Jim McCrery

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, our closing speaker on the minority side is a gentleman who deserves much of the credit for the swiftness with which this stimulus package was brought to the floor. He deserves much of the credit for the balancing of the interests of the majority and the minority that is contained in this legislation. And he deserves much of the credit for the majority and the minority leadership being able to bring this bill forward to the floor today under suspension. So, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce our closing speaker, the respected minority leader, Mr. Boehner, and yield him as much time as he may consume.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1916, the Chimp Haven is Home Act. S. 1916 is companion legislation to a bill I introduced with Congressman Melancon, H.R. 3295. In 2000, President Clinton signed into law the ``Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection Act''--otherwise known as the CHIMP Act. The CHIMP Act provided for the establishment and operation of a system to provide lifetime care to chimpanzees that were used, or were bred or purchased for use, in research conducted or supported by the Federal Government AND who are no longer needed for such research. The system envisioned by the CHIMP Act is now a reality in Keithville, Louisiana. It is called Chimp Haven. Chimp Haven is now home to 123 chimpanzees. As a relatively new organization, Chimp Haven faces the challenge of raising money from the private sector. This challenge has been heightened due to concerns that the CHIMP Act theoretically permits chimpanzees to be removed from Chimp Haven and used for medical research. Private financial support is important for Chimp Haven because the CHIMP Act requires the 501(c)(3) to obtain significant matching funds for its operating and construction costs. This legislation removes the ``return to medical research clause'' from the law and will give everyone involved with Chimp Haven peace of mind because the chimpanzees will be able to grow old peacefully in their new home and they cannot be removed for research purposes. The legislation will not adversely affect human health research, as these chimpanzees were deemed unfit for further experimentation. The resident chimpanzees at Chimp Haven are currently able to be studied in a non- invasive manner and S. 1916 will not change that ability. The chimpanzees at Chimp Haven have spent their lives in research laboratories helping to improve the lives of all Americans. Many of our discoveries in space and medicine are due to chimpanzees. I am proud to help modify the existing law to ensure chimpanzees at Chimp Haven will spend their final years happily.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, at this time I recognize the distinguished ranking member of the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), for 2 minutes.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I agree with some of the comments that have been made by the majority today, not all of them, of course, but some of them. I think it is a shame that we were not able to reach a bipartisan agreement on a longer term extension of the SCHIP program. As Ranking Member Barton has pointed out on more than one occasion, though, this process was pretty much doomed from the start because the majority failed to include the minority at all in the early stages of putting together legislation for this important program. And I understand, it is difficult being in the majority for the first time in 12 years and not really knowing how to get things done. It's tough to govern. It's tough to have the responsibility to actually pass legislation and make law. We did it for 12 years, and we had some troubles ourselves in the first year or so that we were in the majority. So I understand. But I hope the majority will learn from this experience. We have two choices, the majority has two choices, really, insofar as dealing with the SCHIP program. And that is, number one, next year they could do as Ranking Member Barton suggested and have hearings on the SCHIP program and work with the minority hand in hand to try to come up with a reasonable extension reauthorization of this important program. Number two, they could try the same thing next year that they did this year and get the same result, and then just wait until after the elections and hope that they would have a Democratic President, a Democratic majority, and can do what they want, maybe. I would submit that the better course is the former, and that is to work with the minority next year. We certainly made that offer this calendar year. I would extend it, at least from my committee's standpoint, that invitation again for next year. And I am hopeful that we can do that. This bill before us today covers a lot of other things besides the SCHIP program. As Chairman Stark said, we do have in here kind of a stalling of the cliff that physicians find themselves looking over as far as Medicare reimbursement. We only do that for 6 months. We do several other things for 6 months, including therapy caps which I think are very important. So we are under the gun, this Congress is under the gun, and I would submit that means both the majority and the minority early next year to get some things done in the Medicare field. Again, I certainly want to extend my hand to the majority and offer to work together to get these very important things that are only extended or only dealt with for 6 months in this bill, a more certain future with legislation next year. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, before I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), I would just point out under the President's executive order, those States do have the option of covering the low-income children in their States first. If they do that, then they can certainly expand it to higher income children. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the Social Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Johnson. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I have two remaining speakers.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I would yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I have two remaining speakers. I promise this will be the last time I will have two remaining speakers. At this time I would yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri, the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt. And I believe my colleague, Mr. Barton, is going to also give him 30 seconds.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I assume all managers of time have one remaining speaker?

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and note that I still believe bipartisanship is the way to solving these problems, especially in the next year.

Mr. McCRERY

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

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I compliment the majority on bringing this bill to the floor today to stop the alternative minimum tax from creeping further into middle-income families. The effect of this legislation that we are considering today will basically freeze the AMT where it is. In other words, under the 2006 tax year, there were 4 million taxpayers that had to pay their taxes under the alternative minimum tax. This legislation will ensure that only those 4 million taxpayers, basically, will be paying taxes under the AMT and not an additional 23 million or so taxpayers at an average of about $2,000 per taxpayer. This is good news for those taxpayers. It is good news for the economy. At a time when many economists are worried about our economy going into a recession, now would be the wrong time for this Congress to endorse a tax increase, which is what would have happened had we done nothing. So I compliment the majority in bringing this bill forward today and allowing the House an up-or-down vote on freezing the alternative minimum tax where it is. Madam Speaker, anyone who has listened to the debate on this issue during the House's two previous considerations of an Alternative Minimum Tax ``patch'' for 2007 knows that this debate is about much more than just the alternative tax structure created in 1969. As has been repeatedly said by Members on both sides of the aisle, the Alternative Minimum Tax is a flawed tax, a mistake, unfair, and ripe for repeal. I am pleased today that Congress is again limiting its impact, for the 7th year in a row, to only 4 million taxpayers. But, far more important than enacting the patch or preventing the reach of the shortcomings of the Alternative Minimum Tax, is the victory we have achieved today over a flawed fiscal policy. The bill before us today is titled the ``Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007.'' It is properly named, as its enactment will prevent 21 million taxpayers from an average tax increase of $2,000 this year. But, this tax increase prevention pales in comparison to the tax increase that all federal income taxpayers, well over 100 million Americans, will face under the next President. The debate over the past several months has been a warm-up act, a pre-game show, the ``undercard,'' for the debate over the fiscal fork in the road the country will come to in 2010. On one side, clearly demonstrated by the initial vote on H.R. 3996, and the vote on H.R. 4351 last week, are those who believe the federal government needs more tax revenue. On the other side, mostly this side of the aisle, are those who believe the federal government already collects enough taxes from its people. I hope this philosophical difference is understood as we move forward with debate on tax legislation next year, prepare for a great national debate during the 2008 elections, and engage during the 111th Congress over the largest tax increase in the history of civilization. In those debates, proponents of the ``paygo'' rules that were successfully cast aside earlier today will cloak their arguments in terms of fiscal responsibility. They'll argue in moral absolutes and in righteous terms that the House's paygo system is sound budget policy. I beg to differ. Taken to its logical end, it is a recipe for economic disaster. Over the past few months, the goal of the proponents of ``paygo philosophy'' has been simple--to increase taxes. If we had not been successful in defeating their efforts here, consider where the debate would go next. The next Congress and the next President will be debating a tax increase on married couples, a tax increase on families with children, a tax increase on death, a tax increase on investment, and a tax increase on savings. Every current federal income taxpayer, and even millions of Americans who currently pay no federal income taxes, faces a substantial tax Increase. Let's be clear, the goal of paygo's advocates is to succeed in allowing all those taxes to increase, or to find other tax increases to replace them. At the end of the day, if you believe the federal government needs trillions more in tax revenue, you should oppose this bill, you should recommit yourself to ``paygo,'' and you should be utterly disappointed that the House overwhelmingly rejected it today. As for me, I hope that Members will vote to support this legislation, and bury ``paygo'' in the graveyard of failed economic philosophies. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Herger.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, to paraphrase the last speaker for the majority, it is his party that wants a tax increase. It is our party that does not want a tax increase. It is that simple. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I wish you would urge the previous speaker, the majority leader, not to give up on his desire for fiscal responsibility. All is not lost because of this bill. There are many of us on this side of the aisle who want to work with him and others to plot a fiscally responsible path for the United States Government. That would include entitlement reform, spending savings, as well as tax reform. So I hope he doesn't give up, and I hope he will work with us in the future to achieve that. At this time, Madam Speaker, I would recognize the distinguished gentleman from New York, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Reynolds for 2\1/4\ minutes. (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman giving Republicans total credit for stopping a $50 billion tax increase, but he's really way too humble. This bill wouldn't be on the floor today were it not for the consent of the majority. At this time I would yield 2 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.

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

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the distinguished ranking member of the Select Revenue Measure Subcommittee.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time?

Mr. McCRERY. In that case, I will let the majority go.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I have one speaker remaining and I will yield to him, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the entire 1 minute.