3 Percent Withholding Repeal and Job Creation

Floor Speech

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Levin, as I appreciate the opportunity to work with my friend, Mr. Herger, on moving this bill forward.

It was only a couple of months ago that we were having a press conference in the Triangle with a bipartisan group of Members of Congress, representatives from some of the coalition members that my friend Mr. Herger referenced, to be able to focus on the need to repeal this provision.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to mark this critical step today. It will pass on the floor of the House in a strong bipartisan vote, reaffirming the bipartisan cooperation that got us to this point. I think that this is an example of what potentially we could do because a number of the members of the coalition that Mr. Herger referenced and that he is entering into the Record are likewise people that have a vision about how Congress and the Federal Government could help rebuild and renew America.

The contractors, the engineers, and the architects that we have heard from would also like us to step up in a bipartisan manner to deal with that. There were references to people who are dealing with health care. We still face sort of a health care crisis in this country. We may be able to deal with much of it with the health care reform bill. But many of the provisions that are embedded in law now have their core as bipartisan ideas. And I hope the same bipartisan spirit could help us accelerate bipartisan reforms so that the American public benefits in the health arena as well.

You're going to hear a little spirited exchange on the floor of the House about how we pay for this legislation because it has a CBO score that's attached to it that suggests that this will raise revenue. Well, I have two observations that I think are important to note dealing with the pay-for. First and foremost, the sad fact is that this bill actually would cost more to implement than it would ever raise for the Federal Government. But we have a quirk in our scoring rules where they credit revenue. They don't deal with the cost of compliance. And this complicated piece of legislation, were it ever enacted, would require the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and up and down the Federal Government to develop mechanisms to try to implement it. It wouldn't just cost contractors, hospitals, State, and local government. It would actually cost the Federal Government far more than we would collect. I think one estimate was for the Department of Defense it would be $17 billion, which would dwarf what would be collected.

We need, Mr. Speaker, as we move forward, to do a better job of thinking about the scoring rules. It's not CBO's fault, but that's how we play the game. And I find it troubling.

It also, I think, speaks volumes about how we operate in the legislative process. This was passed in 2005. It was kind of dropped in in sort of backroom negotiations. It was never part of regular order. There was no hearing before our Ways and Means Committee to talk about this because the elements that have been documented in our committee and on the floor about the unworkability of this would never have survived a regular legislative process.

Well, I'm pleased that the Democratic side has at least tried first to delay and then to fix this. I'm pleased we have worked with Mr. Herger in a bipartisan fashion to bring this legislation forward. I think Mr. Camp and Mr. Levin are committed to regular order. We've been having, I think, some very productive discussions on major issues. I hope we can keep this commitment to regular order to be able to make sure we don't have something like this in the future that has massive unintended consequences.

Mr. Speaker, this is an idea that never should have been advanced in this form. It's been a long road to try and correct it. Today, we're making an important step towards that correction, but I would add a note of caution. The same spirit of cooperation and focus that has gotten us to this point with what will be an overwhelming vote--I hope it's unanimous--we need to keep going so this isn't a casualty of the back-and-forth process between the House and the Senate. The Senate played a large role in giving us this in the first place. We need to make sure that it is not caught up in the larger dramas that occur around here, that we can keep our eye on the ball, and that we can fix it.

I do want to say just one brief word about the pay-for. As I say, it's illusory, because it would cost far more than we would ever collect, but we have to deal with the scoring rules as they are.

There are two proposals: One would tighten some eligibility for the health care reform; the other would take away some unnecessary tax benefits to large oil companies that long ago ceased to have any impact on oil exploration or reducing price. But while I actually think that the pay-for from our side of the aisle dealing with the oil tax adjustment is superior, I think as a practical matter we are going to have to do both of these in the months ahead if we're going to deal with our budget problems, reducing expenditures.

I am hopeful that we don't allow the debate over the pay-for to obscure the need to move forward. And as a practical matter, we have big challenges ahead to get our deficit under control. I think, frankly, that both of these are items that should be enacted into law, I think will be enacted into law. And while there will be a spirited discussion--and I respect the people on both sides, and I think that they will be making good points--I hope it doesn't get in the way of the big picture.

In closing, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan permitting me to speak on this, his leadership on this. I salute my friend, Mr. Herger. I hope we can mark this step today for what it is but keep our eye focused on how we deal with these larger issues going forward so we're not back in this situation in the future.

Source