National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2010

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

It's tough to see this bill either as a small business bill or as a jobs bill, and, specifically, I have three concerns:

One, it raises taxes on employers during a recession, making it tougher for Americans to find needed work.

Two, roughly 80 percent of the so-called tax relief in the bill is dedicated to State and local governments.

Small governments are not small businesses, and they do not create the kind of private sector jobs that we need.

Three, the limited and very narrow tax provisions, even if well- intentioned, will not do enough to help employers create jobs.

Under this bill, American jobs will be taxed. That's the simple truth regarding the provision limiting treaty benefits for certain deductible payments. This is very similar to a provision offered previously by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and accounts for about 40 percent of the $19.4 billion in tax increases in the bill.

There's never a good time to raise taxes on employers and American workers, but given the continued weakness in the economy, now may be the worst time. Data from the Department of Labor confirms that 48 States have lost jobs since the Democrats' stimulus bill passed, 3.3 million jobs have been eliminated since the Democrat stimulus bill passed, and a record 16 million Americans are out of work.

In case you need more evidence that the Democrat stimulus bill failed, just look at the $2.5 billion in ``emergency'' welfare spending that was added to this bill. This money will be paid out in the third fiscal year since stimulus money first started flowing. That's the third year. This bill increases spending, it increases taxes and will not create private sector jobs. In that respect, this is the ``Mini Me'' of the Democrats' stimulus bill.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

I have heard that this welfare expansion is about jobs. Frankly, it's not. Democrats propose to expand the welfare emergency fund that was contained in last year's failed stimulus bill by $2.5 billion. They just extend it for another year and add that money. But since this legislation doesn't really alter how the money is spent, we can only assume the new spending will be a lot like the current spending. So what has the money been spent on so far? Almost none of it has been spent on jobs. Almost all of it has been spent on more and larger welfare checks.

I would like to insert in the Record from the recent Congressional Research Service report on how the welfare emergency funds have been spent to date. As of March 18, 2010, only 13 percent of those funds have been spent on subsidized employment. Instead, 87 percent was spent on short-term aid and basic assistance. That is, on welfare checks.

[From the Congressional Research Service, Mar. 23, 2010]

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

(By Gene Falk, Specialist in Social Policy)

State and Tribal Use of TANF Emergency Funds

As of March 18, 2010, states and tribes have been awarded

$1.8 billion of the total $5 billion appropriated. Figure 1

shows the TANF ECF grant awards by category of spending. The

figure shows cumulative grant awards through March 18, 2010.

It shows that $848 million, a little less than half of the

total grant awards of $1.6 billion was to help finance

increases in expenditures for basic assistance. Another $726

million, 40% of the $1.8 billion, was for non-recurrent

short-term aid and $231 million, 13% of the total, was for

subsidized employment.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I place in the Record a letter to Mr. Levin and myself from the Organization for International Investment, a large association representing over 5 million Americans. It is an association of U.S. subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad which also accounts for one-fifth of all exports which says that the language in this legislation would override many of our bilateral income tax treaties and could lead to retaliatory actions by other countries.

I would also note that during the markup of this legislation in committee, even the Obama administration's own witness, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Tax Policy stated that the Treasury Department has, and I quote, ``Concerns about the specifics of this provision and whether it will override many of our income tax treaties.'' She also stated the administration prefers a more targeted approach.

Organization for

International Investment,

March 15, 2010.

Hon. Sander Levin,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Levin and Representative Camp, On behalf of

the Organization for International Investment (OFII), I am

writing to express concern with a tax provision included as

Section 401 of the discussion draft of the Small Business and

Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010. While we recognize the

need for revenue, we must oppose Section 401 as an offset

because it represents a clear and harmful override of our

existing U.S. income tax treaties. Although positive changes

were made to this proposal since it was originally introduced

as an offset to the 2007 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419), OFII remains

opposed because it still uniquely discriminates against U.S.

subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad and clearly

violates many of our international agreements.

OFII is the largest association of U.S. subsidiaries of

companies headquartered abroad. U.S. subsidiaries play an

important role in the growth and vitality of the U.S.

economy. They provide high-paying jobs for over five million

Americans and account for almost one-fifth of all U.S.

exports. A discriminatory tax increase sends a negative

signal to international investors and may dissuade these

companies from choosing the United States as a location for

job creating investment.

As drafted, Section 401 would unilaterally override many of

our bilateral income tax treaties and could lead to

retaliatory actions by other countries or withdrawal by our

treaty partners from existing treaties, negatively impacting

international business transactions. The Senate has opposed

this and similar provisions twice in the past two years for

these reasons.

Congress has not held any hearings to examine this issue

and whether the proposal is the appropriate remedy to address

any perceived concerns. In this regard, there is no evidence

that existing safeguards, including the substantial and

restrictive anti-treaty shopping provisions (so-called

``Limitation on Benefits'' (LOB) provisions) contained in

most of our current U.S. income tax treaties, are

ineffective. Further, if material tax abuses were evident,

the Treasury could implement changes to the U.S. Model Tax

Treaty which would avoid the negative consequences of

violating our international agreements.

Since a similar proposal was introduced in 2007, the

Treasury has taken great strides to update the three

bilateral tax treaties without LOB provisions (Iceland,

Hungary, Poland). A protocol adding an LOB provision to the

Iceland treaty was negotiated by Treasury and ratified by the

Senate in 2008. A similar protocol with Hungary has been

negotiated and initialed and could be ratified

this year. Treasury is expected to pursue a similar amendment

to the treaty with Poland during 2010-2011.

Consistent with the conclusions in the Treasury Report that

was released in November 2007 that reviewed potential abuse

of income tax treaties, OFII believes re-negotiation of

existing income tax treaties without LOB provisions is a more

appropriate way to address the concerns underlying this

provision and we urge you to oppose including Section 401 in

the final version of the Small Business Jobs Bill. We would

be glad to discuss our concerns with your staff in greater

detail.

Sincerely,

Nancy McLernon

President & CEO.

Organization for International Investment

OFII is the only business association in Washington D.C.

that exclusively represents U.S. subsidiaries of foreign

companies and advocates for their non-discriminatory

treatment under state and federal law.

members

ABB Inc., ACE INA Holdings, Inc., AEGON USA, AgustaWestland

Inc., Ahold USA, Inc., Airbus North America Holdings, Air

Liquide America L.P., Akzo Nobel Inc., Alcatel-Lucent, Alcon

Laboratories, Inc.

Alfa Laval Inc., Allianz of North America, ALSTOM, AMEC,

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Anheuser-Busch, APL Limited,

AREVA, Inc., Astellas Pharma US, Inc., AstraZeneca

Pharmaceuticals.

BAE Systems, Barclays Capital, Barrick Goldstrike Mines,

Inc., BASF Corporation, Bayer Corp., BIC Corp., Bimbo Foods,

Inc., bioMerieux, Inc., BNP Paribas, Boehringer Ingelheim

Corp.

BOSCH, BP, Bridgestone Americas Holding, Brother

International Corp., Brunswick Group, BT, Bunge Ltd., Case

New Holland, CEMEX USA, Cobham.

Covidien, Credit Suisse Securities (USA), Daiichi Sankyo,

Inc., Daimler, Dassault Falcon Jet Corp., Deutsche Post World

Net USA, Deutsche Telekom, Diageo, Inc., EADS, Inc., EDF

International North America.

Eisai Inc., Elbit Systems of America, LLC, Electrolux Home

Products, Inc., EMD Serono Inc., Ericsson, Evonik Degussa

Corporation, Experian, Finmeccanica North America,

Flextronics International, Food Lion, LLC.

France Telecom North America, Garmin International, Inc.,

GDF SUEZ Energy North America, Inc., Generali USA, Givaudan,

GKN America Corp., GlaxoSmithKline, Hanson North America,

Hitachi, Ltd., Holcim (US) Inc.

HSBC North America Holdings, Huhtamaki, Hyundai Motor

America, Iberdrola Renewables, ING America Insurance

Holdings, InterContinental Hotels Group, John Hancock Life

Insurance Co., Lafarge North America, Lenova, Logitech Inc.

L'Oreal USA, Inc., Louisiana Energy Service (LES),

Louisville Corporate Services, Inc., LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis

Vuitton, Macquarie Aircraft Leasing Services, Macquarie

Holdings Inc., Maersk Inc, Magna International, Marvell

Semiconductor, McCain Foods USA.

Michelin North America, Inc. Miller Brewing Company,

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics, Munich Re, Nestle USA,

Inc., The Nielsen Company (US), Inc., Nokia, Inc., Novartis

Corporation, Novelis Inc., Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals.

Oldcastle, Inc., Panasonic Corp. of North America, Pearson

Inc., Pernod Ricard USA, PetroBras North America, Philips

Electronics North America, QBE the Americas, Randstad North

America, Reed Elsevier Inc., Rexam Inc.

Rio Tinto America, Roche Financial USA, Inc., Rolls-Royce

North America Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, SABIC Innovation

Plastics, Saint-Gobain, sanofi-aventis, SAP America,

Schlumberger Technology Corp., Schott North America.

SGL Carbon LLC, Shell Oil Company, Siemens Corporation,

Smith & Nephew, Inc., Sodexo, Inc., SolarWorld USA, Solvay

America, Sony Corporation of America, Square D Company,

Sumitomo Corp. of America.

Sun Life Financial U.S., Swiss Re America Holding Corp.,

Syngenta Corporation, Takeda North America, Tate & Lyle North

America, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Thales USA, Inc.,

The Tata Group, Thomson Reuters, ThyssenKrupp USA, Inc.

Tim Hortons, Toa Reinsurance Company of America, Tomkins

Industries, Inc., TOTAL Holdings USA, Inc., Toyota Motor

North America, Tyco International (US), Inc., Tyco

Electronics, UBS, Umicore USA, Unilever.

Vivendi, Vodafone, Voith Holding Inc., Volkswagen of

America, Inc., Volvo Group North America, Inc., Welspun,

Westfield LLC, White Mountains, Inc., Wolters Kluwer U.S.

Corporation, WPP Group USA, Inc., XL Global Services, Zausner

Foods Corporation, Zurich Insurance Group.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say to the gentleman and to those on the floor, to say this is the same proposal that occurred in the previous administration is really an oversimplification. The previous administration really wanted to have a more targeted approach to this. They wanted to, certainly through treaty amendments, targeted domestic law provisions, that would address the problem of potential abuses under this area of law. But they didn't want to damage our treaty relationships with all of the other countries.

And as the gentleman from Louisiana has said, this would damage our treaty relationships with over 60 countries. We have a letter in the record from the organization overseeing nearly 5 million U.S. workers and companies headquartered abroad. The Treasury testified at the committee that this is not the approach they want to take. They would much prefer to take similar approaches to the Bush administration. So in terms of tax policy, we actually have the Treasury Department wanting to do the same thing.

This is outside of that. This is overbroad. It would hurt our relationships.

I reserve my time.

I reserve at this time.

I continue to reserve, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. From this debate, I think it's difficult to see whether this legislation is either a small business bill or a jobs bill. Frankly, it's neither one. The reason is the tax increases in this bill will hurt an already weak economy. To raise taxes on employers during a recession makes it even harder for Americans to find work.

Second, roughly 80 percent of the tax relief in this bill goes to State and local governments and to pay State and local governments. To borrow more money, as this bill does, is not what America needs right now.

Lastly, I would say there are some tax provisions, very small ones, that have received bipartisan support. But, frankly, those good things are outweighed by the structure of the bill and the way the bill is drafted, because even those well-intentioned measures will not do enough to help employers create jobs; and, particularly, the provision that would override our tax treaties with 60 countries, that even the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, when testifying before the committee, said she had concerns over, and also which has been rejected by the Senate, which means the almost $7 to $8 billion they are using to fund this bill will not see its way across the floor of the United States Senate. So I think we would do better to come back and try to do something that would actually potentially do something about job creation and see its way to the President's desk for signature.

With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit.

In its current form.

Madam Speaker, today we begin to repeal some of the most troubling aspects of the Democrats' health care bill. This Republican motion is straightforward. It strikes troubling tax increases, it maintains tax relief for small businesses, repeals unpopular provisions of the health care bill that force middle class families to pay more taxes and more for their health care, and is fully paid for in compliance with the PAYGO rules.

To meet the PAYGO rules, the motion eliminates the so-called emergency welfare spending and closes the Black Liquor tax loophole that's repeatedly passed the House but has yet to become law.

Here's what we keep: the few provisions that directly help small businesses, including an exclusion from capital gains tax on investments and qualifying small businesses; new protections for small businesses from excessive penalties if they unknowingly fail to disclose certain information related to their participation in tax shelters; and a temporary increase in the amount of small business start-up costs that can be immediately expensed.

In addition to this tax relief, we begin today to repeal some of the troubling aspects of the Democrats' health care bill. Today we seek to eliminate two of the tax increases in the health care bill that would hit middle class families and violate the President's pledge that you can keep the health care plan you have and like.

First, the motion repeals the cap on the minimum annual contribution to flexible spending accounts, which will be capped at $2,500 per year under the health care bill starting in 2011.

FSAs, which are currently used by 35 million Americans, encourage consumers to be more aware of both the cost and quality of health care goods and services. Approximately 7 million Americans put more than $2,500 into their FSAs. According to the Employers Council on Flexible Compensation, the median income of an FSA holder in 2008 was just $55,000 a year. Repealing this provision would provide Americans with $15.6 billion in tax relief.

Second, the motion repeals the ban on using several forms of health savings, including FSAs and health savings accounts, also known as HSAs, to purchase over-the-counter medicines. Not only does this ban discourage tax-free savings, it discourages Americans from choosing cheaper, nonprescription medicines when they're available. By repealing this provision, we'll not only provide $5.5 billion in tax relief, but we'll also help American families lower their health care bills.

This motion offers Members a clear choice. A vote against this motion is effectively a choice to close the Black Liquor loophole to pay for billions of dollars in additional Medicaid spending. A vote in favor of this motion is a vote to close that Black Liquor tax loophole to pay for small business tax relief that will actually help create jobs and undo some of the harmful tax increases on American families passed by the House in the dark of night on Sunday.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before being recognized, would the gentleman please state his point of order.

Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

Madam Speaker, my point would be that we actually raise revenues in years 2010 and 2011. We do not reduce revenues, so I would suggest that the point of order is without merit.

Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard further on the point of order.

Madam Speaker, I am informed that the underlying bill has a Budget Act problem, and the waiving of all points of order against the consideration of the bill in the full House, including 303, would make the gentleman's point of order unacceptable and would make his point of order invalid.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1205, I call up the bill (H.R. 4849) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for small business job creation, extend the Build America Bonds program, provide other infrastructure job creation tax incentives, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record.

In addition, the Ways and Means Ranking Member Dave Camp and I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the modifications that were made to H.R. 4849 by the rule.

This technical explanation supplements the Committee Report 111-454, with information on the Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind these modifications. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web site at www.jct.gov and is listed under document numbered JCX-21-10.

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to our most distinguished majority leader, Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This, indeed, is a jobs bill. It's a continuation of the work in this Congress by some of us to spur job creation to recover from the 8.4 million jobs lost in this recession and to improve the quality of life in our communities. The cornerstone, indeed, of this package is an extension of the Build America Bonds program. It's been an effective tool in job creation. It's been a vital resource for State and local governments looking to advance infrastructure programs.

Mr. Camp talks about the number of States--I think you referred to 47--where jobs have been lost. I think every one of those States--it's 47--has benefited from the Build America Bonds program. The money goes to local communities for infrastructure, and that creates jobs. That's what finance experts have said about BABs. It's one of the economic recovery effort's biggest successes. As I mentioned, as of March 1, 2010, State and local governments have used BABs to finance more than $78 billion in infrastructure programs.

Now, as to small business. The legislation excludes 100 percent of capital gains on small business stock to help encourage immediate investments in growth. It will, in turn, help our small businesses hire new workers and continue fueling our economic recovery. Also included are provisions to remove onerous penalties from small businesses so they can create more jobs. Also, there's a provision, an important one, to reduce the barrier of startup expenses on new businesses.

The bill would also extend, for 1 year, the TANF emergency contingency fund. The Governors Association has said this fund helps ``speed economic recovery through subsidized employment and training programs.''

This bill is completely offset and will not add a dime to the Federal deficit. The bill is offset with provisions to ensure compliance with our tax laws, close down a loophole that allows paper companies to claim a $1.01 per gallon tax credit for highly corrosive fuel waste products, and it does crack down on foreign tax haven corporations that are taking advantage of the U.S. tax treaty network in order to dodge U.S. taxes. And to just say you're opposed to any tax increases? Tax increases on people who are avoiding paying legitimate taxes. I have a chart here, in very simple terms, that spells out how these companies, these foreign corporations that are not part of a tax-treaty country, how they evade taxes through a gimmick. And to oppose this because of that, I think, is very, very inappropriate.

So, in a word, this bill is another significant step towards helping our country continue down the path of economic recovery and job creation. It should be a bipartisan bill. In the markup that we held, there wasn't a single amendment offered by the minority to strike a specific jobs provision here. This Congress will continue to take additional targeted and effective steps to accelerate economic recovery for American families. And I

say with sadness, as I hear Mr. Camp speak, that it looks like it will not receive the bipartisan support it so fully deserves.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It's now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 2 minutes to another senior member of our committee, Mr. McDermott of the great State of Washington.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia, my friend John Lewis.

I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) who is such an active member of this committee on the issues before us.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

To the gentleman who just spoke, this bill is paid for unlike bills you voted for. And also let me say to the distinguished gentleman, you are opposed to this bill because it isn't big enough or it is too small. It's not clear. The recovery program is beginning to work. This will make it work better, and yet you are standing here opposed to it.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I am glad to now yield 1 whole minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Now it's my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ to the gentlewoman from Nevada, Shelley Berkley.

I now have the privilege of yielding 1 minute to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Allyson Schwartz.

I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Danny Davis.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) a member of the committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this. I really urge my colleagues on the minority side to think not twice, but to think thrice before voting against this bill. I don't think everyone has to march in a partisan way in this place, especially on a bill that will help create jobs.

I have a letter regarding the contingency fund from a Republican Governor and a Democratic Governor, which states that, ``currently, 23 States are drawing down the fund for subsidized jobs, with several more State applications pending approval. Many of these programs take time to develop and implement. By allowing States more time to access these funds, Congress can help maximize the impact of TANF ECF in providing crucial skill development and training to our workers.''

Regarding the Build America Bonds, almost every State has taken advantage of these. It's for local communities and States to build--to build. Who builds roads? Who builds bridges? Not robots. Basically, it's human beings. So if you come here and vote ``no,'' you are voting against jobs for human beings.

In terms of the pay-for, the only entities that will pay taxes will be those who are evading them, who are essentially using tax havens to avoid paying taxes.

I think the Senate will take a second look at this. I think this can become law, and we should join together to help make this become law. We owe it to the people of this country. This is a jobs bill.

Vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's motion.

I object.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my point of order.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Well, I guess here we start. You know, what's interesting here is the following: Mr. Camp says that they pay for the small business provisions. They're already paid for in this bill. And so how inconsistent can he be?

He wants to continue to pay for them when they're already paid for, but he intends to vote against the bill. That is the height of inconsistency, and I think that's a reason to object, even if this turns out to be a motion to recommit that's in order.

And then let me just talk a bit about Black Liquor so we know what's going on. Talking about inconsistency, that's a charitable word. The Black Liquor provision is now in the health bill in the Senate, awaiting action. You know precisely that. So what you're now suggesting is, take it out of that bill that's being considered in reconciliation, and put it in here, and you're claiming you're paying for it.

``Inconsistency'' is charitable. There could be other words used for that, including the unwillingness of the minority to face up to the need to pay for bills.

We pay for the bill that is now before us. We pay for the bill in ways that are more than defensible; they are necessary. And so a reason to object to this on its substance is that, essentially, this approach here is a sleight of hand.

I suggest to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) that you walk over to the Senate, ask them what's in reconciliation. It's not a very long distance from here. Just walk over there and whisper to the majority leader, or, if you want, you can whisper to the minority leader, is Black Liquor in the bill that's over there that is now being considered under reconciliation? And I think both of them will tell you it is.

So, essentially, what you're saying is we want to take something out of the bill that is being considered under reconciliation and claim to be paying for the small business provisions that you're going to vote against.

Now, my suggestion is that nobody is going to be fooled by that; and that what you ought to be doing is to tackle these issues straight on, and also to tackle the pay-for straight on and not pretend that you're paying for something when you're not.

So I don't know what's worse, the majority, the then-majority, now the minority, having refused to pay for bills that came through here year after year, bills that came before the Ways and Means Committee that you never dreamed of paying for, whether that's worse than what you're now doing. I guess they're both as bad.

Yet what you're now doing is saying, well, we'll pay with something that's in a bill that's in the Senate that's soon going to become law.

Point of Order

So as a result, not only do I think that that motion to recommit deserves to be defeated on its substance, but I now want to press my point of order that the motion violates section 303 of the Budget Act because it includes a change in revenue in fiscal year 2011 before a budget resolution for that year has been adopted.

You want me to restate it? You're getting more notice on the restatement than you gave to us on your motion to recommit. I'll be glad to repeat it once or twice.

I make a point of order that the motion violates section 303 of the Budget Act because it includes a change in revenue in FY 2011 before a budget resolution for that year has been adopted.

If I could speak briefly.

It makes a change. That's all that's necessary to violate section 303.

I ask that the point of order be upheld.

Madam Speaker, if I could respond briefly.

Madam Speaker, I think that trying to do this through a motion to recommit is inappropriate. And I suggest that before they bring up motions to recommit, that they very much should look at what the rules of the House are.

Therefore, I insist on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been much consultation, and I now withdraw the point of order.

I have withdrawn the point of order after there has been consultation with the parliamentarian, and so now we are back to the substance of the motion to recommit.

I want to strongly urge everyone to vote against this motion to recommit. It is wrong in substance in trying to change the bill that we passed. And also, what it does by a trick of hand is to pretend to pay for this motion to recommit by taking a provision that is in the bill that is now in the Senate, subject to reconciliation, and that I trust will pass fairly soon.

That is reason enough. I don't think it is appropriate for this body to vote for a motion to recommit pretending it is paying for it by taking a provision that we have included in a bill that we have passed and now is in the Senate for its consideration.

So I would urge every single Member on the majority side to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, helping North Dakota business create jobs is my top priority and today, Madam Speaker, Congress takes another step forward with a sharp focus on small businesses.

Small businesses are a proven engine of job creation. During the last economic expansion, companies with less than 20 employees accounted for 40 percent of the job growth while accounting for only 25 percent of all jobs.

One of the lingering difficulties of this recession is that many small businesses have limited access to the capital they need to operate, grow, and create new jobs. By providing small business tax relief, Congress can free up money and help small businesses feel they can afford to hire new employees and make investments that will build demand for goods and services.

In rural America, small business is business. For example, nearly 80 percent of North Dakotans are employed by companies with less than 500 employees and nearly 60 percent work for companies with less than 100 employees.

These small businesses are the companies on our small town Main Streets. Across numerous towns in North Dakota, ambitious business persons are finding opportunities to start up business, and the ranks of these new businesses are growing. A recent article in the Dickinson Press, reported that a number of small, North Dakota towns are seeing several new businesses starting up during the year. I ask permission to enter the article into the Record.

The Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Act, H.R. 4849, will help new start-up businesses like KZ Photography, a company launched by Kim Zachmann last August. The bill would allow her to deduct from income, up to $20,000 in expenses she might have incurred to set up her photography studio and get her business up and running in the town of Beach, North Dakota. Without the bill before us today, her deduction from income for those start up costs would be limited to only $5,000.

The 100 percent exclusion from tax of gains on small business stock and the change to enable Small Business Investment Companies to deduct the investment losses would expand the access to capital for small business across the country.

While the Internal Revenue Service must act to stop abusive tax shelters, Congress today will vote to eliminate a disproportionate effect that some tax penalties have on small businesses. We have heard from individuals facing outlandish penalties. Under the bill, the tax penalty for failing to disclose on their taxes reportable transactions would be brought into proportion with the underlying tax savings for small businesses and not put the small business owner out of business.

These are provisions that have bipartisan support and will make a difference and spur job creation among small businesses. My colleague across the aisle, Jerry Moran from Kansas, agreed that these provisions were needed to help small business and we introduced the ``Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act.''

I thank Chairman Levin for including small business tax incentives and relief that I authored the bill we are considering today. I also appreciate that we will also extend the highly successful Build America Bond program so that payments for the bonds to state and local governments would last through 2013.

When I held a roundtable with small businesses in Fargo, North Dakota, sharp and savvy business owners told me that Recovery Act funding is making a big difference and that they were vying with new national competitors. So, I urge my colleagues to pass the extension and expansion of the successful Build America Bonds, which have made it cheaper for state and local governments to finance the rebuilding of schools, sewers, hospitals and transit projects.

Communities like West Fargo and Rugby have used these bonds to launch projects and the bill also opens this funding opportunity to tribal governments for funding of water and sewer infrastructure improvements.

The Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Act is good for North Dakota small businesses. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4849.

Number of Businesses Growing in Area Towns--Officials: Younger People

Moving in

(By Beth Wischmeyer)

The number of businesses starting or being taken over by

new owners is growing, officials in the communities of Bowman

and Beach said Thursday.

Deb Walworth, executive director of Prairie West

Development Foundation in Beach, said eight new businesses

started in 2009, many of which were started by people in

their 20s and 30s.

``We're seeing more young people,'' Walworth said. ``I

think this is just the tip of the iceberg, it's just

beginning.''

In 2008, Walworth said there were three new businesses that

started.

Since 2004, Sentinel Butte has had three new businesses and

the community of Golva has had two new businesses and one

existing business come under new ownership, she said.

``These are really small communities that are seeing

positive growth,'' Walworth said.

Ashley Alderson, executive director of the Bowman Economic

Development Corp., said there have been about 10 new business

counsels last year, some that have started, some that are

starting and others that will open in the future.

``We've had quite a bit of new interest lately,'' Alderson

said. ``We've noticed it's been a really busy year for small

business.''

Alderson said she's been with the corporation for about two

years, and said the past year was busier than her first year

with new businesses.

The Beach area is seeing people moving back of all ages,

Walworth said.

``I'm just really excited about the young families that are

moving back, because if they don't have kids now, I think

they plan to have families in the future,'' Walworth said.

``We're also seeing the result of that coming through the

schools, with kids coming through kindergarten and first

grade there. That's a benefit to the school system too.''

Kim Zachmann, who owns the photography business KZ

Photography in Beach, said while photography has been an

interest and a hobby for a number of years, she started

pursuing it as a business last August.

Zachmann, who grew up in the Beach area, said she purchased

a studio recently in town and now does photography full time.

``We haven't had a photographer here (in Beach) since about

'03, so I knew there wasn't anyone in the Beach surrounding

area, the closest one would be Dickinson, so I knew Beach

could benefit from one,'' Zachmann said. ``Beach is really

good about supporting local businesses. I like the Beach

area. I would like to live here the rest of my life if it was

possible with a job and family and stuff like that.''

Ed Gold, executive director of the Adams County Development

Corporation, was out of the office Friday.

Walworth thinks the Beach area is a ``good place to raise a

family,'' a draw to many young families, she added.

``The cost of living isn't as much as it is in some of the

larger places,'' Walworth said. ``These people are coming

from Las Vegas and the West Coast. They graduated from school

here; one or the other of them, or both; and I think they're

going for the safer communities to raise their family.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding and I congratulate him for his leadership, and I thank Mr. Camp as well for his work.

In the fall, Madam Speaker, of 2008, America did not know whether it was heading for the second Great Depression. Those weren't my words. Those were the words of Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve.

Since then, the work of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress has headed off disaster. Most important has been the Recovery Act, which cut taxes for small businesses and 95 percent of families, funded thousands of job-creating projects across America, provided emergency assistance to those hit hardest by the recession, saved States from laying off teachers, firefighters, police officers, and much more.

No matter what its partisan critics say, the facts say it clearly: The Recovery Act is working.

The Recovery Act created some 2 million jobs. And since President Obama took office, monthly job losses are down 96 percent, from 726,000 over a 4-month average during the latter part of the Bush administration, to 27,500 over the last 4 months, a 96 percent improvement of job loss. That is not success, but it is progress. Success will be when we grow jobs, as we did in November.

Our economy is growing again. In the most recent quarter, it grew by 5.9 percent. That is the fastest rate in 6 years,

and the second straight quarter of growth under President Obama. In addition, it is a 12.3 percent turnaround from the last quarter of 2008 to the last quarter of 2009.

The Dow is up some 60 plus percent from the low it hit shortly after President Obama signed the Recovery Act, the S&P 500 is up 72 percent from its low, and the NASDAQ is up 87 percent now, since we passed the Recovery Act. That is progress to be proud of.

But as long as millions of Americans remain out of work, through no fault of their own, we have not reached the goal. We have not had the success we want.

We know that, to a family struggling through chronic unemployment, all the positive economic numbers in the world must look like they bear little relation to reality. That is because, time and again, employment numbers are the last part of a recession to turn around.

The families who are struggling and suffering right now did not create this economic collapse, but they are bearing its brunt. So it is imperative that we act for them.

This month, the President signed the HIRE Act, which eliminated the payroll tax for every employed worker who is hired. Now, the good news by that is that we don't pay anything unless we accomplish the objective. If they add the jobs, they get the credit, which the nonpartisan CBO calls one of the most effective methods of job creation.

The HIRE Act also gives businesses tax credits for keeping new employees on the payroll, helps small businesses finance their expansion, and extends job-creating and much-needed highway programs.

When the House passed the HIRE Act, Democrats made it clear on this floor that it was an important step, but by no means the last one. That is why we are back here today, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Act.

This bill expands the successful Build America bonds and Recovery Zone bonds, which helps State and local governments fund needed projects and put people to work. As of this month, Build America bonds helped State and local governments pay for $78 billion in infrastructure programs, projects that were needed but did not have the funds. Build America bonds assured that they had the funds and created the jobs.

This bill also contains provisions to help small business innovate and grow. It increases the deduction for business startup expenses, so enterprising Americans all over our country will have stronger incentives to open the books of new businesses, an important measure we owe to my Maryland colleague and friend, Congressman Frank Kratovil.

And, it excludes 100 percent of small business capital gains from taxation, which will lead to a new influx of investment, the investment small businesses need to expand and hire new workers.

For Democrats, job creation is our single-most important job. I think, frankly, Republicans share that sentiment. I think that is a bipartisan sentiment. This bill carries that work forward, and I believe it will provide significant relief to the Americans who are still feeling the recession's harsh effects.

Again, I congratulate Mr. Levin for the work of his committee on bringing this to the floor. I also want to congratulate my friend, Charlie Rangel, who has been so instrumental in working on these jobs bills for so long. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, regarding these ill-considered arguments against the treaty-shopping provisions that allow a handful of firms to dodge their responsibilities to fund our national and homeland security, let's get the facts straight.

First, there is not one company headquartered in the United States that will pay one cent of additional taxes as a result of these provisions. Number two, there is not one company that is headquartered in a foreign country with whom we have a tax treaty that will pay one cent of additional taxes. And that covers, by the way, over 90 percent of all foreign investment in the United States that we were just hearing about, over 90 percent not touched whatsoever if they are headquartered in a country with a tax treaty.

What it does touch is the minority, defended by the Republican Party, that are determined to dodge their fair share of the cost of running America. Those are companies that are headquartered in tax havens that set up their operations specifically to dodge their tax responsibility. We believe they ought to follow the same rules as American-owned companies, as American-headquartered companies.

It is amazing to me that the same folks who would defend the flim- flam artists at Enron from dodging their tax responsibilities, that would defend the American corporations that renounce their American citizenship to move to some sunny tax haven, are now defending this small minority of firms that will not pay their fair share of American taxes.

And what of this phony argument that we are somehow violating our tax treaty responsibilities: well, it is just that, it is phony because this measure is actually an incentive to support the tax treaty system. That is where over 90 percent of the investment already is; and so we are saying, as the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation concluded, this provides an incentive for any responsible foreign investor to locate in a treaty country. The treaties are set up to help American companies. That is what these companies should do.

The last Administration offered proposals to address this time after time, and a Republican Congress wouldn't approve them. That is one of the reasons we need to take this firm action today. We see the benefits of doing that in the almost $8 billion that are raised not from American companies but from companies that are located in these tax-haven locations.

We are in no way saying that this is the same legislative language that the Bush Administration recommended. We are saying it addresses the same problem and that you

didn't like the Bush Administration approach any better than you liked the Obama Administration approach, any better than you like this approach. And the only beneficiaries of this obstruction to a legislative answer are the same tax dodgers in these tax havens that have been avoiding their responsibility. We want to level the playing field. We don't want to shirk treaty responsibilities. We want an incentive to encourage every one of these companies to go to a tax treaty country.