Jim McCrery

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Social Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, challenging times make for difficult choices, and these are certainly challenging times. We all understand the severity of the housing crisis. Single-family housing starts to decline to 647,000 in June of 2008, down nearly two-thirds since early 2006 and are now near their lowest level in a generation. There is currently a 10\1/2\-month supply of unsold homes, double the 10-year average. Home prices have been falling, defaults on foreclosures have been on the rise, and this contraction in the residential real estate market has become an anchor on our economy. In the most critical recent development, the financial health of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has deteriorated markedly over the past 2 weeks, raising the prospect that these two companies, which own or guarantee nearly half of all United States mortgages, could fail. We must not let that happen. The stakes are simply too high and the risk of an even broader, more expensive financial bailout down the road is too great. And for that reason, I will, with great reluctance, support the legislation before us today--notwithstanding its numerous flaws--as it includes the plan developed by Secretary Paulson to provide a temporary Federal backstop in order to protect taxpayers from potentially enormous future exposure and our economy from perhaps unprecedented harm. Having said that, I deeply regret that the majority has viewed Secretary Paulson's urgent request for legislation on Fannie and Freddie as an opportunity to push through a number of unrelated, highly controversial provisions as part of the broader package before us today. While there are several tax proposals in this package that I do find worthwhile--such as the increase in the mortgage revenue bond allowance and a provision allowing low-income housing tax credits to be used against the AMT--the bill's tax title contains several objectionable provisions. For example, the bill would provide an additional standard deduction for property taxes, which will effectively serve as a new form of revenue sharing for the States encouraging higher taxes on the State level. The bill would also restrict the capital gains exclusion on the sale of certain homes at a particularly precarious or sensitive time for our housing markets and the economy at large. I don't think that's well advised. It also recycles a proposal to delay for 2 years the implementation of more favorable worldwide interest allocation rules that are designed to enhance the competitiveness of United States companies. And finally, it provides an extremely short time line for credit card companies to come into compliance with new and complex reporting rules. Today's bill also contains a number of non-tax provisions beyond the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee that I oppose, including the affordable housing trust fund and a proposed $4 billion spending increase on Community Development Block Grants. With respect to the latter provision, I would note that yet again the Ways and Means Committee is being used as the piggy bank to fund another committee's spending request. Curiously, while the majority is insisting on higher taxes to cover the cost of this increased CDBG spending, the majority has once again waived its own PAYGO rules on the overall bill itself, including with respect to the estimated $25 billion cost of Secretary Paulson's proposal on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While it is certainly not surprising to see the majority abandon its PAYGO principles yet again, it is worth noting that our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to cling to their increasingly empty PAYGO rhetoric only when it comes to extending expired tax provisions. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my disappointment with the procedural straitjacket imposed upon the minority in today's bill. Not only has the majority packaged Secretary Paulson's proposal on Fannie and Freddie together with a laundry list of objectionable provisions in a single take-it-or-leave-it bill with very little time for review, the minority has not been permitted to offer a single amendment, not a substitute, not even a motion to recommit. I don't think that this House is well served by the rules governing today's debate. With all of that being said, Mr. Speaker, I will reluctantly support this package because of the urgent need to prevent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and potentially our broader economy, from collapsing under the current strains in the housing market. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member from Wisconsin, a member of the Ways and Means Committee and the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. McCRERY

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

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I have already talked here this morning about what I believe would be a bad precedent for budget policy that this bill represents. But even more regrettable, Madam Speaker, is I think this bill today represents another missed opportunity, and that missed opportunity has helped bring us to this point today. The majority's absolute refusal to address record-high gasoline prices by increasing domestic energy production is something that has contributed to the reason we are here today. I have argued on this floor many times in the past, not just in the context of the gasoline tax and the highway trust fund, but many times, that the way to bring sanity to our energy policy, and yes, the way to bring gasoline prices down, is to adopt a balanced energy policy for our country. Think of a balanced energy price as a three-legged stool. The first leg, conservation; the second leg, alternative fuel development and production; and the third leg, just as important as the other two for the stool to stand, would be to increase the supply of traditional fossil fuels by allowing more drilling here in our own country and stop depending on drilling in other countries. Let's develop our own resources. That would be a balanced policy that I think would contribute to bringing the price of oil down which would bring the price of gasoline down which would get more people on the highways driving more and add revenues to the highway trust fund. But we have so far not been able to get that passed in this Democratically led Congress. The sooner we do that, the sooner we will have some relief of the strain on the highway trust fund. And we still have to address the long-term inadequacies of the financing structure for the highway system in this country. As I have said, I believe we ought to be doing that today. And I support that. But, Madam Speaker, today I believe we are merely putting a Band-Aid on the problem. We are contributing to deteriorating, bad budget policy. The precedent of this bill shifting moneys from the general fund to the highway trust fund is a very dangerous one. It is a slippery slope, and we ought not do it. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill today, give us another chance to go back to the drawing board and come up with a much better solution to this problem and give us a chance to adopt a meaningful, structured energy policy for this country that will bring gasoline prices down and get more people on our highways. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. I am prepared to close, I would say to my good friend.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6532. I would say to my good friend, the chairman of the Transportation Committee, that I agree with him that the current financing structure for our transportation needs is inadequate. The bill before us today, though, I think just puts off the day that we will finally come to grips with the inadequacy of that financing structure and deal with it. And we should be dealing with the fundamental problem here and not just putting a patch, a temporary band-aid on it, such as this $8 billion transfer will do. So while I'm in agreement with the underlying, I suppose, motive for this bill, I think it is ill-advised because of the precedent that is sets. And it puts off to another day--which is easy for us to do-- grappling with the real serious problem of fundamental inadequate funding of our transportation system through the trust fund. So with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to talk about two things quickly in closing. There has not been much said during this debate about part of the President's veto message that I think is important. So I am going to read that section from the veto message. It concerns the prescription drug program. The President says, ``The bill would constrain market forces and undermine the success that the Medicare Prescription Drug Program has achieved in providing beneficiaries with robust, high-value coverage--including comprehensive formularies and access to network pharmacies--at lower- than-expected costs. In particular, the provisions that would enable the expansion of ``protected classes'' of drugs would effectively end meaningful price negotiations between Medicare prescription drug plans and pharmaceutical manufacturers for drugs in those classes. If, as is likely, implementation of this provision results in an increase in a number of protected drug classes, it will lead to increased beneficiary premiums and copayments, higher drug prices, and lower drug rebates. These new requirements, together with provisions that interfere with the contractual relationships between part D plans and pharmacies, are expected to increase Medicare spending and have a negative impact on the value and choice that beneficiaries have come to enjoy in the program.'' I think that is an important consideration as we decide whether to sustain or override the President's veto. Just one other item, and that's this question of paying the insurance companies more than the regular Medicare reimbursement. That has been often stated but still is not the case. By law, the margin over the regular Medicare payments have to go in these plans to beneficiary services or reduction of premiums or go back to the trust fund. That extra margin does not go to the insurance companies. In fact, GAO did a study of the margins of profit of these insurance plans and Medicare Advantage and found that the average margin of profit was 5 percent, a margin that is considerably lower, I might add, than some other sectors of Medicare services. I just wanted to clear that up and urge all of my colleagues to consider this vote very carefully and urge them to sustain the President's veto. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I'm glad that you admonished Members to not improperly invoke the President's name. I don't think Chairman Rangel really thought through what he said there at first about the President being mean-spirited with this veto. I disagree with the policy in this bill, but I don't think Mr. Stark or Mr. Dingell or any of my colleagues were mean-spirited in putting together flawed policy. And I think the more that we recognize that we're all here, including the President, for the same reason, and that's to make this country a better place, the quicker we will get on to solving the bigger problems of the country on a bipartisan basis. So I appreciate the Speaker's admonition. As I say, I don't agree with the policy that's in the bill, but I do commend those who worked on solving at least the immediate problem of the pending cut to physicians. It is an intractable problem, very, very difficult for us to deal with, both substantively and politically. So I recognize that this was a tough process, a very difficult process to bring legislation to the floor that at least solved the immediate problem. But I think this bill represents missed opportunities. I think it is premised on false choices, and surely does nothing to protect the long-term solvency of the Medicare program, which we are going to have to tackle eventually in the Congress. I support reversing the physician pay cuts that are scheduled under current law, but there is a right way to do it and a wrong way. I think this bill represents the wrong way. According to CBO, more than 2 million seniors will lose the Medicare health plan that they have today if this bill becomes law. Now, as these provisions are fully implemented, I believe Members of Congress will begin hearing from seniors around the country, angry, confused, wanting to know why we passed a bill that has taken away their health care plan. The last time we made changes that negatively impacted these kinds of plans, we certainly heard from seniors in our offices, and they were not happy. Now, maybe if in this bill we permanently fix the problems of the flawed Sustainable Growth Formula, then we might be willing to make that trade to put up with a few angry seniors because we really did something the right way, we permanently fixed the problem. But this bill doesn't do that; it is another just-kick-the-can-down-the-road. And, in effect, we make the problem worse because, as my colleague from Texas said earlier, the next time Congress has to address this in just a year from now, the physicians will be facing a 20 percent cut in reimbursement. That's what this bill puts in place. That's what this bill sets up the Congress for in about a year. So I don't believe that the policy that is used in this bill to pay for this temporary fix is the appropriate policy. And I believe seniors will not be happy with us for having just used their health care plans to kick this can down the road. Now, I'm retiring, Madam Speaker, at the end of this Congress; I won't be here next year. But I am hopeful that sooner, and not later, Members of the House and Senate, on a bipartisan basis, will decide that year-to-year rentals of this patch no longer make sense and roll up their sleeves in a concerted effort to develop a long-term solution to ensure that the Medicare program will be able to serve seniors for generations to come. I don't hold any hope that we're going to do that this year, but I do believe that this legislation, if there is a silver lining, by creating this even higher cliff for physicians, will probably get Congress closer to that bipartisan cooperation to solve the problem. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. It is a privilege today to rise in strong support of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act of 2008. I must say at the outset, however, that the real privilege was to have had the opportunity to serve in this House for almost 21 years with Tom Lantos. His passing is an immeasurable loss for his family, for this Chamber, and for the people across the world for whom he tirelessly fought. Since December, when the House and Senate passed different bills to strengthen and broaden sanctions against the repressive Burmese regime, we have worked across the aisle, across jurisdictional lines and across the Capitol to finalize a bill to pass into law. This bill has benefited enormously from the collaborative and bipartisan efforts of the House Foreign Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations, Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees. Our collective efforts have produced a sanctions bill that takes a tough position against the Burmese regime, while maximizing compliance with United States international obligations. Among other things, the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act promises to eliminate trade in jewelry containing Burmese rubies and jadeite, even if the jewelry was made in and exported from a third country. These sales finance the Burmese regime, and if we want to pressure them to provide for their impoverished people, we must eliminate trade in all Burmese rubies and jadeite, not just if those products are exported directly from Burma itself. We must also structure our import sanctions in a way that encourages and facilitates multilateral pressure. We believe the Ways and Means Committee contributions to this legislation do just that, as well as pave the way toward building a multilateral consensus at the United Nations and World Trade Organization to prevent trade in Burmese rubies and jadeite. Modeled after the successful conflict diamonds legislation, the provisions our committee added are proven and administrable. I would also note that this bill is an improvement over the original House-passed bill because it no longer targets a single United States company for unfavorable tax treatment. Lastly, I would like to thank Chairman Rangel for the improvements he is responsible for in this bill, particularly his agreement to eliminate the problematic provisions relating to the generalized system of preferences that were in the original House-passed bill. For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H. Res. 1341.

Mr. McCRERY

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

Mr. McCRERY. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

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

Mr. McCRERY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The majority's use of PAYGO has really twisted the logic of this bumper-sticker-turned-budget-tool into a pretzel. In the last 2 weeks, when PAYGO stood in the way of more government spending, it was ignored or openly waived. But, today, the majority insists on new permanent tax increases in exchange for a 1-year extension of needed tax relief. That is not a good deal for anybody--a permanent tax increase to pay for a temporary tax relief. The motion that we have before us would save us from that fate. It would remove the tax increases in the bill, including the particularly misguided higher taxes on energy production that would discourage production here at home, that would further increase our energy insecurity, that would reduce our energy supplies, and that would increase prices. Is that what we want to do? Do we want to increase the price of gasoline? That is what the effect of this would be. This is a tax increase on oil and gas companies--the companies that produce the oil, the gasoline that we buy. Do we think that, if we increase taxes on them, they are just going to absorb that? Of course not. They will pass it through to the consumer, which will mean higher gasoline prices. This is a terribly misguided part of this bill. The motion to recommit would get rid of that ill-advised tax increase. So we get rid of all the pay-fors in the bill. That's the first thing that the motion to recommit does. The second thing we do is we do provide some relief in this bill from high gasoline prices to volunteers who use their vehicles to help charities carry out their work. A lot of charities are telling us that they are losing volunteers because of the high price of gasoline. Now, the IRS has some authority to modify the tax deduction that people can get from using gasoline in certain situations. So the IRS did, this week in fact, implement a midyear increase in the standard mileage deduction rates, increasing to 58\1/2\ cents the allowable deduction for expenses incurred in operating a vehicle while carrying on a trade or business, and raising to 27 cents per mile the deduction for gasoline costs associated with transportation primarily for and essential to receiving medical care and for travel while moving. But the IRS could not raise the deduction that can be claimed by individuals who use their car for charitable purposes, such as for delivering Meals on Wheels. That has to be done legislatively. So our motion to recommit would do just that. We would set the allowable deduction for gasoline expenses for charitable purposes at the same rate for medical care and for travel while moving, 27 cents per mile. Meals on Wheels is one of those charities that has told us that they are losing volunteers because of gas prices. Nearly half indicated that increases in gas prices had forced them to eliminate meal delivery routes or to consolidate their meal services. Mr. Speaker, these high gasoline prices are, in fact, having a very deleterious effect on charities and on Meals on Wheels in particular. I won't go into some of the details that we have been given by Meals on Wheels about the state of some of our seniors, but needless to say, it's not a pretty picture. So this would give those charities some relief, Mr. Speaker, and it would allow them, we think, to get some of those volunteers back in active service to relieve some of these problems that we have. So, Mr. Speaker, our motion to recommit does two things. It takes out the tax increases in this bill, leaving in place the AMT patch to give tax relief to those taxpayers who would otherwise be subjected to a $2,400-apiece increase in taxes, and number two, it increases the deduction, the mileage deduction, for vehicle use for charitable purposes. Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption.