Fighting Hunger Incentive Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill in its current form.

I want to remind my colleagues that this amendment to the bill will not kill the bill or send it back to committee if adopted. It will simply allow us to proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Chairman Ryan, spoke a few moments ago about the notion of goodwill and confidence. But he used a peculiar term as a substitute. He called it the ``baseline.''

What about a baseline of some goodwill and confidence building and a measure that acknowledged that, in terms of procedure, this is a violation of the confidence that we have all tried to establish as we proceed to tax reform?

Some of us who have been around for a long time and have participated in actual tax strategy, we would offer the following: the last time that the Tax Code was changed in America, the Internet had not been invented, Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States, and Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of this House.

Now, in terms of procedure, why we object is the following: if you recall, the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Camp, waited until tax reform last year was completely dead and then asked us to go through the motion. And that, in the end, is exactly what it was, to have gone through the motion of trying to pass some permanent extended tax bills.

Well, in New England 2 weeks ago, we were talking about deflated footballs. Now we are talking about deflated tax reform expectations.

Six weeks into this Congress, and we are doing this procedural instead of substantive achievement that might lead to some tax relief, as the President has acknowledged, for American corporations or tax relief for individual and family filers?

We are doing this with the argument that, somehow, Democrats don't support charitable giving? Our objection today is based on the following: Fiscally, this is reckless; procedurally, it violates the notion of goodwill in the House; and lastly, and just as importantly, I think it pushes apart the two parties from getting to tax reform.

Mr. Speaker, this is a positioning amendment: How might we embarrass the minority? Do you know what? They are saying here, as they go forward in this argument, that this keeps everything the way it is, it extends charitable giving.

You have to borrow the money eventually to pay for this. That adds to the deficits. Mr. Speaker, that is the argument that we are having here today. We want to know how this is paid for. We are not objecting to the thrust or mission of what is being offered. Under different circumstances, these bills would pass without any problem with broad support.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any personal quarrel with the merits of this policy, but when it is unpaid for, it means more borrowing. We all support the work of public charities and private foundations in our communities. We support the good works of charitable communities, and we strive to provide these charities with the resources that they need to carry out their mission.

Let me ask you this: Why would they try to masquerade this notion that somebody from Massachusetts is against charitable giving?

Universities, hospitals, and foundations, they abound throughout my State. Like the rest of our Caucus, I favor charitable giving and object to the procedure in which this is being offered today. We object to the procedure.

Why are we taking up this time debating these bills? We should be coming together on tax reform, as promised, for middle class families that grows the economy. If the goal of Mr. Ryan is to eventually remove all deductions, preferences, and exclusions in the Code to get to a lower rate, that should be stated, but not to do it this way.

We are debating bills that the administration has already said they will veto and the Senate has given us no indication they will take them up.

So to fix this moment, our motion to recommit offers the following: a 1-year bridge to tax reform. By the way, my predictions of this in terms of the extenders have been far more accurate over the years than their proposals on the extenders.

We are suggesting here a proposal that does not add to the deficit and addresses the longstanding problem of corporate inversions. By the way, why are companies inverting? Because of the tax system in America.

We are suggesting today that there is a difference and a distinction to be drawn between tax evasion and tax avoidance. They are avoiding taxes in some cases and evading them in the others.

We have an opportunity to do something about this Tax Code that would help bring that about. We pay for our provision. It gives, I think, a measure of comfort for the Democratic minority today to vote for this motion to recommit, and I urge Republican support for this provision.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source