Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is the tradition of this House to annually extend certain tax relief items, everything from a research and development tax credit to incentives for the manufacture, purchase and use of alternative fuels, to credits that help offset out-of-pocket expenses for teachers that they incur buying materials for their classrooms.

I helped write many of these provisions, and if the bill before us were truly a tax extenders bill, I'd be voting for it, as I have in previous years. However, the Democrats seemingly have never met a tax cut they liked; and, thus, the Democrats have turned tax extenders into tax extenders and tax raisers.

I want each of my colleagues to think about that for a minute. The bill before us proposes permanent tax increases and just 1 year of tax relief. Unemployment is at 10 percent. Nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs since the start of the year. The economy is continuing to hemorrhage thousands of jobs every month. Small businesses continue to struggle as credit markets remain tight. And this proposes to raise taxes on economic investment.

Just yesterday the President called for a Stimulus II package to help small businesses and to help start job creation. Part of that was to cut capital gains taxes on investments in small businesses, showing he understands the importance of capital to growing business and creating jobs.

By contrast, this bill changes how carried interest has been treated for decades, and it is nothing short of a new tax on the very investments needed to start a new business and create economic growth in this country.

So while Democrats claim they want to stimulate growth, they are actually increasing taxes in a way that will discourage job creation. And they left more than two dozen expiring tax relief provisions out of the bill, including the biggest of them all, the AMT patch.

So in addition to the tax increases within this bill, there are, by omission, close to 30 tax increases that Americans will face next year because of the bill's shortcomings, including higher taxes for small businesses and approximately $2,600 in higher taxes for millions of middle class families.

While some of those admissions might be justified, I'm disappointed that, once again, the Ways and Means Committee held neither a hearing nor a mark-up to consider legislation within our jurisdiction. Given the disconnect between House Democrats' rhetoric on jobs and their votes for tax increases, it is no wonder employers are confused. New investments aren't being made, and unemployment remains high. I support tax extenders, and that's what we should pass today, not this tax- increasing, job-killing bill before us.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who has been a leader in the effort to restore the local sales tax deduction.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I think the point that we're trying to make on the floor here is that this is a false choice: Either you're for teachers or you're for the research and development tax credit, or you're against it. And the false choice is: Do we really have to raise taxes on job creators in order to get the extension of the research and development tax credit temporarily? Do we have to have this permanent tax increase that, frankly, will make us one of the highest-taxed countries in the world on this sort of investment tax? And I think that's a false choice being presented today.

And with that, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I just want to comment, too, on this perfect economic picture you said occurred in 2001. As we all know, the bubble burst in 2000. So that history is not quite accurate. I just want to correct that for the record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What we're being offered here is temporary tax relief for 1 year paid for with permanent tax increases. And I would just say that while the majority disingenuously portrays this provision as targeting only rich Wall Street financiers, it actually goes well beyond that, affecting investments and transactions along Main Street as well. This extremely broad provision applies not only to private equity firms and hedge funds, but also to real estate partnerships that invest in every congressional district and venture capital funds that help finance start-up, high-tech and biotechnology investments all across America.

This provision would have far-reaching consequences on the returns of the pension funds, university endowments, and philanthropic foundations that invest in these partnerships that are targeted by the majority.

Let me just, for the record, say that in CQ there is a quote from Chairman Baucus on the Senate side that said the House on Wednesday will take up a roughly $31 billion bill extending dozens of provisions expiring December 31. The major offset for the package, raising $24.6 billion through taxing investment on partners income for managerial services as regular income rather than capital gains, is unlikely to survive in the Senate.

Again, we are moving forward on a funding mechanism that is permanent for 1 year of tax relief, and it is something that the Senate will not take up. To go on further, he says the provision passed the House twice in the 110th Congress but went nowhere in the Senate where Democratic leaders deemed it too contentious. Earlier this year, Baucus said he did not want to spook shaky financial markets by using the measure as an offset.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I am prepared to close if the gentleman has no further speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

To close, Mr. Speaker, the American people don't need to be reminded of the dire economic situation we face today. The American people know unemployment at 10 percent

remains far too high. They know it's tough to make ends meet without having to pay higher taxes. They know higher taxes on investment, on business investment, won't create jobs. In fact, it will hurt job creation.

The American people need not be reminded of those things, but apparently the majority does. Nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats enacted their so-called stimulus bill. Unemployment is 25 percent higher than the administration promised, and yet the bill before us proposes to add a new $24.6 billion tax on business investment.

Now, frankly, I wish we could end this year-end process we go through, and I know the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee gave an interview yesterday where he suggested a way out of this year-end extenders process we find ourselves in. I look forward to working with the chairman to try to find a solution to this problem.

The bottom line is the decision we are faced with today means we should be encouraging business investment, not discouraging it through higher taxes. I would just say to my friend that our motion to recommit would not repeal the international banking disclosure provisions.

In fact, Republicans share the majority's concern about the illegal use of offshore accounts to evade U.S. taxes. Tax evasion is a Federal crime and individuals who break the law by illegally hiding their income in offshore accounts and any financial institutions that facilitate that tax evasion should be aggressively pursued and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

If loopholes exist in law that allow tax cheats to illegally hide assets offshore, obviously Republicans stand ready to help close those loopholes in an appropriate way. As I said, our motion to recommit would retain the language in the majority's bill on that provision.

Again, these extensions of tax relief, which in many cases are policies Republicans passed and voted for when we were in the majority, they are helpful, and they are important to do, but they are temporary. They last 1 year. In order to get that done, the majority would increase taxes on economic investment.

Let's just be clear about this. It changes how business income has been taxed for decades, making it so that income that is currently taxed at a rate of 15 percent would be taxed at 35 percent, more than doubling that tax in an economic recession. It places one of the highest taxes on investment found anywhere in the world, and its reach and scope will increase taxes on everyone from the largest investors to the local real estate partnerships, again, permanent tax increases for 1 year of tax relief. With that, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, this point of order illustrates the dangers raised by the majority's PAYGO rule and its decision at the start of this Congress to prohibit us from offering motions to recommit that are not PAYGO compliant, something that all minorities, Republican and Democrat, over the last many years have been permitted to do in prior sessions, including as recently as last year.

The majority has asserted the motion to recommit violates clause 10 of rule XXI, known as the PAYGO rule, which requires amendments, including those contained in a motion to recommit, to be budget neutral.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that his point of order should be overturned because it precludes the House from considering the merits of a different approach to the underlying bill, one that would let the American people keep more of their hard-earned income.

By contrast, granting the PAYGO point of order would prevent the House from considering whether to extend this tax relief, as it has done many times before, without offsets. We should be encouraging business investment, not discouraging it through higher taxes.

Let's be clear. This carried interest tax of over $25 billion changes how business income has been taxed for decades, making income currently taxed at 15 percent up to 30 percent, more than doubling it.

Mr. Speaker, granting this point of order would foreclose the House from even considering whether it might want to pass this bill with fewer offsets or further tax relief.

Accordingly, I ask that you overrule the point of order and allow the House to debate and vote on our alternative, which would provide additional tax relief for families and small businesses without some of the most objectionable offsets found in the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, death in and of itself should not be a taxable event. Death should not force the sale of family farms or the dissolution of small businesses. The fear of death should not be a reason for an American to hire a battery of accountants and lawyers to find legal ways to reduce the bite of the estate tax. And after a long wait, we're about to realize that goal. Set in motion by a law passed by the Republican Congress earlier this decade, there will be no death tax in 2010. That's just 29 days away.

The bill before us, however, would resurrect the death tax next month and apply a 45 percent tax rate to estates above a $3.5 million exemption amount. The majority claims to be offering certainty to taxpayers, and I suppose in a way they are.

They are certainly repealing the hope of ever eliminating the death tax. They are replacing that with the certainty of a Federal tax rate that at 45 percent must be considered confiscatory. No American should have the Federal Government take nearly half of their net worth.

They're providing the certainty of an exemption that is not indexed for inflation, meaning that over time it is certain that more and more family farms and small businesses will be subject to this punishing tax. Just take a look at the AMT.

Mr. Speaker, one other thing that is certain about this bill is that it is unlikely to be approved before the end of the year. As we are all aware, the Senate is fully engaged in the health care debate. It is unlikely to break from that to consider this bill this month, particularly since a clear majority of the Senate has indicated its support for a far more equitable and bipartisan death tax relief measure.

We all understand that the current situation would benefit from a permanent solution, but this is not the right one, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent the remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

The Medicare system paying for doctors is broken. It's broken badly, and on that, I don't think there's any disagreement. The question before us today is not whether to fix the so-called ``sustainable growth rate formula,'' but how.

Time and time again, Republicans have supported America's doctors, while always paying for a so-called doctor fix. And the fact remains true today. It's irresponsible for the Speaker to force this House to choose between protecting doctors and seniors today and protecting our children's future. The bill before us directly adds at least $210 billion to the deficit, plus another 50 billion in added debt payment, and as The Washington Post noted, the budget gimmicks mask the true costs, which are closer to $300 billion. So much for health care reform not adding one dime to the deficit.

Adding insult to injury, the bill before us doesn't even solve the underlying problem with the SGR. The Democrats' new ``targeted growth rate'' would allow doctors to face cuts again as soon as 2011. We can and should do better by our doctors, our seniors and our children.

Republicans are offering a better alternative, a 2 percent increase in doctor and Medicare payments in each of the next 4 years that is fully paid for, primarily by implementing real medical liability reform, a proven way to cut wasteful health care spending.

It's telling that our colleagues on the other side prefer to pile up hundreds of billions of dollars in new debt on our children, instead of standing up to their friends in the trial lawyer lobby. For all of the talk about PAYGO, this bill makes a mockery of the majority's so-called commitment to fiscal responsibility. This is new spending and lots of it. It should be paid for, it must be paid for, and Republicans are offering a way to pay for it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee and a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown- Waite).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

When we reviewed this debate on this physician payment formula fix, clearly, this is something that we, both sides, agree needs to be addressed. But as you look at how this has evolved, initially this provision was part of the Pelosi-Obama health care bill. But when that 2,000-page bill came in at $1 trillion, this was pulled out, and then it was made a separate bill that be will magically merged into ObamaCare as that moves over to the Senate. And we have experts who have said this provision alone, without being paid for, could add to Medicare's unfunded liability as much as $1.9 trillion over a 75-year period. And obviously, with Medicare, we are looking at the long term. Given that there is already a $39 trillion hole in Medicare, this ends up making a commitment that will be borne by our children and grandchildren.

We believe that we should have the opportunity to offer an alternative that would be paid for, as every alternative over the years has been. And I know the other side has cited this vote in committee. That vote was simply, in the context of full health care reform, saying that health care reform needed to be paid for and we needed to be fiscally responsible.

We think this is a very important issue. Certainly, the public has weighed in on this incredible explosion in the debt over these last few months. And we believe that it is irresponsible to bring this bill to the floor, to make us choose between doctors and seniors and our children, and we believe that an alternative that is fully paid for is the right way to go.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the team members of the Midland Dow High School Boys Tennis Team. They have represented the town of Midland well with their perseverance and athleticism, and we are very proud of their accomplishments.

The Chargers won the Division Two Boys State Tennis Championship on Saturday, November 17, 2009, after defeating Battle Creek-Lakeview High School: 30-23. This win gives Midland Dow their first Boys Tennis state championship since 1984.

Additionally, this Chargers team was the embodiment of both teamwork and determination. Led by Coach Terry Schwartzkopf, these boys were also models of sportsmanship and set good examples on and off the court.

Team members include: Juan Guerra, Alekzander Davila, Santiago Guerra, Jonathan Gurnee, J.P. Gurnee, Jon Templeman, Austin Woody, Kevin Winegar, Jacob Poliskey, Nate Karsten, Brandon LaFreniere, Alex Haslam, David Read, and Scott Kendall.

I am honored today to recognize the Midland Dow Boys Tennis Team for their accomplishments, and congratulate them on their state championship.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Republicans have listened to the American people. It is clear from the Speaker's health care bill the Democrats have not. The Speaker crafted this bill behind closed doors and added 1,000 pages that have never been before a committee or had any input from the American people.

Just yesterday we confirmed that Americans could face 5 years in jail if they don't comply with the bill's demands to buy approved health insurance, and who knows what else we will discover over time. Simply put, the health care of the American people is too important and too complex to risk on this gigantic gamble. This bill will do lasting damage to our economy and

force millions of Americans to give up their current health care coverage.

With the national unemployment rate spiking to 10.2 percent, it should be unthinkable to pass this bill which contains more than $730 billion in taxes that will destroy millions more American jobs. The Democrats' bill cuts Medicare by one-half trillion dollars, slashing health care benefits for seniors, a direct violation of the President's pledge that Americans could keep what they have if they like it.

The Democrats' bill, when paired with an unpaid-for SGR fix, increases the deficit, a violation of the President's pledge that health care reform would not add one dime to the debt. The Democrats' bill drives up the cost of health care and increases Federal spending on health care by $600 billion, a violation of the President's pledge that health care reform would bend down the cost curve.

So you can't keep what you like if you like it. The bill spends over $1 trillion while raising taxes, cutting Medicare and increasing the deficit, and it drives up the cost of health care. The Democrat majority has not listened to the American people. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from California for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, a true American hero, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee and distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

I yield 2 minutes, Mr. Speaker, to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Regular order, Mr. Speaker. Regular order. No time has been yielded.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Dr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished Member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Madam Speaker, at this time I will place in the Record a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which on page 3 indicates that both misdemeanor and felony penalties with imprisonment of up to 5 years will be imposed.

Congress of the United States,

Joint Committee on Taxation,

Washington, DC, November 5, 2009.

Hon. Dave Camp,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Camp: This is in response to your request for

information relating to enforcement through the Internal

Revenue Code (``Code'') of the individual mandate of H.R.

3962, as amended, the ``Affordable Health Care for America

Act.'' You specifically inquired about penalties for a

willful failure to comply.

Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage

H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and

wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time

during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance

coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her

qualifying children is subject to an additional tax. The tax

is equal to the lesser of (a) the national average premium

for single or family coverage, as applicable, as determined

by the Secretary of Treasury in coordination with the Health

Choices Commissioner, or (b) 2.5 percent of the excess of the

taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income over the threshold

amount of income required for the income tax return filing

for that taxpayer. This tax is in addition to both regular

income tax and the alternative minimum tax, and is prorated

for periods in which the failure exists for only part of the

year. In general, the additional tax applies only to United

States citizens and resident aliens. The additional tax does

not apply to those who are residents of the possessions or

who are dependents, nor does it apply to those whose lapses

in coverage are de minimis or those with religious conscience

exemptions. The additional tax does not apply if the

maintenance of acceptable coverage would result in a hardship

to the individual or if the person's income is below the

threshold for filing a Federal income tax return.

Range of civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance

You asked that I discuss the situation in which the

taxpayer has chosen not to comply with individual mandate and

not to pay the additional tax. The Code provides for both

civil and criminal penalties to ensure complete and accurate

reporting of tax liability and to discourage fraudulent

attempts to defeat or evade tax. Civil and criminal penalties

are applied separately. Thus, a taxpayer convicted of a

criminal tax offense may be subject to both criminal and

civil penalties, and a taxpayer acquitted of a criminal tax

offense may nontheless be subject to civil tax penalties. In

cases involving both criminal and civil penalties, the IRS

generally does not pursue both simultaneouly, but delays

pursuit of civil penalties until the criminal proceedings

have concluded.

The majority of delinquent taxes and penalties are

collected through the civil process. In determining whether a

penalty applies along with an adjustment to a tax return, the

examining agent is constrained not only by the applicable

statutory provisions, but also by the written policy of the

IRS not to treat penalties as bargaining points but instead

to develop the facts sufficiently to support the decision to

assert or not to assert a penalty. The goal is consistency,

fairness and predictability in administration of penalties.

If the government determines that the taxpayer's unpaid tax

liability results from willful behavior, the following

penalties could apply.

Civil penalties

Section 6662(a)--an accuracy related penalty of 20 percent

of the underpayment attributable to the health care tax,

based on negligence or disregard (the former includes lack of

a reasonable attempt to comply and the latter includes any

intentional disregard of rules or regulations) or substantial

understatement, if the understatement of tax is sufficiently

large.

Section 6663--a fraud penalty of 75 percent of the

underpayment, if the government can prove fraudulent intent

to avoid taxes by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 6702--a $5,000 penalty for taking a frivolous

position on a tax return, if the underpayment is intended to

delay or impede tax administration and the return on its face

indicates that the self-assessment is substantially

incorrect.

Section 6651--delinquency penalty of .5 percent of the

underpayment, each month, up to a maximum of 25 percent of

the underpayment.

Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of

offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the

following penalties could apply to an individual:

Section 7203--misdemeanor willful failure to pay is

punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of

up to one year.

Section 7201--felony willful evasion is punishable by a

fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five

years.

Application of penalties under current practice

The IRS attempts to collect most unpaid liabilities through

the civil procedures described above. A number of factors

distinguish civil from criminal penalties, in addition to the

potential for incarceration if found guilty of a crime.

Unlike the standard in civil cases, successful criminal

prosecution requires that the government bear the burden of

proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all elements of the

offense. Most criminal offenses require proof that the

offense was willful, which is a degree of culpability greater

than that required in a civil penalty cases. For example, a

prosecution for willful failure to pay under section 7203

requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt both that the

taxpayer intentionally violated a known legal duty and that

the taxpayer had the ability to pay. In contrast, in applying

the civil penalty for failure to pay under section 6651, the

burden is on the taxpayer: the penalty applies unless the

taxpayer can establish reasonable cause and lack of willful

neglect with respect to his failure to pay.

Criminal prosecution is not authorized without careful

review by both the IRS and the Department of Justice. In

practice the application of criminal penalties is infrequent.

In fiscal year 2008, the total cases referred for prosecution

of legal source tax crimes were as follows.

Investigations initiated--1,531.

Indictments and informations--757.

Convictions--666.

Sentenced--645.

Incarcerated--498.

Percentage of those sentenced who were incarcerated--77.2.

Of the 666 convictions reported above for fiscal year 2008,

fewer than 100 were convictions for willful failure to file

or pay taxes under section 7203. Civil penalties outnumber

criminal penalties imposed. For example, in fiscal year 2008,

compared to the 666 convictions, approximately 392,000

accuracy related penalties were assessed on individual

returns. Also in fiscal year 2008, the IRS assessed 5,502

penalties under section 6702 for frivolous positions taken on

returns.

I hope this information is helpful for you. If I can be of

further assistance, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Barthold.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve and demand a commonsense approach to health care reform that, one, makes health care more affordable; two, that guarantees all Americans, regardless of preexisting condition, have access to affordable health care; and, three, does so without raising taxes, without increasing the deficit and without the Federal Government making health care decisions that should be made by patients and doctors.

The Common Sense Health Care Reform and Affordability Act, the House Republican health care bill, does that. The plan offered today by the Speaker does not.

Just some of the highlights of the Republicans' Common Sense Health Care Reform and Affordability Act include:

Lowering health care premiums: The Republican plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing Americans' number-one priority for health care reform.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Republican health care reforms would reduce premiums by up to 3 percent for Americans who get insurance through a large business, up to 8 percent for Americans without employer-sponsored insurance, and up to 10 percent for those working for a small business. CBO has not made a claim that the Democrats' bill would lower premiums at all.

What do these numbers mean? It means families who do not have health insurance in 2016 through their job could buy health insurance that is $5,000 less expensive than the cheapest plan the Democrats offer.

The Republican plan guarantees access to affordable health care for those with preexisting conditions. Republicans create universal access programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of preexisting conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care, while lowering costs for all Americans.

The Republican plan reduces the number of junk lawsuits, which saves taxpayers' money and lowers premiums, by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful State laws of California and Texas.

The Republican plan prevents insurers from wrongly canceling a policy unless a person commits fraud.

The Republican plan encourages Small Business Health Plans so these employers can pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as large corporations and labor unions do today.

The Republican plan encourages innovative programs by rewarding States that reduce premiums and the number of uninsured. In comparison, the Democrat bill adds a new unfunded mandate States cannot afford with their over $400 billion expansion of Medicaid.

The Republican plan allows Americans to buy insurance across State lines and find the health care plan that best meets their needs at a cost they can afford.

The Republican plan promotes prevention and wellness by more than doubling the financial incentives employers may reward employees who adopt healthier lifestyles.

Republicans enhance health savings accounts by allowing Americans to use HSA funds to pay premiums for high deductible health insurance.

And the Republican plan allows dependents to remain on their parents' policies up to the age of 25.

The health insurance reforms in the Republican bill will significantly reduce health care premiums, insure millions of Americans, guarantee those with preexisting conditions have access to quality, affordable care.

We do all of this without raising taxes, without spending $1 trillion we don't have, without cutting Medicare and without putting some new health czar in between doctors and patients, which is what the Democrat majority does in their government takeover bill.

Clearly the bill offered by the Speaker is not what the American people want. Americans are clamoring for lower cost health care and that is what the Republican plan offers.

I urge my colleagues to reject the Democrats' government takeover of health care and vote ``yes'' on the Republican substitute that will lower health care premiums.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

When Republicans were in the majority, we passed a children's health initiative; a prescription drug plan for seniors; we put wellness into Medicare; we established portability so people could change jobs and keep their health care; and we established health savings accounts. Our record on health care is strong. What we need is this continuation of this step-by-step approach to comprehensive health care reform.

I would now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

At this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

As a Senator from Maine who voted for the Senate finance bill remarked on the House legislation pending said, I do not know what world they live in, but all I know is it is totally detached from the average person, the average business owner who is struggling to keep their doors open, and to have that level of taxation is breathtaking in its dimension. I just think it is so out of proportion with reality, with Main Street, America, that it is hard to believe, frankly.

I now yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished minority whip from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

We will reserve our time.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat bill we may be voting on later this week is not the prescription for what's ailing this country.

The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, confirmed the Democrats' bill spends well over $1 trillion, far more than even the President asked for. Nearly half of the people who get coverage in the bill will get it through Medicaid. This isn't health care reform. It's welfare expansion. It's the expansion of a program that is already financially unsustainable and that is crushing State budgets.

The Democrats' bill includes more than $700 billion in tax increases, many

of which will be paid by middle class families, including penalties on people who don't buy insurance, penalties on employers who can't afford to cover their workers, and new taxes on Federal spending accounts, health savings accounts, insurance premiums, and medical devices.

The bill also includes about $500 billion in Medicare cuts that will reduce seniors' access to doctors and to hospitals, and it will force millions out of their Medicare Advantage plans.

House Republicans support taking the first steps towards comprehensive reform that is focused on driving down costs for health care for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and commend Mr. Merlin Dumbrille, a revered and prolific voice of the community.

Merlin will retire today, October 30, 2009, after 58 years of broadcasting on WTCM Traverse City.

His long history with the station began when, at 8 years old, Merlin first entered WTCM with his father as they tuned the station's pianos. Fascinated by what he saw, Merlin returned 8 years later and has never left. Few could have foreseen the impact that the day would have not only on his life, but for the residents of greater Traverse City.

Merlin has been the voice of the Traverse City community for 58 years. He started his show on WTCM, Farm and Orchard Time, in 1963, for which he has won numerous state and local honors. It has become one of the longest continuously-running shows in the nation. During his time behind the microphone, he has been a voice for Northern Michigan farmers. He also served as the Farm Director, and the Public Affairs Director for the station.

Merlin has been a standard-bearer in the studio and without. His service to his community deserves high praise. He was a longtime producer and host of the National Cherry Festival and Parade. For the past 3 decades, he has also been the audio technician for the Central United Methodist Church Sunday broadcast.

Despite all of these momentous accomplishments, I'm sure Merlin will say that the biggest blessings of his life are June, his wife of 55 years, his three children, and his three grandchildren.

On behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Michigan, I would like to extend my congratulations and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Merlin Dumbrille and wishing him the best of luck in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H. Res. 831, a resolution that recognizes the successes of federal efforts to encourage adoption, and honors National Adoption Day and Month.

As an avid adoption supporter, I believe that Congress must continue to promote the adoption of children into safe and loving homes. Through our work in 1997 as part of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and more recently through the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, Congress has made significant advances in providing more options for children in need.

Yet, far too many children, nearly 130,000, are waiting in foster care programs throughout our country for families to adopt them. These children should be given every opportunity to lead successful lives, and one way to make that happen is to increase the adoption of these children into safe, permanent, loving homes.

That is why National Adoption Day and Month are so important. This year, National Adoption Day will take place on November 21, and is designed for communities around the country to highlight adoptions. Last year there were events in all 50 states during which the adoptions of 4,000 children were finalized.

This year is especially important, as the National Adoption Day is celebrating its 10-year anniversary. This is a significant achievement from its humble beginnings, when Los Angeles County Judge Michael Nash started ``Adoption Saturdays'' to help facilitate the adoption of foster children.

I have been honored to participate in National Adoption Day over the past several years. To be part of such a special occasion reinforces the need for further efforts to move kids into adoptive homes.

I would also like to highlight the efforts of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute to promote adoption through its annual Angels in Adoption Awards Ceremony, held in September. This event also highlights those that have opened their hearts and their homes.

This year, I was honored to nominate Sarah and Steve Rosinski, from Traverse City, Michigan, as Angels in Adoption. Steve and Sarah became foster parents when a young boy name Logan was placed in their home. Coming from a difficult family, Logan needed special attention and care. The Rosinskis gave him the love and support he needed to thrive and made him a permanent addition to their family by adopting him in 2007.

They now are fostering a baby girl, also coming to them with early challenges--again, putting the child's best interests first, they are working on a reunification plan with her family. The Rosinksis have never asked for recognition for what they have done, they have simply

done what is right. This is what National Adoption Day is all about.

I first got involved by helping families with their adoption proceedings as their attorney. I strongly believe that we have the ability and the opportunity to help encourage adoption and help those in the foster care system. That is why it is so important to recognize the families who make extraordinary efforts to welcome children into their family and highlight the importance of National Adoption Day and Month.

Mr. Speaker, the health care of every American is too important to risk on one gigantic piece of legislation, especially one being written in secret and behind closed doors.

The Democrat plan, or at least the last time any of us saw it, was over

1,000 pages long. It contained hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes--taxes on families earning as little as $20,000 a year and taxes on small businesses. Even if our national unemployment rate were not 9.8 percent, or over 10 percent in my home State of Michigan, these massive new taxes would create an undue burden on families and on employers. To raise taxes while these Americans are losing their jobs is irresponsible.

To what end do Democrats raise these taxes? What do we get for these tax increases? While the Democrats' health care tax increases go into effect immediately, Democrats delay their so-called ``reforms'' for years to come. This plan is literally immediate pain for no gain.

Again, the health care of every American is too important to risk on this secretly negotiated 1,000-page bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Since September 11, American military, diplomatic and intelligence personnel have seen extended and recurring deployments in support of contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. These brave Americans have answered the call and, at the drop of a hat, gone off to defend this great Nation in a most consequential time. This House and the American people are extremely grateful for their courage and sacrifice.

Today, as we rotate personnel home from Iraq and contemplate increasing force levels in Afghanistan, Congress can ease the transition for those in uniform by ensuring existing homeownership tax incentives are flexible for their circumstances. This bill does that. It modifies the existing first-time homebuyer tax credit to make it fairer for military and diplomatic families deploying overseas or returning home who, under the way the current credit is written, may be unable to take advantage. These provisions are based heavily on language included in bills that many, including my colleague from Louisiana, Charles Boustany, and from North Carolina, Walter Jones, have championed for some time.

The bill also helps military families relocating as part of the Base Realignment and Closure, or BRAC, process. As DOD has transformed its base infrastructure, many service families have had difficulty selling homes adjacent to military installations because of declining values and an unprecedented slowdown in the housing market. In the stimulus bill, Congress provided relief in the form of a one-time funding increase for DOD's homeowners assistance program, which provides housing payments to these military families to help with relocation. H.R. 3590 clarifies that military families will not be taxed on these additional benefits.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I'm proud to lend my support to it today. I'm hopeful the Senate will quickly approve the legislation so the President can sign it into law. We owe our men and women in uniform, as well as the families that support them, nothing less.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

We have no further speakers at this time. I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just yield back the balance of my time and urge support for H.R. 3560, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and commend Mr. Stuart Frohm, a prolific political journalist, columnist, and editor.

Stu will retire today, September 30, 2009, after 30 years with the Midland Daily News, my hometown newspaper. He was the political writer and wire editor for state, national, and world stories and photos.

Stu was a true newspaper man, a balanced mix of watchdog and champion for the Midland area community. He was a tireless and dedicated reporter and editor who fully understood politics. He was thorough and he was fair, even when critical. Most importantly, he informed readers and helped bring us together, even through the toughest decisions, the way only a professional journalist can.

I have shared many experiences with Stu. After each election, Stu and I talked. After State of the Unions, major votes, and important moments in our political history, Stu and I would talk on the phone. In fact, I vividly remember that it was Stu on the phone with me as the events of 9/11/2001 unfolded in Washington, D.C., and we were still talking as the Capitol Police told us to run out of the Cannon House Office Building.

Stu is much more than a reporter, much more than a columnist, and much more than an editor. He is a dedicated husband, beloved father and cherished community leader. It is an honor to consider him a friend, and I say that ``on the record.''

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Stuart Frohm, a journalist, editor, and friend, and wishing him the best of luck in his retirement.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The majority wants you to think we are here today to help seniors. This bill will help some seniors, and I intend to vote for it.

But seniors shouldn't sleep well tonight, for they are facing massive cuts in Medicare benefits in pending health legislation proposed by the Democrats and the President. That's what I want to talk about today.

The reality is the majority's health care bill will slash Medicare Advantage benefits for millions of seniors, and the administration is abusing its regulatory powers to keep that fact from seniors. This week we learned that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has initiated an investigation into at least one provider of Medicare Advantage health care plans for accurately informing its enrollees that Medicare cuts proposed in pending health care legislation could alter their benefits.

CMS has since banned all Medicare Advantage health plans from providing similar information to beneficiaries, and let me just read to you the phrase that was communicated: If the proposed funding-cut levels become law, millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable.

Frankly, this is government intimidation, pure and simple. Seniors know the President's Medicare cuts will impact their benefits. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed these cuts could negatively impact Medicare benefits and increase seniors' costs. But when health care plans try to share that information with their enrollees, the administration slaps a gag order on them. It is an abuse of power, plain and simple.

So while the government is intimidating Medicare health care plans, shockingly, no such pressure has been applied to those supportive of the President's Medicare cuts. AARP, which boasts the largest Medicare Advantage plan, for example, has directly communicated with its members via e-mail, a Web site and letters. However, their pro-Medicare cut stance has apparently received no scrutiny from the administration. CMS' selective use of its regulatory authority threatens the integrity of the agency and our democracy.

In fact, CMS' unprecedented action is in direct conflict with its own guidance issued during the Clinton administration. The then-director of what was called HCFA at that time, Center for Health Plans and Providers, instructed health plans in 1997 that ``Prohibiting such information would violate basic freedom of speech and other constitutional rights of the Medicare beneficiary as a citizen. As long as member materials that discuss the rights and responsibilities of the member and the HMO with regard to HMO membership are not misrepresented in the context of this article, we see no reason for prohibiting the distribution of information.''

This policy reversal by CMS is also at odds with Supreme Court decisions in the area. We need to get to the bottom of this, and we need to make sure all Americans, and especially seniors, know the facts about what the President and the congressional Democrats health care bill will mean for them.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in memoriam of Mike Fuoss, who was shot and killed on Friday, September 11, 2009. Mike was a small business owner, father, brother, and friend to many in the greater Owosso community.

Mike was born February 7, 1948, in Owosso. He graduated from Corunna High School in 1966. He went on to study Diesel Mechanics and Business at Ferris State University. In 1999, he married his wife, Barbara.

Mike co-owned a number of small businesses throughout Owosso, including Fuoss Gravel Co. and Eddie O'Flynns.

He was a member of the Owosso Home Builders Association, and the Shiawassee County Chamber of Commerce.

Mike loved restoring old cars and hot rods, enjoyed riding his Harley, and was a fan of NASCAR.

Fuoss was a good American who died tragically. The people whose lives he touched through his contributions to the community will miss him dearly.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the team members of the Midland Berryhill American Legion Post 165 baseball team on winning the American Legion World Series on Tuesday, August 18, 2009. They have represented the state well with their perseverance and athleticism, and we are very proud of their national accomplishments.

Berryhill's 11-4 win over the Medford, Oregon Mustangs completed a five-game unbeaten run through the World Series. This is Berryhill's first ever national championship.

Additionally, Berryhill, a 19 and under travel team comprised of players from mid-Michigan and rooted in Midland, consistently outscored their opponents with strong hitting and solid defense throughout the series.

Team members include: Cole Martin, Kenny Babinski, Jordon Herman, Larsen Cronkright, Garrett Yatch, Nate Kuehne, Jordon Dean, Sean Hartman, Alex Rapanos, Eric Dawson, Matt Cresswell, Kenton SanMiguel, Ryan Longsteth, Kyle O'Boyle, Ben Singer, Eric Peterson, Chad Mayle, Max Yatch, and Jake Enszer. The team's coaching staff includes Dan Cronkright, and Patrick Dawson, while Steve Cronkright serves as the team manager.

I am honored today to recognize the Midland Berryhill American Legion Post 165 baseball team for their accomplishments, and congratulate them on their outstanding performance.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to LTJG Edwin North in recognition of the 11 years of honorable service in the United States Navy during and after World War II.

Edwin North started his military career in the U.S. Army ROTC at Michigan State University. In 1943, he decided to join the U.S. Navy where he served with distinction on various ships in the Pacific Theater, including the heavy cruiser USS Tuscaloosa. He also served as captain of a Landing Craft Tank, LCT, where amongst his other duties, he ferried sailors, rescued from the sinking of the USS Indianapolis, from the USS Doyle to the island of Peleliu for treatment. On his LCT he performed other tasks like transporting equipment ship-to-shore, and transporting slave labor survivors, who had been rescued from Japanese capture, from Peleliu Island to resettlement on Koror Island.

In addition, Lieutenant junior grade North served with great honor and distinction in numerous other activities in the Pacific Theater, performing reconnaissance missions and deliveries ship-to-shore on his LCT, mostly in areas of potential danger to life and craft that were still under Japanese control. In another instance, Lieutenant junior grade North was handpicked to be an observer in the turret of an amphibious PBY observation plane. He performed these duties calmly and courageously, gaining praise for his surveying and observation skills in the midst of a high level of danger while reconnoitering active Japanese emplacements and other potential Naval targets on New Guinea. Lieutenant junior grade North was seriously injured in a fire resulting from the collision of his combat ship with its supply ship. He spent several months in various hospitals recovering from his injuries before returning to duty.

Following his service in the Pacific Theater, Lieutenant junior grade North was assigned stateside to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center near Chicago, Illinois. On January 19, 1954, LTJG Edwin North was honorably discharged from active duty after eleven years of service in the United States Navy. In more recent times, Lieutenant junior grade North served as a volunteer with distinction in the Michigan Governor's Home Guard.

On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan, I am honored today to recognize LTJG Edwin North in gratitude for his eleven years of service to our country. I hope the years to come will bring him health, happiness, and special memories with family and friends. We are thankful for his dedication to this nation, and wish him and his family the best.