Jim McCrery

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. I think, Mr. Speaker, in order to kind of even out the remaining time, I will yield to my colleagues in the majority if that's okay.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the committee.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize our next speaker, I want to point out two things. Number one, there has been a couple of references to this child who died because of a tooth problem. According to the Washington Post story, I don't know this, but according to the Washington Post story, this child was actually on Medicaid. He was covered by Medicaid. But because so few dentists in that State accepted Medicaid patients because of the poor quality of the Medicaid program, this child didn't get access. But he was covered. I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion we are having on SCHIP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means committee and the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the distinguished ranking member of the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, control the remainder of the time for the minority.

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

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, the tax proposal in the farm bill is directly aimed at international companies that invest in the United States, where they support more than 5 million jobs. These are well- known and well-respected companies: Honda, Bridgestone, Toyota, BASF, Panasonic. They're not tax dodgers. The jobs they create here are good, high-paying jobs. By raising taxes on these businesses by more than $7 billion over the next decade, we will make America a less attractive place for them to invest. The majority keeps asserting that the Treasury Department supported this provision back in 2002. I want to set the record straight on that. It is true that Treasury wrote a report then that income-stripping and earning-stripping is a potential problem, but since that 2000 report, the Treasury has worked to update our tax treaties, inserting strong ``limitation of benefits'' language that prevents abuse by denying treaty benefits to companies headquartered elsewhere but who establish a shell company in the treaty country. The Treasury has never, never embraced the sort of ham-handed policy that the majority is proposing in this bill. And Secretary Paulson made that clear to me yesterday in a letter me sent to me. Another contention is that, ``Oh, the President's own budget contained this proposal.'' Wrong. The President's budget contained a targeted proposal that would raise over 10 years $2.6 billion. Mr. Doggett's proposal, which is in the farm bill, raises $7 billion over 10 years. Is that the same proposal? Of course not. It's more than double. It's huge. It's broad. It's ham-handed. It will discourage investment in the United States, and we ought to reject it in this bill. It's bad policy; never should have been added to the farm bill; should have come through the Ways and Means Committee, where it's supposed to come, so we could have a good hearing and Mr. Doggett and I could debate it. But that didn't happen. We should vote against this bill. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the gentleman from Texas, talked about a memo from Treasury 5 years ago. The fact is, since that memo was sent out, or since that study was done, Treasury has undertaken a very aggressive policy of amending tax treaties with countries to solve the problem that was mentioned in that study. Also, in the jobs bill that we passed just a couple of years ago, we legislatively attacked the problem that was mentioned in that study. So steps have been taken, both legislatively and regulatorily, to solve that problem. The President's budget, the gentleman himself said it raises $2 billion, approximately. His provision raises twice that. So it is apples and oranges, and obviously his provision is much broader than what the President's budget contemplated. But, you know, I was just sitting there listening to this debate, and Americans out in the country watching this must be shaking their heads. You have got Democrats who are saying one thing and Republicans who are saying just the opposite. Republicans: It is a tax increase. Democrats: It is not a tax increase, it is a loophole closure. It is like they have been brainwashed by somebody and we have been brainwashed by somebody. Mr. Speaker, we could have avoided this, I believe, if the majority had followed regular order; if they had allowed the Ways and Means Committee, the committee of jurisdiction over the Tax Code, to hold a hearing on this provision, to flesh it out, to hear experts on both sides, or all sides, and then let us discuss it and ask questions, probe. Mr. Doggett is one of the smartest Members of our committee, and he knows a lot about the Tax Code, and especially the treatment of international companies doing business here in the United States, and I give him that. But, dadgummit, we should have had a chance to honestly debate this, and not have the majority just throw it in overnight on a farm bill, without even sending it through the Ways and Means Committee. That is wrong. That is a lousy way to legislate. It is wrong. That is why Members on both sides of the aisle should vote no on this rule, to give this House the opportunity to act responsibly and to give the Ways and Means Committee back some of its honor. It is getting gutted by actions like this week after week after week. I am tired of it, and I ask the House, not Republicans or Democrats, Members of this proud House, to go back to doing things properly, and then maybe we will figure out something in between that we can all support.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 106 of this bill.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, Clause 5(a) of rule XXI states that, ``A bill or joint resolution carrying a tax or tariff measure may not be reported by a committee not having jurisdiction to report tax or tariff measures.'' H.R. 2829 is a general appropriation bill, reported by the Appropriations Committee, which, of course, does not have jurisdiction over tax or tariff measures. Precedent under Clause 5 of rule XXI found in the most recent edition of the House Rules and Manual states, ``A limitation on the use of funds contained in a general appropriation bill was held to violate this paragraph.'' Further, the Manual refers to at least three rulings during consideration of a general appropriation bill where, ``It was shown that the imposition of the restriction on IRS funding for the fiscal year would effectively and inevitably preclude the IRS or the Customs Service from collecting revenues.'' In other words, there is ample and clear precedent, Mr. Chairman, that a limitation on funding on the IRS is a revenue measure when it inevitably leads to a reduction in tax revenues, and is therefore subject to a point of order under Clause 5. Congress authorized the Qualified Tax Collection Contracts Program found in Section 6306 of the Internal Revenue Code to give the IRS additional tools to collect specified amounts of tax, not debt, and the program is thus distinguishable from other debt collection programs in the Federal Government. To quote from the Internal Revenue Code, Section 6306(b)(1)(B) defines a qualified tax collection contract as one in which the contractor requests a ``full payment from such taxpayer of an amount of Federal tax specified by the Secretary.'' Legislative history of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 further bears this out. Citing the Joint Committee on Taxation's general explanation of tax legislation enacted in the 108th Congress, the provision's intent is to ``locate and contact taxpayers owing outstanding tax liabilities of any type and to arrange payment of those taxes by the taxpayers. There must be an assessment pursuant to Section 6201 in order for there to be an outstanding tax liability. An assessment is the formal recording the taxpayer's tax liability that fixes the amount payable.'' When authorizing the program, the Congress was specifically attempting to address a category of uncollected taxes, taxes that Congress believed could be more efficiently collected through the use of qualified tax collection contracts. To put it simply, the Congress felt that the IRS's existing authority should be augmented in order to increase tax compliance and tax collection. Current estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, direct correspondence in both writing and recent congressional testimony from the IRS, and even the CBO baseline, indicate that the program is succeeding in collecting additional tax revenues, just as Congress had anticipated, and in excess of the tax revenues collected prior to enactment of Section 6306 of the Internal Revenue Code. Empirical evidence is clear: Enactment of section 106 would inevitably lead to a reduction in the collection of taxes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the IRS plans to spend $15 million to administer this program in 2007. This has already led to the collection of $20 million in tax revenue in this fiscal year. For fiscal year 2008, the IRS requested $7.35 million in discretionary appropriations to administer the program. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury, by the authority granted in Section 6306 of the Internal Revenue Code, is allowed to retain 25 percent of the taxes collected under the qualified tax collection contract. In fiscal year 2008, the IRS expects to retain $15 million with this authority. Clearly, if section 106 of this bill is enacted, the broad reference to ``any other Act'' will eliminate the Secretary's authority to retain the taxes collected by the program that are necessary to run the program and collect additional taxes. In addition, a more than 95 percent decrease in funding would occur as a result of the limitation in section 106, and that would have the same effect as reducing the funding to zero. The CBO estimates that it expects the program to collect $80 million in fiscal year 2008, and the Joint Committee on Taxation expects section 106 to reduce revenues in 2008 by $69 million. To substantiate this point and to illustrate that section 106 of H.R. 2829 restricts the ability of the IRS to collect taxes, I refer to a letter I received from the Joint Committee on Taxation: ``Section 6306 of the Internal Revenue Code enacted in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, authorizes the IRS to enter into qualified tax collection contracts with private debt collection companies to locate and contact taxpayers owing outstanding tax liabilities and to arrange for the payment of those tax liabilities.'' The letter goes on to say, ``Under section 106 of H.R. 2829, not more than $1 million of the funds made available in this or any other Act may be used to enter into, renew, extend, administer, implement, enforce, provide oversight of or make any payment related to any qualified tax collection contract. We interpreted this language as a broad restriction on the use of any funds available to the IRS for administering the private debt collection program, including not only appropriated funds but also funds the IRS is permitted to retain under Section 6306. ``Because section 106 of H.R. 2829 prohibits the IRS from using any more than $1 million to operate the private debt collection program, which is significantly less than the projected amount of expenditures required by the IRS to operate the program, we expect that operation of the program would cease if the provision were enacted.'' The Joint Committee goes on to provide a revenue estimate that details the annual loss of revenue to the Treasury. They estimate that H.R. 2829 would reduce revenues by $69 million in 2008, $507 million over the fiscal years 2008 through 2012, and by $1.086 billion over the fiscal years 2008 through 2017. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against Section 106 of this bill.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, today, a good man and former chairman of the House Budget Committee will be honored by his colleagues. A portrait of Jim Nussle will be unveiled and displayed in the committee room where he held the gavel for 6 years. Jim Nussle is a passionate man. He strongly believes that we are sent to Washington to be good stewards for taxpayers, and he was one of their best advocates. Under Jim's leadership of the Budget Committee, and for the first time in nearly a decade, we took a first step in reforming our mandatory, or entitlement, spending, the largest and least sustainable part of our budget, saving taxpayers nearly $40 billion over the next years. Jim also worked to reform the budget process itself and reached across the aisle to develop a bipartisan solution. He coauthored the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act in 1988 with Representative Ben Cardin. He has also supported the legislative line item veto and earmark reform. Given his experience, knowledge and commitment to public service, it is fitting that the President has selected Jim as his nominee for Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I've been an avid supporter of Andean preferences, and today I voice my support for this short-term extension of the preferences. And I want to thank Chairman Rangel for working with me and others to effect what we believe should pass on the floor today under suspension of the rules. Our country's relationship with the Andean countries of Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia is vitally important, and preferences have helped enormously with their economic development and with stability in the region. At the same time, however, I believe it is time to move to a more substantial, mature and reciprocal relationship through free trade agreements. The unilateral preferences provide duty-free treatment to products from the region, but very limited value to United States interests in return. The FTAs, the free trade agreements, provide reciprocal market access benefits, creating new opportunity for United States producers, farmers and exporters. I might add that our FTAs also create greater obligations on our trading partners than preferences by requiring them to abide by fundamental labor rights and certain multilateral environmental agreements. Right now we have an immediate opportunity to implement the FTAs with Peru and Colombia, with the possibility of future FTAs with Ecuador and Bolivia. We should seize this opportunity now. Both Peru and Colombia have already passed the pending FTAs, and they are expected soon to pass amendments to them reflecting the recently concluded bipartisan trade deal on labor and the environment. It's time for our Congress here in the United States to move these FTAs, too. Preferences are a stopgap measure. Our trading partners and United States interests deserve more than that. Every day we wait is a lost opportunity to gain the advantages of those more mature agreements. With respect to Ecuador and Bolivia, I remain very concerned with the treatment of United States investors there. This 8-month extension gives us time to evaluate how these countries are abiding by the preference program requirements with respect to United States investment. We will be watching developments very carefully. Mr. Speaker, I support this short-term extension of preferences for 8 months, which will give us the time we need to implement our outstanding free trade agreements in the region. The first step will be to complete congressional action on the Peru agreement, I hope, before the August recess. The time is now to solidify our relationship, instead of perpetuating what I believe is an unsatisfactory status quo. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of controlling time, I'd like to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Herger from California.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. McCRERY. In its current form.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit that I am offering makes an important point about how we treat small businesses, the engine that drives much of our economy and creates many of our jobs in this country. The underlying bill makes permanent the Community Express Program, which provides loans up to $250,000 to businesses which are owned by certain favored groups such as women, minorities, veterans, or socially or economically disadvantaged individuals. The measure does not define what it means for a business owner to be ``economically disadvantaged.'' This would require that the Small Business Administration would consider as economically disadvantaged those business owners that can demonstrate that they have been adversely impacted by an increase in the Federal minimum wage. The importance of this motion is clear in the face of the failure of this House and the conferees on the supplemental appropriations bill that will be considered later tonight to adequately provide tax relief to those small businesses most impacted by an increase in the minimum wage. The agreement reached by the majority and inserted into the supplemental does provide a larger dollar figure for relief than was passed by the House earlier this year, but almost none of the added tax revenues will provide relief to the small businesses most in need of assistance because of the increase in the minimum wage. For example, more than 53 percent of the tax relief is in the form of a 44-month extension of the work opportunity tax credit. While extending the work opportunity tax credit may be good policy, and I happen to like that credit, more than 90 percent of the credits are claimed by firms with gross receipts over $50 million, hardly small businesses. Other provisions, while well intentioned, will have little or no impact on small businesses. The S-Corp reforms, which costs almost $1 billion, have no direct relation to firms impacted by the minimum wage. I support the changes in the package to the low income housing tax credit, but that $237 million in tax relief, again, does nothing towards satisfying the stated purpose of helping small businesses cope with the increase in the minimum wage. While the work opportunity tax credit was expanded and was given a longer extension than in the House-passed package, provisions to help small businesses by increasing expensing were not given similar treatment. Other depreciation changes included in the Senate-passed bill that could have helped small businesses were completely left out of the conference agreement. In fact, barely $1 billion of the total almost $5 billion package provides relief to small businesses; and almost half of that, $457 million of it, exists solely to protect restaurant owners from the tax increase they would otherwise face from a minimum wage increase. Thus, only about one-eighth of the new benefits are targeted at small businesses. That minimal relief for small businesses looks even smaller when compared against the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that the increase in the minimum wage will impose more than $16 billion in costs on the private sector over the next 5 years. It should come as no surprise to anyone to learn that the National Federation of Independent Business, a small business association, released a statement today criticizing Congress for failing to deliver meaningful tax relief to the American small business community in the face of a mandated Federal minimum wage hike. I submit for printing in the Record the entire statement of NFIB. Tax Package Tied to Minimum Wage Hike Fails To Deliver Relief for Small Business NFIB disappointed in diminished small-business tax relief in the federal supplemental spending bill Washington, D.C., April 25, 2007--Dan Danner, executive vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business, today made the following statement in reaction to the reduced small-business tax-relief package contained in the federal minimum wage increase legislation, now attached to the Iraq spending bill. It's truly disheartening that during National Small Business Week Congress has decided to renege on their promise to deliver meaningful tax relief to the American small- business community in the face of a mandated federal minimum wage hike. While small businesses appreciate the increased and extended expensing limit, the tax package as a whole simply does not offer enough growth-oriented tax relief to allow small businesses to invest and stay competitive. NFIB is disappointed to see that the reduced tax package falls short of truly offsetting the costs small businesses will be forced to absorb as a result of a minimum wage increase. Small-business owners have always opposed mandated wage levels because it leaves them with fewer choices in how they compensate their employees. But in the face of an inevitable wage hike, the small-business community was pleased to hear that Congress was planning to offer a tax package aimed at helping small businesses cope with additional labor costs. From the beginning of this debate, the accompanying tax package was supposed to be about helping the country's small businesses. Instead, Congress has spent more time catering to big business demands than providing real tax relief to those who need it most--American small-business owners. As this debate continues, NFIB will continue its efforts to educate members of Congress about why small businesses need and deserve meaningful tax relief. Last week my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, indicated that the tax package on the supplemental was the final deal. I suppose he meant the final deal on taxes associated with the minimum wage increase. And I guess he meant that, even if the supplemental is vetoed, that we don't go back to square one, that there will still be no renegotiation of the tax package. That is unfortunate, and that is what brings us here today. The majority has said it is unwilling to reconsider ways to ensure that we provide tax relief to the businesses most in need and to examine the shortcomings of the tax package. Thus, we must find other ways to help small businesses continue to be the engines of job creation in our economy. By making small businesses adversely affected by a minimum wage increase eligible for the community express program, Madam Speaker, we are offering the House an opportunity, a chance, to make good on the promise to help those businesses impacted by an increase of the minimum wage. Madam Speaker, I urge passage of the motion. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the hard work and dedication of a local Louisiana manufacturer. The manufacturer that I am recognizing has demonstrated innovation in manufacturing operations and business growth, as well as, a commitment to community involvement. BASF-Shreveport, located within my district in Louisiana, was established in 1985 to manufacture and package prescription and over- the-counter pharmaceutical products, liquids, tablets, and creams. Some of their well-known products include ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and silver sulfadiazine burn cream. The economic impact that BASF brings to North Louisiana is significant. The facility employs more than 167 people with an annual payroll of 13.4 million. This local manufacturer has made noteworthy advances in productivity throughout their organization resulting in substantial growth. Because of these accomplishments, BASF-Shreveport will be honored by the Manufacturing Extension Partnership of Louisiana (MEPOL), with the third annual Platinum Award for Continued Excellence, PACE Award. MEPOL, a non-profit business resource based at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, serves to provide business and technical assistance to emerging and established manufacturing firms throughout the State of Louisiana. Since 1997, MEPOL, based on a philosophy of education, encouragement, and empowerment, has worked with manufacturers such as BASF-Shreveport to increase their productivity and profitability. Working with MEPOL, BASF-Shreveport identified an area of their production that could benefit from the principles of lean manufacturing. Production volume, due to increased demand from their customers, was creating a significant bottleneck in the printing department, where the name of the medication is printed on the tablets. Three days after the printing department completed the quick changeover/set-up reduction training and implementation suggested by MEPOL, the site was able to cut the changeover time required for batches from 2 hours to 17 minutes. This modernization resulted in BASF's increased throughput in the printing areas by 57 percent, allowing it to meet the customer's needs more efficiently. Their dedication to excellence is the reason that they are the recipients of ME POL's second annual PACE award. BASF also participates in numerous charity organizations throughout the community including the United Way, March of Dimes and the Salvation Army. I congratulate BASF-Shreveport on being a respected leader in manufacturing whose commitment to advancement and continued success has led to this outstanding achievement.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, unlike the budget put forward by the Democratic majority, the Republican alternative offered by Mr. Ryan avoids the largest tax increase in our Nation's history and begins to deal with the long-term problem of growing entitlements. This chart here gives us an idea of the difference in the scenarios between the Republican budget, this line for tax revenues; and the Democratic budget, this top line for revenues. If you look at it in terms of the percentage of GDP consumed by Federal revenues, you should know that this year Federal revenues constitute about 18.6 percent of GDP. Under the Republican budget alternative, the bottom line, that stays about the same. About 10 years from now, it is approximately the same percent of GDP. But the Democratic budget, this top line, that figure is going to go up to over 20 percent of GDP, over 20 percent. Only once since 1962 has Federal revenues constituted that high a percentage of our GDP. Our economy is certain to drag under the weight of those kinds of tax increases. And the worst will be yet to come, because the Democrats' budget ignores demographic reality and offers no reform of entitlements, no savings from entitlements. In 2009, the Social Security surplus will begin to decline. In 2017, we will have to pay out more money in Social Security benefits than we take in in taxes. The problem gets worse after that with more baby boomers in retirement, fewer workers to support them; and the difficulties facing Social Security are relatively manageable compared to those facing Medicare and Medicaid. I shouldn't need to reiterate these facts. Everyone in this House should be familiar with them, but somehow the Democrats, budget ignores those facts completely. The Republican budget would freeze nondefense discretionary and reform entitlements. Please reject the Democratic budget and support the Ryan budget.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lewis for yielding me this time. In my almost 19 years in the United States House of Representatives, I have cast many difficult votes. And I have often spoken to groups of constituents over the years, and in the course of their asking me questions, inevitably one of the questions will be, What is the most difficult vote you have taken as a Member of the House? And I am always quick to respond, even though there have been many difficult votes, clearly the most difficult vote I have had to make as a Member of the House is to vote to send our troops into war. And certainly the vote that this House made to authorize the President to send our troops to Iraq this most recent time was a very difficult vote for all of us. Some of us, it seems, have changed our minds and wish we hadn't cast that vote. But the fact is we did cast that vote. We voted in the majority to start this war. I believe, based on my reading of history, my studies of past engagements, military engagements, it would be a tremendous mistake for the Congress of the United States to attempt to micromanage this war and bring it to a conclusion through artificially constraining decisions on the battlefield. I have spoken face to face with the President of the United States about this war. I know he is trying his best to bring this war to a conclusion. He is trying his best to make sure that the interests of the United States, as well as the interests of the people of Iraq, are served as he plans strategy and works with our military leaders to plot the best course for ending this war and preserving and serving the interests of the United States. He has a new strategy in play. It seems to be working. We are getting favorable reports from the commanders in the field. Let us give this Commander in Chief and his military leaders a chance to serve this country, to serve Iraq, and end this in the best possible way for the United States. Let us not try to micromanage from the Congress, with 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate, telling our leaders how to conduct this war and when to end it. That is the wrong course of action for this country.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan bill that has been crafted in the Ways and Means Committee, and I want to commend the chairman and his staff for working with me and our staff on the minority side of the committee to craft a bill that really does effectively target tax relief to those businesses who will be most impacted by an increase in the minimum wage. This bill I think does a much better job of focusing that relief on those businesses than the other body came up with in their version of this legislation. It is apparent to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Congress will increase the minimum wage sometime this year. And with that in mind, I did my best to work with Chairman Rangel and his staff to create a soft landing for those businesses that are going to be impacted by that increase in the minimum wage immediately. Mainly, we are talking about restaurant owners, small businesses, those people who have more minimum wage workers on the premises than other businesses. So the provisions in this bill get right to those particular businesses, these provisions do. The tip credit, for example. The FICA tip credit, Mr. Speaker, provision in this bill is very important for a couple reasons. Number one, if we don't pass a provision like that and the minimum wage is increased, these employers will automatically be mandated to pay an increase in wages. That will be number one. That will hit them right away. But, number two, they will lose a tip credit for FICA taxes paid on the amount between the current minimum wage and the new minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. So it will be a double whammy on these small businesses that have these employees that depend on tips for part of their income. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the joint tax scoring sheet on this, it says no revenue effect; because, taken in isolation, this provision has no impact. But if you join the minimum wage increase with this bill, which we all know is going to be done, then this ``no revenue effect'' becomes approximately a $500 million tax cut. So the effect of this bill would be a net tax reduction for businesses. Now, when we go to conference, if we get to conference and we get a bill, and we know that this impact is going to be there, then under the rules of the House we will have come up with a way to pay for that tax cut. But as it is right now, the net effect of this bill would be a $500 million tax cut. The other provisions, the work opportunity tax credit is not only extended but it is also expanded to apply to veterans. We think that is a very good expansion of what is already a good provision in the Tax Code to encourage people to hire people who have been on welfare, who have been disabled, and now veterans. And the other provisions, Mr. Speaker, extended expensing for small businesses. We increase that to $125,000, we increase the phaseout from $400,000 to $500,000. That is going to help small businesses immediately, because some of those have reached the cap for their expensing. But when this passes, they will get an expansion of that amount. So they will get an immediate tax benefit this year. In addition, we for the first time allow taxpayers to claim these credits against the AMT, so that the AMT doesn't take back what we are giving them in this legislation. So all in all, Mr. Speaker, these are very effectively crafted provisions to help small businesses who are going to be negatively impacted by an increase in the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, the FICA tip credit provision in this bill is permanent. It is not temporary. It is extremely important, as I explained before, to restaurant owners and the like. So that is one provision, a very important provision, that is made permanent in this legislation. It is not temporary.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, the portion of this bill under my committee's jurisdiction, the Ways and Means Committee, is somewhat complex; but the effect it would have is simple. These provisions raise taxes on our domestic energy industry. We should not mince words or use semantics; that is what those provisions do. They raise taxes on our home-grown domestic energy industry. The result of that will be higher prices for gasoline, home heating oil, fewer manufacturing jobs and even more dependence on foreign oil. This legislation is in these respects the exact opposite of the energy policy that the United States needs. Anyone who is serious about energy security should oppose this bill. There are two tax provisions in the legislation. The first deals with geological and geophysical expenses. These costs, referred to as G&G expenses, are amortized over several years, just like other business expenses. The Democrats' bill would increase the amortization period for costs associated with efforts to find new domestic oil and gas from 5 years to 7 years for the largest American oil companies. That would raise their taxes by about $100 million over 11 years. But the far larger tax increase is a second provision, and this one is the one that is most unfair. It would eliminate the oil and gas industry, and only the oil and gas industry, from eligibility for the manufacturers' tax incentives, section 199 of the jobs bill. It increases taxes not just on Big Oil but on all oil and gas companies, big and small, that pay corporate taxes. That change will raise the industry's taxes by $7.6 billion over 11 years. This provision would not repeal any special tax break for Big Oil. It won't repeal any subsidy for Big Oil. Instead, it would single out oil and gas businesses for higher taxes than all other manufacturing businesses in the United States. Worse, it would not place any additional cost on foreign producers of oil and gas. In effect, the legislation would give a new competitive advantage to foreign oil producers and refiners. Why should Congress vote to help Hugo Chavez's regime in Venezuela at the expense of our own domestic energy industry? The heart of the Democrats' argument seems to be that somehow energy is not an American manufacturing industry. That conclusion is absurd. The United States energy industry employs 1.8 million Americans. These are precisely the sort of high-paying manufacturing jobs that Democrats constantly complain America is losing. The average pay for those workers is $19.34 an hour for workers for oil and gas extraction, $28.41 an hour for refinery workers, and of course they get good benefits in addition to that. The new Speaker of the House has said, ``Manufacturing jobs are the engines that run the economy. These are good jobs that give working families high standards of living.'' And I agree with her. The new majority leader has said, ``Jobs still will be the number one issue next fall, and manufacturing job loss overseas is a subset of that. We're hearing that giant sucking sound that Perot warned about.'' Well, given that prominent Democrats claim to be concerned about the loss of American manufacturing jobs, why are they now leading an effort to drive these jobs overseas? We should also remember that these jobs are concentrated in the area of the country that was hardest hit by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I know in my State of Louisiana, good-paying energy industry jobs are a key to our recovery. In addition, as we saw in the wake of those storms, our domestic refining is already strained to full capacity. The sticker shock many of us faced at the pump after the hurricanes hit was not as a result of a shortage of crude oil, but a shortage of refined gasoline. There are now plans to substantially boost our refining capacity to avoid a repeat of that situation. But repealing section 199 for American oil and gas companies could change that and leave the United States economy even more vulnerable. We should also remember during this debate that oil companies are not some sort of evil rapacious organization. Indeed, higher taxes on oil companies affect nearly every American with a retirement or pension account because those accounts now hold about 41 percent of the shares in American oil and gas companies. Both of these new taxes would discourage new exploration for domestic energy resources and weaken our domestic energy industry, and the tax increases will be passed along to consumers. In addition, the effects will ripple throughout our economy, increasing the cost of nearly everything Americans buy and nearly every service they hire. Increasing the cost of producing oil and gas in America, which this Democratic bill would do, will raise gasoline prices, ship manufacturing jobs overseas, and make America more dependent on foreign oil. This bill certainly does not constitute a balanced energy policy for this country. What it does constitute is a purely political exercise that should be rejected by this House.