Steve Stivers

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Diaz-Balart as well as Ranking Member Price for their hard work on this bill and for preparing a bill that is the best we can do. I do rise in support of an amendment that seeks to curb lawsuit abuse and help fund our local governments. This creates congressional intent to redirect funds away from the private enforcement account to the administrative enforcement account. My amendment would decrease by $28.375 million the Private Enforcement Initiative and redirect those resources to the Administrative Enforcement Initiative in the Fair Housing Initiatives Program. I believe that the most efficient and effective way to protect Fair Housing is through the Administrative Enforcement Initiative of the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, which helps State and local governments who administer laws that include rights and remedies every day. They act to help Fair Housing. They know their communities, and they can enforce in their communities best. My amendment would help protect more consumers. In fact, I believe administrative enforcement is less expensive to taxpayers. It is more certain. It has faster resolution. It has less conflicts of interest than some of these nonprofit proxy agencies that use the Private Enforcement Initiative. In fact, there is a 1997 GAO study, Mr. Chairman, that revealed that more than half of the Private Enforcement Initiative dollars were concentrated in just 6 of the 27 awardees. I have asked the GAO to update that study and to look at private enforcement as far as its effectiveness because, as I said, it is slower and more expensive than administrative enforcement. Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to support my congressional intent amendment to redirect these resources to our State and local governments who can more effectively administer justice. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say to my colleague from North Carolina that administrative enforcement is more effective, it is more efficient. That is why we should redirect these resources internally inside Fair Housing. It doesn't change Fair Housing dollars one penny. It redirects the resources to more efficient and effective means of enforcement, from folks who enforce these laws every day and can do it faster and more effectively, to make sure the people that might be discriminated against get their redress sooner. I am excited about this amendment. I think it will lead to much more effective enforcement. It does so without the conflict of interest of these private organizations that can have conflicts of interest, and that has been another issue that I have asked the GAO to look at in my letter to them today. I apologize that the minority is just seeing this for the first time. I did talk about it at the Rules Committee the other day. It is something I have been working on just for a couple of days since that Rules Committee meeting when it came up. I apologized for not giving the gentleman from North Carolina more notice. I would urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Chair, does recognize that there are problems in the private enforcement initiative. He just admitted that. There is a lot of lawsuit abuse. In fact, many of these organizations sue first and ask questions later. They don't do their due diligence. They send interns in to actually look at these places and file lawsuits before they get the facts. The gentleman asserted that we shouldn't make these kind of changes. That is why the people sent us here, to make things better. We are supposed to do it every day, and when we see problems, we need to fix them. This is a temporary, 1-year halt of the private enforcement initiative with the GAO study that is not directed in this bill, but I asked for by letter through the GAO, and they are always good about doing those when you ask them to. They haven't looked at this program since 1997. Mr. Chairman, it is time to look at this program in detail. I would assert that our local and State governments can also do the mediation that the gentleman from North Carolina talked about, Mr. Chairman, and they can do it better, more efficiently, and without the conflicts of interest that some of these private organizations have done. So I think we ought to give it a try. That is the great thing about an annual appropriations bill. Guess what; we get to do it again next year. I am certainly willing to admit if I am wrong and we find out through a GAO study that the private enforcement has worked well. But there have been articles in the paper about some of the lawsuit abuse that we have seen all across the country, and I think we should just take a strategic pause here and give the money to our State and local governments who can better enforce our laws. They do it every day, and they can do it through the mediation and things that the gentleman asserts that these private enforcement initiatives can do so well. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it will help make our fair housing laws better, and it will protect more consumers. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the comments of the gentleman from Florida and remind him that each bill will be separately debated and that, obviously, this combined rule is a floor time management technique that the chairman of the Committee on Rules yesterday said was an aberration. I take him at his word; and I think it is important to note that, during Democratic majorities, this was certainly not an unheard-of practice, either. I do want to make sure that I reiterate that every bill will be separately debated; and I would remind the gentleman that, during the time we have to debate the rule, if we actually stick to the topics related to the bills and the rules, it will help us manage our floor time even better. With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 273 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for two bills--H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act of 2015, and H.R. 880, the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015. House Resolution 273 provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2262 and a closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 880. The resolution provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for H.R. 2262, and 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for H.R. 880. The resolution also provides for the consideration of seven amendments to H.R. 2262, and it provides for a motion to recommit for each bill. In addition, the rule provides for the normal recess authorities to allow the chair to manage pro forma sessions; it provides for the Committee on Appropriations to have the opportunity to file reports during the district work period; and it provides for suspension authority for Thursday to provide flexibility on the last day prior to the district work period. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and the underlying legislation. Both of these bills represent critical investments in science and technological innovation. On the floor this week, we have debated and passed several pieces of legislation to encourage the research and development of new technologies and ideas, moving our economy and our country forward and cementing our place in the world as the leader in scientific discovery. These discoveries and the research they require will promote and create high-tech, high-paying jobs that can have untold benefits to our economy, benefiting all Americans. The rule and the underlying legislation we have under consideration today continues that objective, and I look forward to discussing these critical issues with our colleagues here in the House. H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act of 2015, is a package of four bills that will update the Commercial Space Launch Act. H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act, as introduced by the majority leader, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), will facilitate a progrowth environment for the commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment and by creating a more stable and predictable regulatory environment. H.R. 1508, the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act, introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey), will promote the development of a United States commercial space resource exploration and utilization industry, and it will increase the exploration and utilization of resources in outer space. H.R. 2261, the Commercial Remote Sensing Act, introduced by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine), will facilitate the continued development of the commercial remote sensing industry and protect our national security. Finally, H.R. 2263, the Office of Space Commerce Act, proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), will rename the Office of Space Commercialization to the Office of Space Commerce, and it will seek to foster the conditions for the economic and technological growth of the United States space commerce industry. This package of bills will ensure American leadership in space by fostering a strong and vibrant commercial space industry. Without this legislation, the commercial space industry may face a myriad of regulatory hurdles that would threaten America's continued exceptionalism in space exploration. The other underlying bill in this rule, H.R. 880, addresses the research and development tax credit. In 1981, President Reagan signed into law a critical research and development tax credit, but Washington has let it expire and then has renewed it over a dozen times since then. As we discussed last month as to our tax credits, Mr. Speaker, the R&D tax credit was included in the package of retroactive bills and extenders that was signed by the President on December 19 of last year, providing just 7 business days of certainty for businesses seeking to utilize this provision of our Tax Code. It, along with all of the others that expired again on December 31 of last year, currently remain expired. The temporary nature of the now expired research credit limits its effectiveness, which prevents some businesses from having certainty on long-term investments in U.S.-based research and development. More research and development means more innovation, greater economic growth, and more American jobs. In 2012, American companies invested $302 billion in research and development. As of 2011, 1.47 million Americans worked directly in research and development. Increased certainty, combined with the simplification of our Tax Code, would lead to more research and more American jobs. Investment in research and development is the key to America remaining the world's leader in innovation. The percentage of patents awarded by the U.S. Patent Office has increased each year, but the share awarded to U.S. innovators has declined. In the year 2000, 54 percent of the patents awarded were of American origin. By 2014, the number fell to 48 percent. From 2001 to 2011, America's share of global research and development declined from 37 percent to just 30 percent. By making the research credit permanent, researchers can stop worrying about whether Congress is going to extend the tax credit and can, instead, focus on new discoveries that will help fuel our economy and grow jobs. I look forward to debating these bills with our House colleagues, and I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Florida, but I would like to respond to a few of the comments. The R&D tax credit has been overwhelmingly supported for the last 16 extensions, the last time garnering 378 votes. Only 46 Members voted against the R&D tax credit. The R&D tax credit will be passed again. In fact, the gentleman from Michigan admitted, Mr. Speaker, that the vast majority of Democrats will vote to extend the R&D tax credit. In fact, they will do it every year for the next 10 years, like they have the last few years. When it is done every year, they don't insist it is paid for. If you will do it for 10 years in a row without paying for it--the entire budget window--why don't we just all create some certainty for our businesses so we can invest in high-tech jobs and growing our economy, Mr. Speaker? Let's create certainty for the American people. Let's pass the bill. Let's pass the rule. Let's pass the previous question. I think, unfortunately, the arguments from the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Speaker, really encourage cliff politics--high-stakes, expiring legislation that the American people don't want. The American people want us to create certainty. They want us to support jobs. They want us to support our technological innovation in this country, Mr. Speaker. I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying bills, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize White Castle, which is headquartered in my district, for their long history of contributing to the Central Ohio Community. White Castle has recently announced the creation of ``National Slider Day'' to celebrate little ideas that make a big difference. In 1921, White Castle was founded with the idea of small, bite-sized sandwiches. Nearly 100 years later, this small business idea has grown into a nationwide business creating thousands of jobs for our country. White Castle will sell over I/2 billion sliders to millions of people during the month of May alone, With 10,000 employees across the country and over 2,000 employees in Ohio, the company serves as a job creator in communities throughout America. White Castle has also found great ways to give back to the community. To recognize ``National Slider Day,'' White Castle will be handing out 10,000 sliders in Columbus to friends and charity partners around the city. White Castle sliders have also been made available on military bases around the world to help our brave men and women in uniform enjoy a ``taste of home'' while protecting our freedom abroad. I wish White Castle all the best as they launch ``National Slider Day'' and as they continue taking little ideas to make a big difference.

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Madam Chair, the amendment I am offering tonight is simple. It prohibits funding for the Cape Wind project off Nantucket Sound. This amendment was offered last year and was accepted unanimously, and I hope it will be again. The problem with this project isn't that it is renewable energy. We all support renewable energy. This is a renewable energy that is not supporting American jobs. In fact, they have outsourced their turbines to Denmark and their turbine platforms to Germany. The other issue is, this project has been quite controversial, and I think that we don't want another Solyndra. This amendment was adopted last year by a voice vote. I would urge a ``yes'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STIVERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment, which would help ensure that VA orthotists and prosthetists, who are responsible for caring for our veterans, are fully qualified and are able to perform the duties entrusted to them. This February, the CBS affiliate in Columbus, Ohio, ran a story exposing flaws at the Chalmers P. Wylie VA Ambulatory Care Center, which serves constituents from my district. The story revealed that dozens of veterans--and possibly many more--who have not come forward had received ineffective care by uncertified prosthetists. One veteran was even told that his fitting was supposed to be painful. After several unsuccessful visits, he turned to a non-VA provider, Willow Wood, which is near Columbus, Ohio, where he was immediately provided with a successful, pain-free fitting. The VA does claim to be following a credentialing directive, which is VA directive 2012-030. Mr. Chairman, I will soon be introducing comprehensive legislation to address this issue, but in the meantime, this amendment would force the VA to honor its word by ensuring that no salaries are paid to uncertified prosthetists and orthotists. Our veterans have made tremendous sacrifices for our country, and they deserve the best.

Mr. STIVERS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. STIVERS. That was easy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize The Wagnalls Memorial Library in Lithopolis, Ohio. The Wagnalls Memorial will be celebrating 90 years of serving the community this May. The Wagnalls Memorial was dedicated by Mabel Wagnalls Jones in honor of her parents, Adam and Anna Willis Wagnalls, on May 30, 1925. The Wagnalls Memorial houses both a library and a community theatre where families, children and adults are able to learn, perform and volunteer. In the time since being dedicated, nearly $5 million in capital improvements have been made to The Wagnalls Memorial, allowing the community to enjoy the use of the library and other facilities for community events. Additionally, The Wagnalls Memorial has hosted events ranging from reading programs, to theatre and art classes for children and adults. The Wagnalls Memorial continues to be an important cornerstone of the community today. Recently, the Wagnalls Board of Directors approved The Legacy Campaign in an effort to assure The Wagnalls Memorial is able to continue operating well into the future. The Wagnalls Memorial has had a long history of service and bringing the community together. I offer my sincere congratulations to The Wagnalls Memorial on their 90th anniversary. On behalf of the people of Ohio's 15th Congressional District, I thank The Wagnalls Memorial for all you do for our community and wish you the best in the future.

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our whip.

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Colorado. It appears to me it doesn't matter which we choose. We need to equalize the treatment, and neither one takes us further away from tax reform because, in tax reform, we are going to have the entire debate. Whatever we do, we just need to move to a system that is fair, and I don't think it is fair today to States like Texas that we are not going to let you know whether you can deduct your sales tax until December 19. It just does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 200 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for three important bills: H.R. 622, the State and Local Tax Deduction Fairness Act of 2015; H.R. 1105, the Death Tax Repeal Act of 2015; and H.R. 1195, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act. House Resolution 200 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 622 and H.R. 1105, and a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1195. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means for H.R. 622 and H.R. 1105, and 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services for H.R. 1195. The resolution also provides for consideration of the two amendments offered by the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) on H.R. 1195 and provides a motion to recommit for each bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the resolution and the underlying legislation. Each of these bills is important to providing fairness and certainty for our Nation's Tax Code, ensuring our Nation's small businesses and family farms are able to pass on to the next generation and ensuring our Nation's community banks, credit unions, and small businesses are able to work with Federal regulators and have their voices heard. Today is April 15. It is tax day. Millions of Americans are filing their taxes today. They go through this annual process, and many Americans are frustrated today because sometimes the Tax Code is frustrating. Unfortunately, many Americans are also frustrated by the fact that millions of Americans have to wait until the last minute to find out what the Tax Code will be because so many provisions in our Tax Code are temporary. Last year, the so-called tax extender package, which was a batch of tax provisions, was retroactively applied for the entire year of 2014, but it didn't get signed into law until December 19. That is less than 2 calendar weeks from the end of the year. Mr. Speaker, we are determined to provide a little more certainty and a little more fairness in our Tax Code for the future, and that is what these bills are about today. We are moving forward with important legislation that permanently extends a couple of sections in the Tax Code. H.R. 622 is a very straightforward proposal. In our Tax Code today, American taxpayers have the option to deduct their State taxes. They can deduct their income taxes. Of course, that provision is permanent. It is in law permanently. But if they want to deduct their sales taxes, that is an annual provision that has been--it was part of the tax extender package last year, which wasn't even renewed until December 19. This is an issue of fairness. Some States, like Ohio, where I happen to reside, have an income tax. Other States have a sales tax in its place. For the States that have sales taxes, having this uncertainty is patently unfair, and it pits one State against another. It advantages States that have an income tax and disadvantages States that have a sales tax. States like Texas and Florida, where millions of Americans live, do not have an income tax, and Arizona, they have a sales tax. So we should treat these two tax systems the same. We should be fair and say, if the income tax deduction is permanent, the sales tax deduction is permanent as well. Certainly, I know the gentleman from Colorado brought up some good points yesterday in the Rules Committee meeting. While you could move to make the income tax deduction temporary, and that would also provide certainty, I think, until we can do tax reform, we should make these provisions permanent because of Congress' inability to, in a timely way, provide certainty to the American public. In tax reform we can have the discussion about deductible as an overall concept, and I think that is a fair debate to have. But if we are not going to renew it until December 19, 12 months into the year, that does not create a fair and certain system for our taxpayers. We want to ensure that taxpayers across the country are treated equally and fairly by our Tax Code. This underlying legislation would permanently extend the sales tax deduction, just like the income tax deduction is permanently in law. H.R. 1105 is a proposal to repeal the death tax. The death tax conflicts with the American Dream, and it is inherently unfair. The death tax hurts family businesses, family farmers, and ranchers. In fact, according to the Joint Economic Committee, the death tax hurts economic growth and activity by discouraging savings and small business growth. It represents a tiny fraction of Federal revenue, but its impact on families is enormous. The death tax violates the basic premise of the American Dream that if American individuals work hard and provide for their families, that they will get to keep some of that money. Many Americans spend their entire life working hard to build a nest egg for their families, and yet, through the Federal Tax Code, the Federal Government can take up to 40 percent of certain estates just because somebody was unfortunate enough to die. In my district, which covers parts of rural Ohio, this is often a problem for small family businesses and family farms. As the price of land continues to go up and the price of farm equipment, it is a capital-intensive business, and unfortunately, when you have the power to tax something, you have the power to destroy it. When these assets trigger the tax in the death tax, what many times happens is part of the family farm or part of the family business has to be sold and liquidated, taken away from the family, just to pay the tax collector. In fact, the death tax is one of the reasons that some family businesses have been lost from one generation to the next. I don't think it is fair at all for family businesses to have to pay that type of price. Family businesses and farms should be able to pass on what they have worked so hard for and what has already been taxed to the next generation, instead of giving 40 percent back to the government. The death tax represents double and sometimes triple taxation, and it further penalizes people from saving and investing in their family or their business and their family farm. I am glad we have an opportunity to move forward on this proposal and repeal the onerous death tax. Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1195 would create a small business advisory council for the CFPB and codify two other councils that the CFPB did create on their own. These councils can advise and consult the CFPB in the exercise of its functions under the Federal consumer financial laws and provide information on emerging practices in the consumer financial products and services industry. H.R. 1195 provides for a small business council to advise the CFPB regarding small business concerns. It is important that the CFPB receive this input from people who are close to the action, who know what is going on in consumer finance, and it is critical for small businesses and community-based financial institutions to have that kind of input and dialogue with the CFPB. Small business is the engine of our economy, and we need to ensure its viability in the future by making sure that our Federal regulators are well-informed of the issues affecting small business as they move forward with important regulations. I look forward to debating these bills with our House colleagues, and I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.