[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20193-20194]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             TAX EXTENDERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, within the next few days, the House could 
take up a tax package that extends a number of tax breaks permanently. 
The cost of such a package runs in the $600 billion to $800 billion 
range--none of which is paid for--ballooning our deficits in a way that 
reinforces a misguided double standard that investments in the growth 
of jobs and opportunities must be offset, but tax cuts are always free.
  Tax cuts, like everything else, have a cost. If we fail to pay for 
them, we will once again increase deficits and debt, which in turn will 
be used as the catalyst for another round of cuts to the very programs 
I believe are vital to our economy and to our people. Therefore, Mr. 
Speaker, I will oppose an unpaid-for tax extenders package like this 
that is proposed, should it come to the floor.
  Before going through my concerns about this deal in greater detail, 
let me say that the package being discussed has a number of tax 
preferences that I and many others support. These include making 
permanent expansions of the earned income tax credit, the child tax 
credit, and the American opportunity tax credit launched under the 
Recovery Act in 2009. It would also provide incentives to businesses 
and individual filers for investment, research, charitable 
contributions, and teaching expenses, among others. Most of us support 
those efforts.
  In many ways, this would be a bill where everyone gets something they 
want. But, Mr. Speaker, our children and grandchildren will get the 
bill.
  What concerns me most about this deal is that it further entrenches 
the false notion that offsets only matter when it comes to spending 
priorities. The direct consequences will be providing Republicans with 
the ammunition they need to propose even deeper cuts to the very 
investments that help grow the economy and create jobs both in the 
short term and in the long term.
  Frankly, I am surprised that we haven't heard more of an outcry that 
the roughly $800 billion in lost revenue from this package is nearly 
the same amount as the $813 billion in discretionary cuts Republicans 
insisted upon in the sequester. It would appear that we are setting 
ourselves up for Republicans demanding the next round of severe cuts 
that harm our economy and our people, both on the nondefense side and 
on the national security side. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we must move away 
from this dangerous pattern.
  Republicans have continued to argue that tax cuts pay for themselves 
by spurring economic growth, a theory that has been proven wrong, and, 
sadly, as I said, our children will pay the price for the deficits that 
have resulted. Others will argue that the effect on our deficits and 
debt of another $700 billion in unpaid-for tax expenditures over the 
next 10 years can be ignored because we would extend them every year 
anyway. While convenient, neither of these is a responsible position 
for governing.
  In a Wall Street Journal piece last Monday, Maya MacGuineas, 
president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget--the 
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget--asked: ``How do we explain 
to our children that we borrowed more than $1 trillion--counting 
interest--not because it was a national emergency or to make critical 
investments in the future but because we just don't like paying our 
bills?''
  Our answer has to be not to justify the irresponsible behavior, but 
to correct it. And this tax extenders package will make that much more 
difficult. First, this package undermines Congress' ability to invest 
in creating jobs and opportunities that make the American Dream 
possible for millions of families.
  When we cut taxes without paying for them, there are consequences. 
Every dollar in lost revenue is a dollar that must be made up somewhere 
else in the budget. As I said earlier, these unpaid-for tax extenders 
will set the table for further Republican attempts to slash critical 
investments in our Nation's future.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it will hinder our ability to restore fiscal 
stability by making it less likely that we will be able to protect the 
future sustainability of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social 
Security.
  In order to appear balanced, recent Republican budgets proposed 
trillions of dollars in cuts to health programs for seniors and the 
most vulnerable in our society. Worsening our deficit outlook by 
passing this bill invites them to continue that tack.
  While we face a challenge to our most critical retirement and health 
programs--a challenge driven by the retirement of the baby boom 
generation and the looming effect of compound interest on our debt--my 
Republican friends continue to offer budget proposals that severely cut 
benefits for seniors and the most vulnerable Americans and they try to 
justify doing so because our deficits are too high. Their proposal 
would exacerbate that by about $1 trillion, as Maya MacGuineas said. 
Here we are, though, about to consider proposals to raise the deficits 
even higher.
  Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, this type of unpaid-for, permanent extension 
will undercut our economic competitiveness by making comprehensive tax 
reform more difficult to achieve, not easier. We need comprehensive tax 
reform, and this will make it more difficult. Locking in preferences 
while lowering the revenue baseline by more than half a trillion 
dollars will ensure a plunge into further debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the business community would 
much prefer to see rates go down through comprehensive reform than 
simply an extension of individual preferences. This bill promises them 
both--

[[Page 20194]]

more preferences and lower rates--at the cost of deficits, debt, and 
diminished investment in our economic competitiveness.
  There are certainly components of this tax extenders package that I, 
as I said before, would like to make permanent. I wish we could make 
them even better, in fact. For instance, the child tax credit should be 
structured to keep up with inflation so those working the hardest to 
get by don't continue to see their resources dwindle year after year.
  Again, let me quote Maya MacGuineas when she highlighted this 
important point in her op-ed when she said: ``Most of the extensions 
under consideration are sensible enough policy--and their merit is an 
argument for paying for them.''
  I couldn't agree more. This tax extenders package, itself, serves as 
a powerful argument for Democrats and Republicans to come together to 
achieve that which we really need: comprehensive tax reform.
  So, in closing, Mr. Speaker, while I agree we need short-term 
certainty for tax filers before the end of the year, I believe the 
price this package would have us pay is too steep and too irresponsible 
in the short term and in the longer term. Instead, we could provide 
that same immediate certainty with a simple 2-year extension. That is 
what we ought to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the long-
term impact and consequences of this tax extenders package on the 
ability to create jobs and opportunities, grow our economy, invest in 
strengthening our security, reduce our Nation's debt, and balance our 
budget.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Congress and our people 
expect us to do better. We have a responsibility to our country and to 
our children to do better. Let's do it.

                          ____________________