Jim McCrery

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, certainly the tax portion of the bill today, represents a compromise. These extensions of expiring provisions of the Tax Code have been bandied about here in the House back, over in the Senate, back and forth all year long, including the patch on the alternative minimum tax. I'm gratified that we were able to come together to present the tax extenders in this package because I believe very strongly in the overwhelming majority of those provisions. I think they're good, sound tax policy. Members of this House have voted for all of them many times over. So, Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yea'' vote on this bill, especially for the tax extenders.

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

Mr. McCRERY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a distinguished Member of this House, Mr. Wamp.

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

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Nunes.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time on each side.

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

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, it's a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I want to first say how much I appreciate the very kind words of the gentleman from New York and appreciate very much the opportunity to have worked with him over the last couple of years. He has been more than gracious to me and to all the members of the committee, and so his words were heartfelt, and I very much appreciate them. With that, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume, and it won't be much. Madam Speaker, a little over 20 years ago, I made my first speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. Today could very well be my last speech on the floor of the House. I hope it's not. I hope we come back in a lame duck session to consider pending trade legislation, but this could be my last speech. And I had a real stemwinder prepared, Madam Speaker, but unfortunately, we only have 15 minutes of time that Ways and Means controls, and I have many more speakers than I have time. So, with the Speaker's indulgence, I will submit my remarks for the Record. Madam Speaker, on May 5, 1988, during Floor debate on a defense authorization bill, I rose as a freshman Member to address this House for the very first time, urging my colleagues to support an amendment in the name of fiscal responsibility. My very first words on the Floor that day warned of the dangers of the growing national debt. Over the two decades since, I've made scores of speeches and cast more than 11,000 votes in this historic chamber, representing the hardworking taxpayers of Louisiana to the best of my ability. While I certainly hope we can return in November to complete action on our unfinished trade agenda, Madam Speaker, I rise today for what may be my final Floor speech as a Member of this body. As someone who has spent his entire career fighting for smaller government, freer markets, and greater economic liberty for all Americans, it is sadly ironic that I speak today in favor of a plan that, on its surface, appears to run counter to those principles. Indeed, Madam Speaker, this proposal seems to undermine the very foundations of capitalism, upending the economic incentives that drive entrepreneurial risk-taking. In America, we rightly celebrate our freedom to succeed in economic ventures. But in America, we're also supposed to be free to fail in those ventures, without expectation of a bailout from fellow taxpayers. By rushing in with $700 billion in taxpayer dollars to address the current crisis, I fear we are greatly increasing the moral hazard associated with economic risk-taking. I resent the level of government interference in the private market we see in this bill, and I hope it does not set a precedent that Congress follows in the future. Despite my grave concerns about this proposal, Madam Speaker, the weight of the evidence says we need to act--not to bail out the Wall Street titans, but instead to stabilize the credit markets upon which Main Street depends. Over recent weeks, I have listened carefully to experts on all sides of this issue, to constituents with a variety of strongly-held views, and to the voice of the U.S. Senate, which passed this emergency plan on Wednesday by a 74-25 vote. On balance, I am convinced that the Treasury Secretary needs to have appropriate authority to halt our Nation's slide into what could become a profound and extended economic downturn. If that were to occur and our financial markets were to collapse, I believe it could open the door to even more government interference in the private marketplace and to even less economic freedom for all Americans. We must not let that happen. The stakes are simply too high, and the risks to our economy, and our freedoms, are just too great. The circumstances are exigent, Madam Speaker, and, in my judgment, we need to act now. In addition to three tax provisions contained in the financial rescue portion of the bill--provisions dealing with the treatment of executive compensation, capital losses incurred by banks holding preferred stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the tax exclusion for forgiven debt on home mortgages--the bill before us also includes the Senate's comprehensive tax extenders package. This is a positive development, Madam Speaker, because the Senate's tax package provides more than $107 billion in net tax relief to U.S. families and businesses. With enactment of this bill, we will finally resolve the tax dispute that has divided Republicans and Democrats for the entirety of the 110th Congress, delaying action on the AMT patch and other tax extenders, including a variety of energy-related tax incentives. Over the past 2 years, Republicans have insisted that we should not have to raise taxes to prevent the tax increases that would result from the scheduled expiration of existing tax law. Democrats, meanwhile, have insisted that the House's paygo rules require us to find offsets for extensions of expired or expiring tax law. This comprehensive package--previously approved as a free-standing bill by the other body by an overwhelming vote of 93 to 2--represents a bipartisan compromise, much like the financial rescue plan to which it has been attached. It contains extenders provisions that are not fully offset--as many Democrats would prefer--but contains more offsets than many Republicans would like, including some on domestic oil and gas producers that I find particularly troubling. It is certainly not a perfect package, Madam Speaker, but with adjournment looming, it is the only package that can pass both chambers and actually be enacted into law. Specifically, this package will protect millions of middle-class taxpayers from falling victim to the AMT in 2008. It provides more than $48 billion in tax relief by extending through 2009 various expired and expiring provisions affecting U.S. families and businesses. And it contains an $18 billion package of energy- related tax incentives, including the creation of a new tax credit for plug-in electric vehicles. The package also contains a set of disaster-related tax relief provisions, including both nationwide tax relief and targeted tax relief for the victims of this summer's Midwestern storms and for victims of Hurricane Ike in Louisiana and Texas. Finally, the Senate's comprehensive tax package contains several non-tax provisions of significant interest to many Members on both sides of the aisle, including mental health parity and a reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools program. All in all, this is a good, bipartisan package of tax proposals, Madam Speaker, and I think its inclusion improves the overall financial rescue package before us by providing important tax relief to our nation's families and businesses at a critical time for our economy. So today, I will cast my vote for this economic stabilization plan, sobered by the reality that our failure to act could have unprecedented, catastrophic consequences for our country and the economic freedoms for which I've long fought as a Member of this great institution. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. McCRERY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009: Requesting Member: Congressman Jim McCrery (LA-04). Bill Number: H.R. 2638, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Louisiana Tech University. Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 10348, Ruston, LA 71272. Description of Request: Cyber Security Laboratory--This $3 million appropriation provides funding for equipping a new Cyber Security Laboratory to support research and educational efforts in cyber security at the Center for Secure Cyberspace (CSC), a collaboration between Louisiana Tech University and Louisiana State University. Research will focus on the early prediction, detection, and control of anomalous behavior in cyberspace. The CSC has built strategic collaborative relationships between national and international academic and industrial partners, and with the Air Force's Cyberspace Command at Barksdale Air Force Base. Funding for the Cyber Security Laboratory will be appropriately allocated to specialized laboratory equipment, lab modifications, and staff support. Requesting Member: Congressman Jim McCrery (LA-04). Bill Number: H.R. 2638, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force. Description of Request: Remote Suspect Identification--$3.2 million. Requesting Member: Congressman Jim McCrery (LA-04). Bill Number: H.R. 2638, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Louisiana Center for Manufacturing Sciences. Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 38050, Shreveport, LA 71133. Description of Request: Integrated Manufacturing Enterprise--This $2.4 million appropriation provides funding for a program designed to improve the Navy's ship building program through the implementation of state-of-the-art best practices. The executing entity for this program is the Louisiana Center for Manufacturing Sciences, a not-for-profit consortium composed of both large and small high-tech companies. These best practices are proven through prior implementation at member companies, leveraging a large amount of prior investment. Funding for the Integrated Manufacturing Enterprise will be used primarily for engineering and program management labor. Requesting Member: Congressman Jim McCrery (LA-04). Bill Number: H.R. 2638, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Technical Consultants, Inc. (TCI). Address of Requesting Entity: Hwy. 80 East, Doyline, LA 71023. Description of Request: Remote Continuous Energetic Material Manufacturing for Pyrotechnic IR Decoys--This $1.6 million appropriation will enable Technical Consultants, Inc. (TCI) to bring its facility at Camp Minden up to new Louisiana requirements imposed by the Louisiana State Fire Marshal Office after the Army transferred the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant to the State of Louisiana. This appropriation will allow TCI to bring the facility up to acceptable levels for the processing and manufacture of a variety of government- required energetic materials. The funds appropriated for this project will be divided among the following areas: environmental equipment, fire suppression equipment, magazine/warehousing, support areas, and engineering. Requesting Member: Congressman Jim McCrery (LA-04). Bill Number: H.R. 2638, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Air Force. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Barksdale Air Force Base. Address of Requesting Entity: Barksdale Air Force Base, LA 71110. Description of Request: Security Forces Complex--This $14.6 million appropriation provides funding for the construction of a Security Forces Squadron Complex at Barksdale Air Force Base. Security forces command and operations functions are currently housed in a 1930's vintage hangar on the aircraft parking ramp. This facility is inadequate in functional layout to accommodate existing requirements. Further delays in construction of a new facility would prevent compliance with the base's established land use policies.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. For the same reasons, we should have revenue sharing for offshore.

Mr. McCRERY. That was the bridge that got us there. But certainly with respect to onshore production on Federal lands, there typically has been revenue sharing, is that correct?

Mr. McCRERY. Thank you. You are right with respect to offshore drilling, and I think that has been an unfortunate omission throughout the years, and we have corrected that recently.

Mr. McCRERY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in response to the last speaker for the majority that the energy bill that he derided that we passed on a bipartisan basis in 2005 is basically included in this bill. You take the same tax provisions, for example, that we had in that bill and you just renew them. So the bill that we did in 2005 wasn't bad, evidently, because you have embraced it. It is just that it wasn't enough. Now, finally, I think the country and people around the country understand the importance of not only preparing for the future, which admittedly we have to do, but in 2005 when we said ultimately that bill will lead to lower prices, we think it will, once we get alternative fuels on the market. But we have to develop those. We provided incentives in that bill, as you do in this bill, to generate activity in those alternative fuel sectors. But what we also need and what the country has come to embrace now I think is more domestic oil and gas production to bridge us to that future. We are not there yet. This bill, unfortunately, doesn't provide that bridge. It is advertised as such, but I would submit that it is false advertising. This legislation, produced unfortunately in secret by the majority and released just late last night, is a sham. It permanently locks up large portions of the Outer Continental Shelf, putting it off-limits to oil and gas producers, meaning that any claims that this bill will help promote energy security, certainly in the short-term, and by that I mean for the next 20 or 30 years, is just not the case. Moreover, in what surely must go down as one of the biggest bait-and- switches in legislative history, the majority claims to open up some areas far offshore for production, but only if the States agree, only if the States opt in, and then it is only a few States. And to try to sour that deal, this bill removes the typical revenue sharing that would go to that State, in effect eliminating a major financial reason for States to allow drilling off their shores. Because of this omission in the bill, even my senior Senator, who is a Democrat, sees the foolishness of this bill's approach. She is quoted in the New Orleans paper as saying in reference to this bill that is on the floor right now, ``It most certainly won't see the light of day in the Senate.'' That is because of the omission of the revenue sharing in this bill. What she means is it won't see the light of day in the Senate because they know on a bipartisan basis in the Senate that this bill won't produce any more offshore drilling because States won't opt in if there is no revenue sharing for this bill. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge this House to do an all-of-the-above bill on energy, and not a none-of-the-above bill, like this bill represents.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6580 and commend my colleague from California, Mr. Nunes, for his tireless efforts to secure passage of this important legislation addressing the concerns of ``sole survivors'' such as his constituent, Jason Hubbard. I also wish to thank the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, whose support was critical to consideration of this bill. The ``sole-survivor'' policy of the Armed Forces was designed with the best of intentions but has yielded some unfortunate, unintended consequences. Currently, there are no standard benefits available to those who separate from the Armed Forces under this policy, whether or not their service obligation is completed. This legislation puts the House firmly on record that sole survivors should qualify for a standard set of Federal benefits that are generally available to other veterans, including education benefits, transitional healthcare, and the ability to keep any enlistment bonus paid to them. Given the exigencies of the situation, the retroactive action being taken here today to protect sole survivors who have been honorably discharged from the military since September 11, 2001 is the right thing to do. Let me take a moment to comment on the bill's other provision, Section 9 of today's legislation, which would repeal the dollar limitations on contributions to funeral trusts. This revenue provision, authored by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind, has been included to offset the additional spending associated with the bill's sole survivor provisions. As my colleagues know, I have complained often during the 110th Congress that the Committee on Ways and Means has been used repeatedly as a piggy-bank by other panels looking to offset the cost of new spending proposals. I certainly would have preferred to have the sole survivor provisions in today's legislation funded by suitable spending reductions identified by the committees of jurisdiction, rather than by a revenue enhancement. But that option, having been fully explored, was not available to us on this bill. Under the circumstances, the path chosen today by the Majority is an appropriate one for several reasons. First, given the urgency of acting on this legislation, we do not have time to wait. We understand that some of these sole survivors have had recent paychecks withheld or have recently received bills from the military demanding repayment of their enlistment bonuses. Families like the Hubbards are facing pressing financial deadlines, and we do not have the luxury of waiting to address this issue on their behalf. Second, unlike numerous other examples from the 110th Congress, the higher revenues derived from this funeral trust provision are not being used to substantially expand eligibility for an entitlement program to classes of people for whom it was not originally intended, or to provide existing enrollees new benefits not already in law. Instead, this bill uses the small amount of revenue raised to correct a narrow, but serious, flaw in current law. That is an important difference. Third, I would note that this provision is fully voluntary--it would only affect those Americans who voluntarily opt to make larger contributions to a pre-paid funeral trust. Finally, unlike prior revenue raisers proposed by the Majority that would impose unwelcome tax increases on unsuspecting Americans, this particular revenue offset is actually strongly supported by those who would pay the additional tax. In other cases where the Majority has sought higher revenues to pay for new spending, our friends across the aisle have typically targeted either politically disfavored taxpayers, such as smokers or ``the rich,'' or groups, such as late-filing taxpayers, who would almost certainly be unaware of the tax increase until they had to write a bigger check to Uncle Sam. By contrast, the tax provision here is the rare bird in Washington: a proposed revenue enhancement that has generated no discernible opposition and that has actually been endorsed by the leading industry group representing affected taxpayers,The National Funeral Directors Association. As I noted, I generally would prefer that we not use the tax code to raise revenue to pay for higher spending. But this legislation presents unique facts and circumstances that justify the action being taken today, and I hope my colleagues in the other body will act quickly to get this important bill to the President's desk.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I have some prepared remarks, but I want to address a couple of things that have been said, because I think it's important for the House to understand. Number one, the gentleman from Florida said that we have already solved this problem, and he is right in one sense. There was enough of a pay-for in the last Medicare bill that we passed, that had we couched it properly, we could have used as a pay-for to get us within the window required by MMA, but we didn't do that. We didn't go through the proper procedure. So to suggest that we now can just do away with the rule because in some other bill we created enough funding that would have worked had we followed the proper procedure, I think, is a very tenuous argument. The whole purpose of the provision, and the second thing I want to address, is this notion that this was slipped in in the dead of night, and it was just totally a Republican effort to somehow kill Medicare. I would say to the House that this suggestion was first made by the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare that was chaired by Bill Thomas and John Breaux, a Republican and a Democrat. So we didn't come up with this in the dead of night. It is something that had been circulating, and I thought it was a good idea then, I think it's a good idea now. It's regrettable that the House stands ready today to dispose of this very worthwhile rule. All the rule was intended to do, it wasn't intended to kill Medicare. What it was intended to do is force us to face the problem every year, because we all know, those of us who are familiar with the program, familiar with the structure of the program and the financing of the program, know that more than 45 percent of general revenues are going to be used to pay the costs of this program very soon. Then it will be every year, and it will grow. In fact, if we allow this program to go on autopilot, it will grow from about 2.7 percent of GDP this year to over 14 percent of GDP by the end of the 75-year CBO window, over 14 percent. We only take in in revenues, total revenues, between 18 and 19 percent of GDP. So if we allow this program to just go like it is now without discussion or debate or reform, we are going to have to do away with most spending for defense, education, roads, highways, unless, of course, we have a dramatic increase in taxes. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to tell this House that the product would be irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible change in the rules of the House. The resolution before us today would prevent the House from having to hold any debate about the looming financial crisis facing the Medicare program. Apparently, the Democrats don't want to talk about reforming a program that is slated to go bankrupt in 2019. This rules change isn't about a specific proposal to change Medicare. What it would do is repeal a bipartisan provision that would force Congress to at least take note of Medicare's increasingly unsustainable financial situation and begin to consider solutions. But instead of having an open discussion about how to address the out-of-control costs of this program, today's resolution allows the Congress to bury its head in the sand and kick the can down the road, letting a future Congress deal with this ever worsening problem. This is irresponsible. The facts are clear. Medicare is facing bankruptcy. The combination of rising health care costs and an aging population have created a financial hurricane on the not-too-distant horizon. Last year, Medicare spending totaled about 2.7 percent of our GDP. That figure will more than double by 2030 and hit 14.8 percent by the end of the CBO's 75-year budget window. Since total federal revenues, historically, have been between 18-19 percent, it is clear we cannot let Medicare spending increase on auto-pilot unless we are willing to substantially raise taxes or cut all other government spending. The need for structural reform of Medicare is not just Republican rhetoric. In recent testimony before the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, the non-partisan Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC), which was created by Congress to advise us on Medicare payment issues, said that, ``The [Medicare] program's shaky financial outlook is a strong impetus for change.'' Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim that this 45 percent trigger was created by Republicans as a way to privatize or block grant the Medicare program. Let me remind them that this policy was first suggested by a bipartisan Medicare task force that was chaired by Democratic Senator John Breaux. And let me also point out that there are many ways that we could solve this problem. But ducking it is surely not on that list. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule change. This problem will not go away just because we ignore it. The longer we wait to address it, the more difficult the solution will be.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. With that, Mr. Speaker, let me just say I have heard some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle talk about the problems in this bill. I certainly agree with many of their assessments of some provisions in this bill. One conclusion, though, that I disagree with is that a vote for this bill is irresponsible. I think, in fact, just the opposite. I think the responsible vote is to vote for this bill. I think it is important that this bill pass today, not next week or in a special session in August, but today. I think timeliness is important, and the responsible vote, unfortunately, because there is a lot of things I disagree with in this bill, but the responsible vote, Mr. Speaker, is an ``aye'' vote today for this bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the majority is ready to close on their side. I would ask unanimous consent that any time that I don't use in my closing be reallocated to the minority on the Financial Services Committee. It shouldn't be much, but whatever is left, I would like for them to have it.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. McCRERY. I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

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