Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, we have one remaining speaker in addition to myself.

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

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

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, our economy is in a recession and we must act. The question, however, is what action do we take. The President has directly challenged us to put aside partisanship and find an American solution. I was pleased to meet with the President today and ask about including new provisions in this bill. Frankly, what we saw from the President today was a greater effort to reach out to Republicans than we have seen from the House majority. Mr. Chairman, the American people know we cannot spend our way to prosperity. What was once an $825 billion ``stimulus'' bill has now grown to be $1.1 trillion. The American people know that adding $1.1 trillion to the deficit for new spending on old government programs will not create jobs. They know small businesses create jobs, not the Federal Government. And they know families can better manage their budgets than the Federal Government. So as we go through this debate, we will point out some very simple facts about how effective Federal spending is versus tax cuts in creating real private sector job growth. Just yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its review of the spending in the House Democrats' proposed ``economic stimulus'' legislation. This CBO review confirms what Republicans have been saying all along: the Democrat package won't stimulate the economy now when it needs it most. The primary reason is, the Democrat plan relies too heavily on slow government spending initiatives, not tax cuts to do the job. As seen in the chart next to me, even the Democrat stimulus bill proves tax cuts impact families and the economy twice as fast as government spending. CBO went on to say reductions in Federal taxes would have most of their effects in 2009 and 2010, but purchases of good and services, either directly or in the form of grants to States and local government, would take several years to complete. Worse yet, CBO expects that the rate of spending in 2009 would be considerably slower than historical rates of spending, and many of the larger projects initiated would take up to 5 to 7 years to complete. The bottom line is this, Mr. Chairman: The nonpartisan CBO confirms that tax cuts get more money into the hands of American families and our economy faster than government spending. The American people know that tax cuts are a better way to stimulate the economy than borrowing money from China just to increase Federal spending and raise the Federal deficit. If the Speaker was interested in answering the President's call to reach a bipartisan American solution to this crisis, she would work with Republicans to increase tax relief for every working American. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I believe every child in America should have access to quality health care. The Children's Health Insurance Program has done just that for those in families without the means to provide or buy insurance on their own. SCHIP was created as a bipartisan program, and it was one I was proud to support. The bill before us today, however, not only threatens the core mission of the program, which is providing health care to low- income children, but creates a new entitlement that will demand higher taxes on all Americans in just a few short years. Let me first state the obvious problem with this bill. A children's health program should not be used to cover adults, noncitizens, potentially illegal immigrants and those making $80,000 a year. There's another problem with the bill, one the majority hopes you ignore. This bill blatantly attempts to hide the true cost of the bill to the American taxpayer. It's irresponsible and untenable to fund a children's health program with the revenue stream that's fast drying up. Increasing the cigarette tax, regardless of your support for such an idea, does not, will not, and cannot cover the cost of this program. The Democrats are blowing a giant cloud of smoke into the face of the American taxpayers, and I believe the impending tax increases that must come to cover this program will have us all in a severe coughing fit. The Democrats want you to ignore the fact that the percentage of Americans who smoke has been dropping for decades. But research and logic both show that raising the prices of cigarettes will lead to less smoking and fewer tax dollars coming into the Federal Treasury. Yet, the only way for this funding scheme to work is if the majority finds 22.4 million new smokers. I can't wait to see the look on Senator Daschle's face when the Speaker tells the soon to be Health and Human Services Secretary that little tidbit. But in all seriousness, with its funding base declining, SCHIP costs will increase exponentially. CBO predicts that SCHIP spending will more than double under the Democrats proposal. The resulting gap between program spending and revenue becomes staggering, a gap the Democrats will soon ask the American taxpayers to fill. In closing, I'd like to add one final note. This bill represents a broken promise to lower- and middle-income Americans. President-elect Obama promised that no one making less than $250,000 per year would see their taxes go up; yet, under this proposal, a working-class family with two adult smokers would face hundreds of dollars in additional Federal tobacco taxes each year. We haven't made it to Inauguration Day, and House leaders are already breaking this campaign promise. That might be a record, even here in Washington, D.C. Let's keep SCHIP focused on low-income children. Let's not ask 22.4 million Americans to start smoking, and let's demand a better bipartisan bill. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana for his leadership, for his thoughtful approach to issues, for his service to the Ways and Means Committee and to the Congress, and especially for his friendship. I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1424. Is this better than the original Paulson proposal? Yes. Is this bill perfect? Hardly. And this bill is better, especially for taxpayers. The bill resolves the remaining tax items before the Congress. After months of delay, the House will finally do what Republicans called for back in June, pass an AMT patch without increasing taxes. Without the patch, more than 25 million American families would pay an additional $62 billion in taxes. We must provide this relief sooner rather than later, and I'm pleased this will finally be done without raising taxes. By passing this bill today, Congress will extend for 2 years the wide array of important tax credits and deductions so many families and employers rely on. We are reaffirming to the auto industry and consumers that incentives for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles will remain law. This is something I have pushed for hard in the House. And this new plug-in credit, like the hybrid credit that I offered in 2005, will spur consumer demand for alternative vehicles and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. With this bill, we are providing certainty to businesses that are investing heavily in research and development. The Senate amendment extends the R&D credit through 2009 and increases the alternative simplified credit. This is a step in the right direction. We must make the credit permanent to attract high-tech businesses and compete in today's global economy and to keep jobs here in America. Myself and Mr. Levin, my colleague from Michigan, have championed legislation to do just that, and I look forward to making this goal a reality in the next Congress. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to support this legislation so that Congress can provide stability to our financial system and give American workers and businesses the tax relief they so desperately need and deserve.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my strong support of H.R. 6950, the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act. I was pleased to work with Chairman Pete Stark to craft this bill that recognizes those that have donated their organs, and gave the gift of life. And it is a fitting tribute to name this bill in honor of our late colleague, Stephanie Tubbs Jones. A dedicated public servant to the end, she too gave the Gift of Life, helping over 50 individuals. Enacting this bill will give the thousands of Americans who also donated their organs appropriate recognition for their tremendous gift by presenting them with a Congressionally-sponsored medal. Each year, individuals donate approximately 14,000 organs. This is an amazing success and they should be recognized. Yet there are still nearly 100,000 individuals waiting for transplants. In order to further encourage individuals to consider organ donation, Congress must publicly thank those that have made this selfless and living saving decision. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Former Senate Majority Leader, Dr. Bill Frist. As a transplant surgeon and sponsor of this legislation in previous years, Dr. Frist helped to encourage greater organ donation. Mr. Stark and I introduced an earlier version of this bill in honor of Dr. Frist, who has endorsed H.R. 6950. Enclosed is a copy of Dr. Finally, I want to thank the Tubbs Jones family for allowing this bill to be named in her honor. I am proud that we will pass this bill to ensure that through tragedy, lives will be saved and honored. Nashville, TN, September 15, 2008. Hon. Pete Stark, Chairman, Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Dave Camp, Ranking Member, Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Stark and Ranking Member Camp: Thank you for your leadership on the Gift of Life Congressional Medal. Like you, I am truly inspired by those that donate their organs. I can think of no act that is more honorable or selfless, and it is befitting of Congress to pass this act to recognize these outstanding individuals and their families. I was pleased to sponsor this legislation in the Senate. It is also extremely fitting to name this legislation in honor of the late Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. A tireless advocate for those in need, she cemented her legacy by donating her organs and tissue, which will help over 50 individuals. Her act, and the thousands that have come before it, must be recognized. Each year, there are nearly 14,000 organs that are donated. As a transplant surgeon, I have seen firsthand how lives are transformed through these miraculous gifts. For me, it is a privilege to be part of the transplantation process. I am continually amazed at the advances in technology that make transplants more successful every year. While advances are being made, there are still too few donors--nearly 100,000 people are waiting on national transplant lists. To encourage more donors, we should make every effort to recognize those that make this life-saving decision. I believe creating a Gift of Life Congressional Medal is critically important to increasing awareness on this issue. Again, please accept my sincere appreciation for your work and strong support for naming the Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act in honor of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. It is a fitting tribute for such an outstanding and committed woman. Sincerely, William H. Frist.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I'm also pleased to rise in support of this legislation, which will make important changes to the Qualified Individual program. This program helps low-income Medicare beneficiaries pay for their Medicare premiums. While the QI program was extended under the Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act enacted in July, some States were still facing shortfalls. The bill we are debating today provides $45 million to ensure States like Alabama and South Carolina have sufficient funds to maintain Medicare enrollment for their low-income seniors. Importantly, this bill is fully paid for by requiring State Medicaid programs to electronically submit eligibility determinations to the Public Assistance Reporting Information System. Mr. Speaker, it is critical to the health of low-income seniors that we enact this legislation promptly, and I urge the House to support this bill.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

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

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7060, the majority's latest extenders package, a bill that will never actually deliver the tax relief it's promising because it will never pass the Senate and it will never be enacted into law. I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee--it's time to be realistic. We are in the waning hours of this Congress, only a day away from our scheduled adjournment, a day or two or three. Yet here we are, conducting another purely political exercise on a tax bill that is doomed in the other body because of our House majority's insistence on adhering to the misguided PAYGO rules. Indeed, as the end of the 110th Congress draws near, it's interesting to see the application of PAYGO to expiring tax provisions remain as difficult for the majority today as it has ever been. Throughout the year, Republicans have insisted that we should not have to raise taxes to prevent a tax increase. Democrats, meanwhile, have insisted that PAYGO requires us to find offsets for these tax extensions. Of course, the majority's adherence to PAYGO has been somewhat intermittent. It has been waived to fund unemployment benefits, and on the housing bill passed in July. And PAYGO has never applied to spending, which continues to grow at unsustainable rates. It has also been waived for extensions of some tax provisions, including just Wednesday on the AMT patch. Nevertheless, the majority has steadfastly refused to waive PAYGO for other expiring tax provisions even in the face of ample evidence that the Senate and the President are not in agreement with that position. On Tuesday, the Senate acted on a bipartisan basis to find common ground on this issue. They agreed, by an overwhelming vote of 93-2, to approve a comprehensive tax relief package containing extenders provisions that are not fully offset, as many Democrats would prefer, but contain more offsets than Republicans would like. Is the Senate's package perfect? Of course it isn't. But given the limited time left in this Congress, the Senate's comprehensive package is likely the only option that will lead to enactment of much-needed extensions of expired and expiring provisions, including the AMT patch, the State and local sales tax deduction, the research and development tax credit which is so critical for restarting our economy, and the extension of the subpart F exception for active financial services income. Why is this our only option? Because the Senate, which has labored long and hard to develop that compromise, has indicated in no uncertain terms that it is not going to reconsider these issues again this year. The Senate majority leader made that point on Tuesday on three separate occasions. In the morning he urged the House: ``Don't send us back something else. We can't get it passed. If they try to mess with our package, it will come back here, it will die, and we will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.'' In the early afternoon, he told a reporter that he had talked to House leaders and ``told them how important it is that we get a bill back like the one we sent them . . . If they send us back something different . . . it is dead, sorry to say.'' And then, to make sure that there was no confusion, even later in the afternoon the majority leader said, ``If the House doesn't pass this, the full responsibility of this not passing is theirs, not ours.'' So let's be clear. The Senate's comprehensive tax package, which passed 93-2, is the only clear path for enactment of the AMT patch and the tax extender package we are debating here today. Let me say that as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I don't like being told by the Senate what we should or should not do. This is not how I prefer to legislate, of course. However, with adjournment looming and with a continuing resolution that takes us into next year, it is time to be realistic, as the distinguished chairman said. We are headed down a path that will leave all of these critical issues unresolved well into 2009. Simply put, the majority's insistence on paying for extenders has painted us into this corner. And, unfortunately, we don't have time to wait for the paint to dry. Failing to act on the extenders this year will be burdensome to businesses and families alike. It is important to note, Madam Speaker, that the House majority's extenders bill contains no net tax relief. None. That is in stark contrast to the Senate's position. The Senate's comprehensive tax package contains approximately $107 billion in net tax relief after subtracting out the AMT patch, the disaster-related tax provisions and the mental health parity benefits from the Senate's package to account for the House's passage of those provisions as separate freestanding bills. We see that the remaining Senate extenders provisions by themselves provide approximately $35 billion in net tax relief. On the other hand, the House extenders bill provides no net tax relief to American taxpayers because every last penny of tax relief is offset with revenue raisers elsewhere, and that is not a good deal for the American taxpayer. It is also a bad deal for U.S. businesses and employers that are trying to compete with their foreign counterparts. That is because the House bill provides a long-term delay, potentially until 2019, of the implementation of more rational worldwide interest allocation rules that are currently scheduled to go into effect in 2011. These more rational rules, originally enacted by Republicans in 2004, were good policy then and remain good policy now. While the majority refers to those as an international tax provision, when implemented, these rules will actually help companies avoid double taxation on their foreign income, and we shouldn't push off for nearly a decade the effective date of a provision that will help American businesses and employers compete. I would also note, Madam Speaker, that the House bill in many instances provides considerably less generous tax benefits than the Senate bill, including and especially with respect to energy-related tax benefits. For example, the House bill omits entirely a number of Senate proposals, including an extension and modification of the election to expense certain refineries, an energy-efficient home credit, and a special depreciation allowance for certain reuse and recycling property. In addition, the House bill places considerable limitations on a number of the Senate's other energy-related provisions, including a reduction in the maximum credit for plug-in hybrids, a key restriction on the credit for producing electricity from most renewable sources. Moreover, unlike the Senate package, the House bill does not contain $3.3 billion in funding for the Secure Rural Schools Program. Madam Speaker, when the 110th Congress convened last January, I had high hopes that these 2 years would be spent working on a bipartisan basis on issues people care about. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have real disagreements about what each side believes in. But, unfortunately, in the face of a bipartisan Senate solution to the extenders debate, and the ticking clock on this Congress, the House majority is still clinging to PAYGO on this bill. Time is short, Madam Speaker. Whether we defeat the House bill now or whether the Senate rejects it later, this bill's life expectancy is exceedingly short. The sooner the majority sees that, the sooner we can begin debating the Senate's comprehensive package which would actually be enacted into law. I urge opposition to this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, frankly, in terms of responsibility, if the majority had exercised their responsibility, we wouldn't have let these extenders expire for 9 months and be here at the closing days of the session. We would have dealt with these earlier on in the session. We've heard a lot of discussion about the House's role and the Senate's role. But as we know, we have three branches of government. And another important point in this discussion is the statement of administration policy, which is, that we have an SAP that says that this legislation, H.R. 7060, if it were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill. And also in the statement, we have that the administration will support the bipartisan compromise in the Senate. So this isn't just about turf between the House and the Senate and what our responsibilities are. It's also about what is actually going to become enacted into law. Clearly what we're doing today is not going to go very far. So the question I have to ask is, why do we continue down this path? We've done this before on mental health parity, which we finally did accept the Senate language on. We've done it before on Medicare, where we finally accepted the Senate language yet this year. So there have been other occasions where we've done this. And I would just urge again my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation because its shelf life is very, very short. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this is really a very simple debate here. What we'd like to do is replace the text of the bill before us with the bill that the Senate passed this week by an overwhelming vote of 92-3, and there are three main reasons for this. First, that bill provides more tax relief. It includes fewer tax increases, and it can become law. The Senate measure also has a number of key provisions that are not in the House bill. Most particularly, the research and development tax credit is enhanced in the Senate version, which is so important to getting our economy up and going again. This is just simply an extension in the House bill. It's not nearly enough to do the job. Also, the House bill contains more tax increases, in addition to those that were in the Senate bill. The House bill further extends the effective date of what we call worldwide interest allocation rules which really make its difficult for our employers to compete in today's global economy. Finally, I think the most important thing is the Senate bill is a bill that could get enacted this year. It's quite clear that the issues that we're debating today with regard to the House bill will never be taken up by the Senate, as the distinguished majority leader of the Senate has made on many occasions and have been made repeatedly on this floor, including the comment that: ``Don't send us back something else. We can't get it passed. If they try to mess with our package, it will come back here, it will die, and we will--we will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.'' So I would urge this House to reject this point of order and move forward so that we can actually have a debate on the issues that we've been talking about all morning, instead of short-circuiting this debate and making it impossible for us to offer an alternative to what the majority is trying to do. We heard a lot about debate and openness and that the House is place where we shouldn't just say ``yes,'' we shouldn't just agree with what's happening. So I would say to my colleagues, if you're so interested in debate, why are you so afraid of having us bring this motion forward? Let us have the vote on this motion to recommit, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I'd be happy to say that, first of all, we have three branches of government.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Well, of course not.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Yes, in its current form.

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

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We've heard a lot about the principled stand of the majority in terms of PAYGO, but I have to say that to inflict permanent tax increases on the American people to pay for temporary extensions of tax relief is just nonsensical. And let me just say that their application of this principle has been inconsistent at best. It wasn't applied for the unemployment benefits extension that we did; it wasn't applied for the housing bill; it hasn't been applied when they wanted to extend AMT, alternative minimum tax relief; it won't be applied to the stimulus package that's being put through the Rules Committee right now. So to say that this bill is the only way because it has PAYGO when PAYGO is not applied in any kind of consistent manner across anything that they present to this House I think is an argument that really collapses under its own weight. Secondly, we have clear indication from the Senate, as the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina so eloquently said, who has stated that they will not take up this bill. They've passed a bipartisan compromise 92-3. We would have bipartisan support for that bill were it to come to this body, were my colleagues to bring that forward. Not only is it the other body, but it's also the administration. The President has said this bill would be vetoed if it ever reaches his desk. We know it won't get that far. So recognizing that we have limited time left in this Congress, recognizing that it really takes three branches of government, it really takes particularly the executive and legislative branch to at least get a bill enacted into law, the third branch to make sure it's constitutional; but knowing what the other branch of government has said already about this bill, knowing that we don't have unanimity in the legislative side, it makes absolute sense that we bring forward the Senate bill. Then on policy grounds, let me just say, the House bill has more tax increases than necessary, and the Senate measure includes a number of key items that are not included in the House bill that some of my colleagues have talked about today, particularly with regard to rural schools, but also especially in the area of energy. When you look at this bill lacking the credit for small wind power systems, which is going to so help our dependence on foreign oil, the business tax credit for geothermal heat pumps, which is part of our all-of-the-above strategy trying to support wind, solar, alternatives, geothermal, nuclear, whatever we can to help lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and then also the bonds to help municipal and cooperatives to install wind and solar power plants. We see those operating all over the country, efforts to try to get these alternative energy sources up and running. And here we've delayed 9 months to move forward on a bill and then bring a bill forward to this body which is inadequate in those alternative energy methods. Also for refining capacity, for energy- efficient homes, those are critical. And lastly, which is important to so many Members from the gulf coast still dealing with the aftermath of Katrina, the extension of tax credits for rehabilitating buildings in the GO Zone. These aren't just minor problems. These are glaring omissions that have received bipartisan support in the Senate. They're lacking in the House bill. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I would yield myself such time as I may consume and just briefly say that we will not see those goals achieved because this bill will not be enacted into law. Not only has the Senate majority leader said he will not take it up, we also have a statement from the administration that his advisers would recommend it be vetoed. I reserve the balance of my time.