[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 103 (Thursday, June 25, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E988]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                H.R. 160

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. DAVID E. PRICE

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 25, 2015

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 160, 
not because I believe that the current tax on the device industry is 
perfect, but because I object to the Majority's fixation on passing 
permanent tax repeals without offsets.
  As the representative from a part of our country that is known around 
the world for its research and innovation, I fully understand the 
importance of the device industry to the health and wellness of 
Americans, economic development, and our global competitiveness. 
Medical devices have the potential to save and improve the lives of 
Americans, and the companies that produce them are helping our economy 
recover by investing in new technology and providing high-paying, high-
skilled jobs here in the United States.
  Like other industries, device companies understand that the 
skyrocketing cost of health care represents one of the greatest threats 
to families, small business owners, state and federal budgets, and the 
overall economy. In part, Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act to 
help reverse this trend, and AdvaMed, the trade association 
representing medical device manufacturers, has supported policies to 
expand access to their life-saving products.
  The final law brought the original $40 billion levy on device 
manufacturers down to a $20 billion contribution through a 2.3%, rather 
than 4.6%, excise tax on medical devices. However, as the ten-year 
budget window has shifted, industry leaders report that they expect to 
pay more than originally predicted. We need to monitor this situation 
carefully and find a fair solution that accounts for the additional 
business the device industry may acquire as a result of the Affordable 
Care Act, while underscoring the need to keep the industry vibrant and 
innovative.
  Unfortunately, that is not the discussion we are having today. House 
Republicans are bringing to the Floor a bill that would, yet again, 
provide for a permanent tax cut without an offset. When this bill is 
added to the other permanent tax cut bills brought to the Floor this 
year alone, they add up to more than $610 billion in tax cuts without 
even a penny of an offset.
  The point is not that tax reductions or expenditures without offsets 
are never justified. Rather, they need to be part of a coherent, 
comprehensive budget strategy.
  This is not a debate about innovation and economic development as the 
Majority would like you to believe. This debate is about fiscal 
responsibility; it is about taking one tax provision and making it 
permanent without paying for it, without regard to implications for the 
rest of the budget.
  At a time when the House is bringing its appropriations bills to the 
House Floor, it is clear that reckless tax cuts like these have 
decimated our nation's ability to make the key investments a great 
country must make. Earlier this month, the House considered the 2016 
Transportation-Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. As 
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee charged with drafting the bill, 
I can tell you that it, like the other appropriations bills this body 
will consider, woefully underinvests in our nation due to the 
Majority's wrong-headed refusal to adopt a comprehensive approach to 
balance our budget.
  Should the House Republicans choose to debate and refine the 
Affordable Care Act's medical device excise tax, I stand ready to work 
with them. Until then, I will have to continue my record of voting 
against the unpaid-for tax cuts the Republican Majority is bringing to 
the Floor in the 114th Congress.

                          ____________________