[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 64 (Thursday, May 1, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H3393-H3395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1215
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring about
next week's schedule, and I yield to my friend, the majority leader,
Mr. Cantor, from Virginia.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the
Democratic whip, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session.
On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m.
for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning
hour and noon for legislative business.
On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.
Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a
complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow.
In addition, the House will consider H.R. 4438, the American Research
and Competitiveness Act of 2014, sponsored by Representative Kevin
Brady. This bill will provide American businesses with the certainty
they need to invest in good-paying middle class jobs and develop the
technologies of the future.
The House is also scheduled to consider a privileged resolution
finding Lois G. Lerner, former Director, Exempt Organizations Division,
Internal Revenue Service, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply
with a subpoena issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 10, the Success and
Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act, authored by Chairman
John Kline. Mr. Speaker, America does not work if our children are
trapped in failing schools. This bipartisan bill provides an
opportunity for our children to attend schools which foster a quality
learning environment focused on those students succeeding.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information with reference
to the legislation for next week. He leads with a bill that is entitled
American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2014.
As the gentleman knows, we have an agenda which I have talked to him
about briefly. We call it Make It In America, which is essentially
about growing manufacturing and encouraging manufacturers to return to
the United States and encouraging people when they want to go into
manufacturing to do so here in America.
Not only will that provide for a ``Made in America'' label all over
the world, but it will also provide the kind of middle class jobs and
opportunities that we need.
Part of that agenda, I will tell my friend, is to make permanent the
research and development tax credit. This bill does that. This bill
also costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 billion, maybe a
little less, over 10 years. It is unpaid for.
The series of bills that were passed by the Ways and Means Committee
will cost $310 billion. They are also unpaid for. I suggest to my
friend--and as he knows, I preach relatively regularly that one of the
things that we need to do for the business community and for America is
to get ourselves on a fiscally sustainable path.
Mr. Camp offered a comprehensive piece of legislation, Mr. Leader, as
you know, which I think was an honest effort, but it also made hard
choices. It made hard choices not to increase the deficit and,
therefore, provided offsets for tax cuts. I think that is absolutely
essential for us to do.
This bill that we will consider next week, which is a proposition I
think most of us support, and that is giving businesses the insurance
that the research and development tax credit will in fact be available
not only for 1 year, but for a series of years--in this case, I believe
10 years.
What the business community doesn't need and what America doesn't
need is making the deficit worse. As a matter of fact, Mr. Leader, your
party talks a lot about bringing the deficit down. This goes in exactly
the opposite direction, and I think that is lamentable. I said $150
billion. It is actually $155 billion over 10 years.
I would hope that the party that is demanding that unemployment
insurance be paid for, that is demanding that the sustainable growth
rate be paid for, and that any change in the sequester be paid for,
ought to have consistency and not add $155 billion to our deficit in a
vote next week on something that I think we are all for; and it is
easy, Mr. Leader, as you well know, to vote for tax cuts--easy. It
takes no courage whatsoever.
I have been at this business 45 years. It has been my experience
that, over those 45 years, it is easy for Members to vote for tax cuts.
What is hard to do is to pay for the policies you adopt. This bill does
not do that. This bill makes the deficit worse, exacerbates the lack of
confidence that Americans have in the fiscal responsibility of their
country, and puts us in a worse place.
So I would hope, Mr. Leader, that before this bill comes to the
floor, that you and the Rules Committee and Mr. Camp, as he did in the
bill that he offered to this House, which was, frankly, dismissed out
of hand because it made tough decisions, this bill makes no tough
decisions. It has a tax cut. It has all the candy and none of the
spinach.
It is all good, and nobody has to pay the price. Nobody has to take
responsibility. I think that is lamentable, and I would hope that,
before this bill comes to the floor, there would be a way to pay for
this bill.
I want to suggest to you that there is a way to pay for it. There is
a way to pay for the other extenders that the committee wants, and that
is by passing a comprehensive immigration bill.
Mr. Boehner indicated that that was not being done because it was
tough and people didn't want to do tough things. I understand that. It
is hard to do tough things. That is why they are called tough. Mr.
Boehner now says he was kidding when he said that.
My view is he was deadly serious, and the reason we are considering
this bill next week is because it is easy to do. The reason we are not
considering comprehensive immigration reform is because it is
difficult, but comprehensive immigration reform would pay for all of
the tax cuts that are being proposed in these six extenders and,
indeed, in all of the extenders that are proposed by the Senate Finance
Committee.
They only proposed that for 2 years, not 10 years, but it would pay
for all of them. In fact, CBO says if we pass comprehensive immigration
reform, it would mean $200 billion for the next 10 years and $900
billion over the next 20 years.
In December, the Budget Committee chairs, Mr. Ryan and Mrs. Murray,
were able to come up with a substantial sequester replacement. We ought
to be able to do that as well.
Let me close this part of my comment with two quotes, one from
Republican Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson, who said:
As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for
themselves.
And then Mr. Alan Greenspan, who initially said in 2001 and 2003 that
he thought the tax cuts would pay for themselves. However, upon review
of those tax cuts, he came back in response to a question on ``Meet the
Press'' from David Gregory, and the question was:
You don't agree with the Republican leaders who say tax
cuts pay for themselves?
Mr. Greenspan:
They do not.
So all of your Republican colleagues are being asked to vote for a
$155 billion increase in the deficit, which they all say they want to
bring down. I am sure they will get up and rationalize--as they did in
1981, in 2001, and 2003--that those tax cuts would magically grow the
economy, so that they would not exacerbate the deficit. In the 33 years
I have been in Congress, that has not been our experience.
So, Mr. Leader, I very sincerely hope that we can join together in a
bipartisan way and support this legislation because it is the right
thing to do in terms of growing manufacturing, and it is the right
thing to do in bringing down our deficit to pay for it.
I yield to my friend.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Messer). The Chair reminds Members to
direct their remarks to the Chair.
[[Page H3394]]
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would say to
the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that for 30-plus years, the R&D tax credit
has been on temporary extension. This is nothing but reflecting
reality, saying that this is a very important part of incentives, so
that we can fulfill the mission that the gentleman is on, that we share
as well, which is more manufacturing here in America.
If making it in America is important, the R&D tax credit is
fundamental to that mission. This has been in place for over 30 years
on temporary extension, and to hold it hostage as the gentleman
suggests, Mr. Speaker, is not the way to go about facilitating growth
in our economy.
I respect the gentleman's commitment to fiscal discipline. Obviously,
we have different opinions about how to get to that goal, but both of
us, I think, would agree, Mr. Speaker, that growth is something that
has been too little, too tepid, and we need to return to an era in
which we can see some robust growth in our economy.
It will help those who are chronically unemployed. It will help
businesses grow. It will help communities grow and families get by
easier, so they can see a better future. This R&D tax credit is
something that, as the gentleman says, he supports, and to support that
means support it as it has existed, but let's once and for all send the
signal of certainty that this will be the policy for manufacturing and
others in this country, so we can continue to innovate.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
would say that the rationale he uses, however, is applicable to the
sustainable growth rate reimbursement for doctors serving Medicare
patients. We do that every year as well. The Republican side of the
aisle demands that be paid for.
We do unemployment insurance.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield on that.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the difference in the SGR to this is we have
consistently offset the expenditures under SGR. This R&D tax credit is
a tax credit. It is allowing businesses who invest to keep more of that
investment, to plow it back into research.
The precedent is not there, as it is on SGR and the other items that
perhaps the gentleman would point to. This is important to growth. This
is important to manufacturing. We should all join together and support
the current extension of what has been in place for over 30 years, on
extension over a dozen times.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation, Mr. Speaker.
The other side of the aisle laments the deficit; they lament the debt.
We have the debt, we have the deficit because we don't pay for what we
buy. That is why we have a debt. That is why we have a deficit.
When we were in charge, we put in a pay-as-you-go rule. That rule
said, if you are going to spend money, this is essentially a tax
expenditure; it is a worthy tax expenditure. It is something that I
support. It helps to grow the economy, but it is a tax expenditure.
No one on this floor can say that it does not make the deficit worse;
no one with any degree of credibility.
{time} 1230
The argument has been made, of course, though, that tax cuts, they
will grow so much that you won't get the deficit. That is what
President Reagan argued and his proponents argued in 1981. The debt
increased 187 percent under President Ronald Reagan because they didn't
pay for themselves.
When the Republicans took over, Mr. Speaker, they amended the rule so
we didn't have to pay for things. This bill comes to the floor without
any necessity to pay for it. So we will give a tax cut, assuming it
passes, and somebody is going to pay for it. My children, my
grandchildren, your children, Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who will
pay for it because we are going to make a decision, apparently, not to
pay for something that we know is going to increase the deficit.
So the analogy when we want things paid for is not always followed,
Mr. Speaker, for instance, unemployment insurance almost invariably not
paid for. Almost every economist says investing in unemployment
insurance grows the economy, will help grow the GDP, but we don't
follow that practice here, unfortunately.
We have a bipartisan paid-for unemployment insurance bill that the
Senate has passed that we can't even get to the floor. That is paid
for. It grows the economy and it helps 2.5 million people who are
falling through the cracks. Yet we bring a bill to the floor that has a
$155 billion cost, we don't pay for it, and the unemployment insured,
2.5 million, are ignored.
Mr. Speaker, we don't think that policy is one that we ought to
pursue. We would hope, again, before this bill comes to the floor that
it is paid for.
I referred to comprehensive immigration reform, Mr. Speaker.
I will yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment on a previous
comment.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to just point out that the last time the gentleman's
party was in the majority in this House during a lame-duck session we
did extend the R&D tax credit unpaid for. I hear what the gentleman is
saying, but I would point that out for historic accuracy.
I would say this, Mr. Speaker. I guess there may be a little bit of
different view on how deficits are created. The disproportionate cause
for our deficit is the fact that we have demographics in this country,
10,000 people every day turning 65 becoming eligible for our health
care entitlement programs, and those programs are almost 50 percent--
the Medicare program is almost 50 percent underfunded. That is the
disproportionate cause of the deficit.
I think all of us have said you can't tax your way out of it; you
can't grow your way out of it; you have to change the structure of the
program. That is something that the gentleman's party nor the President
will agree with us on. That is the disproportionate cause of the
deficit.
An additional cause of the deficit is we don't have enough growth; we
don't have revenues coming into the Federal Government. For some
reason, there has been an acceptance around here of a new norm, a very
low and tepid growth. The R&D tax credit is something that is growth
oriented; it is certainty. The gentleman said so himself. The gentleman
said that manufacturing in America needs certainty in the R&D tax
credit.
We have essentially been allowing an R&D tax credit since 1981 in
this country. So let's just call it what it is and make it permanent so
that we can get back on the path to growth. Addressing growth,
addressing our unfunded liabilities connected with entitlement
programs, that is the sure way to reduce deficits and reduce the debt
burden.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman point that
out. I have been trying to work with the gentleman and his party for
some period of time now starting with Bowles-Simpson and some other
comprehensive suggestions.
As I said, Mr. Camp, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee,
has offered a comprehensive bill. I don't agree with some of the things
in it, but it is an honest piece of legislation that makes the
tradeoffs, the tough choices, that need to be made. This bill does not.
That is my point.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, because I know the majority leader has another
engagement, comprehensive immigration reform, I said that it scores
approximately $1 trillion positive for our economy over the next 20
years; but it is also morally the right thing to do to fix a broken
system, a system that doesn't work, with which everybody agrees.
I would again appeal to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, to bring a
comprehensive immigration bill to the floor. I understand that there
are many on his side of the aisle that don't agree with it. Fine. Vote
against it, but give this House an opportunity. Give the American
people the opportunity to have a comprehensive immigration bill voted
in the people's House on this floor so that we can fix a broken system,
or offer alternatives to that which is proposed by the United States
Senate and passed overwhelmingly by the United States Senate.
If the gentleman wants me to yield to him, I will, certainly.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
[[Page H3395]]
I would just respond, we have had this discussion before. The
majority is in opposition to the Senate bill. The Speaker has said as
much, and I have said as much.
I have also said, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman, to the President,
and others that we have got a lack of trust between this House and the
White House. I have said to the President that what could help is we
start rebuilding that trust, which starts with an admission that it
can't be my way or the highway, and it must instead be building trust,
understanding where we can agree together.
Yes, we all agree the system is broken. We have a system that is
broken on the legal side, and we have illegal immigration. There are
things that this House has done before, like a green card stapled to a
diploma. The President says, no, we can't do something like that; we
can't do something like that without taking care of everything. That,
to me, Mr. Speaker, is where the problem lies.
There is not enough trust on the part of the Members of this body to
think that the White House and the administration is going to implement
whatever it is that we pass. So instead, why shouldn't we focus on
where we agree and start from there? That has been the position that I
have expressed to the gentleman as well as to the administration.
So again, I just take issue with his insistence that somehow we can
just do that and it will all be fixed. That is the fundamental problem
here, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental problem is not my way or the
highway. It is no way.
The Republican Judiciary Committee has passed out a number of
immigration reform bills. The Homeland Security Committee headed by a
Republican chairman has passed out an immigration reform bill dealing
with border security. None of those bills have been brought to the
floor. It is not a question about liking the Senate bill or trusting
the President of the United States.
Everybody agrees, Mr. Speaker, the immigration system is broken; but
there is no way, no bill, no option that has been brought to this floor
to fix that system to respond to what everybody agrees is a broken
system of immigration.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Taoiseach, otherwise known as
the Prime Minister of Ireland, celebrated St. Patrick's Day here with
us at a luncheon, and part of his speech was about passing
comprehensive immigration reform.
They don't have to take our bill; they don't have to take the Senate
bill; but, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to have a bill on
the floor to fix a broken system. It is not a question of whether they
trust the President; it is whether or not they trust the word of the
House of Representatives that it can work its will. I would hope that
we could work our will on this issue. It is important for the American
people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________