Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Levin.

Our job here is to educate the public, not to entertain them. They ran up deficits on the Republican side of $6 trillion during an 8-year period of time--$2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts and two wars. Now they come back today with a glitzy proposal of no work, no pay.

Institutional memory. Do you remember their term limits pledge? They invented that. They're all still here. Do you remember their line-item veto? the constitutional theorists? They got rid of that. How about that they were going to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? My dad used to say, ``At least Jesse James had enough personal respect to wear a mask.''

The people who put us into this situation are now quibbling about raising the debt ceiling when they almost broke the country with the proposals that they offered during all of those years, and never once did they deny President Bush on those proposals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Public Safety Commissioner E. John Morocco for 46 years of service to the City of North Adams, Massachusetts. Commissioner Morocco, in a career spanning over four decades, has been an instrumental member of the leadership within the city's and throughout Berkshire County's law enforcement duties. It is the dedication Commissioner Morocco has had to his job and to the people that has made North Adams, Massachusetts a safer place to live and to call ``home.''

Throughout his tenure with the North Adams Police Department, Commissioner Morocco has held various roles over the years. Notable titles include being appointed Detective in 1986, Lieutenant in 1994 and his retiring title of Commissioner in 1996. Commissioner Morocco also served as one of the founding members of the Berkshire County Drug Task Force and is also a past President of the New England Narcotic Enforcement Officers Association.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Commissioner Morocco on his achievements and thanking him for his contribution and dedication to the citizens and City of North Adams, Massachusetts.

Thank you, Mr. Levin.

At this late hour, let me point something out and take exception to what

Chairman Camp said at the outset of his remarks. We're here tonight because, despite what the gentleman from Texas just said as well, you can't cut taxes by $2.3 trillion over 12 years and fight two wars.

When you heard the argument before that was so popular, ``It's the people's money; it's going to promote economic growth,'' the most anemic economic growth America's had since Hoover became President, do you know what's the people's responsibility? Those veterans' hospitals. We have 1.7 million new veterans and 45,000 wounded. Do you know what the Republican whip said during those crucial years? Cutting taxes in a time of war is patriotic. So much for sacrifice for all of us.

When you look back into how we got to this problem--revenue at 15 percent of GDP--that's an Eisenhower figure headed toward Truman. We've argued in this town about 19 to 21 percent for the better part of 30 years. Fifteen percent of revenue with GDP, 12 years of tax cuts.

Now, this represents a reasonable step forward tonight. And I want to say with some personal satisfaction that I'm delighted with what we have finally done to put to rest the alternative minimum tax.

A million families in Massachusetts were threatened with alternative minimum tax. It was the responsible position tonight. But I want to give you a number. You know what these patches have cost us? $2.2 trillion over the life of AMT. The theology that we heard that was so popular in this institution--tax cuts pay for themselves--you can't find a mainstream economist today in America that will acknowledge that problem.

This is a reasonable step forward. Vote for this measure, and let's get on to fundamental tax reform.

Mr. Speaker, let me also thank Reverend Cleaver. At his request, I campaigned with him and for him and did a series of Social Security events in his constituency. I spent the better part of 2 days with him, and I got an opportunity to see the regard and respect that he was held in by the citizens of Kansas City.

Mr. Speaker, let me address the issue of extending the New Markets Tax Credit. I have fought for this program since its enactment in 2000 because it's a cost-effective way to create jobs and drive investments in communities with high rates of poverty and unemployment. I've seen the amazing results of this initiative firsthand. Let me highlight just some of those Massachusetts projects.

Let me first tell you a little bit about the New Markets Tax Credit. It was designed to stimulate investment and economic growth in low- income communities that are traditionally overlooked by conventional capital markets. Since its enactment, the credit has generated $45 billion in capital for projects in low-income communities that range from the first supermarket in a generation in southeast Washington, D.C., to the restoration of one of the greatest acoustical houses in the world, the Colonial Theater in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Furthermore, New Markets' investments between 2003 and 2010 have been responsible for creating over 500,000 jobs in economically distressed communities across the country. These are remarkable results.

Let me share with you another success story from back home that further explains why I'm a big supporter of New Markets: the Holyoke Public Library. Holyoke is a city in western Massachusetts with a population of about 40,000 people. From the late 19th century until the mid-20th century Holyoke was the world's biggest paper manufacturer. In fact, at one point there were 25 paper mills in operation in Holyoke, and that's how Holyoke got its nickname, ``The Paper City.''

However, this industrial city's fortunes ebbed when the paper mills closed, and Holyoke now has one-third of its population living below the poverty line.

The Holyoke Public Library project is currently underway and involves renovating and expanding the 110-year-old library and transforming it into a 21st century education and training center.

For many years, there had been very little funding available to maintain the facility itself. And, therefore, over time, the library has substantially aged and deteriorated. Today, nearly 40 percent of the library's interior is seriously compromised and inaccessible to the public. But thanks in large part to New Market's tax credit financing, the Holyoke Public Library is currently being renovated and modernized, and the new and improved library will provide critical public access to computers and the latest technology.

New Market's tax credits are a good example of how public and private investment can be used to spur community and economic revitalization. New Market's tax credits expired at the end of last year. It's critical that the Congress not leave town until we, once again, extend this program and the opportunities that come with it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Markey for allowing me to participate in this Special Order tonight and to speak of two very valued Members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation and to speak of two Members who have had a profound influence on not just the politics of Massachusetts, but the important policies of Massachusetts.

Some years ago, George W. Bush, President Bush, said to me at a St. Patrick's day luncheon with some humor, Hey, Rich, how am I doing in Massachusetts? And I said, Mr. President, I don't think you're doing that great in Massachusetts right now, with some laughter. He said to me in a very candid observation, I want to tell you something. I always liked running against you guys from Massachusetts and tangling with you guys from Massachusetts, he said, because I always felt I was matching up against the best in America.

I thought that was pretty interesting for a conservative President to talk about the Massachusetts congressional delegation, and I think that the two members who are departing from this delegation are part of the high skill of two very good legislators. That's a skill that is not today held in the regard that it once was, the skill of the really good legislator, individuals who painstakingly know where the commas have to go, know when paragraphs have to end, and to make sure that sentences don't run on so that the intention of the legislation is honored. We all cheer on the final product, but many people dislike having to view the process that gets us there.

In the case of Congressman Frank, he always had this reputation for being the great and universal outsider in politics, but his success came from the fact that he mastered the skill of the insider in this institution. He knew when enough was enough and it was the best deal you were going to get. After he made full advocacy for the plan that he offered and desired, he also knew that you needed 218 votes, or in his committee, he wanted to put the face of bipartisanship on the actual bill.

So Republican legislators in this institution, members of the Banking Committee would always say to me, Geez, Barney Frank is one capable guy, because he was looking for the compromise as the path forward. You could talk to him about the complications of capital ratios, you could talk to him about the Federal Reserve Board, and you could talk to him about world issues; but at the same time, he unfailingly made it home to march in all of those parades, to attend functions for people who had been with him in elected office for four decades, to make those phone calls that you have to make. And he understood, once again, that in this institution the opinions of America and the emotions of America play out. Sometimes you get a good deal, and other days you don't quite get the deal that you wanted.

Before anybody in public life was advocating for gay rights, Barney Frank was in the forefront. Barney Frank was in the forefront on women's rights, and he was a great scholar, student, and participant in the civil rights struggles of our times.

Both these legislators are, interestingly enough, in my mind, principled individuals, children of the New Deal who believed that government plays a positive role in the lives of the American family. Not because government draws a conclusion on where we end up necessarily in life, but they both believe fervently in the idea that government ensured that everybody could get to the starting line for the race.

In the case of John Olver, Ray LaHood said to me one night at dinner--and Ray has been a fast friend. For those of us who are interested in transportation in western Massachusetts and indeed central Massachusetts, Ray LaHood said to me, You know, John Olver is one smart guy. He said, The meetings in his office can go on for a long time, but I've got to tell you, he really understands transportation theory and he understands transportation implementation.

A couple of the great things that we were able to participate in-- because in western Massachusetts we always use the argument that people don't pay enough attention to our part of the State--but it was the small things like extending broadband access into the hill towns of western Massachusetts, improving rail transportation from New Haven, to Hartford, to Springfield, and on to Vermont. And in the case of John Olver, he was very helpful to me when I asked him in the transportation legislation to make sure that my congressional district and constituency were able to secure the funding that we desired. That's an important part of the legislator's life.

I also think that what was interesting about John and Barney, they're believers. In a time when the public often says that the elected embrace superficial positions only to seek and curry the favor of the public, one of the two important things about these two guys is they were happy to tell you they disagreed with you. In fact, as the two of them got older, they were enthusiastic about telling you they disagreed with you. Oftentimes, when you walk into a room where the audience might be one that only wants you to say what they want you to say, these two would go into the room and say what they thought was on their minds, conclusions that they had drawn after long service in this institution and in the Massachusetts Legislature.

I also will tell you, based upon the point that I raised at the beginning of my comments, that we need to return in this institution to the skill of the legislator. It's the same skill that the jeweler looks at a diamond with. It's the same ambition that takes people to Pulitzer Prizes. It's the athlete in the gym who spends his time preparing for the Olympics. We need to honor that skill because it's often outside of the glare of the public, and when those in the public do see it, they're uncomfortable with it. It's the give and take of legislative life that made these two very good to work with.

I'll say this about the two of them as well--and they might not like it--that there were times when we needed something that they might not quite have been in agreement with; and after you got a little bit of their irritation, they generally included what it was that you wanted.

So it was an honor to serve with them, and I hope that we haven't heard the last of either John Olver or Barney Frank. They've been very important to this institution and to America.

Mr. Speaker, hours ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons that a report he commissioned acknowledged there was a ``shocking level of state collusion'' into the murder of Attorney Patrick Finucane in Belfast in 1989.

I appreciate Prime Minister Cameron's recognition that the agents of the British state were involved in the murder of Pat Finucane and his apology to the family, but I will continue to be a strong and outspoken advocate for a full, open, and transparent public inquiry into the case of British collusion in the murder of Pat Finucane. It is the only way to get to the truth and the only way we can convince the public that one of the most controversial murders during the Troubles has been thoroughly investigated.

I have known Geraldine Finucane and her family for more than two decades. Their campaign for justice and truth has been honorable and remarkable. The killing of Patrick Finucane was a dark stain in the north of Ireland, which has not gone away by today's report. The British Government agreed to conduct a full inquiry into the murder at Weston Park, and they should honor that commitment, as Prime Minister Enda Kenny of Ireland has suggested today as well.

As we've seen many times before during the Irish peace process, whether it was the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, or Bloody Sunday, the truth eventually emerges. Pat Finucane's family deserves to know the whole truth. That is why we will continue to demand that the British Government hold a full public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chief Financial Officer of Reed Elsevier Mark Armour as he announces his retirement from the company. Mark Armour has been with Reed Elsevier for over 17 years and is the longest serving Chief Financial Officer in the FTSE- 100. During his tenure, Mr. Armour has been an instrumental and continuous member of the leadership team that has transformed Reed Elsevier from a broad-based traditional print publisher to a world leading provider of digital information solutions across scientific, health, legal and risk markets. Reed Elsevier helps its professional customers improve outcomes by helping them to make better decisions, get better results and be more productive.

In addition to serving its professional customers, Reed Elsevier is committed to contributing to society in the many ways its businesses are uniquely equipped. Elsevier plays an important role in advancing science and improving healthcare through its information solutions, of which the U.S. is the largest contributor. LexisNexis Risk Solutions provides important information to law enforcement agencies across the country to help them locate missing children, investigate crimes and track down criminals. LexisNexis Legal & Professional is dedicated to advancing the Rule of Law around the world and has provided thousands of hours of pro bono work to protect basic human rights and help promote fair and equal justice for all. Reed Exhibitions and Reed Business Information bring communities together by enhancing productivity and efficiency.

When Mr. Armour joined Reed Elsevier in 1995 just 4 percent of the company's $5.8 billion revenue was derived from electronic products. Today, Reed Elsevier is a $9.6 billion business employing over 30,000 people across more than 100 locations worldwide, with nearly 65 percent of revenues sourced electronically. In the United States, Mr. Armour has helped to grow Reed Elsevier from a business with approximately $2.4 billion in revenue and 11,500 employees in 1995 to a $5.2 billion business with over 16,000 employees today. During his time at Reed Elsevier Mr. Armour has also made significant contributions to his profession, serving on a number of advisory panels and working groups for the UK government and the Financial Reporting Council.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Mr. Armour on his achievements and thanking him for his contribution and dedication to Reed Elsevier and its employees.

Thank you, Mr. Levin.

Madam Speaker, after more than 18 years of negotiations, Russia joined the World Trade Organization this past August. WTO membership will require Russia, for the first time, to play by the same rules of trade as the United States and virtually every other nation in the world. This is a significant development, and it's critical that Congress approve permanent normal trade relations with Russia so that U.S. companies can benefit from these reforms.

Russian PNTR also is a jobs bill. The President's Export Council estimates that U.S. exports of goods and services to Russia would double or triple once Russia joins WTO. Greater exports mean more jobs, and that's exactly what our economy needs right now. A reminder: Last year, the fastest growing part of the American economy was exports, which grew by almost 6 percent.

Let me conclude by expressing my support for important provisions in the

PNTR legislation that address the Russian Government's expropriation of the large oil company, Yukos.

When Russian authorities dissolved Yukos and took over its assets, Yukos investors, including 20,000 individual American investors, many from my home State of Massachusetts, received nothing. I'm pleased that PNTR legislation requires USTR and the State Department to provide an annual report to Congress on the steps they are taking to advocate for American investors in Yukos. This reporting requirement is critical because Russia must be pressed to make good on the money it owes American investors.

Madam Speaker, I actually, for a long period of time, had a bracelet that I wore and kept in my office--and still have--based upon one of the issues at the time that led to Jackson-Vanik, and it was the ability and right of Soviet Jewry to emigrate from Russia if they so desire, and we are addressing that issue today. It was one of the human rights champions that we're witnessing today that allowed this to happen. And I think that you can see how far diplomacy can extend when it's beneficial to the United States, but also on the issue of emigration at that particular time. It was America and the American dimension that helped to transform that particular moment.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, this is a paid political broadcast brought to you by the majority side of the Ways and Means Committee.

I chaired the Democratic Party position in 1996 on welfare reform. I voted for it and supported the work requirement at the behest of President Clinton. The idea was to provide child care, transportation assistance, educational assistance and child support payments, and to balance that with a work requirement. But most importantly, at the request of names like Tommy Thompson and Bill Weld, John Engler and George Pataki, their request was that in the crucible of State opportunity, that they would position themselves with some flexibility to play out the work requirement. We never moved away from the 5-year requirement.

Their suggestion was simply: let us determine how we get to the 5-year requirement through some experimentation.

So what we're doing here today is trying to offer a criticism of the President 6\1/2\ weeks before an election based upon misinformation that borders on being malevolent because of the content of what is being attempted here.

Welfare reform worked overwhelmingly, and it worked because it was a compromise in the end, but not to understate the role that Republican Governors played in bringing this issue to that experiment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the retirement of my dear friend, Congressman Jerry Costello. During his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives, his absolute dedication to the 12th district of Illinois, and his success in passing beneficial legislation has gained him the admiration of colleagues and constituents alike. He is fully committed to the prosperity of the economy, the well-being of his constituents, as well as solving the issues of the day.

As a member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Congressman Costello made his mark through the improvement of the transportation industry for both his district and the nation. He is responsible for the creation of MetroLink extension in St. Clair county and for funding the construction of the Mississippi River Bridge. Congressman Costello is also an active member of the Aviation Subcommittee and the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee. He worked relentlessly to pass the Airline Safety and the Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009, the strongest aviation safety legislation in fifty years, following a passenger jet crash killing fifty-one people. Congressman Costello will also always be remembered as

``the patron saint of Scott Air Force Base,'' for preventing the base's closure in Belleville, IL during the Base Realignment and Closure process and for expanding its operations.

As a senior member of the House Committee of Science and Technology, Congressman Costello is known for his dedication to developing clean coal technology and for providing a voice for Illinois farmers and workers. Due to his many accomplishments, he won the ``Friend of Agriculture Award'' three times since 2004, the ``Labor Man of the Year Award'' in 2010, and countless other awards and recognitions.

Having served with him since I was first elected into Congress, I am truly honored to have worked with such a dedicated and passionate member of the House. I am grateful to call Congressman Costello my friend, and I wish him the best in his future endeavors.

In quick reference to the previous speaker, I don't know how you can say how do we get out of this, and then simultaneously embrace the Romney tax plan, which is $5 trillion more of tax cuts and propose at the same time the extension of the Bush tax

cuts. That's a $7 trillion tax cut proposal. Has anybody heard about those million new veterans we have, the 45,000 that have been wounded? What's going to happen to the veterans system for years to come? It's a $4 trillion cost of the war in Iraq when you factor all of that together.

We've had some really good hearings this year on both sides. We've talked fundamentally about the best path forward to tax reform, and we all agree that the current system is creaking of its own weight. But that's contrary to the idea of fast-tracking, what needs to be a deliberative procedure for understanding what the elimination of some of these expenditures really means.

Despite the talk here today, I'll bet you a year from now that we will not have eliminated the homeowner deduction, and a year from now we will not have eliminated employer-based health insurance, and we will not have eliminated the tax expenditure for charitable deductions. The question is: What's the framework that we're taking up today? The response to that is: not much.

Let me start by saying that what's striking about this proposal is that we all acknowledge that over 6 billion hours a year and $160 billion is too much in trying to comply with the current system. My favorite target is the alternative minimum tax. I've proposed eliminating that tax for a decade and actually have come up with pay- fors for addressing it, by shutting down some of the off-shoring accounts that currently companies who decide to expatriate and give up their American address take advantage of. They are not former citizens of the United States. They are current citizens of the United States. Sophisticated tax avoidance should be addressed.

The AMT, it was enacted in response to--by the way, there were only two Republicans in Congress who voted against it. It was a bipartisan assault on AMT when first addressed; 155 high-income individuals weren't paying any taxes, so Congress responded. President Reagan also embraced the idea that people ought to pay something. Today, 30 million middle class families are caught in the alternative minimum tax, and we patch it each year.

Here's where the American people really should get upset. Since 2001, this is what the patch has meant. I want you to listen to this number. We have spent $400 billion patching alternative minimum tax. The Romney proposal, coupled with the Republican proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts, will take us in 2012 and 2013, when surely we're going to patch this again, to $600 billion of patches for a $1.2 trillion problem. We've spent $50 billion of patching it. You know what that's like? That's like taking a credit card and saying you're only going to make the minimum payment every month and trying to figure out why the principal has not been reduced.

The point here is that if we all agree that tax reform needs to take place and we need to assess what current expenditures mean in the system, but also have some enthusiasm for taking up the off-shoring issue, and taking up those that willfully hide money overseas in bank accounts and they don't want the IRS to know what they've set aside, that's part of fundamental tax reform.

There's an opportunity here to do something similar to what Ronald Reagan and Speaker O'Neill did in 1986 in a bipartisan fashion with both sides getting together in an effort to figure out what to do about building a tax system that keeps America, as the former speaker noted, ``competitive going forward.'' This is not the procedure, Mr. Speaker, to undertake that sort of initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Democrats' middle class tax cut substitute that would extend tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans--and in opposition to the Republicans' legislation that would extend all of the Bush tax cuts.

Congress has a responsibility to protect middle class Americans from getting hit with a big tax hike next year--a tax hike of $2,200 for the typical family. Last week, the Senate passed a bill that would extend for one year the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans. And now it's up to us in the House to provide certainty to middle class Americans that their taxes will not go up next year.

But instead of doing what's right for middle class families and extending the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans, the Republicans are holding these tax cuts hostage until we extend tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. If the middle class tax cuts expire, it would result in a tax hike for over 100 million American families, including 2.5 million families in Massachusetts. Let's not let that happen.

Even more troubling, the Republican tax package ends President Obama's tax cuts that make college more affordable and help working families with children. So not only are our Republican colleagues holding the middle class tax cuts hostage to extending tax cuts for the wealthiest, the Republicans would actually raise taxes on 25 million families with an average tax increase of $1,000.

I introduced legislation last week that would extend these enhancements to the child tax credit and earned income tax credit. But the Republicans' tax package fails to include many of the enhancements in my bill and, therefore, would raise taxes on millions of low and moderate-income families next year. Even though the Republicans tell us that they're against raising taxes, what they really mean is they're against raising taxes on the wealthy. I ask the American people--does this seem fair to you?

I urge my colleagues to learn from past experiences. We tried the Republicans' approach to taxes for 8 years during the Bush years and it didn't work. Let's stand up for middle class Americans and pass the Senate-passed tax extension bill. We all agree that we should extend the middle class tax cuts--so let's put aside politics and pass this important bill and provide certainly for American families.

I'd like to close by talking about one final issue that's very important to Massachusetts--the AMT. I've been a long time advocate of addressing the problems with the AMT. The first AMT was enacted in 1982 to ensure that the wealthiest Americans paid their fair share. However, because the Bush Tax Cuts decreased tax rates without making corresponding changes to the AMT, millions of Americans become subject to the AMT each year even though they do not make a lot of money. To avoid this result, for the past few years, Congress has enacted an ``AMT patch'' that prevents these higher taxes from hitting middle income families.

Unfortunately, the most recent AMT patch expired at the end of last year. And so millions of middle class families could pay thousands more in taxes when they file their returns in April 2013 if we don't enact an AMT patch for 2012.

This is a huge deal for my home State of Massachusetts. About 975,000 families in Massachusetts, including about 80,000 in my district, will be hit with the AMT if we don't enact a patch for 2012. This includes about 785,000 middle income families who make less than $200,000 a year.

To address this issue, both the Democratic and Republican tax bills include AMT patches. But we need to move beyond the patches and really address the problems with the AMT. Since 2001, we've spent about $407 billion on AMT patches--and if we pass a two year AMT patch for 2012 and 2013, we'll have spent about $600 billion on patches. Repealing the AMT would cost about 1.2 trillion--so for the amount of money Congress has spent on patches over the past few years, we could have paid for half the cost of repealing the AMT. I call on my Republican colleagues to work with me on a bipartisan basis to address the AMT problem.

There's one indisputable fact in this debate today, and that is that the Bush tax cuts used borrowed money.

How much sense did that make to borrow the money to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America, the top 2 percent? The argument at the time was simple, that we should give tax cuts to the people at the top because they create jobs for the people in the middle and at the bottom. Fact: the slowest economic growth at any time since Herbert Hoover was President of the United States.

The argument, or the assault on the Clinton Presidency was that he raised taxes of the top bracket, 39.6 percent--22 million jobs; the greatest economic growth spurt in the history of America; a reminder to our friends, an unemployment rate of 3.8 percent.

So borrow the money during the Bush years for tax cuts so that we can give the wealthy--and, my goodness, what a ride they've had for these 12 years. It is unbelievable when you look at what those rate cuts did to people at the top.

We have a responsibility here to protect the middle class from a big tax hike next year. Last week, the Senate passed a bill that would extend tax cuts for 98 percent of the American people, the middle class, and now it's up to the House to provide some certainty to the middle class that their taxes are not going to go up next year. But instead of doing so, what are we doing today, once again? We are having an argument about what to do for that top 2 percent of income earners in America whom our Republican friends can never seem to do quite enough for.

Even more troubling, this tax package ends President Obama's tax cuts that make college more affordable and help working families with children. So not only are we attempting, with their package today and proposal, to hold the middle class hostage to extending tax cuts for the wealthiest, but they want to raise taxes on 25 million families, with an average increase of $1,000.

We need to extend the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, and that's what we should be doing today for middle income Americans and provide them with some sense of security and support.

And, my God, can we do any more to help the wealthy in America than what our Republican friends have done?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come before the House today to introduce legislation with my Republican Ways & Means colleague, Jim Gerlach, that would permanently exempt tax-exempt private activity bonds from the alternative minimum tax. This bill will help spur additional transportation infrastructure investments, reduce borrowing costs for students and create jobs and economic growth.

In 2009, we enacted a two-year AMT exemption that expired at the end of 2010. This provision was extremely successful. From January 2009 to the end of 2010, thanks to this provision, the airport industry sold an unprecedented $12.7 billion in private activity bonds that were exempt from the AMT, allowing construction projects to flourish and jobs to be created at airports across the country. And I think it's telling that in 2011, after the provision expired, airport issuances fell to $4.3 billion, which is the lowest amount since 2007.

This exemption also is critical to reducing borrowing cost for students around the country. In Massachusetts, the 2009 PAB-AMT relief resulted in almost 20,000 students receiving low-cost financing for their education. The average student in Massachusetts borrowing $16,000 for his or her education saved $1,100 in interest over the life of the loan.

Mr. Speaker, we've seen amazing results by exempting PABs from the AMT and I encourage my colleagues to support this important bill and make this exemption permanent.

Thank you, Mr. Levin.

I hope as this debate ensues what we can perhaps call this for the next hour, instead of ObamaCare, why don't we call it RomneyCare? This is based upon the Massachusetts model that Governor Romney signed with Ted Kennedy standing next to him. Anybody

who knows anything about insurance markets, you know the following: you can't say, as our Republican friends are saying, by the way, in print and in televised appearances, they're all saying: Oh, I like the idea of ending preexisting condition; oh, I like the idea of keeping 26- year-olds on their parents' health insurance; oh, I very much like the idea of ending lifetime caps; oh, I very much like the idea of preventive service mammography screening and osteoporosis for women.

Well, that's what's in the legislation that we passed. Those numbers poll very well with the American people. And, by the way, the trend line continues in this direction. But if you know something about automobile insurance, it's not just on Friday night you're driving along knowing you have insurance that you need to be concerned about. It's the man or woman driving the other way toward you that you hope has automobile insurance as well.

The Massachusetts plan polls very well. Not everybody in Massachusetts, contrary to what some might think, is a Democrat. Almost 64 percent of the people in Massachusetts are Republicans and Independents. Seventy percent north approve of the health care plan that was duly negotiated with hospitals, the business community, organized labor. Everybody had a seat at the table.

Remember this as we proceed to this vote tomorrow: This is the offering that Bob Dole suggested to Bill Clinton. This is the offering that Senator Chafee from Rhode Island offered to Bill Clinton. The mandate was a Republican proposal that came from the Heritage Foundation, and it's the only bone of contention in this legislation.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the simplicity of the medical device excise tax and to remind people, as the majority leader said, that this is really about repealing the Affordable Care Act. This is not a debate about just the medical device excise tax. This is an effort to repeal the entire action.

This is a tremendous industry. I've worked with them for years. There are 400 medical device companies that employ 24,000 people and about 82,000 people indirectly. It is critical to the Massachusetts economy.

We are debating the same issue we debated 2 years ago when I worked closely with colleagues. By the way, the way Congress once functioned was to work with labor and the respective industries and with Members on both sides of the aisle in order to have an outcome that everybody, if they didn't love it, could at least come to say that they liked.

I negotiated decreasing that tax from 5 to 2.3 percent, and I stood up to those who thought it ought to be 5 percent. The big request from the industry was that they wanted the devices that were imported to be subject to the same tax. They were absolutely correct. We reached a compromise with the industry that bought into this suggestion because they knew that they would benefit from the expansion of insured individuals under the Affordable Care Act. I should note something that is very important today, which is that the industry receives Medicare payments indirectly via payments from hospitals.

Now I worry about the impact of the tax on the medical device industry. If we had a good pay-for today and if everybody agreed that we were going to try to hold onto the basis of the Affordable Care Act, count me in. One medical device company recently said to me, If we're going to get hit with a new tax, it's going to cost our company $100 million a year. To withstand that kind of tax increase, we're going to have to look at cutting jobs.

I understand that, and I'm concerned about the push for companies that are going to cut back on research and development; but I cannot support this piece of legislation due to the offset which would repeal the true-up protections for lower- and middle-income families that use the Affordable Care Act's premium tax credits. According to Joint Tax, 350,000 fewer individuals will become insured if those protections are repealed, and I can't support that.

The reality is that this vote is simply another political stunt to chip away at the health care reform act. I am open to working with Chairman Camp. If we can find a path forward, as I've indicated, count me in. This is not the path to pursue. This is not the way to do it. A reminder: This really is not the way that this Congress functioned when I came to it, particularly on the Ways and Means Committee, when you work with industry and labor to accomplish extraordinary things.