and biotechnology investments all across America. This provision would have far-reaching consequences on the returns of the pension funds, university endowments, and philanthropic foundations that invest in these partnerships that are targeted by the majority. Let me just, for the record, say that in CQ there is a quote from Chairman Baucus on the Senate side that said the House on Wednesday will take up a roughly $31 billion bill extending dozens of provisions expiring December 31. The major offset for the package, raising $24.6 billion through taxing investment on partners income for managerial services as regular income rather than capital gains, is unlikely to survive in the Senate. Again, we are moving forward on a funding mechanism that is permanent for 1 year of tax relief, and it is something that the Senate will not take up. To go on further, he says the provision passed the House twice in the 110th Congress but went nowhere in the Senate where Democratic leaders deemed it too contentious. Earlier this year, Baucus said he did not want to spook shaky financial markets by using the measure as an offset. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I just want to comment, too, on this perfect economic picture you said occurred in 2001. As we all know, the bubble burst in 2000. So that history is not quite accurate. I just want to correct that for the record.