Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2847) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1137 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1137.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1137 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the Chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, or his designee, that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion, except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, in today's economy, many families are struggling to make ends meet. As we know, the economic recession began in 2008 as a direct result of reckless and irresponsible financial decisions. We are still dealing with the wreckage today. Over the last few years, I have heard countless stories of people struggling to put food on the table, pay their mortgages, and provide for their children, and millions of America's seniors are making decisions every day to skip meals or cut their pills in half just to survive.

California and, in particular, my constituents in Sacramento, have been greatly impacted by this economic crisis. Many of my constituents were and continue to be victims of predatory home loan lending, unfair credit card practices, payday loans, and other forms of unscrupulous business practices. They turned to Congress for help, and we responded with the CARD Act. And the ink was hardly dry on that legislation before credit card companies tried to find loopholes to arbitrarily raise credit card interest rates and fees on consumers.

This Congress also passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which will bring much-needed oversight and accountability to Wall Street. This bill also creates a new consumer financial protection agency to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive financial practices. Meanwhile, small businesses are seeking assistance to help make payroll, retain their employees, and pay for the skyrocketing costs of health insurance. These are the reasons why it is time to once again put the American people first and provide them with the support they need from their Representatives in Congress.

We need to pass the jobs bill before us today as a significant step towards helping hardworking Americans get back to work. The American people are hurting, and the top priority of this administration and this Congress must be

jobs, jobs, jobs. In December, the House passed a jobs package, the Jobs for Main Street Act that would make $156 billion in targeted investments in our economy. The projects supported by this bill will improve our highways and transit infrastructure, renovate schools, and help small businesses rebuild, support job training initiatives, and affordable housing programs.

While the jobs package we are considering today is not as broad as the version passed by this House, it is an important step in the right direction and one we cannot afford not to enact. Today's bill is one that I hope will be the first of a series of job creation proposals that we will consider in the coming weeks and months because the reality is that the unemployment rate in this country is at an unacceptable level of 9.7 percent, and this bill will help incentivize employers to start hiring immediately. Already the Recovery Act, put forth by congressional Democrats, has saved or created more than 2 million jobs. That is according to CBO. The Recovery Act has clearly helped us rebound from this recession and saved us from the brink of another Great Depression.

The Recovery Act has greatly benefited my district and the entire Sacramento region, providing almost $700 million for dozens of projects. Such projects include $21 million for improving and enhancing Sacramento's levees from flood protection, public transportation facilities, developing clean energy technology, and hiring 30 new officers at the Sacramento Police Department. It is also helping struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure, investing in new community health facilities, and the list does go on and on and on. My constituents can see where and how every dollar is being spent in our district by visiting my Web site.

One of the most important results of the Recovery Act is that it helps school districts minimize budget cuts. However, as the economy declines, school districts are now considering shorter school years, larger class sizes, and looking to lay off teachers. We cannot let this happen. So our path towards economic recovery must continue to invest in our Nation's workforce to spur additional job creation, innovation and long-term economic growth. And by supporting the rule and the underlying bill, we will do just that.

I have heard from small business owners who are eager to be connected to business counseling and resources, to learn more about financing opportunities, SBA loan products, and government contracting opportunities. There is a great demand for immediate and real assistance for our small businesses to get back on their feet and for workers to get back into the labor market. Over the last few months, I have held two small business workshops to help existing small business owners understand the recovery legislation, obtain financing, and find new opportunities for government programs. And I have seen firsthand how eager people are to start working again or get retrained in new fields and to take an active part in our country's economic recovery.

The proposal before us today offers a key strategic tax incentive for employers to hire new workers. The proposal would exempt employers from paying Social Security taxes through the end of this year for hiring new workers who have been out of work for at least 60 days. If the newly hired workers remain on the payroll for at least a year, the bill provides an additional $1,000 income tax credit to employers. This new hiring tax credit could spur as many as 250,000 jobs, according to leading economists. To help small businesses, the proposal offers an immediate writeoff, up to $250,000 for equipment purchased this year. To invest in additional transportation infrastructure, the proposal extends the Highway Trust Fund, otherwise known as SAFETEA-LU, for 15 months to pay for transportation projects ready to break ground.

Using the rule of thumb in highway contracting where every $1 billion in transportation spending creates about 35,000 jobs, this $77 billion investment means that more than 2 million jobs will be retained or created, including high-quality jobs in the construction and building trades.

Finally, the bill expands the Build America Bonds Program to allow investors to claim Federal subsidies up to 45 percent of the borrowing cost for bonds issued for public works projects.

There is no doubt that this package will incentivize and spur much- needed job creation and economic growth in our neighborhoods and communities. And to my colleagues, concerned, as I am, that this bill does not go far enough to create jobs, I want to be clear that this is the first in a series of steps we will be taking to continue to get the economy back on track.

Together with the continued economic assistance of the Recovery Act, we are laying the groundwork for continued job creation and future economic growth to lead us to our prosperity.

It is my hope that this Congress continues to find new ways to get Americans back to work, stabilize our economy, and help rebuild our middle class. This is not the end of our work, but it is a critical step forward for the American people. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to say this job creation package has been discussed in the headlines and the Halls of Congress for weeks now. In addition, the pay-fors that are proposed here have been debated numerous times in the House previously. There are no surprises here.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I just received this amendment as well this morning. It is fairly short, 15 pages, double-spaced. I read it, and it took less than 10 minutes for me to see that the amendment was fully paid for.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I want to say that the motion to concur with the amendment that is made in order under this rule is a very simple one that will bring the bill into compliance with statutory pay-as-you-go rules. It changes very little, as Mr. Oberstar says, with the underlying bill which was intended to create jobs and spur hiring by America's small businesses. Delaying this package of job-creation measures today would delay our ability to get Americans back to work. Time is not on our side, which is why we have to act quickly here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I just want to point out my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are quite concerned that we are using same-day authority before the end of a session. In the 109th Congress, when the Republicans were in the majority, the Rules Committee reported two same-day rules in March and early April. These were hardly end-of-the-session times, Madam Speaker, and they had nothing to do with reviving our economy. These particular same-day rules were about the Federal Government interfering in a case of Terri Schiavo. Now, without reopening that divisive debate, I just want to say that the issues we are dealing with today under this same- day rule are important to the lives of millions of Americans.

With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I just want to say, while this bill distributes some highway funds in a way that disproportionately benefits a handful of States, it's important to remind my colleagues that these concerns will be addressed in subsequent legislation.

With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I want to say this again, that I believe it's important to note that the chairman of the authorizing committee has reached an agreement with the House and Senate leadership on the contentious highway funding issue that was included in the other Chamber's jobs package.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he has any remaining speakers.

I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, calling up and passing rules using same-day authority is a legitimate legislative tool, with precedent. In the 109th Congress, when the Republicans had the majority, when they passed the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, same-day authority was used to bring it before the House. During debate on that rule, the then chairman of the Rules Committee called it ``a very fair rule.'' That was followed by Mr. Dreier's assertion that ``Members have had a great deal of time over the past several weeks and months to focus on this issue. Let us continue what we have done throughout this great 109th Congress--get the work of the American people done.''

Madam Speaker, getting the work of the American people done is exactly what we aim to do today by passing the jobs bill under an expedited procedure. Creating jobs must be our top priority, until we get our economy completely back on track and put more Americans back to work.

The legislation we are considering today had bipartisan support in the Senate, with 13 Senate Republicans voting for this much-needed jobs package. That bill was not even paid for. Well, the House version is and has full PAYGO language included.

The jobs package includes key provisions to spur job creation and investment in our workforce. It includes a new jobs payroll extension, offering employers exemption from paying Social Security payroll taxes for hiring new workers who were previously unemployed. This specific provision is estimated to create an additional 250,000 jobs alone. The bill also provides relief to small businesses by allowing them to write off more of the costs of their 2010 expenditures.

The package extends the Highway Trust Fund for 15 months for existing highway programs to allow for billions to be invested in infrastructure projects and make a real difference in communities across our country.

The bill also expands the Build America bonds to allow States and local governments to borrow at lower costs to finance infrastructure projects and put more Americans to work.

Together with the ongoing investment by the Recovery Act, this jobs package will further incentivize and spur job creation and economic growth in this country. This Congress must continue to invest wisely in proposals that will train our workers, create new, good-paying jobs, grow our economy, and rebuild the middle class.

Madam Speaker, we must lead by example and demonstrate our continued commitment to help our middle class families, our seniors, and the economy move forward. With that in mind, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time.

Madam Speaker, the Republicans in this body are in a quandary again today because of the way this bill was brought to the floor, and I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Culberson) to ask some questions.

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman--and I am extending my words to him at this time. I do appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Oberstar, for being available to come down to the floor, but that is not the process. The process is the gentleman should have been upstairs at the Rules Committee. There was not one person available on behalf of the majority to come up to the Rules Committee to explain the bill. An explanation of, ``Well, none of this is new,'' is an inadequate explanation to the American people and to this body, and the Speaker should be embarrassed. This is not open. This is not, I believe, ethical, because the decisions were made and there was no discussion.

I believe we are calling into question, Republicans are calling into question today about how this House is being run. And I do appreciate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and, in fact, I admire him a lot. Despite its being only perhaps 15 or 18 pages, that is an inadequate explanation. This House should not stand for it. The Members of this body should say we will not tolerate this. And I am deeply disappointed once again.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time he may consume to the ranking member, the gentleman from San Dimas, California.

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman said it best about this bill: Nobody even really knows what's in it. There was no general discussion. There was no one made available to come to the Rules Committee to answer questions. There were no committee hearings on this. This isn't the way to run this House, and it's not just Republicans that are down saying this. It's Members of the majority party also. It is this kind of unthoughtful and unprofessional conduct that is being put off on this body to where Members don't even know what's in the bill, have not had the time. And once again, Republicans are down saying it's not open, it's not honest, and certainly not ethical.

I would like to yield 3 minutes at this time to the favorite son of Winterpark, Florida (Mr. Mica).

Madam Speaker, there is an answer to the gentlewoman from Texas, which is to vote against this rule. Vote against this rule. Then become a part of the process for the things which you would hope, would expect, and would want to be in the bill so at least your feedback can be accepted.

We've been told now that the Senate is the problem, but the problem is this House, Madam Speaker. The problem is the way we are doing things. The gentleman Mr. Oberstar said, Yes, we've been waiting for months to get this from the Senate. We took 2\1/2\ minutes upstairs this morning--not one hearing, not one person who represented the Democratic Party who would explain what is in this bill. Now we are down on the floor, trying to figure out what is in the bill, getting it just hours ago. This is a flawed process.

Madam Speaker, hearkening back to February 5, 2009, over a year ago, in the CQ article, `` `Regular Order' Will Prevail in House After Stimulus Is Complete, Pelosi says,'' the article reads, ``Speaking at House Democrats' annual policy conference, Pelosi said in her opening speech, `Of course we will go forward under regular order. We now have a large majority and a President who will sign legislation.' ''

It's not happening. It's not happening again today. It did not happen even after February 5, 2009. We should be embarrassed, but as the old saying goes, beatings will continue until morale improves.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Bainbridge Township, Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, you know, we have heard all this before, and it is not working. The bottom line is what this Democratic leadership and this Democratic President are proposing is not working, and that is why we are back at the well, so to speak, again.

Over and over and over again we have a bunch of people that want to claim, ``Oh, we know how to get this done. Look at what President Clinton did.'' That was a Republican House of Representatives. Those were free market ideas. That was encouraging this country to be competitive. That was doing things that would encourage America and American business to go hire people.

The three largest political items of Speaker Pelosi and President Barack Obama have lost this country 10 million net jobs. No wonder American business is not hiring people. They are getting things jammed down their throat.

The President of the United States when he was a candidate talked about all the great things that could be accomplished, and since the President has been in the White House, he has done nothing but call people names, pick on them, belittle them, bully them, and then turns around and wonders why we have no jobs, why his agenda is not working. It is obvious why it is not working, because it is not made to work. It is made to bully the free enterprise system.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlewoman for asking. I appear to have one additional speaker plus myself.

Madam Speaker, if I could inquire of the time that remains on both sides, please.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate that this House of Representatives is made up of 435 Members who take time every week to come here to Washington. Perhaps they live here, but they still come to work, I believe, with a sense of obligation and duty, all 435 of us, to be fully participatory and to be a part of a moving body and a process that should work for the American people.

We are now in our fourth year of leadership that denies the American people and the Members of this body an opportunity, I believe, to even participate; not just fully participate, but to participate.

This bill that is on the floor again today is an example of a process that is very deceptive, because our friends, the Speaker and the Democratic leadership, talk about being open and honest, and yet the bill is here today with just hours' notice, with no one up in the Rules Committee on behalf of the Democrat leadership even explaining what is in the bill. I believe, again, the American people will reject this kind of leadership when the American people want to be engaged and Members of Congress want to be engaged.

So, today, Republicans are going to ask that we reject this, and we should reject this, because we know that Republicans have better ideas.

At this time I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, the Republican leader (Mr. Boehner).

Madam Speaker, I believe that our Republican leader, John Boehner, has said it very clearly, and that is that the way we are operating is not in the best interests of this House, the institution, or the Members.

We have heard lots of colleagues on the other side cut down and argue about this isn't even a job bill because it is not even going to create jobs and how inefficient it is. But until this Democratic leadership agrees that they want to be open, that they want to be honest about what is in the bill, and that they want to be ethical about how decisions are made, Republicans are going to keep coming down to this floor.

Many times I have argued openly in front of our Rules Committee chairman, Louise Slaughter, and said, Please know that the Republican Party wants to be better at our job, not as loyal opposition, but as an alternative party, and you do not even allow us an opportunity to know what is in the bills.

It is ridiculous. We find ourselves in the role of asking questions, making statements, and doing things that, to the American people, look awkward and, quite honestly, unprofessional.

I lay at the feet of the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leadership and my great Rules Committee chairman, Louise Slaughter, once again a request: If you want this body to have a chance to not look unprofessional and perhaps stupid, like we don't know what we are doing, and to gain back some trust of the American people, you have got to open up the process to where we as Members of Congress are able to come down with an educated opportunity to understand what is in the bill, to engage our colleagues on a professional basis, and to be able to thoughtfully talk about the content of the bill.

This is an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment that after we heard a year ago that we will start going through regular order now, we are still not doing that, that Members of Congress cannot even see the bill hours before they read it, nor do we know the content because nobody came to explain it.

It is wholly inadequate to people who are back home, Madam Speaker, to expect their Member of Congress, who comes up here 40 weeks a year to represent people, to be told we don't even know what is in the bill.

I encourage a ``no'' vote. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this rule. I will say once again to my friends that are Democrats, if you want to read the bill, if

you want to open up the process, your vote is the one that will make it happen. Don't blame that on somebody else. I have said it over the years. If you want to read the bill, then vote ``no'' on the rule. If you are perfectly happy with the process that is happening, go ahead and support this rule. But don't go back home and tell people, well, you know, I really didn't have a chance. That is a bad thing. Their vote matters on this floor.

Madam Speaker, every single one of us is issued a voting card that should be controlled by the Member, not by somebody else. Today, the Republican Party is coming down once again on this floor and saying directly to the American people and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, We are not happy. The process is flawed. And we are going to hold accountable every Member that votes for this rule today, just like we are for the others.

So if you bring what we consider to be a less than stellar bill to the floor and the process is part of that participation and you shut it out, you can expect to hear the same from the Republican Party. We want to be a part of this process, the American people do, and I even heard today your own Members again.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Madam Speaker, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. That seems to be the Democrats' creed and motto.

There wouldn't be any need for today's bill if the failed trillion- dollar stimulus package last year actually worked. A year ago the Democrats promised the American people their so-called stimulus would keep unemployment at 8 percent, but a year later we are near 10 percent.

Put simply, you cannot create jobs by dumping a trillion dollars into Federal agencies. The administration claims that $1.5 billion in stimulus moneys saved or created 1,664 jobs in California's San Joaquin Valley where I live. Even if one charitably assumes the accuracy of these numbers, the Federal Government has spent a whopping $900,000 to save or create one job in the San Joaquin Valley. Despite spending $900,000 per job, there are still communities in the valley that suffer from 20 to 40 percent unemployment. In fact, in the wake of the stimulus, we saw 3 million additional Americans lose their jobs rather than the 3.7 million jobs that are now being promised by the Obama administration. Sadly, a record 16 million Americans are now unemployed because the stimulus promises were empty and unaffordable.

Is it any wonder why the American people continue to ask, Where are the jobs?

It appears that the stimulus was not very stimulating outside of Washington. So here we are back again with yet another multibillion- dollar plan slapped together by the Democrats that will probably, once again, fail.

Madam Speaker, the Soviet Union experience, sadly, taught us that just because you're going to grow 1 billion bushels of potatoes does not mean that there will be potatoes on the shelves. Similarly, just because the Democrats have chosen to message this as a ``jobs'' bill does not mean that it will actually create a job.

The centerpiece of the Democrats' new bill is a payroll tax exemption, a hiring credit for employers to bring on new workers. While I give the Democrats credit for acknowledging that tax cuts are preferable to spending increases, the sad reality is that this is a political charade and it won't work. How do we know? Because the same idea didn't work when Jimmy Carter tried it in the late 1970s.

Numerous studies by noted economists from all across the political spectrum have confirmed that these temporary hiring incentives will have little, if any, positive effect on jobs. It is beyond ridiculous to claim that you can have a meaningful impact upon a $14 trillion economy by spending $13 billion on gimmick tax cuts. Let's think about it: If you're an employer, are you really going to hire someone for a permanent position because you get a modest, temporary tax incentive?

We could have improved this bill had the Ways and Means Committee actually held a hearing and a markup, but once again we see significant tax legislation taken directly to the floor without a committee hearing, without a committee markup, and without an opportunity to even offer amendments.

I understand that there was a change in the chairmanship on the Ways and Means Committee yesterday, but, in fact, this bill on the floor today proves that it's a political sham. It is far from serious to enact sound policy to improve our economy when you can't even decide who the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is going to be.

You don't have to read Adam Smith to know that markets cannot thrive

with uncertainty. What employers really need from Washington is the assurance that the Democrats' massive Big Government tax-and-spend agenda isn't going to drive them out of business.

Employers face uncertainty about the Democrats' massive takeover of the health care system, about the new $1 trillion cap-and-trade energy tax. They face uncertainty with environmental regulations like those that have driven 84 saw mills from California since 1989, and they face uncertainty about the largest tax increase in American history that will be enacted this year.

Madam Speaker, employers don't need more Federal spending to create good private sector jobs; they already know how to create good jobs if Washington would just get out of the way.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, my good friend (Mr. Lewis).

(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I just want to clarify, I heard the other side of the aisle say that this bill was going to create 1 million jobs. We are going to spend $13 billion to create 1 million jobs. The $1 trillion stimulus bill last year was promised to create 3.7 million jobs. At some point, I would like to--

Yes, I would like to yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Reclaiming my time, actually, Mr. Blumenauer, my good friend, spoke about the jobs. Earlier, I had heard another gentleman on the other side of the aisle speak about 1 million jobs. I'm just trying to figure out the math. This is about a $13 billion to $15 billion bill to create 1 million or hundreds of thousands of jobs. Last year we spent $1 trillion to create 3.7 million jobs, and we lost 3 million jobs.

Yes, of course.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would like to remind my colleagues here in this House that last year there was a provision offered that didn't cost $1 trillion, didn't cost $1 billion, didn't cost $1 million, didn't cost $1, and that was a provision to let water flow to my constituents in the San Joaquin Valley of California so people could go back to work. But, instead, nearly every Democrat Member from California in this Congress opposed that amendment. So last summer we had tens of thousands of farmers and farmworkers standing in food lines in the most productive ag land in the United States or in the world.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

A zero cost provision could not go into this bill, and now we have farmworkers eating carrots imported from China. So, all this talk about jobs, it is all phony. The American people have had enough of this nonsense.

I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I would like to yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I still have yet to have someone explain to me from the other side of the aisle how the trillion-dollar stimulus bill passed last year that was supposed to create 3.7 million jobs--instead, we lost 3 million--and how this bill that spends $13-or-so billion-- still a lot money, but not nearly a trillion dollars--is going to create a million jobs, as they continue to repeat on that side of the aisle. I would like for someone to answer the question.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield myself 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, simple math: If you're going to spend $13 billion to create a million jobs, then why don't we just spend another $200 billion and we create 16 million jobs, and everybody would have a job.

I'd like to yield 2 minutes to my friend to clarify an earlier point, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Madam Speaker, if there are no additional speakers, I'm prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, during this entire debate today, as the gentleman from Ohio said, this is just a sham. And to sit here and complain about the Senate and procedural things, I mean, we ought to do another Shamwow Summit at the White House. Maybe that would clarify and fix the problems.

We're not Senators. We don't control the Senate. I don't understand the math that you guys use. No one has answered it yet. You guys spent a trillion dollars last year, said you were going to create 3.7 million jobs, but you lost 3 million jobs. Now you say you're going to spend $15 billion and now you're going to create a million jobs. So let's go over some math just so we can clarify things, because I know we're going to continue to hear that Republicans are obstructionists, Republicans have no plans. So let me just go over some math that perhaps folks will understand.

The Democrats have 250-some-odd votes in this House. It only takes 218 votes to pass a bill. In the U.S. Senate you still have almost a supermajority with 59 votes. So what is the problem? Quit calling Republicans obstructionists. You have the White House, you have the Senate, you have the House of Representatives. No more Shamwow Summits, Madam Speaker. Let's get back to work. Vote ``no'' on this bill. This is a scam.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1137, I call up the bill (H.R. 2847) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 2847, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act. The HIRE Act is about our three most important priorities in this Congress: jobs, jobs, and jobs. The HIRE Act builds on legislation that the Senate passed last week, including direct hiring tax incentives for business, support for Recovery Act bond incentives that put local dollars to work creating jobs all across this country, and transportation funding that improves our communities, builds infrastructure, and supports local businesses. All told, more than 1 million jobs will be created by this legislation.

This bill really is help for small businesses on Main Street and millions of Americans who are ready to see the benefits of a growing economy. Across this great country, our economy is showing signs of recovery. But consumers need more confidence, and employers need incentives to hire workers. Today, we give business direct incentives to hire new workers. I am pleased that the HIRE Act accomplishes this in a responsible manner.

Not only does it fully pay for all of the important investments in job creation, but it actually contributes to reduce our deficit by nearly $1 billion. Let me repeat that again, reduce the deficit by $1 billion. The bill is a good step to rebuild our job market, but we still have a ways to go. I expect that this will just be a downpayment on our continuing work to create jobs and restore our economy.

This bill includes, as you have already heard, about $77.15 billion of investment in surface transportation projects. It also reauthorizes Federal highway public transit initiatives and highway safety funding that is needed all across America. When extensions were blocked last week in the Senate, transportation projects across this country were held up and almost 2,000 employees were furloughed. Today, we are going to take action not only to make sure that doesn't happen again, but that we create jobs by investing in local priorities across this country, not only transportation projects that need to be moving in our communities, building on infrastructure and providing jobs for America, but also the HIRE Act that creates tax credits for local businesses.

Representative Steve Kagen and myself introduced a bill back in January for tax credits to hire new employees. This bill builds on that. It is a little different than what we had, but it makes a difference. Despite some economic growth in recent months, the unemployment rate around the country remains high. Too many Americans are unemployed. In my State, it is above the national average, almost 11.2 percent. Just this past week, I visited an employment office where people were saying all we need is a hand up, not a handout; give us an opportunity to go to work.

In addition to that, we are providing funds for making sure that our qualified school construction bonds in the Recovery Act that we passed last year will work. This bill really is about jobs. I can say to you when we are talking about jobs, we are talking about education. I happen to believe education is the one thing that levels the playing field for everyone. Today we are going to have the opportunity to put our stamp on and vote for a piece of legislation that will provide good places for teachers to teach and children to learn.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that I was a small businessman in the 1970s when this tax credit was in before. Not only did we use it and create jobs; we had tremendous growth in this country.

I talked to two chambers of commerce in the last month. They are tickled to death that somebody is willing to help them instead of doing the very thing the Senate did last week and hold everything up. It's time we moved on and got something done.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman, Mr. Oberstar, who knows something about infrastructure.

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield another 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the acting chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his willingness to help, but the rule does not provide for that.

It is your time.

No. The rule does not provide for it.

What was the gentleman's request?

The gentleman is doing the same thing that happened in the other body. We are just trying to slow down a piece of legislation that needs to move to get to the President's desk so it can be signed so we can help the American people.

The rules do not provide for that. You would need a unanimous consent request to do that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to remind the gentleman that how we got here was the American people lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $15-plus trillion in value of their homes and assets over the 18 months through July of last year until we passed something and started to turn it around. Since then, they've gained about $5 trillion back in, but we've got a ways to go.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, today we have an opportunity to start the process of putting people back to work, and I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this piece of legislation. The

piece that some of my colleagues on the other side have complained about on the tax credits for small businesses will be used to put people to work. And I would remind them that there were nine Republican Senators on the other side who joined as cosponsors in this piece of legislation. So it was bipartisan on the Senate side.

The HIRE Act really does four key things. Let me remind my colleagues, in closing: First, it will give direct tax incentives to businesses to hire new workers with provisions similar to the bill that I introduced earlier this year. It also restores full value of direct payment options for certain tax credit bond programs, including a program that has been supported in previous Congresses.

Let me speak on that for just a minute because it goes to the heart of the problem we're about. If we really believe and say we're for children, if we really say we're for jobs, there are $22 billion worth of zero interest school bonds, tax exempt bonds, in this bill. And this bill fixes the problem so they can go directly to Treasury and get the credit. Those job bonds can be sold and we can put people to work across this country building schools and other infrastructure. That's in addition to the highway dollars we've just been talking about.

Finally, Madam Speaker, it would give a small business tax incentive to buy new equipment and to grow. That is an important piece. If we truly believe we are for small businesses, today is the day we get a chance to put a vote on the board: Are we for them or are we against them? They can tell very quickly because this bill will go to the Senate, and then it's going to the President of the United States for signing.

Finally, it would give our State and local governments greater certainty on funding for highway projects that we just heard about. I have long believed that if we invest in schools now, it will save money in the long term and make our economy stronger and make a difference in the future. I served for 8 years as State superintendent of the schools in my home State. I coauthored the provision that we're talking about here. We can now fix that problem.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this piece of legislation for jobs for the American people, schools for our children, and a chance to help heal and help those who do not now have work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I have spoken many times on this floor about my great admiration for the chairman of the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Oberstar, and he knows that this bill isn't fair. He knows that this bill isn't fair, because he produced a chart last week that has 50 States, plus the District of Columbia, so it is 51, and 22 States get nothing under this bill and four States walk away with 58 percent.

Not surprisingly, I heard the Speaker likes the bill. California gets 30 percent of the highway funding under this bill. Any Member who is interested is more than free to come peruse this at their leisure.

Now, I give Chairman Oberstar great credit, because he wasn't happy with this, I believe last week, and he fought with his leadership, and he has produced today a letter from Senator Reid saying he is going to fix it sometime in the future.

Now, two things: That is the second big lie, the check is in the mail. The other thing is I hope the majority understands that a letter from Senator Reid just didn't fill us on this side of the aisle with warmth and fuzzy feelings. If you want to fix the problem, fix the problem. And the problem is not fixed.

This is not a jobs bill. I also admire the Speaker of the House, but I admire her more today because she did not break into laughter when calling this a jobs bill. This is no jobs bill. This is a faux jobs bill. This is a snow jobs bill. And I look forward to the unemployment statistics tomorrow, because I believe that we are going to look at about 100,000 Americans will have lost their jobs in the last month, despite all these great successes.

Continuing with my admiration for Chairman Oberstar, my favorite part of the speech that he gives on the stimulus package is all of those jobs which he created through the infrastructure spending in the stimulus are 8 percent of the funding. So that means, I have to figure out the math, Mr. Oberstar, but that means in an $800 billion bill, half the jobs were created by 8 percent of the funding, and that is thanks to you and the work that you and your colleagues do on the committee. So I guess the other half were created by about $750 billion. That is a strange, strange, strange investment.

I would be happy to yield.

Oh, my pleasure, and my appreciation of you grows every day. But I will tell you what; if you can crack the code of the Senate, Republican or Democrat, then you deserve much more money than you are making as the chairman of the full committee, because they are a strange bunch. It doesn't matter who is in charge; they don't seem to do anything.

Now, I want to get to the process now, because the President down at this health care summit down at Blair House said nobody cares about process.

But I have got to tell you, I have never seen this. This is my 16th year in the United States Congress. When Mr. Etheridge made his motion, it says, ``Mr. Etheridge moves that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment with an amendment.''

I appreciate it.

I said, boy, that is really a procedural mouthful. And you know what it means? It is a procedural way to screw the minority, the Republican Party in this House. Not only can't we amend your bill, not only did we get it at 9:30 this morning, we can't offer a motion to recommit. You know what the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, would be saying if we pulled that on him when we take the majority back next year? He would be screaming bloody murder, and he would be right.

Madam Speaker, as a result of that, I would like to offer an amendment to this bill.

Then I will ask the gentleman from North Carolina to yield to me to offer an amendment to the bill. And so that the gentleman doesn't think that I am sandbagging him, let me tell you what it is going to be.

I would move to amend this bill to transfer the $13 billion in this sham tax credit, that is not going to create one job and is really the dumbest idea I ever heard, to infrastructure spending.

I would further have it in that amendment that the infrastructure spending, now at $14 billion, be distributed pursuant to the House proposal that Mr. Oberstar has proposed, which means every State in the Union benefits, not just California, not just States that are walking away with a bunch of money.

Will the gentleman from North Carolina yield to me for the purpose of offering an amendment?

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Etheridge, we are going to give it another shot, because we are not going to be able to hide behind ``the rule doesn't offer it.'' I said that. The rule doesn't provide for an amendment. The rule doesn't even provide for a motion to recommit, the only tool in the minority's toolbox.

Mr. Etheridge, I ask unanimous consent--well, first of all, I guess you need to yield to me for a unanimous consent request. Would you yield to me for a unanimous consent request?

Do I have to ask him to yield to me, or do I yield to him to yield to me?

Mr. Etheridge, I am asking you to yield to me so I can make a unanimous consent request that you can deny.

No, I am asking you, sir, to yield to me.

Well, that is nonsense, first of all, because the Speaker has just indicated that if you would yield to me, I could make my unanimous consent request.

Well, I am going to tell you what, Mr. Etheridge. If you would yield to me, which apparently you can under the rules but don't want to because you think the rule says so, which it clearly doesn't, here is the deal. I want to make a unanimous consent request that the $13 billion in this worthless tax credit be transferred to infrastructure spending; further, that that additional $13 billion be distributed pursuant to the House plan, as opposed to the Senate plan, the Senate plan rewarding only four States with 58 percent of money, 22 States getting zero.

Now, Mr. Etheridge, I am asking you to yield to me for that purpose.

I am asking you to yield to me for the aforementioned unanimous consent request.

So that is a no. Is that a no? I still have the time, Mr. Etheridge. Is that a no?

Do you know what that is? That is a soup sandwich answer, because the Speaker has just said you could do it.

Will the gentleman yield?

I promise not to try to amend the bill or anything else. It's just sad that the distinguished chairman of the Surface Transportation Committee wouldn't yield to me, but it doesn't surprise me. He likes this bill. Oregon gets $40 million under the bill, of the $1 billion, and only $11 million under Mr. Oberstar's proposal.

Are you going to give me a 7 percent thing or are you going to say that's not true? I'll yield to you if you don't think it's true.

That's what I'm talking about.

Well, here's the skinny: That depends upon Harry Reid's putting a letter in the mail, sending it over to the chairman and the Speaker, and having another bill. Now, no disrespect to your majority, but you haven't done such a great job in passing bills since you guys took over 4 years ago. So waiting for another bill to come-- and, quite frankly, trying not to be partisan about this, but this mess was created by George Bush and it is perpetuated by President Obama because his Transportation Secretary says they don't want to deal with the 6-year bill until March of 2011. Thirty percent of the construction trade in this country is out of work. Why wouldn't you do this?

To my distinguished friend from Oregon, all I was asking was for his State to do better. Transfer the $13 billion from this worthless tax credit and put it into infrastructure. Put these guys to work. Actually build something. Again, going back to Mr. Oberstar's wonderful speech that he always gives: a million jobs with only 8 percent of that $800 billion. Wouldn't it be great if we could give Jim Oberstar $14 billion to create jobs for America rather than coming up with this goofy tax credit that says if you hire somebody for $30,000, we're going to waive the payroll tax for November and December. Guess what? You can save $1,500 if you just give somebody a $30,000 job. It's nuts. This bill is wrong. That's what I was talking about.