[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6671-6674]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 6672]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 6673]]

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.
  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

[[Page 6674]]

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.

                          ____________________