Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Monday, November 17, 2014. Weather across the eastern seaboard delayed my flight to Washington, DC until after votes had been called. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 5162 (Roll No. 520).

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Wednesday, November 12, 2014. Mechanical issues in Minneapolis delayed my flight to Washington, DC until after votes had been called. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 4194 (Roll No. 516).

I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure if I have been living in a parallel universe over the last few years, but I thought there was genuine concern in this body about getting a grip on our budget deficits, about trying to get our fiscal house put back in order. Yet here we are, in the eleventh hour, before they cut us loose for the fall campaign season, and we have another bill pending before this body that costs $573 billion--with a B--with not a penny of offset, with not a dime of it paid for. Then people wonder where these budget deficits come from.

What is unfortunate is some of the policy proposals in this legislation I actually support. We have got five bills coming out of the Ways and Means Committee with some permanent changes to the Tax Code that I happen to agree with, whether it is the R&D--research and development--tax credit; the 179 expensing; the S Corp Modernization bill, which is a bill that I and my friend from Washington State (Mr. Reichert) introduced earlier this year to help with the S corporation businesses in this country; the bonus depreciation; and the repeal of the medical device tax--again, legislation that I and my friend from Minnesota, Erik Paulsen, had introduced because we didn't think it was a good idea for us to be taxing our domestic medical device manufacturers, especially on a pre-revenue basis.

I always believed that, with these changes being made, they should be offset, that they should be paid for. That is the fiscally responsible approach to take, and yet we have a $573 billion bill with not one offset. This is following on the heels earlier this year of 15 permanent changes to the Tax Code being reported out of the Ways and Means Committee, at a cost approaching $1 trillion, with none of it being offset.

I would submit that, if we went forward on that type of policy prescription, we might as well forget about comprehensive tax reform because we wouldn't have any tools left to do anything with.

I give the chairman of the committee, Mr. Camp, who is going to be retiring at the end of this year, a lot of credit for having the guts to come out with a discussion draft on what comprehensive reform should look like. In that draft, he was making some tough decisions. He was finding offsets to lower rates and simplify the Tax Code in order to help us be more competitive in the global marketplace. That is not what is being done here today.

I would request with the Republican leadership that, instead of cutting us loose today, what we ought to be doing is staying in longer and working on a true innovation agenda for our Nation, one that invests in quality educational opportunities for all of our students and good job training programs for workers in transition or for those looking to upgrade their skills so they can be competitive in the global marketplace, the crucial investments we have to make in broadband expansion, basic research funding through NIH and NSF grants and infrastructure modernization in this country, that is long overdue. We know we have to do it. Let's do it now when we need the jobs. That would be a true jobs package that, I think, we could rally around so as to get this economy humming again.

Rather than this dog and pony show and the message piece that is before us today, right before the November 4 elections, I think the American people are a lot smarter than what some people give them credit for. They know we have a fiscal problem that has to be addressed, and I think most people would realize that, by coming forward with yet another bill at a cost of $573 billion, with no offsets and no pay-fors, it is only going to make the situation worse and truly jeopardize the economic opportunities for our children and grandchildren in the future.

Instead of coming out with this legislation today, which is a grab bag for powerful special interests, let's do the tough, heavy lifting that needs to be done. Let's make these policy changes but in a fiscally responsible way, by finding offsets in the code to pay for them, so we can get our fiscal house put back in order and create the good-paying jobs that America needs today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the McKeon amendment that would grant the President the authorization that he seeks to identify, train up, and equip moderate Syrian forces to stand up to ISIL in their backyard.

I do so because I believe this is the best of the bad options that we face that could halt the advance of ISIL in that region and begin degrading their capability and guard against the rising threat that they pose to us and to those in the region.

I do so for three reasons. I believe that the President needs a strong bipartisan hand coming out of this Congress this week that would help him continue to build the coalition of opposition to ISIL in the region. It is going to be one of the keys to the outcome--the successful outcome--of degrading ISIL's capability. We can't do this alone, and it will be determined by those in the region to stand up against this evil force.

Secondly, I believe this is the best plan to help us avoid putting our own boots on the ground and our own men and women in uniform in what is, in essence, an ongoing sectarian civil war that has gripped that region for centuries between the Sunni and Shi'a.

There is a lot of concern, especially from Guard and Reserve units in my congressional district in Wisconsin who have been activated, called up, and deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan. When I talk to them today, I can see in their eyes and hear in their voices how tired they are. They are concerned about another military intervention in this region.

Finally, I believe this resolution under title 10 will enhance congressional oversight of the mission that is taking place there and, therefore, bring greater accountability but also bring a greater say of the American people in addressing this rising threat in the region.

We are going to move away from the intel agencies running the show now and move it into the Pentagon, which brings us into the oversight capabilities which I feel has been lacking for some time in this endeavor.

This is not an easy decision. I believe the steps that we can take with this comprehensive plan now can avoid further military intervention in the future. Again, I think it is the best option we face amongst a lot of bad options.

May God bless our military personnel who will be in charge of carrying out this mission, and we all hope and pray for their success and safe return.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3043.

I was an original cosponsor of this legislation.

I commend my friend and colleague from California, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, for his leadership on this issue.

We are trying to correct a wrong interpretation with the IRS that will treat Native Americans like we do other sovereign entities in this country. That is why this legislation would codify existing IRS practice and bring crucial permanence and clarity to tribes across the country. It levels the playing field for tribal governments, treating them more like State governments, and it also respects tribal culture, traditions, and practices.

The bill excludes from taxation income received on tribal general welfare programs, many of which are identical to the tax-exempt Federal and State programs in the areas of health care, education, housing, eldercare, emergency assistance, cultural programs, burial assistance, and legal aid, and provides necessary deference and flexibility to these tribal governments so that they can develop programs and determine priorities that promote the general welfare in their own communities.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this legislation doesn't cost taxpayers a cent--it has no budgetary impact--so we are not adding to the deficit.

This bill is supported by numerous national organizations, including business and tribal organizations, regional tribal and intertribal organizations, and a multitude of State-based tribal governments.

I want to just take a moment to thank the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, and the National Congress of American Indians for working tirelessly on this issue. My staff and I greatly appreciate their assistance in getting this in order for tonight.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

I, again, thank my friend for his leadership, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any further requests for time on this, but I would like, at this time, to have the following documents inserted into the Record: a letter of support for H.R. 3043 from the Ho-Chunk Nation, which is in my congressional district in western Wisconsin; a letter of support from the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin in Oneida, Wisconsin; and a letter of support from the Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes, which is headquartered in Gresham, Wisconsin.

Ho-Chunk Nation Legislature,

September 9, 2014.

Re Tribal Welfare General Exclusion Act (H.R. 3043).

Hon. Ron Kind,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Kind: I am writing on behalf of the Ho

Chunk Nation (Nation) to thank you for your co-sponsorship of

the Tribal Welfare General Exclusion Act (H.R. 3043), a bi-

partisan bill introduced by Representative Nunes and 54 other

Members of the House. The Nation is reliably informed that

House leadership is interested in bringing this bill to the

floor during the very short September 2014 session.

As you know, tribal members across the country have been

harassed by the IRS seeking to force them to include in

calculations of gross income the value of tribally-provided

programs and services. This legislation is necessary to

clarify that various programs and services provided by Indian

tribal governments to their tribal members are not

characterized as income for purposes of computing taxable

income by the federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

To be excluded under H.R. 3043, tribally-provided welfare

benefits must be available to any tribal member under

established guidelines, are for the promotion of general

welfare, are not lavish or extravagant, and are not

compensation for services. The bill would also establish a

Tribal Advisory Committee to provide education and training

to IRS officials and staff and to help enforce internal

revenue laws in Indian country.

H.R. 3043 is strongly supported by the National Congress of

American Indians, the Native American Finance Officers

Association, Indian tribes across the country, and the U.S.

Chamber of Commerce. The Joint Committee on Taxation has

determined that, if enacted, H.R. 3043 ``would have a

negligible effect on Federal fiscal revenues.''

For all of these reasons, we respectfully urge you to

communicate your support for H.R. 3043 to Chairman Camp and

Ranking Member Levin as well as with Republican and Democrat

leadership. Thank you for your longstanding support for the

Nation and, indeed, for tribal communities across the

country, and your kind consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Jon Greendeer,

President.

Heather Cloud,

Vice President.

Mr. Speaker, since I have no further speakers, I ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan piece of legislation tonight, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, my friend from Michigan. I hope his solution here today, given the dysfunction that we have seen in the process coming out of this Congress in recent years, is not just to come forward with a series of permanent changes to the U.S. Tax Code without paying for any of it and exploding our national debt for future generations to have to grapple with, but unfortunately, that has been the trend in the Ways and Means Committee over the last couple of months.

I also want to commend the work that the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) has done with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis) in putting together this bipartisan bill.

I am all for simplification of the Tax Code. I am all for streamlining these tax credits to make it easier for students and their families to better afford higher education. I am all for finding a bipartisan path forward to make sure that no student is left behind, that those doors of educational opportunity are there and open for all Americans, but we ought to do that the right way, not the wrong way.

Unfortunately, the bill here before us today is the wrong way to approach the issue. First of all, it is one of 14 permanent changes to the Tax Code that have been reported out of the Ways and Means Committee now, exceeding over $800 billion, without any of it being offset and without a nickel of it being paid for--this on the heels of the last few years we have been trying to figure out a way to get our fiscal house put back in order.

There has been a whole lot of shrill and a whole lot of crying on this floor about runaway budget deficits and the unsustainable debt that our Nation has accumulated and the fact that we have to borrow so much money from China. This bill compounds that problem. It doesn't solve it.

This bill alone would add close to $97 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years. Again, none of it paid for, but there are also some substantive problems with this bill, too, that, unfortunately, due to a lack of hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, due to a lack of discussion and feedback from our universities throughout the country, is not addressed, not the least of which--and I have heard this from universities back in Wisconsin--that there is a significant administrative change hiding in this bill.

Currently, schools can report either eligible tuition charges that are billed to students or paid to students. This bill takes away the billing aspect of reporting to the IRS.

Now, that is probably a trend that we ought to pursue and should fix in the future, but to do it abruptly, given where the computer systems lie with their universities right now, is bound to cause severe disruption in regards to these tax credits for students.

I am afraid that it has not been well-vetted, and it hasn't been thought through because, again, it is an election year, and we are racing these bills to the floor in order to do our press releases back home and score cheap political points with constituencies that would prefer to see legislation advance without paying for it; but it is something that we ought to fix before we burden the bursars' offices throughout the Nation and trying to revamp their computer systems overnight. They are telling us it is not going to work.

Furthermore, the gentleman from Michigan has highlighted the impact this is going to have on our graduate students. The graduate students are affected by the streamlining of the education credits that are embodied in this bill because only 4 years are available under this legislation. It is expected to have a profound impact on the affordability of graduate education for students throughout the Nation. I don't think that has been vetted all that well either.

It is because we are not doing regular order around here. It is an election year--I get it--and there is nothing easier in the world to bring permanent changes to the Tax Code that everyone would desire to see, but without making the tough decision and paying for it as well, while at the same time coming forward with budget resolutions that is cutting back on the availability of Pell grants for low-income students or workstudy programs for low-income students or TRIO or GEAR UP programs that are geared for low-income students.

Somehow, some way, it became fashionable to cut those programs that have benefited low-income students, including myself. When I was a kid growing up, my family didn't have the financial means to send me to school, so I was able to qualify for a Pell grant, I did do workstudy all 4 years. Without that availability, I don't know where I would have ended up with my education.

That is where we seem to go to first in the budget for cuts and then coming forward today on a bill that will add $97 billion to the deficit without paying for it and without vetting it the way it should be. We have still got time. Let's do this right now.

I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' and give this body time to fix some of the deficiencies in the bill, but also to make the tough decision and do it in a fiscally responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, here we are again. Over the last few weeks, the Ways and Means Committee has been bringing bill after bill to the House floor to make permanent changes to the Tax Code, but in a lot of the policy behind it, there is very little dispute and debate. It is the fact that they are bringing these bills to the floor without any pay-fors, without any offsets, and instead they are leaving this legacy of debt for future generations to have to contend with, or they increase our borrowing costs with China at a time when most of the discussion about this place has been about fiscal responsibility. It certainly must be an election year, because any limit to fiscal responsibility is out the door.

Here again today, we have got five bills that would make five permanent changes to the Tax Code, none of which is offset. One would extend the charitable deduction for firms that donate food from their inventories.

One would permanently extend the charitable deduction for donations of qualified conservation easements, a bill I have been particularly working hard to find a permanent fix in the Tax Code, having seen the good work that our land trusts in the Mississippi Valley Conservancy back home have been doing with those tax incentives in the Code.

Another bill would extend the tax-free exclusion from income of charitable contributions from the individual retirement accounts, the so-called IRA rollover charitable contribution, something that the chairman of the committee himself actually eliminated in his comprehensive tax reform discussion draft that was introduced earlier this year.

The Joint Committee on Taxation says you add all these five bills up, it is at a cost of over $16 billion. And again, not a nickel in it. There is no offset to pay for any of this.

At a time when long-term unemployment benefits have expired in the early part of this year, the cost of this bill here today alone would cover 35 times the cost of those emergency unemployment benefits for the duration of this year--35 times.

We are doing nothing to permanently change the so-called SGR, or the doc fix. We have sequestration hanging over our heads that is about to do more damage to our military and to the Federal budget, and no work is being done on that front.

Last week, we passed legislation, scratching and clawing, trying to find a little over $10 billion in offsets for a temporary extension of the infrastructure investment we have to be making in this country to keep the highway trust fund funded, and yet here we are with another five bills that will cost us $16 billion. Apparently, some in this

place don't even blink about spending that type of money. That is where we have got a problem--philosophically, I am afraid--as far as our approach to this.

There are better ways of doing this. I think one of the ways that could help jump-start this economy is working hard, making tough decisions, and moving forward on comprehensive tax reform to make our Code more competitive globally. And now we have got an emergency situation of more companies here in the United States trying to find some small entity overseas where they are foreign shopping for a low- tax jurisdiction to avoid taxation here in the United States, and this place is doing nothing about that.

I would submit that between these five bills, the nine bills that have already come out of committee at a total cost of close to $900 billion, if we move forward down that track, there is no way, no ability for us to come back and address comprehensive tax reform in a fiscally responsible manner.

I, again, commend the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp, for the courage he has demonstrated by offering that discussion draft, but in doing so, he had to make some tough decisions on what expenditures, what loopholes we would have to go without in order to pay for a lowering of rates.

If we give the store away today and with the previous bills that were passed and what might be coming up tomorrow, there will be no ability for us to be able to seriously work on the comprehensive tax reform that our country desperately needs in order to put us in a more competitive position in this 21st century global economy.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Tuesday, July 8, 2014. Weather in the Midwest delayed my flight to Washington, DC until late that night. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 4263 (roll No. 369) and in favor of H.R. 4289 (roll No. 370).

I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this place is riddled with ironies from week to week, and this week is no different.

Yesterday, the Ways and Means Committee was working on a markup of legislation for another short-term extension of the highway trust fund--the transportation and infrastructure investment we desperately need in this country.

We were scratching and clawing to try to find an additional $10 billion over the next 10 months to try to keep some of these projects moving forward; and here, today, we have another permanent change to the Tax Code at a cost of $287 billion over the next 10 years and not a nickel of it paid for--no offset, no effort to pay for this at all; yet our roads are deteriorating, and our bridges are falling down.

We are literally becoming a Third World nation when it comes to our infrastructure system, and I am afraid that is becoming an insult to Third World countries today. We are turning into a Fourth World nation when it comes to our infrastructure.

Instead of having this fruitless debate on the floor yet again, knowing that this legislation won't be moving forward, we ought to be having a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee to develop consensus on a 6-year transportation bill that every State desperately needs in our country, but we are not doing that. In fact, the easiest thing to do during an election year, apparently, is to support tax cuts without paying for them.

Every economist and virtually every business owner will tell you that, substantively, this doesn't make any sense either. The whole point of bonus depreciation is to try to spur capital investment at a time when the marketplace has frozen up, and it is the fear of uncertainty that is preventing business owners from moving forward on their capital purchases.

You take away that temporary nature of bonus depreciation and you ruin the whole desired effect of what you are trying to accomplish.

But I have a feeling that the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp, and others in the committee, they already know this, and that is why, earlier this year, when they introduced their comprehensive tax reform discussion draft, they completely eliminated bonus depreciation. And not only that, they clawed back the accelerated depreciation, which is the basis of this as well, in order to help pay for a lowering of rates overall.

I would submit, of the 14 tax bills that would permanently change the Code that have been reported out of the committee so far at a cost of close to $900 billion, none of which is being proposed, if we support those measures and they get enacted into law, we might as well kiss comprehensive tax reform good-bye, because the tools that we will need to be able to lower the rates and broaden the base and make our Code more competitive are taken away from us. If you permanently extend bonus depreciation, you take away an important tool when we do run into recessionary times when businesses may need an additional incentive to invest capital and get off the sidelines.

That hasn't been the problem here. Since 2002, we have had bonus depreciation. We have got a track record now. You look back on it. Most economists will tell you it has been dubious, at best.

The 2000s were the worst job growth decade in our Nation's history. When President Bush left office in 2008, he had a net negative job growth during those 8 years when he was in office.

Since bonus depreciation expired at the end of last year, we have been averaging, every month, close to 240,000 additional private sector jobs being created in our economy today. That is without bonus depreciation being in place.

So what we ought to be doing today is having a serious discussion of how we can come together as an institution and find a way to help pay for a 6-year infrastructure bill that will create jobs, that will start spurring the economic activity that we desperately need, that will lay the foundation for long-term economic growth with a viable infrastructure system that is there to sustain it, rather than having another debate that we know is going nowhere.

And that is unfortunate because we do--and I agree with my friend from Texas, we need a pro-growth, competitive economic policy for the American people, one that recognizes reform the Tax Code to help our businesses, large and small, to be more competitive globally, but one that also recognizes that there are important public investments that we have to make as a nation in order to ensure the type of growth in the future.

Part of that is the infrastructure investment that is being neglected, or 23 extensions merely being kicked down the road with short-term measures. Part of it is having a top-flight, quality education system and a workforce development system so that we have got the best educated, best trained workforce in order to compete with increased global competition. It is broadband expansion in every inch of our territory. It is basic research funding. It is these type of things that, yes, we are going to need some resources in order to do an effective job.

But we keep coming to the floor, week after week, calling for permanent changes to the Tax Code without any ability to pay for it, that is going to hinder our flexibility in the future to really spur the type of economic growth and job creation that we desperately need.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. Let's start coming together on a real pro-growth strategy and work on the jobs that we desperately need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to honor Clifton Sorenson's service as Eau Claire County's Veterans Service Officer. Clifton is a native Wisconsinite from the Chippewa Valley area. After high school, he attended the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, majoring in Business Administration, before entering the U.S. Air Force. He served honorably in the USAF at four bases in the United States and two bases in the Republic of Vietnam.

Clifton devoted much of his time to caring for veterans. For four years before joining the Wisconsin Department of Veteran Affairs in Madison, Wisconsin, Clifton served as the Barron County Veterans Service Officer. There he provided veterans counseling and information for medical, education, and housing benefits--striving to assist veterans and their families in any way possible. Additionally, he began a special and continuing interest in serving the aging, homeless, and incarcerated veterans. Clifton would continue those added duties for over two decades.

Since 2000, Clifton has served as Eau Claire County's Veterans Service Officer, counseling veterans, active servicemembers, dependents, and survivors of veterans on benefits available. As an advocate, he worked extensively with other veterans' service offices, veterans' service organizations, and civic organizations in an effort to provide the best service possible to veterans in the Chippewa Valley and throughout the State of Wisconsin. Clifton is a member of numerous service and professional organizations, including the American Legion and the National Coalition for Homeless veterans.

Clifton served on the Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation and Hospital Committees at the department level. On the national level he served as Vice Chairman of the National Foreign Relations Council and is a member of the National Legislative Council. He has been awarded the National Homeless Veterans Outreach Award and a National Certificate of Appreciation for his assistance to the homeless veteran population.

It is with great pride that I rise today to recognize Clifton for his years of service to the men and women of our armed services and their families, and I congratulate him on his retirement after 14 years of service at the Eau Claire County Veterans Service Office.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of the centennial celebration of Melrose, Wisconsin. Originally known as ``Bristol,'' the village was first settled by Robert Douglas in 1839. Located in Jackson County, the village served as an important hub for the lumber industry during Wisconsin's early development. After the lumber boom, Melrose's mill and proximity to water helped support the development of the agricultural industry that is so abundant in southwest Wisconsin. In 1854, the village post office was established, and the community name was changed to Melrose. In 1913, the village of Melrose was incorporated.

With a population of 503 residents, Melrose is proud of its many close-knit community connections. The village boasts two wonderful

parks, including Recreation Park, where residents can come together to enjoy Wisconsin's great summers and play baseball, tennis, and volleyball, and ``Tank'' Park, where residents can enjoy various recreational activities while inspecting the park's World War 2 Era tank.

The beautiful wooded lands surrounding the village make it an excellent destination for outdoorsmen and women of all sorts. Melrose is a great place to explore the Black River, or to hike, bike, or snowmobile on one of its many recreational trails. The village also hosts a number of popular events, including the Melrose Corn Broil, which features locally-grown produce.

On July 5, 2014, Village President Tory Lockington, local elected leaders, and Melrose residents will come together to celebrate the village's centennial with a variety of events devoted to the village's diverse offerings, including a farmer's market, concerts, and various performances by local student groups. Today, I recognize Melrose's centennial and join in their celebration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

For the record, Mr. Speaker, I was proud earlier this year to introduce the America's Small Business Tax Relief Act with my good friend and colleague from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Tiberi, the small business expensing provision that is before us.

I get the feeling that during today's debate we are talking past each other because I fully support the policy goals behind the small business expensing bill. It is important that we find a way to get this done. It is important that we establish permanency in the Tax Code, just as I was supportive of introducing legislation on the S Corporation Modernization bill earlier this year with my friend, Dave Reichert, on the committee. Many of those provisions were addressed earlier this morning.

But the difference in today's debate, and really the difference in our party's approach to this policy change, comes down to one simple idea: whether we are going to have the fiscal discipline to pay for these permanent changes in the Tax Code or whether we are going to continue to wrack up the debt and leave a legacy of debt for these children, our children and grandchildren, throughout the country.

That is the only difference that we have in today's debate, not about the policy behind it and the permanent nature and the importance to small businesses and family farmers, but whether we are going to exercise the fiscal discipline to do this the right way rather than continuing to dig this deficit hole deeper and leaving this for future generations to contend with. That is why I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' and continue focusing on comprehensive tax reform.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I give the chairman of our committee, Dave Camp, credit for introducing a draft discussion proposal on comprehensive reform because we have been guided in the last few years under a simple rule of proposition that if we are going to reduce tax rates, if we are going to broaden the base, and if we are going to simplify the Code and make it more competitive, then we have to find offsets in it so we are not blowing holes in the deficit in the future. And Chairman Camp stayed true to that discipline.

What is ironic is that now, just a few short weeks after the introduction of that, we are right back into these old bad habits of introducing tax cuts with no pay-fors--with no offsets--just to increase the debt for future generations. And what is especially ironic today is this comes just a few short weeks after they passed their own Republican budget resolution that has specifically stated in it that if we are going to do permanent change to the Tax Code, they have to be offset. They have to be paid for.

So which is it? A few weeks ago when you were singing the praises of fiscal discipline supporting that budget resolution and talking about how you are going to make the tough choices? Or today, with permanently changing with no offsets? And there is a difference, I tell my friend from Ohio, between some of the short-term extensions that are meant to keep the pressure on permanent changes versus what is being attempted today.

Because he knows, as I do, and as everyone else knows, that the number of times that this Congress has taken a vote for a permanent change in the Tax Code with no pay-for and no offset has been zero. It has been zero.

But what we also know around here is what does work. And what does work is pay-as-you-go budgetary rules. That was something that was in place during the 1990s with the support of President George H. W. Bush at the time and President Clinton at the time. And because of a strong, growing, robust economy that created 24 million jobs during that time, and along with pay-as-you-go budgeting discipline, we ended up with 4 years of budget surpluses that we were paying down the national debt rather than adding to it. And that soon was replaced by the next administration and a Republican Congress that supported two wars with no pay-fors, supported two large tax cuts with no pay-fors, and supported the largest increase in Medicare spending--the part D prescription drug bill--without a nickel of it being paid for and supported the largest increase in discretionary spending since the Great Society without paying for any of it.

So when President Obama took office, he inherited--he inherited--a $1.5 trillion budget deficit. And if the people are wondering how we dig a hole like that, they need only look at bills that are on the floor today. We are talking about permanent changes to the Tax Code with no pay-fors.

We can do better. I know it is hard work to do comprehensive tax reform. It means our having to stand up and saying no to a lot of powerful special interests in this town, but it is exactly what we have to have the courage to do to do it the right way so we are not leaving this legacy of debt to these children and to future generations to wrestle with.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Offered By: Mr. Kind

Amendment No. 10: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Kind

Amendment No. 11: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Wednesday, May 28, 2014. Weather in Chicago delayed my flight to Washington, DC until late that night. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H. Res. 599 (Roll No. 241) and in favor of H.R. 503 (Roll No. 242).