Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means and chairman of the Subcommittee on Health. (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. We have the right to close.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes the child tax credit permanent and enhances it. Without this credit, without action, this credit will decline by $300 or it will raise taxes on families next year if we do not take action. The enhancements in this legislation increase the level of refundability to 15 percent of earned income at those income levels above $10,750 and it raises that 1 year earlier than under current law. Our military families have enhanced benefits as a result of this legislation because combat pay is treated as earned income for refundability, and we permanently prevent the child credit from being lost to AMT. Let me just say something about the Alternative Minimum Tax. A couple of weeks ago, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle offered an amendment to define the Alternative Minimum Tax to define middle-income taxpayers exactly the same way we have defined them in this legislation. So the enhancement of this credit for those middle-income families is important, but it is something that those on the other side proposed just 2 weeks ago. Let me lastly say that this is really about strengthening families, and it is interesting to hear the argument on the other side for those who feel that if the government loses money, somehow that is a problem for families. What we say is, no, this money is earned by those families in America and across the country, and if we can do whatever we can to have them keep more of their hard-earned money, that ultimately means not only would their families be doing better, but our economy will do better, and if the economy does better, our government will do better.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that I urge Members to reject the substitute because it does not make the child tax credit permanent, it ends in 2010, and we need to make that tax relief permanent. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Members should oppose this substitute for three simple reasons: First, just like the sponsors' substitute last week on permanence of the 10 percent bracket, this substitute is only temporary. It is not permanent tax relief. The substitute would cut the child credit in half after 2010, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Here is what that means. The benefits to the lowest income families would disappear. The benefits for our military personnel and their families would disappear. The AMT will gobble up the tax credits, which will drop to $500 per child in 2011 for families. Second, the substitute does not eliminate the marriage penalty and the child credit, and it does not expand access to the credit for middle-income families. By contrast, our bill, H.R. 4359, will provide the full tax credit to married couples with up to $250,000 in income and for single parents with up to $125,000 in income. The substitute's advocates are opposed to providing help to these families. And this is really a mystery, since the Democrats were willing to provide these same families with tax relief three separate times in the last 3 weeks. Two of their recent substitutes to other tax bills would have granted AMT relief both to married couples and people in the 10 percent bracket regardless of their income. The Rangel substitute on AMT relief exempted couples with up to $250,000 adjusted gross income, and single taxpayers with up to $125,000 in adjusted gross income from the AMT. So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit my friends on the other side simply are not being consistent. They continue to change their definition of middle-class families to suit whatever needs they see at the time. Finally, a tax increase is used to fund this bill, a 2.75 percent new tax on entrepreneurs. Seventy-five percent of the tax filers that this new tax will strike have business income. The Democrats' approach would raise taxes on small business owners and investors and undermine the economic growth that tax relief has delivered. This same tax-and-tax again approach has been rejected twice this May by substantial margins in this House and should be rejected again. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and appreciate much of the work we have done together on the Subcommittee on Human Resources. I would say, just a couple of weeks ago the other side of the aisle set their own definition of middle class when they offered an amendment on the floor to expand AMT to include ``more middle class families'' and exempt them from the AMT, which is exactly the same levels we have tried to incorporate in this bill. We have changed this bill to include those families. We are working together to try to strengthen families in America and try to help families with the incredible costs and burdens of raising children today. So I think we can all agree it is those families that need help. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), the sponsor of the base bill, H.R. 4359.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say that my friend's view of this whole economy and budget process is very different, because while his party was in control, the budget was not balanced for two generations. It took our party to gain the majority to actually bring some fiscal sanity to the process. I would just say that what we are debating here today, though, is whether we are going to extend the child tax credit permanently and whether we are going to do that in a way to help more low-income families, more middle-class families and more military families. The base bill does that. The substitute regrettably raises taxes on small businesses and entrepreneurs. That is exactly the wrong thing to do as we begin to see job creation come again; 1.2 million jobs since October of last year have been created as a result of the tax relief that we have passed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I certainly appreciate the gentleman's view of history. I would just point out that he forgot to mention that the previous administration signed the largest tax increase in history, which actually started to begin the economic decline that occurred at the end of the last administration. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that what we are trying to do here in terms of helping middle-class families is exactly the same definition that my friends on the other side used 2 weeks ago in their attempts to change the AMT to make that more beneficial. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the full Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the Rangel substitute for three reasons: the Rangel substitute does not make the $1,000 tax credit permanent. The Rangel substitute will cut the $1,000 child tax credit in 2011 in half, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The result: millions of low-income families and military families will face a hefty tax increase. In addition, more than 1 million more taxpayers would fall victim to the Alternative Minimum Tax. The second reason to reject the Rangel substitute is that it does not include tax relief for middle-class families in the way of the child tax credit. In the Democrat substitute to the AMT bill, it was the Democrats who defined middle-class families as single parents earning $125,000 a year and married couples earning $250,000 a year. This substitute would deny the full credit to families in those ranges. As a result, this substitute does not give the full tax credit to families defined by my friends on the other side as middle class. Thirdly, the Rangel substitute raises taxes on small businesses and entrepreneurs. The Democrat alternative creates a new tax that will hit approximately 200,000 individual tax returns. Seventy-five percent of those have business income, the same small business community that we have been working so hard to bring back. The House has rejected similar tax increases twice in the last 3 weeks. I urge my colleagues to believe in parents, believe in families, believe in children, reject the Rangel substitute, and vote for H.R. 4359. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3473.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Neil De Koker, a giant in the automotive supply industry and the recipient of the 2004 Executive Leadership Award from the Marketing & Sales Executives of Detroit. Known as a man who can turn a concept into reality, Neil founded the Original Equipment Suppliers Association, a strategic forum for automotive suppliers. With 353 members and global sales exceeding $300 billion worth of components, modules, systems, materials, and equipment used by the original equipment automotive industry, the OESA has provided information for over 4800 customers since its founding in August of 1998. A veteran auto industry executive, Neil's extraordinary skills as a manager creating consensus and delivering results, has led him to being recognized around the world as a key spokesman for the automotive supplier industry in North America. Neil's career, from furthering the growth and welfare of OESA members, to his 39 years in the automotive field, including playing a key part in establishing the Saturn Corporation, has vastly improved the automotive industry, the outlook of this key economic sector and the people who work within it. I am honored today to recognize Neil De Koker for his outstanding achievements and the undeniably positive impact he has had upon our State and Nation. He is truly an invaluable citizen.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation that provides permanent relief from the marriage penalty for millions of married Americans. Congress has debated this issue for years, but this is the first time we have really come close to getting rid of this onerous, unfair tax. Frankly, we should have done away with this tax a long time ago. It has not been for lack of trying by Republicans. In 2000, the Republican Congress sent President Clinton a bill that provided marriage penalty relief. President Clinton vetoed the bill before leaving Washington that day for a round of golf in Martha's Vineyard. Couples were left with another year of paying higher taxes simply because they were married. In 2001 the Republican Congress sent President Bush a bill that gradually phased-in tax benefits for married couples. The 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act increased the standard deduction for married couples that filed joint returns and increased the width of the 15 percent bracket for joint filers. These provisions would be phased-in beginning in 2005. Shortly after Congress passed this legislation, President Bush signed it into law. After years of frustration, progress was finally being made on lowering the tax burden on married Americans. Again in 2003 the Republican Congress signaled support for legislation that accelerated the tax benefits given to married couples. Instead of waiting around until 2005, under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, married couples would be able to receive tax benefits in 2003 and 2004. Beginning in 2005, however, the full strength of the marriage tax will again penalize taxpayers. We must not retreat from the progress we have made on eliminating the marriage tax. Opponents of making permanent marriage penalty relief argue that the country cannot afford lowering taxes for married couples. Certainly, it is without dispute that the country is facing a federal deficit. Federal deficits are a concern and we must work immediately to erase the red ink. In my view, cutting wasteful government spending should be a top priority. The legislation today leads us to accomplishing three main Republican priorities: permanent elimination of an unfair tax on marriage; continued economic growth through tax cuts; and deficit reduction because of a growing economy and job creation. For these important reasons, I support permanent repeal of the marriage penalty and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the birth of Alden B. Dow. In 2004, the city of Midland, Michigan will be holding a year-long celebration to honor the life and accomplishments of Alden B. Dow entitled ``The Quality of Life--The Influence of Alden B. Dow.'' Born in Midland on April 10, 1904, Dow's leadership and architectural ingenuity served as inspiration to his community. Trained at Columbia University's School of Architecture, Dow completed over 520 projects throughout his fifty-year career, each focusing on a theme of individuality. He designed homes throughout the United States, including World War II housing for the Department of Defense in Brazoria, Texas. He also designed the entire town of Lake Jackson, Texas during the same period. In addition to housing, Alden Dow also designed colleges, hospitals, and community buildings. His design of the First United Methodist Church in Midland won the Eighth Annual National Honor Awards of the American Institute of Architecture in 1958, and was the only religious structure to receive such an award. Dow has also received such honors as honorary degrees from various colleges and universities, and was a Fellow for the American Institute of Architects. He served as president of the Michigan Society of Architects in 1949, winning the organization's gold medal in 1960. He was also a recipient of the Frank Lloyd Wright creativity award in 1982, and in 1983, Dow was honored as Michigan's only Architect Laureate. I am honored today to recognize, along with the city of Midland, Michigan, the accomplishments of Alden B. Dow and his life contributions during this celebration.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for all their hard work on this important legislation. This does make important, commonsense changes to help keep workers' pensions intact, and replacing the 30-year Treasury bond rate is one step in addressing the crisis companies with pensions face, especially the airline and steel industries. These companies are facing massive mandatory payments because of the simultaneous collapse of the stock market and record low interest rates. Many defined pension plans have gone from an overfunded surplus to an underfunded deficit in just 3 years. Since these plans are now less than 90 percent funded, companies will be required to pay hefty surcharges, known as deficit reduction contributions. These payments are no less than a government-mandated surcharge requiring companies to make enormous additional payments in an unreasonable period. This bill would provide relief to those affected employers without sticking taxpayers with the bill. More importantly, this legislation protects employee pensions and the ability of companies to keep the doors open for business. It is both pro-worker and pro-employer. Under the bill, companies would continue to make their normal pension payments, but be allowed partial 2-year deferral for contribution payments. In no way does this plan relieve any company from their pension liabilities. They must continue to make their normal pension contributions. This bipartisan plan is supported by both unions and management. This legislation is essential to maintaining healthy and viable employers and to protecting the pensions of thousands of workers, including the 305,000 new jobs and new pensions that were created last month.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a very important issue to me, and to the veterans in my district. As you may know, the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Commission recently issued its report to Secretary Principi. While the goal of the CARES Commission is to improve the health care services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to our veteran population, I do not believe this report takes into account the legitimate concerns expressed by veterans in my District. Specifically, the CARES proposal calls for the closure of acute medical care beds at the Aleda E. Lutz Medical Center in Saginaw, Michigan. The loss of these beds would be detrimental to level of care provided in the region. Veterans in the northern portion of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan currently have only one VA facility that is accessible to them for inpatient care, the Saginaw VA Hospital. For veterans traveling from the rural portions of Michigan, getting to Saginaw can already be a difficult task. If the proposal is put into place, veterans seeking immediate care will face an unnecessary strain of two hours worth of additional travel. I certainly understand that the VA is undergoing a change and trying to better fit its facilities with veterans' needs. However, it must do so in a manner that does not establish new barriers for veterans seeking care. Every remedy we propose must ensure that veterans know exactly where to go when they need medical care. Simply put, the solution cannot be worse than the problem. The VA hospital system was established to provide veterans, who have made great sacrifices for this country, with direct access to the care they deserve. We must not back down from that promise. Veterans have come to rely on the services they receive at the Saginaw hospital, and they should not have to give that up. They have given enough already for this country, and I am unwilling to ask them for more. I want to be clear: improvements can be and need to be made. Alternatives such as contracting with local hospitals is a promising solution. I also believe we need to pass H.R. 2379, the Rural Veterans Access to Care Act, introduced by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and a bill I am a proud to co-sponsor. This legislation directs the Secretary of VA to ensure at least five percent of the funds for Medical Care are used to improve access to medical services for highly rural or geographically remote veterans. It also allows VA approved veterans to enroll in a program that gives them access to routine health care from a local provider. In closing, I would like to commend the administration for their dedication to working with this Congress to improve health care for our veterans. The reform of government and the services it provides is a thankless task, but one that is necessary for the well being of this nation.