Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Today is a day when we can celebrate accomplishment in the private sector and in the volunteer sector, and to celebrate a rich history and a century of accomplishment--accomplishment that is borne of service to one another.

The gentleman from Illinois a minute ago gave a brief history of the Lions Club International. I am honored to serve as the representative for the Lions Club International headquarters. They're an organization that not only, as was previously mentioned, has an impact here in the United States but has had an impact around the world. And I would argue that if you have an impact on vision for children, if you have an impact on vision for others, you're not just having an impact on that family but you're having a generational impact.

And so here we are today, celebrating the Lions Club International as they're on the cusp of a new century. So there's a lot to celebrate. There's a lot to be proud of here. And I want to thank also Chairman Bachus and Ranking Member Frank and the staff of the Financial Services Committee and the Lions around the world who reached out and built a constituency for this legislation today. I am a strong supporter, and I am pleased to be a part of this bipartisan effort.

I urge its passage.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I was listening to the gentleman from New York, and I sincerely appreciate his warm, heartfelt advice for the Republican Party.

I am amazed at the characterization of being in opposition to a President's policies as somehow being in opposition to the country. I fundamentally reject that. I think that that is a gross characterization. I think, on behalf of everybody on the GOP side, that that is an absurd argument.

I want to pick up on a thread and a subtext of what we heard from our friends on the other side of the aisle. It's a very interesting thing, and I'm not being sarcastic. It is a very hopeful thing, which is this, Mr. Speaker:

Did you notice today that there is nobody who is defending the status quo of our current Tax Code? Nobody. We will not hear any voice from our friends on the other side defending the current Tax Code. We will hear no voice today on this side or on the other side among all of those Members--and I haven't listened to our friends on the other side of the dome, but I'm hunching that there is nobody--who is defending the status quo.

So what does that mean for us today?

That means there is an unbelievable opportunity. There is an opportunity that is born of recognition of a failed system. Some characterize it as ``crony capitalism,'' which is, if you're connected, if you're somebody of means, if you're able to come into this town and with a sharp elbow insert something into the Tax Code and manipulate it, then you get an economic win at the expense of everybody else.

The gentleman from New York asked a rhetorical question a couple of minutes ago, and I jotted it down. He asked: What do we need a path for?

We need a path to get out of this. That's what we need a path for. With all due respect to the President, the President is not leading on a pathway that shows us how to get out of this.

So what do you have the chairman of the committee and the GOP in the House doing right now?

They're saying, look, let's not defend the status quo. Let's instead completely transform this debate, and let's focus in on one word, and that is the word ``competitiveness.'' How do we create in this country the most competitive tax jurisdiction in the world?

Could you imagine how great it could be? Could you imagine what it would be like if our Tax Code were a foundation upon which--what could happen? You could have entrepreneurs who are willing to take risks because there is a possibility of reward in the future. Right now, they're being told from this town that if you built it, you didn't really build it, and we don't want to have you take credit for it. That's ridiculous. That's absurd. That's a world view that we should shun and reject and move away from.

We need to pass this. We need to pass this urgently, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to pause and just listen and think through a couple of the arguments that we've been hearing over the past couple of weeks from our friends on the other side of the aisle and from the President of the United States, and one is that people should pay their fair share. Now, that's an interesting argument, Mr. Speaker, and let's look at that a little bit closer.

So, if the President's will were to prevail on this, in other words, if this tax hike goes into place, then the top tax rate for some small businesses would be over 44 percent. Now, contrast that to the top tax rate that President Obama is proposing, which would be 28 percent.

All afternoon you are going to hear a lot of things go back and forth, but you won't hear anyone contradict those numbers and that disparity, Mr. Speaker, because they are true. There is no sense in telling corporations, You get a 28 percent rate, and the top rate for small business is 44 percent. There's nothing fair about that.

All right. Well, let's look at another argument.

Another argument is that this somehow closes a budget gap and this is deficit reduction, and we're all about deficit reduction and let's have at it. Well, a little secret on the deficit reduction is, at best, the most generous estimate is this would take care of--what?--maybe 7, 8, 9, 10 days of spending, maybe. But who would pay the cost for that? I'll tell you who pays the cost for that. The job creators and the people that are looking for jobs right now, Mr. Speaker, according to Ernst & Young and others that have looked at this. Some estimates are that it would cost 700,000 jobs.

Now, I know nobody that is willing to say, You know what? We've just got too many jobs. Let's just thin the herd. There are too many people working. Let's thin the herd. There are too many people working. And let's do it because of Democratic dogma.

We have got leading Democrats on the other side of the rotunda who have said, Let's embrace the fiscal cliff. Let's just grab onto the dogma and go

right off the cliff, regardless of the outcome.

Well, you know what? That's ridiculous.

And we have an opportunity here to make some certainty to move to the next year--not to move to the next year just for the sake of another year, but to move to next year to fundamentally reform our tax system, to create a more competitive Tax Code that is broad and fair and wise and well thought out and that does what--that creates the most competitive Tax Code in the world right here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, it could be great. We could have a great Tax Code, but what we've got to do is create a year of certainty to move forward.

I urge passage of this.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday 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 Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. The last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under suspension on Monday and Tuesday, and of particular note will be H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Congressman Ron Paul. A complete list of the suspensions will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

Beginning on Tuesday, the House will consider H.R. 6082, the Congressional Replacement of President Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan. And finally, the balance of the week will be spent on H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act. This is a compilation of bills that are sponsored by Representatives Tim Griffin, Reid Ribble, Ben Quayle, Dennis Ross, Virginia Foxx, Scott Garrett, and Mike Conaway.

As the gentleman knows, the 2001 and the 2003 tax rates have been well vetted and well discussed. They're not news or breaking ground in any way, shape, or form. So my understanding is that the current thinking is to bring those directly to the floor and that there's not a plan for a markup.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

One of the points I think that's important to focus in on is the last time this Congress dealt with the '01 and the '03 tax rates was not in '01, not in '03, but in December of 2010 when President Obama signed these into law. So this is an arena where we do reflect back, but ultimately we need to look forward. So the question is how do you create a sense of predictability by which businesses can deal with these situations?

So the gentleman is right to point out past forecasts that were incorrect. But it's also correct to point out that the White House made one error after another--this White House--one error after another as it relates to the predictions of the stimulus, for example, where unemployment was promised to peak at 8 percent, and it didn't turn out to be so.

So as we move forward, this is not new ground, these are not new concepts, and it's consistent with what then-Minority Leader Boehner said in the Pledge to America. This process has been open, this process has been dynamic, this process has been participatory, and this bill will be considered under the same rules and the same commitments that were made in the Pledge to America.

Moving forward, what I would like to announce to the gentleman and to the membership is that there will be an opportunity, I'm told, for the minority party to offer the President's alternative as an amendment on the floor, to have the debate. Because as the gentleman and I both know, that's really the crux of the matter. So to have an up-or-down vote, as I would characterize it, is a bad idea. I know the gentleman has a different view of that, but I think, particularly in light of this week's study from Ernst & Young, I think we should be chastened, actually, with the notion of moving forward and raising taxes on anybody.

I accept the world view of the gentleman who has been articulate in the past in communicating that. But I think that really is the crystallization of these two competing views of how to create economic growth, and I think the gentleman will be fully satisfied.

I thank my friend for yielding.

As the gentleman knows, the farm bill has created a lot of concern on our side of the aisle. It's my understanding that there is concern on the gentleman's side of the aisle. Your ranking member supports the bill. It's my understanding that Leader Pelosi does not support the bill. So we're in conversation with our Members, as I'm sure you are with yours; and we're not prepared to make an announcement today in light of continuing to get Member feedback.

Well, as the gentleman knows, making things permanent in this arena with this conundrum of rules and limitations--and limitations particularly in the other body--make that difficult. I, speaking on behalf of myself, think that that rate at that level permanent is a wise course. But as the gentleman knows, based on the difficulty of the rules, what I have to say on that is fairly limited based on the reality of the rules.

I don't have information to announce at this point in terms of the timing. I have a high level of confidence that no one is going to be going home for very long absent a remedy and a joint response on all of our parts.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes, there is every intention to move forward on that which the gentleman and the majority leader have been working so cooperatively on, and there is an expectation that that will be done before the August recess.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have until midnight on July 20, 2012, to file its report to accompany H.R. 4078.

I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 5856, the Clerk be permitted to make technical and conforming changes, including numerical changes, in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, do you remember these lines when the President was pitching the health care bill? He said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. It will not add a single dime to the deficit. This is absolutely not a tax increase, and it will bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.

The gentlelady from California a moment ago spoke about things to take away. Let's take this away. Let's take away the reality of this new health care law that has done this.

It is now clear that 20 million Americans are likely to lose their employer-based health coverage. The law will cost $2.6 trillion if fully implemented and add over $700 billion to the deficit. It has $500 billion in new taxes that are triggered towards the middle class. And the average increase in family premiums doesn't go down $2,500; it goes up $1,200.

Here is what we should take away. We should take away this albatross in the economy. We should repeal it. We should replace it.

And here is the good news. The voters get the last word in November.

Stay tuned.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I'd like to do is just reflect for a minute on some of the promises around President Obama's health care law.

You remember he said during the course of the debate about the health care law, Mr. Speaker, that if you like what you have, you can keep it. But what we've found is that some estimates say that up to 30 percent of employers will actually drop their health care coverage. So those folks that have that coverage, they don't get to keep that coverage, Mr. Speaker.

There was also a promise that the law would actually lower premiums, and yet family premiums are already increasing by as much as $1,600 per year.

But there was one promise that was made that was actually kept, and it was a promise, Mr. Speaker, from the gentlelady from California, who, as Speaker of the House, said, in a nutshell, We've got to pass the bill so that you can know what's in it.

Well, she did, and we do.

What's in it was a cascading group of mistakes. One was the 1099 bill--big mistake. It wasn't found the first time around, but we were able to fix that. The second was the CLASS Act, a recognition that it was a failure and inoperable. It hasn't been dealt with by the administration, but at least they put the white flag up and said it's ridiculous.

Two other things now have come to our attention. The first is well discussed. That is the medical device tax. Even the gentleman from Washington, from the other side of the aisle, makes an argument criticizing the study, but at best he creates a Hobson's choice. At best, he says, well, it may not kill jobs; but then in the alternative, Mr. Speaker, it's just going to raise health care costs. That's what that study says.

The irony is now we have the chance, under the leadership of the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), to make it so that working moms don't have to have the hassle of going to see a physician when their child is sick in order to buy an over-the-counter medication. This is well thought out. It makes perfect sense. We need to support this.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Ronald A. Moser on his upcoming retirement.

Ron has served the Village of Hanover Park for 14 years, including 11 years as Police Chief and most recently as Village Manager. Having started his career in police work in 1977, Ron served at 5 municipal police agencies in numerous capacities. He has always worked diligently to improve the safety of his community and its residents.

As Village Manager, Ron has had a significant impact on Hanover Park through his interactions with elected officials, employees, and residents. He has served as a confidant and friend to many. In his positions of leadership, Ron has been highly-respected.

Additionally, Ron has made important contributions to DuPage County. He served as President of the DuPage County Chiefs of Police Association, and in this capacity upheld its mission to reduce crime, maintain order, and improve the quality of everyday life for DuPage County residents and visitors. In his endeavors, Ron has demonstrated strong professionalism and impressive leadership.

Mr. Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in recognizing Ron Moser for his career of service and in wishing him every happiness in the well deserved respite of his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) and its President, Ma Ying-jeou, on the impending inauguration of his second term on May 20, 2012. I had the distinct pleasure of meeting President Ma in October of 2011, and I wish him and the Taiwanese people well during his second term of office.

The friendship enjoyed by the United States and Taiwan rests upon a strong foundation of democracy, trade, and security. Through the elections held on January 14, 2012 and the inauguration on May 20, Taiwan is reaffirming that commitment to democracy and that is something that should be held up as an example for others in the region and the world at large.

President Ma's first term was marked by many successes, including securing observer status with the World Health Assembly and increasing trade and reducing tensions in the East Asia region. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House of Representatives to ensure that the U.S.-Taiwan relationship grows and strengthens and that Taiwan remains a safe, strong, and stable ally in the region.

Please join me in congratulating President Ma and in wishing him a successful second term as he guides the Republic of China (Taiwan) for the next four years.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Deputy Police Chief for the Village of Bloomingdale, Randy Sater, on his exceptional career.

Randy began his career of service and commitment to the Village of Bloomingdale in 1982. During his time of service, Randy has led in many different capacities. He served early on as a Detective and was later promoted to Sergeant. After nearly four years as Sergeant, Randy was assigned as Watch Commander. Most recently, he was promoted to Deputy Chief of Operations. Through his commitment to a wide array of leadership posts, Randy has demonstrated great integrity.

From his start in the police force, Randy has been an active member of the community and has taken important leadership roles. Since 1994, Randy has served as Neighborhood Watch Coordinator. He has also worked with the youth in the community through the Character Counts Coalition. Since its inception in 1998, Randy has served on the Board of Directors of the Coalition and as Chair of the Coalition for a number of those years. The Character Counts Coalition works to uphold six pillars of character: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. Without a doubt, Randy has carried out these six pillars of character in his own life. Valuing the safety and well-being of those in his community, he has also taken leadership as a B.A.S.S.E.T. (Beverage Alcohol Sellers and Servers Training) instructor since 2005. It is evident that Randy's involvements and reach has positively impacted the lives of many.

Mr. Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in recognizing Deputy Chief Randy Sater on his successful career.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Steven K. Humphrey on his upcoming retirement after serving 42 years as an educator.

Having earned his bachelor's and master's degree from Western Illinois University, Dr. Humphrey went on to receive his doctorate from Illinois State University. Over the past four decades, Dr. Humphrey has served the students of Illinois as a teacher, a building administrator, a district administrator, and as a superintendent.

In 1970, Dr. Humphrey began his career in Mt. Sterling, Illinois, at Brown County High School teaching social studies and history. Three years later, he started his administrative career as principal of Seymour High School in Payson, Illinois. For the next eleven years, Dr. Humphrey served as administrative assistant and then assistant principal of Thornridge High School in Dolton, Illinois. He became assistant superintendent of Thornton High School District 205 in 1987, where he served until 1993 when he became superintendent of Crete-Monee School District 201U. He began his current post as superintendent of DuPage High School District 88 in 2001.

Throughout his career, Dr. Humphrey has set high expectations for his students, and has championed his belief that all students can learn at high levels. He has built important partnerships between businesses and educators, and has always put students first. Of particular note, Dr. Humphrey successfully led the nine communities in District 88 to support a referendum to modernize the infrastructure and environment of District 88's Addison Trail High School and Willowbrook High School. When both high schools made the Top Schools in America list in 2008, it was a testament to his leadership. Additionally, he has served as a member of several professional and community organizations. Dr. Humphrey's service and commitment to the community has helped strengthen the Illinois school system.

Mr. Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in honoring Dr. Humphrey for his remarkable career and in wishing him the best of luck in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to speak for just a minute on the substitute.

Speaking of drafting errors, you can only assume that there was a drafting error on the substitute. Look, that happens. If it was a drafting error, the best thing to do is take the bill out of the record and start again. I think the notion of comparing $287 million in tax relief to $47 billion in tax relief is simply a nonstarter. It's as if the minority is saying, We sort of accept part of the premise of this tax cut, but we're going to cut it down. And then we're going to cut down the tax relief a little more. And then we're going to cut down the tax relief a little more and a little more and a little more and a little more until finally it's this obscure little bit of nonsense that isn't going to do anything.

Here's what we need to do. We need to give relief to the small business in my district. I was touring a plant, and the owner/ entrepreneur who started the company said, Look, the smart move for me, Congressman, is to put three-quarters of a million dollars into this new production line. It would mean that I would expand production, bring in more people, and so forth, and have a very simple ripple effect, but I'm not going to do it. The reason I'm not going to do it is because Washington, D.C., tells me I'm rich. I'm not rich. I'm just a prudent businessman who's built a successful business.

What we need to do, Mr. Speaker, is to create an environment where that business owner, that entrepreneur says to himself or herself, I'm willing to invest.

They need relief. They're begging for relief in suburban Chicago from their tax liability, and this is an opportunity now with this language that is authored by the majority leader and that is on the House floor.

I urge its passage, and I urge rejection of the substitute.