Jim McCrery

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker says that is the truth, but the fact is he was not there. He has no independent knowledge of who called the Sergeant at Arms or the reason for it. I resent the gentleman's tone. It is erroneous. His statement is erroneous. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation which reforms Medicare and adds prescription drugs to the program; but I arrived at this position of support haltingly, grudgingly, reluctantly. I will tell my colleagues why. I was reluctant to support this bill because I believe the current Medicare program as it is structured is financially unsustainable. I believe it is only a matter of time before, as the financial experts tell us, Medicare, one of the two fastest growing programs in the Federal Government, consumes an ever-larger and larger share of our national income; an ever-larger and larger share of our Federal budget, with the potential to crowd out spending on other government priorities. And, as we all know, there are numerous, very important priorities of government. Health care is not the only one. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that as that occurred and as policymakers in Congress realized that Medicare was crowding out other spending, causing us to reduce our commitment to other priorities, we would do as most other countries that have similar programs have done: we would start to ration health care for our seniors. I do not want to do that. So, Mr. Speaker, I was reluctant to add to the current program, which is going to go belly up or bust the budget, a new entitlement program, prescription drugs, which would exacerbate that situation, which would make it worse, which would get us to that point where we would have to start rationing health care faster. Yes, I was reluctant to do that. But as I studied the bill and listened to those who put together the components of the bill, I realized that the reforms contained in the bill, particularly those beginning in the year 2010, which give us a chance to move Medicare into a form much like the FEHBP program, the premium support model that the Medicare Commission recommended several years ago, then I realized that this is maybe our last best chance to save Medicare in a way that we can afford it as a society, and deliver quality health care for our seniors. So, Mr. Speaker, I am here after much thought and consideration and yes, reluctantly arriving here, but I am here because I do believe this is our best chance to save Medicare, to make it a truly viable program that will not bust the budget, and if we do not take advantage of this opportunity and I want to speak, Mr. Speaker, through you to the conservatives out there on both sides of the aisle about supporting this bill, do not blow this opportunity. If you are a conservative, if you are concerned about the cost of the Medicare program, do not miss this opportunity to give us the best chance to reform it in a way that can save costs over the long term, that can keep us from rationing health care, not only for our seniors, but I believe eventually for all of our society. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this bill tonight and hope and pray that the reforms contained therein work.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, the immediate preceding speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), spoke about the free market and letting free market forces work with respect to prescription drugs, and his solution is either import drugs from other countries and sell them here of course at lower prices or let us adopt the prices that are paid in those other countries here in our country, and he calls that the free market. What he failed to point out is those drugs and those prices that he would be importing or adopting the prices out here are set by government price controls, not the free market.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the issue of generics is addressed in the underlying bill that we will be debating later tonight, but the gentleman spoke about bringing drugs in from other countries and selling them at prices that have been imposed by governments, not by the free market.

Mr. McCRERY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, the motion before us would basically make a bad situation worse, much worse. For those unemployed workers who do not have access to COBRA benefits, they depend upon the States to confect with insurance companies or through a State employee plan or through a high-risk pool a plan of insurance that comports with the provisions of the trade bill we adopted in the last Congress. The problem for some unemployed workers now is that their States have not yet perfected those plans; so if they do not have COBRA availability, they have nothing on which they could use their 65 percent health insurance tax credit. Nothing. It is not available to them. Right now we think by August about 30 States will have implemented a plan of insurance which will be available to unemployed workers that do not have COBRA. If this motion to recommit were to be adopted, made law, we would have zero States, not 30, zero States that would have insurance plans in place for those unemployed workers. Actually, we might have two. We might have two States. We are not sure. Maybe two out of 50 would have in place a plan that would be available for the tax credit for these unemployed workers. So I would urge this House to not make a bad situation worse. I would urge the House to adopt the underlying bill with the provision in it that will give some hope to those unemployed workers who do not have COBRA, who did not work for a big company, to get some health insurance for them and their families. Besides making a bad situation worse, the policy contained in the motion to recommit is simply bad policy. If we want to encourage employers to provide health insurance, there has got to be health insurance available. If we want the States to provide a plan of health insurance so that unemployed workers can take advantage of the tax credit, then we do not want to destroy the fundamentals of the insurance system which this motion to recommit would do. HIPAA, passed by Congress several years ago, addressed this issue of portability of health insurance and said in order to maintain a vibrant health insurance industry, we have got to provide for some prior coverage before a person can get insurance without being subject to guaranteed issue and preexisting conditions clauses in those contracts. So the Congress said they have got to have 18 months' prior coverage, and they must not have lost that coverage more than 63 days ago. This motion to recommit would say never mind the 63 days, they could have had prior coverage 20 years ago. What that would mean is people would just wait to get insurance until they get sick. Obviously, that destroys the whole concept of insurance, and for that reason this would be terrible policy if we are interested in keeping a private health insurance system in this country. So, Madam Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to recommit, a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 282, I call up the bill (H.R. 1528) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect taxpayers and ensure accountability of the Internal Revenue Service, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the last point that the gentleman from North Dakota made about if this provision were to pass, then it could reduce the pressure on the States to enter into agreements which would create qualified plans under the trade bill we passed last year is a legitimate point. It is the only legitimate point he or his colleagues on the Democratic side have made today, but that is a legitimate point. We concede that. That is why we listened to the gentleman from North Dakota and his complaints earlier while the committee was considering this and we reduced the window within which unemployed workers could take advantage of this waiver. Under the provision, as it now stands in this bill, they would only have until the end of calendar year 2004 to waive their rights under the trade bill and take advantage of the tax credit to purchase insurance for themselves and their family. So I concede that that is a legitimate point. We do not want the States to stop their efforts to create plans that would qualify for the credit under the Trade Act. We do not think the States will. In fact, of the speakers that were offered by the other side of the aisle today, Maryland, the first speaker, the State of Maryland, already has a qualified plan in place, so this provision in the bill today will not affect unemployed workers in Maryland at all; North Dakota has a provision in place, so it will not affect unemployed workers in North Dakota. Texas is very close to having a provision ready, we are told. The only State that is behind in this process is the State of Washington. So we know that basically two-thirds of the States already either have a plan in place or are negotiating to get plans in place. The Treasury Department thinks, after researching this, that only about 20 States or so would not have plans in place by this August. So this provision in this bill would not affect all of those States that have plans in place by this August, probably not until September or October because this bill will not make it through the process before this fall. But let us think about those States which for whatever reason, their legislatures do not meet this year, their insurance commissioner is not as adept as the gentleman from North Dakota was in getting these things done, for whatever reason, what about the unemployed workers in those States who want to use their credit to get insurance for their families and they do not have access to COBRA? They are left out in the cold. I would say to my good friends on the other side, do you not care about these people and their families? Do you not want them to use the generous tax credit that we provided to get health insurance for their families? If you do not pass the provision that is in this bill, they cannot get insurance and utilize the credit to get it. Period. You will leave them with nothing. You will leave them bare. They will not have insurance. That is the fact. That is what we are trying to correct. We are trying to make sure that all those unemployed workers who want to use the credit to cover their families can do so. And so we have said to the States that have not yet complied with the requirements of the Trade Act, we are going to give you one more year to do that. And in the meantime, any of your unemployed workers who want to use the tax credit can avail themselves of that by waiving the requirements of the Trade Act. It is not compulsory, it is voluntary, we are not going to twist anybody's arm to make them waive the requirements of the Trade Act. We are going to tell them if you want to waive that, you may. And if that enables you to use the tax credit to cover yourselves and your families, by golly, that is a good thing. And CBO estimates that 12,000 workers and their families will take advantage of this provision and will get coverage and who, if this bill does not pass, would not be able to get coverage. I think, Mr. Speaker, what we have heard today from the other side is a lot of obfuscation. The truth is they never wanted the health tax credit to be used for anything other than COBRA. That is the truth. It was we Republicans who insisted that we think about unemployed workers who did not happen to come from a big company or from a company with employment coverage that would qualify under COBRA. We said, what about the people who work for small businesses? What about the people who did not have any coverage, they had to get individual coverage? Should we not have some compassion for those unemployed workers as well, not just unionized workers? We battled and fought and scraped and finally won, got a compromise so that those workers could get some advantage from the tax credit. But the Democrats said, okay, we'll agree to the compromise, but we're going to have to have a provision that goes even further than the Republican-passed legislation, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA. That was a Republican bill. Up until that time, there were no guarantees for workers changing jobs. Health insurance was not portable at all. Everybody was going to be subject to those conditions that the gentleman from North Dakota talked about, preexisting conditions, no guaranteed issue, until Republicans passed the bill in 1996, I believe, called HIPAA, which said that if you had 18 months prior coverage in the health insurance system, then you do not have to worry about getting covered again. Insurance companies offering health insurance must guarantee you issue of that plan. And you are not subject to any preexisting conditions clauses in those insurance plans. We did that. We passed that. We are the ones who put those guarantees in law. And so last year, we agreed for this small set of workers who lost their jobs because of trade actions or were covered under the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that in that small set of workers, we would reduce that 18-month requirement to 3 months, so that if they only had 3 months prior coverage, they would not have to go through all the underwriting and so forth that workers used to have to go through before HIPAA. And we agreed to that. But now we find that we have large numbers of workers who are not able to avail themselves of the credit because States have not yet put into place plans that comply with that 3-month prior coverage requirement. So in the meantime, while those States are getting those plans up and running, we say, let those individuals who want to waive that requirement, they may have had 18 months prior coverage and, therefore, they would still have those guarantees that the gentleman from North Dakota spoke about, why not let them voluntarily waive their requirements under the Trade Act, get the insurance for themselves and their families and then when all the States have these policies in place, the 3-month requirement will be there in those plans. I simply do not understand why the other side would object so strenuously to letting 12,000 families get health insurance who otherwise would not be able to get it if this provision does not pass. I urge the House to have compassion for these workers as well as workers with COBRA coverage and pass this bill today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act. The title of this bill is a good summary for the fundamental principles contained in it. We are increasing protections for taxpayers from unfair actions by the IRS while at the same time we are making reforms in the IRS that will make the administration of our tax laws more accountable. Let me mention just a few of the ways we increase protections for taxpayers. The bill increases the confidentiality of taxpayer communications when they seek the assistance of the Taxpayer Advocate. The bill restricts the IRS from auditing the tax returns of taxpayer representatives simply based on their having prepared the returns of other taxpayers. And let me mention some of the ways we improve tax administration of the IRS. The bill allows the IRS to enter into installment agreements; to let a taxpayer pay an unpaid amount over 2 or 3 years without imposing the requirement that they pay the full amount. The IRS already has the authority to settle tax debts for less than the full amount. But when it comes to installment payments, the law requires the agreement to cover 100 percent of the debt. So in some cases, instead of the taxpayer paying $9,000 of a $10,000 debt, let us say, giving the IRS $500 every month, the IRS gets nothing. The bill improves the so-called ten deadly sins actions for which IRS employees can be fired, by removing some of the employee versus employee cases that have bogged down the system, but adding another standard, that of unauthorized browsing of taxpayer records to the list of offenses. Let me conclude by stressing that the health care tax credit provisions in this bill are sound, prudent and necessary. They do not overturn or weaken the State plans already in effect in eight States, nor do they have any impact on State consumer protections. The waiver only applies to the preexisting condition and guarantee issues. And the waiver will only be in place until the end of 2004. We want workers who have suffered a loss of their job and their health insurance to be able to receive the tax credit for health insurance. If we pass this bill, an estimated 12,000 workers will be able to obtain health insurance. Those workers, without this bill, would not be able to get health insurance. I support the bill, and I urge the House to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has been instrumental in putting together the provisions of this bill, along with my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). So I want to thank both of those gentlemen for the good work they have done on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the previous two speakers, the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from Texas, talked about the national debt and how much it has increased from 1994 to 2004, and those numbers sound scary to people. But most of that debt, Mr. Speaker, is debt that we are paying to the Social Security trust fund, to the Medicare trust fund; and surely those gentleman are not suggesting that we should not be accumulating that debt in those trust funds and paying interest on that debt. So I just want to make clear that for several years under the Republican majority we paid down the debt held by the public while we were continuing to accumulate debt in the trust funds. Economists and market watchers distinguish between the publicly held debt and total government debt, and that distinction needs to be made here on this floor. So, Mr. Speaker, while the figures they gave are technically accurate, they are far from the truth when it comes to fiscal responsibility in this House.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland, the previous speaker, as I think has been the case with the debate generally this evening, was respectful and made some points that he thinks are legitimate. They are in most cases, I think, factual. I would remind him that in 1995 when Republicans took over this Chamber and we cut taxes and we were running deficits, his side of the aisle made several charges that turned out to be false as well; and, in fact, we did cut taxes, balance the budget, and run a surplus for several years. So there have been a lot of statements made on both sides over the years that have turned out to be inaccurate when history judged them. I believe Democrats and Republicans in this House want to do what is best for the country. We want this country to be a better place for our children and our grandchildren. The reason we have two different political parties in this country, thank goodness, is that we can have a debate and we can fight it out, choose a path and then be held responsible. We are willing to be held responsible. We believe that the answer to the long-term problems of this country, the really tough ones, Medicare, Social Security, part of the answer is strong economic growth. If we do not have strong economic growth in this country for a long time, those problems are going to be not only intractable; they are going to be impossible. So this bill we bring before the House tonight, and we hope you will pass tonight, is one that we think will do the best job to give this country the best chance to have strong economic growth for the long term, short term and long term. This jobs bill, this growth bill gives us the best chance to solve the long-term problems of this country. We ought to vote for it. We ought to support it and hope it works.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, just to make sure everyone knows the record of the Republican Congress since we took over in 1995, the entire accumulation of debt in this country is due to debt that we owe the Social Security system and the Medicare system and other trust funds. The publicly held debt has actually gone down since Republicans took control of this House in January of 1995.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Federal Reserve's recent warning about the dangers of deflation is worth noting in the context of this debate. The spectre of deflation, I believe, raises the stakes in this debate over a growth and jobs plan. In fact, the May 6 statement of the Federal Reserve Board's Open Market Committee can itself be read as a plea to Congress to take the steps necessary to spur economic growth and prevent deflation. The Wall Street Journal on its editorial page recently said, ``In any case, Mr. Greenspan's main duty is monetary policy, and that is where his words really matter. His deflation warning ought to be a wake-up call to Congress.'' Lower tax rates to stimulate growth and greater liquidity to prevent deflation is exactly the right policy mix. The Fed has supplied the liquidity; it is up to us in the Congress to supply the lower tax rates. Our Nation's economy is in trouble. Americans expect the President and the Congress to take action to get the economy out of the ditch, back on the road creating jobs. Republicans and Democrats may differ on how best to use fiscal policy to help the economy, but to do nothing should not be an option. This President should be given a chance to use his policies to turn around our economy. This bill does just that. It obtains all of the elements of the President's economic growth and jobs proposal. Let us pass this bill; give the President a chance to lead us out of economic darkness.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There is a moratorium in this bill to keep corporations from doing just what the gentleman described. We are in agreement that should stop. The moratorium will give us time to plot the surest course to make sure that jobs are kept here in the United States and more jobs are created here in the United States. As for the energy bill providing incentives for conservation and renewable sources, though, the previous speaker did not, I think, give the bill justice. Let me give some examples of the provisions in this bill which will conserve energy and encourage the development of renewable sources of energy. Tax credits for the installation of solar power and solar water heaters; it enhances incentives to generate electricity from wind, open-loop biomass, gas emitted by landfills, and the combustion of municipal solid waste. It speeds the development of fuel cells as a clean, efficient energy source, encourages consumers to purchase more fuel-efficient and fuel cell cars. It includes tax credits for homeowners and home builders investing in energy-efficient upgrades, tax credits for the combined installation of combined heat and power systems. It repeals the 4.3 cent general fund surtax on rail or barge which will encourage the transportation by a more efficient means, saving energy. It encourages production of cleaner-burning diesel fuel by taxing only the fuel content of diesel-water emulsions. The conservation title of the bill is $6.67 billion, 36 percent of the total cost of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I would submit once again that this bill does do justice to the goal of conservation, but also recognizes the need for reliability of our infrastructure to get energy to consumers and also the need for more production of energy sources in this country. With that, I would urge adoption of H.R. 6, and particularly urge Members to look at division D of the bill to see why this will finally give us a sound energy policy for this country.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

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

Mr. McCRERY. I continue to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, lest anybody forget, we are debating the energy bill here this afternoon, and I would hope that is what we would focus on. However, there is contained in our bill a provision which gets to the problem that my friend from Massachusetts just talked about; and I agree with him that there is a problem with companies artificially reincorporating offshore in order to gain tax advantages. I differ with my friend from Massachusetts, though, on how we ought to solve that problem. What we have done in this bill, though, is provide for a moratorium on any more such corporate inversions until we can work out a legislative solution that, I believe, will solve the problem without making our domestic United States corporations more vulnerable to foreign takeover. So with that issue aside now, I would like to get back to the issue at hand, which is energy and improving the energy situation here in this country. Our tax portion of this bill is a balanced approach. About one-third of the bill is for conservation; about one-third of the bill is for reliability, that is, making reliable our infrastructure for getting energy to the people who need it; and about one-third for increasing production, increasing the supply of energy resources here in this country. So, Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Ways and Means, after several hearings last year in my subcommittee and one of the other Ways and Means subcommittees, put together a bill that we believe delivers a nice bang for the buck. We did have to downsize the package this year from the one we passed through the House last year, but we believe that this package will significantly increase the ability of the United States to provide the energy that our country needs. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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