Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Reserving the right to object, if I can inquire of the gentleman, are there only two speakers?

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This rule will raise $7.5 billion in taxes on U.S. employers. Higher taxes are just one consequence of today's rule. It turns a blind eye to the 58 tax treaties that have been negotiated by this Nation since the 1950s. By ignoring those treaty obligations, that invites the retaliation other speakers have talked about. These are our friends and neighbors who work for these employers, over 5 million of them in the United States. And these aren't necessarily obscure businesses you've never heard about. The effect of this provision may be on companies like DaimlerChrysler, Michelin Tires and Miller Brewing. And I say ``may'' because we don't really know. We've never had a hearing. We've never had testimony. It is part of the American fabric that people have a chance to speak about laws and provisions that may affect them. There has been no voice given to the people that may be affected by these rules, the 5 million employees. So I think to unexpectedly change these rules for these employers with zero debate is a dangerous precedent, and I will vote down the rule.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of my amendment that would preserve Medicare beneficiaries' access to the Medicare Advantage program. My amendment is simple. It would prohibit the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from implementing any policy that would prohibit a Medicare beneficiary from enrolling in Medicare Advantage, which allows seniors the option of receiving their Medicare benefits through a private health care plan. Today, 8.3 million Medicare beneficiaries, including millions of low- income minority and rural seniors, are receiving their health benefits through Medicare Advantage. Retired union workers are also attracted to this important program. In fact, in my home State of Michigan, 116,000 retired teachers, janitors, bus drivers and school cafeteria workers are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan to the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System. Vulnerable beneficiaries choose Medicare Advantage over traditional Medicare because it's often cheaper and comes with better benefits than traditional Medicare, like disease management programs and preventive care. Low-income seniors are more likely to enroll in Medicare Advantage, relying on the program's lower copayments and free preventive care. Medicare Advantage plans saved beneficiaries an average of $86 per month, compared to what they would have spent in traditional Medicare. Additionally, Medicare Advantage provides protection against catastrophic health care costs not provided by traditional Medicare. For example, many beneficiaries can choose a Medicare advantage plan that would cap their annual out-of-pocket health care costs at $2,000. Minority beneficiaries are more likely to enroll in Medicare Advantage. In fact, 40 percent of African Americans and 53 percent of Hispanics who depend on Medicare for their health care are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. The NAACP recognizes the importance of Medicare advantage saying: ``By providing more comprehensive benefits and lower cost-sharing than traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans help racial and ethnic minority populations gain access to health care services that are critical to their long-term health and well-being.'' For the first time, seniors have access to Medicare Advantage, regardless of whether they live in big cities or in rural America, in districts like mine. Rural seniors have voted with their feet. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage has increased 300 percent since 2004 when just half of rural seniors had a Medicare Advantage plan in their area. Rural beneficiaries clearly like their new options. Medicare Advantage is helping to provide flexible, affordable, modern health care benefits for minorities, low-income beneficiaries, seniors living in rural areas and union retirees. Congress must ensure that these health care benefits are available to qualifying beneficiaries. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to say that this is really a straightforward amendment. What it simply does is prohibit the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services from implementing any policy that would prohibit a beneficiary from enrolling in Medicare Advantage. Now, obviously, if beneficiaries lose access to care by a reduction in funds to the Medicare Advantage program, and thereby benefits being reduced, that is something we want to try to avoid. This is a critically important program that, as I said, ensures millions of seniors that have seen rapid growth, and in particular parts of the country has made really great strides in covering low-income seniors, those in rural and urban areas, those in minority populations that might not otherwise have access to care, and we have seen enrollment increase 300 percent since 2004. So I think in light of what is going on, it is important to reinforce our support for this strategically important program, but it is a fairly simple and straightforward amendment.

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

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a project that deserves the support of every member of this House. The Great Lakes Energy Research Park, which is to be located in the heart of the district I represent, will be the first Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle facility in the world to co-produce (1) over 728 Mw of electric power and (2) permanently sequester over 3.8 million tons per year of carbon dioxide which will ultimately recover over 180 million barrels of stranded oil. Let me repeat that--180 million barrels of stranded oil. I'm not talking about new drilling in environmentally sensitive areas and I'm not talking about opening up new wells. I am talking about finally tapping much needed resources that yesterday's technology simply could not drive out of the ground. Additionally, it is important to note that this bed of oil reserves is located in the geographic center of Michigan--not in the Great Lakes, and far from Hurricane Alley, where most of our crude wells lie. As we learned from Katrina, geographic diversity is as an important topic in the energy debate as is alternative energies. So, as we discuss utilizing new technologies, clean technologies to solve our dependence on foreign crude, we would be foolish to ignore the types of technology being put in place in Alma, Michigan. This project, however, is about much more than recovering stranded oil. This facility is designed in such a way to virtually utilize every byproduct of energy production. With this type of forward thinking it is no wonder that the project has received support from a wide variety of local community groups, institutions, citizens and organizations. Included among the list of proponents are the City of Alma, Michigan, Firstbank of Alma, Michigan, the Gratiot Medical Center, Alma College, the Gratiot County Board of Commissioners and the Gratiot Area Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Chairman, as American families and businesses grapple with rising energy costs, the Great Lakes Energy Research Park can be a part of the solution. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this unique effort to produce more energy here in America.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, there is an old saying in Washington, DC, that goes: if you want a friend, then you better get a dog. While Nancy, the kids and I did just get a dog, I have long considered myself lucky enough to have been in the Circle of Friends with Timothy Edward Bartlett. For that I thank him. And for those of us who knew Tim, friend is the word that comes to mind when we think of him. He embodied the word and gave it greater meaning. He was more than a person you knew and liked. He was a person who inspired, excelled and, despite returning to God much too soon, he lived a full life. Tim's obituary read in part that he was passing ``into an eternal community without limits.'' It will be the second such home he lives in, for Tim never allowed himself to be restrained. In that sense he was Myrna and Ed Bartlett's son. He took risks and was rewarded and as a result he set out and not only lived in his own home, but gave others the courage to do the same; he was active in his faith and improved our community; and his adventures led him to see and learn things many only dream about. I remember one such trip to our Nation's capital. It was my great pleasure to show Tim the U.S. House of Representatives, where he was able to see the House Chamber firsthand. In fact, Tim came away from that experience with more than just a view of how laws are made, he came away with the Speaker's gavel. In all of my years serving in the House, no one but Tim has ever managed that. And, while the Good Lord has gaveled Tim's session here on earth to a close, he remains my Friend; he remains an inspiration to us all. It is with deep sadness I say goodbye to my Friend, Timothy Edward Bartlett. Lord, as many others did, I knew and liked this man. I know You will do the same. May You keep him close and may his spirit light your community of angels as he lit ours.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, the events of the last few years have reminded us that ``eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.'' The United States stands as a beacon of hope and liberty for the world because of the eternal vigilance of the men and women who have served and are serving in the United States military. Marine Lance Corporal Ryan John Burgess was one such soldier. A patriot through and through, Ryan did not hesitate to answer the call to duty when his country went to war. Never an easy decision, and one that causes great concern amongst parents, Ryan enlisted and excelled as a marine. His leadership was often recognized by his superiors in the form of being granted additional responsibilities. Today, I want to recognize on the floor of the United States House of Representatives the life and service of Ryan John Burgess--a life given in full so that our freedom may be preserved. Ryan's bravery serves as a stark reminder of the responsibility we have as stewards of this great country--the land of the free and the home of the brave. So, as we salute heroes like Ryan John Burgess, we remember them with undying gratitude. And we resolve, though we cannot repay the debt we owe them, to live our lives in such a way as to be worthy of their sacrifice. May God keep Ryan; may God watch and comfort his family; and, may God continue to grant this Nation with the courage to defend life and liberty.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the bill before us today, the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act, H.R. 518. Last year, the House of Representatives unanimously approved this bill. While the Senate failed to take action on this important legislation, I urge my colleges in the House to send it to the other body again. This is an issue that transcends political partisanship. With the support of the entire Michigan delegation, and other Members representing Maryland and Virginia, H.R. 518 sends a strong signal to foreign countries, particularly Canada, that States should no longer be viewed as dumping grounds. The volume of foreign waste from Canada into Michigan continues unabated. Since 2002 Canadian shipments of waste to Michigan have increased 83 percent. Not only do these shipments crowd our landfills, but they also pose environmental, public health, and even national security risks. It is long past that time States are lawfully able to regulate the amount of municipal solid waste coming across the border and into their communities. H.R. 518 gives States the legal authority to regulate this waste until the Federal Government implements a 21-year-old bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Canada on this subject. H.R. 518 does not violate trade agreements. The House has done its due diligence in crafting this legislation to avoid any potential trade issues. Simply put, H.R. 518 provides the legislative authority for the United States to implement the 1986 bilateral agreement this country signed with Canada. More specifically, the legislation authorizes and directs the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement and enforce the 1986 Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste between the United States and Canada. The Administrator is required to issue final regulations within 24 months after the date of enactment. Under the 1986 agreement shipments of hazardous waste require notification to the importing country and that country's consent before waste may be shipped. The agreement was amended in 1992 to establish similar requirements for municipal solid waste. H.R. 518 provides the legislative authority for the agreement to be implemented and ensure both governments provide proper notice and shipment information before dump trucks cross the U.S. northern border. Stopping trash coming into Michigan from Canada must be done through statute--not handshakes. H.R. 518 accomplishes this goal. This bill represents the first real opportunity in a long time to ensure States know in advance what is coming into their communities and where it is going. The Michigan delegation in the House of Representatives has done a terrific job of helping bring H.R. 518 to the floor for a vote. I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. I am hopeful the Senate will soon consider the measure.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

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

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York, a member of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1562, the Katrina Housing Tax Relief Act of 2007, which was introduced by my friends, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. It is unfortunate that we continue to deal with the aftermath of the devastating hurricanes of 2005. The imprint left by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the Gulf Coast has been well documented. Unfortunately, the slow pace of recovery has also been well documented, despite substantial efforts by the Ways and Means Committee and the Congress as a whole to provide direct and indirect support to the rebuilding efforts. As part of that effort, the Congress enacted the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005. Among its provisions, the measure authorized a tenfold increase in Section 42 low-income housing tax credits for States in the Gulf Opportunity Zone. At the time, our hope was that putting a fast expiration on those credits would lead to the rapid rebuilding of this much-needed housing. Our experience, however, has shown otherwise. Delays in getting necessary permitting and insurance, combined with the high cost of materials and a shortage of skilled labor, have created a situation in which many of the allocated credits are likely to go unused by the current December 31, 2008, deadline. The good news for the GO Zone is that credits not used by the end of 2008 will not be lost. Instead, they will revert back to the State for future allocation. But the difficulties on the ground create uncertainty as to whether these projects will be placed in service by the end of 2008. Witnesses at an Oversight Subcommittee hearing earlier this month warned that many deserving projects that had been allocated credits in Louisiana and Mississippi by the State housing agencies are going unfunded and therefore will not be built by the end of next year. The measure before us makes several changes to the rules governing low-income housing tax credits in the GO Zone. These changes expire at the end of 2010. Hopefully, the modifications we are making today will allow the States to get these housing projects financed and constructed long before that sunset date. It is my understanding from the Joint Committee that the cost of this bill is not the result of additional credits being used. Rather, it is that credits will be used more quickly than expected under current law. Under these circumstances, I believe the changes in the bill before us are an appropriate response to the unique and unprecedented challenges in the gulf coast region and will help ensure that goals of the 2005 legislation are met. Unique circumstances sometimes require unique solutions. Finally, I would like to comment on a provision of the bill being used to offset these costs. As originally considered by the committee, the measure would slightly alter the circumstances under which the government can levy the assets of an employer for unpaid employment taxes. During committee considerations, questions were raised about the provision, and I am pleased that the bill we are considering today contains an important modification to the provision that ensures that employers who unknowingly fall behind in their payment of employment taxes are properly protected. On that count, particular thanks are due to the chairman, the staff of the IRS and the Treasury and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation for their help in working through this difficult but important issue. Mr. Chairman, let me again express my appreciation to you and your staff for working across the aisle to craft this measure that I hope will make it possible for thousands of residents of the gulf States to go home soon. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that aims to help propel the introduction of plug-in hybrid vehicles by automobile manufacturers. These clean, efficient, high performance vehicles have the potential to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, lower emissions, and help the nation's auto manufacturer's move forward into the nextgeneration of advanced technology vehicles. Government mandates are no substitute for the power of capital markets. That is why my bill is aimed squarely at consumers. Providing tax credits to consumers for the purchase of any type of plug-in hybrid vehicle, allows people to pick and choose the model that suits their needs and preferences. The goal of this legislation is to stimulate consumer interest in these new vehicle technologies. The current bottleneck for producing plug-in vehicles is battery technology. The Administration has proposed millions of new research dollars aimed at advanced battery technology. This type of research is important. Breakthroughs are needed to usher today's concept plug-in vehicles into the showrooms and ready for customer purchase. To date, the types of batteries needed to power cars and trucks are too heavy, too expensive, and too limited. I am confident, however, that America's ingenuity and desire to take a global lead in battery research will soon overcome the current barriers to entry that exist for plug-in hybrid vehicles. My bill stimulates consumer demand by providing taxpayers a maximum tax credit of 10 percent of the cost of any plug-in hybrid vehicle up to a maximum $4,000 in the case of a plug-in with a 4kWh battery. Each additional kWh would get an extra $250 credit. This model is based on the electric vehicle tax credit. Most auto manufacturers are already working on plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies. I believe with greater consumer demand, Detroit's automakers can, and will produce vehicles that meet the demands of consumers and address concerns over foreign oil, high gas prices, and cleaner air. My bill is just one of many ideas to help bring about this desired result.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join Representative Richard Neal and introduce legislation to make permanent the Subpart F exception for active financial services income. Under current law, the provision will expire next year. I have long been an advocate for this legislation. While Congress has extended Subpart F for active financial services income on an ad hoc basis, such inconsistency does not make for good tax planning or tax policy. Besides ensuring consistency, Congress must develop policies that help businesses invest and keep jobs here in the United States. Allowing tax benefits to expire is a direct tax hike on employers, and it is a direct assault on every American job. This legislation ensures that U.S. financial services firms can continue to defer U.S. tax on their earnings from their foreign active financial services operations until such earnings are paid as dividends back home. No other developed country in the world imposes current tax on financial services income earned outside their country. If the U.S. is to remain competitive in the global marketplace, the Federal Government must not put our companies at a tax disadvantage. Without the legislation we are proposing, American financial services companies will lose out on business to foreign firms. When American companies lose customers, American jobs are lost. Overseas operations are important to American companies' domestic success. For example, if North American profits dip, these companies can use their global profits to offset losses. And, as I mentioned before, domestic jobs are gained when a business has more customers to sell to. Domestic jobs support overseas operations, increased product exports, and product development. Failure to make permanent this current law provision would be a critical mistake for the U.S. economy. If U.S. financial services companies have to pay current U.S. tax on the active financial services income they generate overseas, they will have higher costs than their foreign-owned competitors. Their customers will turn to non-U.S.-owned firms. Given the thousands of U.S. jobs at stake, I do not believe our tax policy should allow this to happen. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act. I want to thank Representative Pascrell for introducing this bipartisan legislation. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I authored similar legislation in the last two Congresses. Sewer maintenance is a serious problem for Michigan and the Fourth Congressional District. Many of the sewers in this country, including several in my State, were built during the 19th century. The problems associated with old sewer lines are especially rampant in low-lying coastal areas such as Michigan, where water runoff collects. Sewer overflows discharge untreated or partially treated human and industrial waste, toxic materials, debris and disease-causing organisms into the environment and pose a grave threat to the environment and public health. In 2005, there were over 1,000 reported sewer overflows across the State of Michigan. These events spilled 20 billion, and I repeat 20 billion, gallons of sewage and wastewater onto the ground and into rivers, lakes and streams. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the total cost for repairing every sewer line in the country is $140 billion. Local governments clearly cannot fix this mess alone and meet their obligations under the Clean Water Act. The Water Quality Investment Act goes a long way toward ending the public health and environmental crisis associated with sewer overflows by authorizing Federal funds to repair and replace outdated systems. I urge my colleagues to approve H.R. 569 today. I would like to thank those individuals who helped move this legislation forward, including Mr. Pascrell, the sponsor, and for his long support of this legislation; Mr. Oberstar, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; and Mr. Mica, the ranking member of this committee.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank him also for his distinguished service in the United States Congress, the United States Air Force, seven of those as a prisoner of war. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this nonbinding resolution. And I share with my colleagues, our servicemen and women and their families, the wish that this war was over and won. It is not, and the resolution before us today does nothing to resolve this conflict, does nothing to reduce the loss of American life, does nothing to stabilize Iraq and does nothing to advance our security. I would like to use my time today to relate some of the comments that I have received from my constituents in the Fourth District of Michigan. From Big Rapids: ``The Congressmen and women who are opposed to these plans should come up with better solutions! Don't penalize our military men and women by making politics a part of their safety and well-being!'' From my hometown of Midland: ``Please stop playing politics with our lives and the lives of young people who are defending our country.'' From Alma: ``I am sick of the partisan politics. We went into Iraq united, but we have let politics divide us. It is time to realize some things are bigger than the political parties!'' Friends, we may often disagree. But the facts are, regardless of how it began, and irrespective of the benefit of hindsight, we are at war and Iraq is the central battleground. Islamic extremists are waging a jihad against us, and they are struggling to make Iraq a base camp. Our focus must be on winning; and, disturbingly, I see no mention of winning, succeeding, or victory in this resolution. That in itself is telling of just how the other side perceives this conflict: not in terms of defeating an enemy of America, but in terms of defeating a political foe. Our troops deserve better. The American people demand more from their leaders. Again, in the words of one of my constituents from Bannister: ``I hope Congress is tough enough to do what works, not just what is politically correct. We need to move carefully and deliberately, showing a united front, or we are again going to be the victims of some outrageous terrorist attack.'' Sadly, the new majority does not seem to understand what so many Americans readily grasp. ``If you support the troops, you must support the mission or you send the wrong message to the enemy,'' as it was so aptly put by a constituent from Ashley. From Farwell: ``Congress needs to get behind the President and help, not hurt, the morale of the soldiers that are fighting. They believe in their mission!'' And I believe in them, which is why I cannot and will not support this resolution. As I conclude my remarks, I want to leave you with two comments. The first is from Traverse City: ``We should all pull together and get the job done.'' And the second, from an airman from Corunna: ``Thank you for the much needed support of me and my fellow airmen.'' I hope that once we dispose of this nonbinding resolution, our focus turns to supporting our servicemen and women, making America more secure and achieving the victory our military personnel are putting their lives on the line for.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, we all agree that reducing America's consumption of foreign oil and gas is important. But, sadly this legislation is a missed opportunity. In fact, it will likely increase the country's dependence on foreign fossil fuels. H.R. 6 will increase taxes on domestic oil and gas producers and place the additional Federal revenues in a fund that will pay for future legislation to subsidize alternative energy programs. Imposing higher taxes one sector of the economy that is responsible for creating millions of jobs and accounts for 3.5 percent of total national employment is nothing short of terrible economic policy. H.R. 6 is a recipe for layoffs, lowered U.S. investment, and higher prices at the pump. One of the main provisions in the bill is to deny tax benefits enacted in 2004 to oil and gas companies. The tax benefits in the 2004 bill did not single out the oil and gas industry. In fact, the 2004 legislation lowered the corporate tax rate for all domestic manufacturers. The goal of the bill was to encourage companies, from tool and die manufacturers to the film industry, to remain in the United States instead of moving operations to lower-taxed countries. By singling out oil and gas companies and raising their taxes, H.R. 6 will have the effect of encouraging them to expand production overseas, limit U.S. investment, and cut their American workforce. Another source of concern is the millions of Americans who invest their pension and retirement savings in the oil and gas sector. Many State and local pension funds, as well as individual stockholders, invest in these companies. Retirees and investors depending on high performing stocks will likely be negatively impacted by Congress's decision to single out this sector. I am also concerned that H.R. 6 will force companies who signed leases with the Federal Government in 1988 and 1999 for drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico to renegotiate the terms of the contracts they signed. Under the Clinton administration, the Department of Interior failed to insert a clause in these contracts that would require firms to pay royalty fees when the price of oil exceeded a certain amount. Now, realizing the mistake, the Government has begun to renegotiate the leases on a voluntary basis with the affected companies. Some of them have agreed to begin paying royalty fees while others have not. The Government should continue to voluntarily negotiate with these firms. But, for the Government to force companies to pay new, higher fees as a penalty for not renegotiating legitimate contracts seems akin to what a Russian, Venezuelan, or Bolivian government would do. As a sponsor of legislation to expand tax incentives for solar energy and hybrid vehicles, I am committed to the improvement of energy conservation and new technologies. Reducing oil and gas consumption is important, but I do not believe H.R. 6 is not the right policy for achieving this objective. I urge my colleagues to resist policies like H.R. 6 that arbitrarily penalize American oil and gas companies and practically incentivize them to move operations overseas.

Mr. CAMP of Michigan

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Florida. (Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)