Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5893) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create jobs through increased investment in infrastructure, to eliminate loopholes which encourage companies to move operations offshore, and for other purposes.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding time, and I appreciate very much and accept his comments, in particular about how we are concerned personally for each other's children and each other's family. I believe that is absolutely true. And I appreciate the comments that the gentleman made yesterday in Rules in that respect, and also here.

Madam Speaker, Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines outrageous as ``going beyond all standards of what is right or decent,'' ``deficient in propriety or good taste.''

The outrageous rule before us today represents a sickening embarrassment for this institution that the American people have charged with the responsibility to provide effective solutions to their real problems.

Unfortunately, the ruling liberal Democrat majority has taken this opportunity to devise a cynical plot to ram through this misguided, partisan legislation which has had no committee consideration, no CBO cost estimate, and was sprung on the minority party only 90 minutes before its consideration in the Rules Committee yesterday. Despite these atrocities, the ruling liberal Democrats couldn't bring themselves to allow for any amendments, choosing instead to present us with this closed rule containing same-day ``martial-law'' authority through Sunday.

Although we've grown accustomed to this type of process under the reign of the current liberal Democrat majority, their arrogance and contempt for institutional integrity never ceases to shock and amaze us.

This is a far cry from 2006 when then-minority leader Nancy Pelosi promised regular order for legislation in her ``New Direction for America.''

At that time she pledged that bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and committee mark ups with appropriate referrals to other committees.

Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at the subcommittee level. Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.

The third point she made, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.''

``Should,'' I guess, is the operative word here, Madam Speaker. Speaker Pelosi could say she didn't promise, she just said ``should.'' How times have changed. With hypocrisy like this, it's no wonder the American people are shaking their heads watching the shenanigans of this most leftist, liberal, elitist, arrogant, and out of touch Democrat regime in the history of our great Nation.

The liberals will undoubtedly excuse their shameful actions today by blaming George Bush, as they always do, and relate their actions to certain instances under Republican congressional leadership, but it makes no sense to criticize in one breath and emulate in another what they identify as the sins of the past.

My friend across the aisle talked about tax cuts and how Republicans love tax cuts but don't want investments. I want to point out to my colleague that in the 2001 tax cuts which

were passed, there were many Democrats who voted for those tax cuts, both on the House and Senate side. The same thing with the 2003 tax cuts. Democrats supported those. And we were very grateful for that. In the final consideration of the Iraq war authorization, many Democrats supported that also. So we do have revisionist history, Mr. Speaker. And I would like to insert into the Record the record of the votes on those various items.

Let's be clear about what this bill does, Mr. Speaker. We are spending more of taxpayers' money on plans that will kill private- sector jobs. We know we have the largest deficit in history, and we need to stop this spending. Let me say to you again, there are four parts to this bill. Let me mention what they are in terms the American people can understand.

Number one, it provides for up to $5 billion for the Welfare Emergency Fund, doubling a new welfare program that Democrats created in the 2009 stimulus. The bill has $31.8 billion in revenue increases that will hurt an already weakened economy and could threaten our international competitiveness. The bill spends $25.6 billion on State infrastructure programs while abandoning small businesses, and will not create the private-sector jobs that we need. Also, we know that this bill wouldn't be needed at all if the stimulus that our friends tout so much had not been the huge failure that it has been and had actually worked.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject this bill so we can begin to restore a semblance of sanity in this noble institution.

Initial Consideration of 2001 Tax Cuts H.R. 1836, 107th Congress

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA)--P.L. 107-

16, (16 May 2001)

Question: On Passage: Yea-and-Nay.

Bill title: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation

Act.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeas Nays Pres NV ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Republican.......................... 216 ....... ....... 4 Democratic.......................... 13 196 ....... 1 Independent......................... 1 ....... ....... .......

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, you know, every time our colleagues come here and talk about the horrible unemployment in their districts, they condemn themselves. They condemn their own policies and the policies of their President because they promised, when President Obama came to office and pushed through the stimulus package, that unemployment would never go above 8 percent. It's been a failure. Everything they've done has been a failure, Mr. Speaker. But they keep trying.

Again, I want to say Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. That's what our colleagues across the aisle keep doing, the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

This bill is not going to create private sector jobs. It is only going to put us deeper in debt and cause us to lose more jobs.

My colleague from Texas also mentioned the loopholes, that this bill is going to close loopholes. Well, that is convenient language for our colleagues across the aisle. It's doublespeak. And language means something.

When our colleagues across the aisle talk about a loophole, they're saying this is something that gives us an excuse to raise taxes. The loopholes that they talk about are legal entities in our tax structure that probably most of them voted for.

But when it's convenient for them, they call it a loophole, and let me say also that my colleague from California was absolutely right. The staff from the Ways and Means Committee says this bill is definitely not the same as bills we've seen before. There are items in here that have not been in any other legislation in this session.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the rule before us, we might wonder what mystical legislation would prompt the ruling liberal Democrat regime to resort to such authoritarian tactics being proposed by this rule. Unfortunately, the answer isn't anything American job seekers want to hear but, rather, a rehash of the tired, old, failed destructive policies of this regime who are apparently scared to death that the American people are seeing through their partisan schemes.

While this bill does contain some Federal taxpayer funds to bailout States for infrastructure, they are coupled with tax increases that will be added to the unconscionable liberal tax policy that will bleed the American economy of desperately needed private sector jobs.

Not only does the bill write a blank check by authorizing such sums as necessary--and let me point out to the American people, ``such sums'' means a blank check. It means they can spend as much as they want to. Here we have the largest deficit in our history, and yet, they're writing another blank check to bureaucrats. But one of the most telling provisions in the bill simply assigns a more politically palatable title to an expensive Federal welfare fund. Indeed, title II, section 201(a)(1) of the bill changes the name of the Emergency Contingency Fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Family Programs to the Emergency Fund for Job Creation and Assistance. And again, for those not versed in Washington double-speak, State Temporary Assistance For Needy Families Programs is Washington double-speak for welfare money. This was a welfare bill, part of it was, and it continues to be one, no matter the title.

Apparently our liberal friends on the other side of the aisle are so motivated to create another permanent Federal welfare benefit they simply cannot tolerate the word ``temporary'' being in the title of their beloved welfare fund. The new title also highlights the misnomer of suggesting that increasing unemployment benefits will increase employment or, as Speaker Pelosi recently put it, growing unemployment benefits ``creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.''

Renowned economist Arthur Laffer wrote in the July 8, 2010, Wall Street Journal that: ``The Democratic argument also ignores the impact of unemployment benefits on employer costs. Employers don't usually hire people to assuage their consciences. They hire people to make after-tax profits. And if workers require more pay because of higher unemployment benefits, employers will hire fewer employees.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to redistribute wealth. That is what our colleagues across the aisle are so good at doing. And again, as Mr. Laffer pointed out, ``The government doesn't create resources.'' There's always a zero sum game. There's no stimulus given from unemployment benefits.

``To see these effects clearly, imagine a two person economy in which one of the two people is paid for being unemployed. From whom do you think the unemployment benefits are taken? The other person obviously. While the one person who is unemployed may `buy' more as a result of unemployment benefits, the other person from whom the unemployment benefits are taken will `buy' less. There is no stimulus for the economy.''

If unending expansion of Federal welfare benefits is the liberal plan for creating private sector jobs, I'm frightened to imagine what success looks like to them. It's my hope that this Election Day, or ideally before, that the ruling liberal Democrats learn the lesson that, ``When you're in a hole, stop digging.''

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to say The Washington Times had it right on March 3, 2010. Every bill that comes before the House these days is called a jobs bill. The title was, ``Lawmakers cry `jobs' to push through bills.'' That's what we see happening over and over and over and over again by our colleagues. Again, they can't stand to say that they're increasing welfare in this country. They're trying to say this is creating jobs. It's not going to create jobs, Mr. Speaker.

We can start today, though, by rejecting this rule, rejecting the underlying bill and doing something about real jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert The Washington Times article into the Record.

[From The Washington Times, Mar. 3, 2010]

Lawmakers Cry ``Jobs'' to Push Through Bills

(By Stephen Dinan)

It was a modest measure to designate several thousand

beachfront acres of St. Croix as a National Historic Site,

but in the hands of a skilled congressman such as Rep. Nick

J. Rahall II, it became yet another jobs bill.

Likewise the Travel Promotion Act, which would create a

nonprofit group to push U.S. tourism, has been billed as a

job-producing machine by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,

Nevada Democrat.

It doesn't stop there--backers last week unveiled a

bipartisan bill to create a visa category for entrepreneurs,

predicting it ``will create jobs in America.''

From immigration to clean energy to expanding the social

safety net, there's no better way to grease the skids for new

government programs in Washington nowadays than to declare

them job-producing bills, then watch supporters line up and

potential opposition crumble.

When Mr. Reid dubbed as a jobs bill a simple $15 billion

measure to offer payroll tax breaks and continued highway

construction funding, it helped head off a potential

Republican filibuster. Likewise, the Trade Promotion Act,

which would tout the U.S. as an international tourist

destination, sailed through the Senate after it was tagged

with the almighty jobs-bill moniker.

Given an unemployment rate hovering near 10 percent, the

focus on jobs is not surprising.

House and Senate lawmakers raised the jobs issue on the

chamber floors at least 154 times over the past week, and the

jobs issue is more popular in Congress now than it has been

in nearly two decades--since the 1991-92 recession.

President Obama joined the jobs chorus Tuesday, touting a

$6 billion plan to offer up to $3,000 rebates for energy-

efficiency home upgrades as ``a common-sense approach that

will help jump-start job creation.''

Mr. Obama, who used the word ``jobs'' 11 times in his 17-

minute speech in Savannah, Ga., said the issue is dominating

his time right now.

``When it comes to domestic policy, I have no more

important a job as president than seeing to it that every

American who wants to work and is able to work can find a

job--and a job that pays a living wage,'' he said.

On Monday, Republicans fought back the ever-broadening

definition of what creates jobs. They told Democrats to quit

trumpeting a $104 billion bill on the Senate floor as a job

creator and argued that it merely continues existing tax

breaks and spending that are extended every year.

``The bill before us creates no new jobs, and I challenge

my Democratic friends to show us how doing what we always do

and what was done last year--extending the R&D tax credit,

extending COBRA insurance, extending unemployment benefits--

creates jobs,'' said Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican.

Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, said saving jobs is just

as important as creating them. If Congress allows tax cuts to

expire, he said, jobs definitely would be lost.

``If the provisions we are seeking merely to extend were

not passed, it would be a job destroyer,'' Mr. Baucus said.

Members of both sides of the aisle are joining the chorus.

Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican, offered an

amendment to the $104 billion extenders bill that would

redirect unspent money from last year's $862 billion stimulus

bill to let small businesses write off more investments and

give them a capital-gains tax cut.

``True job creation doesn't happen when the government adds

jobs; it grows when small businesses are given the incentives

to thrive,'' he said.

Meanwhile, the top Democrat and top Republican on the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee are sponsoring the

immigration bill to increase visas for entrepreneurs.

It's sometimes tough to see how the jobs math adds up.

The administration has estimated that the $862 billion

stimulus act would create up to 3.5 million jobs, which would

seem like a bad deal if a $15 billion highway funding

extension could create 1 million jobs alone, as Mr. Reid has

said on the Senate floor.

Mr. Reid also has said a health care overhaul ``would

create 400,000 jobs a year,'' and that his travel promotion

bill ``will create tens of thousands of jobs in the service

industry.''

``It is a jobs bill, and that is an understatement,'' he

said.

Among the other job creators being touted, the beachfront

historic site in the U.S. Virgin Islands stands out.

Democrats, arguing for the bill in January, said

designating the site and spending the $40 million or more to

acquire the land will transform it into a popular tourist

destination.

``It will create jobs and help ease unemployment on the

island,'' said Mr. Rahall, the West Virginia Democrat who

shepherded the bill through the House.

Dubious Republicans pointed out that the cost of a ticket

from the U.S. to the island and the travel time make it

unlikely that the new historic site would be a major economic

draw.

``Let's quit spending like crazy. Let's sell off some of

our assets, pay down our debt and let America find jobs

again,'' said Rep. Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my comment about welfare because I think the American people thought that welfare was done away with many years ago in this country, but that simply isn't the case.

A document that was prepared by the Heritage Foundation and released September 16, 2009, provides a valuable perspective on the current state of welfare spending, and I'm going to be quoting from that document for several moments.

``Welfare spending has grown enormously since President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty. Welfare spending was 13 times greater in FY 2008, after adjusting for inflation, than it was when the War on Poverty started in 1964. Means-tested welfare spending was 1.2 percent of the gross domestic product, the GDP, when President Johnson began the War on Poverty. In 2008, it reached 5 percent of GDP . . .

``Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, taxpayers have given $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) to means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).''

My colleague across the aisle wants to blame our deficit on the war, and yet, we're spending much, much more on welfare than we are spending on war, and we have done that since the sixties.

``In his first two years in office, President Barack Obama will increase annual Federal welfare spending by one-third, from $522 billion to $697 billion. The combined 2-year increase will equal almost $263 billion . . . After adjusting for inflation, this increase is two- and-a-half times greater than any previous increase in Federal welfare spending in U.S. history. As a share of the economy, annual Federal welfare spending will rise by roughly 1.2 percent of GDP.''

Americans are already frightened to death of our deficit. Now they're going to see why a large part of that deficit is here.

``While campaigning for the Presidency, Obama lamented that `the war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per month.' '' Let me say that again. ``The war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per month,'' President Obama said.

Applying the same standard to means-tested welfare spending means that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.''

Go on and make all your comparisons you want to about how much is being spent on the war. Keeping this Nation safe is the role of the Federal Government.

``Most of Obama's increases in welfare spending are permanent expansions of the welfare state, not temporary increases in response to the current recession. According to the long-term spending plans set forth in Obama's FY 2010 budget, combined Federal and State spending will not drop significantly after the recession ends. In fact, by 2014, welfare spending is likely to equal $1 trillion per year.''

According to President Obama's budget projections, Federal and State welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years, FY 2009 to FY 2018. This spending will equal $250,000 for each person currently living in poverty in the U.S., or $1 million for a family of four.

``Over the next decade, Federal spending will equal $7.5 trillion, while State spending will reach $2.8 trillion. These figures do not include any of the increases in health care expenditure currently being debated in Congress.'' This was written in 2009 before the health care bill was passed.

``In the years ahead, average annual welfare spending will be roughly twice the spending levels under President Bill Clinton after adjusting for total inflation. Total means-tested spending is likely to average 6 percent of GDP for the next decade.''

I am ending my quote of the Heritage article.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are frightened to death. That's what I hear every weekend when I go home, frightened to death about the direction of this country. They can identify the fact that we are spending too much. It's helpful to show them where some of that money is going and to balance out the misinformation our colleagues are giving out across the aisle about this issue.

Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill need to be rejected. I could go on and on about the jobs situation. We know full well that our colleagues like to brag about how many jobs that they have created.

I am only going to show a couple of posters because we talk about this a lot, but I think it's very, very important to do it. I would like to show the job increases and jobs lost across the Presidencies of President Bush and President Obama.

If we look at this, we will see that from the time President Bush came in, there was a drop in job growth right after 9/11, but then there was a 46-month steady increase of jobs up to 8.1 million. If you look at President Obama's administration, there has been a loss of over 3 million jobs.

Now, I know our friends can count this lots of different ways. Another way that Scott Hennessey has said we should do it is to look at the average unemployment rate during a President's time in office. This clearly shows that under President Obama our average unemployment rate has been 9.5 percent, under President Bush, 5.3 percent. I think that tells the tale. So they can talk about creating jobs; they can talk about all their wonderful policies.

All their wonderful policies have created this hole that we are in. They should stop digging, Mr. Speaker, instead of continuing to dig.

The evidence is here, Mr. Speaker. The liberal Democrat agenda has failed. They need to go back to the drawing board and come back to the American people with real solutions to the real problems of the American people.

This isn't time to dither and blame the Republican minority for the disappointing collapse of governance we have seen since the liberal regime seized control of Congress in 2007, or blame President Bush for everything bad that they have done.

Mr. Speaker, I will point out again that this bill is a welfare emergency fund expansion. H.R. 5893 will add $5 billion to the welfare emergency fund, doubling this fund the Democrats created in their 2009 stimulus bill, again, an example of the fact that the stimulus has failed miserably.

The Democrats' welfare emergency fund expansion would especially benefit States that have increased welfare case loads and spending on welfare most. The new welfare money will be paid to States in FY 2011, a third fiscal year since this welfare emergency fund started.

Democrats are trying to re-brand this welfare emergency fund to seem to be all about jobs. It's not.

After calling it the emergency contingency fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Family Programs for the last 2 years, Democrats now propose to rename this program the Emergency Fund for Job Creation and Assistance, but only 25 percent of the $4 billion in welfare emergency funds has been spent on jobs.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill, Mr. Speaker, and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1568 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this resolution provides a closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 5893, the Investing in American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI and against the bill, itself. The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered, without intervening motion, except 1 hour of debate for the Ways and Means Committee and one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule also provides same-day authority for a resolution reported from the Rules Committee through Sunday, August 1, 2010.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 5893, the Investing in American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010, creates and protects American jobs through increased investment in infrastructure and by closing tax loopholes that enable companies to move their operations offshore. This is another piece of legislation to add to the long list of bills that Democrats have passed this Congress to spur opportunities to support American jobs, American manufacturing, and American families. Democrats are helping Americans dig out of the worst recession in decades. We are making steady, albeit slow--too slow for me--gains in our economy. The struggle is not over, but we are on the right path.

Madam Speaker, this legislation funds the highly successful Build America Bonds program, the Recovery Zone Bonds, the Emergency State Jobs Assistance program, and it closes unfair tax loopholes that allow corporations to send American jobs overseas. This bill provides critical funding for infrastructure investment that will create jobs here in the United States and will put money in the pockets of people who badly need it.

And yet, still, the Republicans are against it.

Madam Speaker, it seems every other day around here we have to drag our Republican colleagues kicking and screaming to the House floor to try to help hardworking Americans, and they continue to say ``no.''

Every other day we have to try to persuade our friends on the other side of the aisle that it's not crazy for the American Government to invest in the American economy to benefit the American people.

Every other day we have to remonstrate the same old arguments from the Republicans about spending and deficits and taxes and the bad old government stifling our economic recovery.

I'll remind this body that the Republicans were against the largest stimulus in history, which was not large enough for me and some of us in this body. But they were against this stimulus, an effort that demonstrably has saved American jobs.

And I'll remind this body that 95 percent of the Republicans in this House have signed a pledge to protect tax breaks for companies that ship American jobs overseas.

And I'll remind this body that Republicans have consistently voted against job creation and economic development measures that directly benefit, directly benefit hardworking Americans trying to secure enough income to feed their families and keep their homes.

Every single time Democrats try to pass essential legislation in this body, and the other body, Republicans complain about the numbers. If it's spending on investments in our economy, Republicans complain the numbers are too high. But if it's spending on tax cuts for the extremely 1 percent wealthiest of Americans, the Republicans complain the numbers are too low.

Well, here's a number and a letter we should be mindful of: $2.2 trillion, and the letter D: D is the grade given to America's infrastructure by the American Society of Engineers in 2009.

And $2.2 trillion is the amount the American Society of Engineers estimates the United States needs to spend over the next 5 years to repair our crumbling infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, in recent years we've seen levees fail, bridges collapse. As a matter of fact, we saw a levee fail last week in Iowa. Bridges collapsed. I asked one of our colleagues yesterday that appeared before the Rules Committee, how did he feel when the bridge collapsed in Minnesota. He referenced it as a national tragedy, as all of us do and did.

But when I came to this Congress in 1992, there were 14,000 bridges that were in disrepair in the United States of America. And I dare say that we have not even come close and, likely, there are many more. And what I said to him was, I wanted his daughter, who I know, to travel on a safe bridge, and I wanted my children and all the children of all Americans, when they cross a bridge, to know that that bridge is safe.

Millions of tons of hazardous waste have wrecked fragile ecosystems, and billions of gallons of wastewater have poured from burst pipes into our rivers and streams, and we saw that happen this week in America.

Beyond the disasters is the steadily rising gridlock on our highways, roads, airports and rails, the constant erosion of our water systems. Right here in the metropolitan Washington area people are on boil water advisories and limited uses, including for showers.

Declining park land in urban areas and maintenance backlogs in our schools amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars.

Budget cuts are not going to repair bridges, replace water treatment facilities or maintain classrooms. State and local governments desperately need Federal funding to engage American small businesses and put people to work.

This legislation provides billions of dollars in infrastructure bonds and other supports so communities can hire the necessary workers to make sure that, while we are arguing about process here, whether or not it's a closed rule or an open rule, arguing process in the Rules Committee, more dams don't fail. That's what we want to make sure that does not happen.

Dollars that go to infrastructure projects get returned to the economy at higher rates. Infrastructure spending is impactful, essential, and worthwhile, pumping in cash that goes right to the American worker.

The funding in this legislation is paid for. It does not add to the deficit. It is revenue neutral, and there is no wasteful spending in here.

What Republicans argue is wasteful, I say, is essential to preventing millions of Americans from falling into destitution. For every one job opening in our great country, there are five applicants. Unemployment remains unbearably high, and all economists indicate that it is going to remain that way for some time to come.

I dare say that what America needs to understand, and what my colleagues here on both sides of the aisle continue to say, is that it happened on this President's watch, or it happened on that President's watch. The real truth is the economy in this country transitioned, as well as globally, over about a 45-year period of time. I'll get to that one day, so as how there's a better understanding than all of this finger-pointing about who caused this deficit.

And I certainly hope we have a debate about how much the war in Iraq and Afghanistan cost. I can tell you now it's about $1 trillion. And guess what our deficit is? Just a little more than $1 trillion.

Madam Speaker, it's far past time to pass this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote favorably on this rule and on the final passage of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from Houston, Texas, the distinguished gentlelady Sheila Jackson Lee.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

I believe that the distinguished chair of the Ways and Means Committee answered my good friend from California yesterday with regard to the immediacy.

Among the things that he said to you was we had waited for the United States Senate, which, if you recall, much of what is in this provision, and he said to you there is nothing new in here that we haven't voted on before.

Will the gentleman yield?

Pointedly, did we not vote on the measures in this particular provision?

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell me how much time I have remaining.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, you know, Paul Krugman wrote an article in The New York Times sometime back, and he is the Nobel Prize winning economist. On July 20 he talked about ``Tax Cut Truthiness.''

Without reading the entire article, he cites to Erick Erickson and says, ``But I think we have part of the key to how Republicans can believe that returning to the Bush agenda is exactly what we need: they've invented themselves an alternate history in which wonderful things happened under Bush, and earlier booms have been sent down the memory hole.''

Now, I have had the good fortune of being here in the minority and in the majority. I served 8 years under President Bush in the minority. I also served 8 years during the Clinton administration.

My late mom had a statement about all of us as politicians. She used to say, if you are going to say that George H.W. Bush did it, then you have to say that Jimmy Carter did it and then somebody else will say that Reagan did it. She said why don't you all just admit it that George Washington did it and get it over with so as how you don't have to keep pointing fingers at each other.

My distinguished colleague from North Carolina just certainly misspoke and didn't mean to when she said that this particular measure isn't scored.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the Preliminary CBO Estimate of Changes in Revenue and Direct Spending of the Investing in America Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010. I might add that it points out that it is revenue neutral, as I said previously.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY10.001

I am so glad that my colleague and I come from virtually all the same kinds of backgrounds, if you read her biography and you read my own. We also have been advantaged in this society by taking advantage of the opportunities that were presented to us.

But where we parted company somewhere along the line, well she didn't want, evidently, to give opportunity to those who have no opportunity. I have been taught all of my life to do everything I can for the least of these in society. Now, I heard her, and I agree that the role of government identified in the United States Constitution clearly points out that national security is the role, and a primary role, of the Congress.

But promoting the general welfare is also a role of Congress. When I see, as I do, at the pantry in Fort Lauderdale, them not having the funds to carry forward, when I see the food bank on Oakland Park, that's less than nine blocks from the office where I am privileged to serve the people of the State of Florida, when I see it robbed by thieves so that they can't help the needy, I know that out there somewhere are people that are hurting, and they are hurting that people need our help.

And they need our help whether it's from the Federal Government or the State government or the local government, they need our help. And to suggest by any stretch of the imagination that it is wrong for us to help those who are in need is anathema to my background. And that isn't because I am a liberal Democrat; that is because I am an American citizen who believes in America and who believes in all of its people, whether they are rich or whether they are poor.

Now, I don't believe at all that this YouCut project that my friends have created allows that States do anything less than be incentivized by using the temporary assistance for needy families. No less an authority than the former chairman of the National Republican Party, Haley Barbour, who is now a member of the National Governors Association--and I might add, support for this temporary assistance program is expected to and sought to be brought onboard by the National Governors Association; they support it, the National Conference of State Legislatures, they support it, and the National Association of Counties have all urged Congress to continue the TANF as a way to create jobs and assist families. Listen to what Haley--who I happen to know and I happen to think is a distinguished American and an outstanding Governor of Mississippi--listen to what Haley said on February 17. He said, I hope the program will be extended so more jobs could be created. Now that's a conservative for you.

Now my colleague on the other side, I have been very anxious and very concerned that evidently people in this body do not understand how much Iraq cost this country. I did not vote for us to go to Iraq, and I am glad I didn't. I did not vote for the supplemental that we passed 2 days ago, and I am glad I didn't because it didn't include things that should have been included. I might add that I can't make Afghanistan make sense when I see the number of young Americans that are being killed in that particular theater. But I do know this: Joseph Stiglitz, who is a economics Nobel Laureate, claimed the Iraq war will cost the United States more than $3 trillion, and he said the final tally is likely to climb much higher than that. There are others who believe that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Americans a staggering $1 trillion to date, second only, in inflation-adjusted dollars, to the $4 trillion price tag for World War II. It cost us $1.1 million per man and woman in uniform in Afghanistan. Now somebody make it make sense to me that it's all right for us to continue down that path while it's not all right for us to have temporary assistance for needy families.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is another tool that State and local governments can use to invest in infrastructure development and put much-needed cash and jobs into the economy. I am well aware that Republicans object to the expeditious nature of this legislation. However, the provisions in this legislation have already been debated and considered on numerous other occasions, and we do need to act quickly.

When we sent it, Mr. Speaker, to the United States Senate, these are the things that were included. My colleague began her remarks today by saying that it's outrageous. I find it interesting that she cited as one of the definitions of outrageous, ``exceeding the limits of what is normal or tolerable.'' It also describes outrageous as ``whatever is so flagrantly bad that one's sense of decency or one's power to suffer or tolerate is violated.''

Now, I fall into that second category and believe that small business lending is not outrageous. That was what was sent to the Senate that Republicans said no about. I believe that infrastructure investments are not outrageous. Much of that that was sent to the Senate was what Republicans said no about.

Business tax relief; I certainly don't believe that that is outrageous, and that's what was stripped out in the United States Senate by Republicans and was not voted on by Republicans in this particular body.

Individual tax cuts. TANF jobs and emergency funding that we now have some of. Veterans concurrent receipt, I don't think that's outrageous. The National Housing Trust Fund, I don't think in a time of downturn in this economy, with one out of every five Americans facing foreclosure or in foreclosure, I certainly don't think that that is outrageous. I don't think it's outrageous to hold harmless the provisions for low- income families in this country. They stripped out, by saying no, oil disaster response.

National Flood Insurance, something that has been around that has helped a lot of us all over America, they stripped that out. I don't think that it's outrageous that it was in there.

Mine safety--and we've seen what happened in West Virginia--I don't think taking that out was the right thing to do; I certainly don't think it was outrageous to leave it in there.

Federally declared disaster areas, where floods and drought and other matters have gone on. Agriculture disaster relief was taken out of this measure, and I'm here to believe that it was outrageous? Other expiring disaster relief programs were as well.

Now some of the things that are in there, some of the things that are in it that I don't think are outrageous: It extends the Build America Bonds program that everybody in this institution knows has been successful for State and local government. It makes additional allocation of recovery zone bonds to ensure that each local municipality receives the minimum allocation or equal to at least its share of national employment in December of 2009. I certainly don't think that's outrageous.

And I might add my colleague Mr. Dreier also referred, as did Dr. Foxx, to the outrageousness. I don't think it is outrageous to exclude bonds financing facilities that furnish water and sewage from State volume caps estimated to cost $371 million over 10 years.

Is it outrageous to eliminate the cost imposed on State and local governments by the alternative minimum tax, estimated to cost $224 million over 10 years? Is it outrageous to have new market tax credits? Is it outrageous to have emergency job fund creation and assistance, scheduled to expire on September 30, to extend that through 2011?

I don't think it's outrageous to suspend the recognition of foreign tax credits. And even though it is a legal entity in our law, as my colleague has said, I don't think it's outrageous that we close tax loopholes that allow American corporations to take American jobs abroad and cause this economy to continue to be exacerbated.

I don't think it's outrageous for us to offset the cost of this bill. However, the provisions in this legislation, as I indicated, have already been debated and considered on numerous other occasions. In fact, we have already pared down this legislation from the larger measure that I just talked about that the House already passed because the Senate could not get enough votes from the Republicans for passage in their body.

Now, America can continue to put up with these people that drove us in the ditch and give them the keys if they want to and expect that if we return to that era, that we are going to have prosperity. I don't think so. I saw what

happened. I believe Americans saw what happened.

The programs that we are considering are designed especially to assist the American people in times of economic hardship, just like the one our Nation is currently facing. We need to act to help Americans, not find evermore excuses not to help. Republicans have been consistently saying ``no'' on every jobs package and economic development legislation that we have put forward in this House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans in this Chamber are against everything coming their way from the Democratic side of the aisle. They want to block any job creation legislation in order to make Democrats look bad for the upcoming election, but they are doing so at the expense of the American people.

This legislation will help. This legislation does not add one nickel to the deficit and does not contain wasteful spending. Democrats are hard at work on an agenda to improve our economy, to create jobs, and to ensure that all Americans--all Americans--will be able to take advantage of opportunities and to have an opportunity to have opportunity as our economy recovers.

I hope that my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle will unite with us to help Americans in these most difficult economic times.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to 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.

The previous question was ordered.

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

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

It has been nearly 1\1/2\ years since the President signed the $1 trillion stimulus bill into law, and now the majority has come up with a new ``Make It in America'' agenda, which begs the question, if the stimulus was such a success, why don't we already make it in America?

The facts are that, after stimulus, the unemployment rate continues to hover near 10 percent, well above the 8 percent we were promised. Instead of creating or saving 3.7 million jobs, over 2.6 million private-sector jobs have been lost, including over 707,000 manufacturing jobs, and nearly 100,000 in my home State of Michigan. Overall, 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs.

Now we used to make it in America. And if Democrats would stop passing bills that spend more money on State and local governments and instead focus on small businesses, we might actually see the real sustained private-sector job creation Americans need.

In fact, I submit for the Record a letter here from the United States Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation, representing more than 3 million businesses. They oppose this bill. Let me just read you what that letter says, what real job creators think about this bill.

The Chamber says this bill ``would impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth.''

I want to repeat that.

This bill ``would impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth.''

That's right. This bill raises taxes on employers during a recession, making it tougher for Americans to find needed work. You cannot expect to increase jobs in this country when you are increasing taxes. It just doesn't work. That is exactly what the majority is proposing to do in this bill.

Now, this bill does closely resemble a bill the majority has already pushed through the House once before, H.R. 4849, the so-called Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010. At the time, I said the bill was more about small governments than it was about small businesses since most of the bill was about getting aid to State and local governments instead of helping small businesses.

Like H.R. 4849, the vast majority of spending in the bill today--a whopping $25.6 billion over 11 years--goes to State and local governments through various infrastructure incentives. These include a substantial increase in spending on the Build America Bonds program, a heavily subsidized spending program providing direct payments to State and local governments that issue these bonds.

Small governments are not small businesses, and they do not create the kind of private sector jobs we need. Unlike H.R. 4849, however, the Democrats didn't even bother to provide token tax relief for small business in this bill.

In case you need more evidence that this bill isn't about helping U.S. employers or about helping Americans find jobs, just look at the extra $5 billion in welfare spending in this bill. It is so much money that the CBO, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, says the States won't even be able to spend all of it. Democrats claim this spending is for jobs, but 75 percent of these welfare emergency funds that were already given to States have been spent on more welfare checks, not on jobs.

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, July 28, 2010.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses and organizations of every size, sector,

and region, opposes H.R. 5893, the ``Investing in American

Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010,'' which would

impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide

companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the

competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic

growth.

This legislation contains numerous changes to longstanding

U.S. international tax law which are severely detrimental to

American worldwide companies. For example:

Denial of foreign tax credit with respect to foreign income

not subject to U.S. taxation by reason of covered asset

acquisitions--This provision relates primarily to Sec. 338,

which allows taxpayers the ability to characterize stock

acquisitions as asset acquisitions for U.S. tax purposes. An

acquisition can be concluded as either a share acquisition or

an asset acquisition. Acquisitions by American worldwide

companies are good for the U.S.

economy--they provide additional jobs and broaden the U.S.

tax base. Section 338 recognizes the inherent challenges and

obstacles to asset acquisitions and, in effect, levels the

playing field, allowing taxpayers the ability to choose the

tax implications of an acquisition, regardless of the

willingness of a seller to agree to one form or the other of

a particular deal. Moreover, Sec. 338 unquestionably serves

to encourage acquisitions by American worldwide companies by

minimizing the competitive advantage that certain foreign

competitors enjoy due to the participation exemption systems

in which most are headquartered. This legislation would

significantly strip away the benefits of Sec. 338 and would

likely serve to further impede any competitive advantages of

American worldwide companies in their bids for foreign

targets.

Limitation on the use of Sec. 956 for foreign tax credit

planning (i.e., the ``hopscotch'' rule)--Section 956, a

longstanding provision of the Code, allows companies to

repatriate cash to the United States in a tax-efficient

manner. Foreign business acquisitions generally result in a

series of intermediate foreign holding companies which block

the repatriation of earnings for a variety of reasons such as

local statutory earnings deficits or other local restrictions

on actual dividends. American worldwide companies have had

the ability to overcome such obstacles through the use of

Sec. 956. This provision was particularly beneficial during

the recent economic downturn and ensuing credit crunch when

it was necessary for American worldwide companies to

repatriate significant funds in order to meet the financial

needs of their U.S. businesses. The revenue raising estimate

for this provision seems to assume that taxpayers would

simply bear the additional cost of the provision. However,

the Chamber believes that most taxpayers, given the choice,

would choose simply to not repatriate the earnings.

Therefore, the legislation's proposed change to Sec. 956

would significantly reduce the repatriation of foreign

earnings that otherwise might have been repatriated to the

United States. That is a poor option if Congress seeks to

enact provisions which stimulate economic growth and drive

job creation.

The Chamber strongly opposes H.R. 5893 because this

legislation would make significant changes to U.S.

international tax law which would stifle job creation and

stunt economic growth. The Chamber may consider votes on, or

in relation to, this issue in our annual How They Voted

scorecard.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten,

Executive Vice President, Government Affairs.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on increasing taxes on American employers and on increasing taxes on American jobs and to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said that these welfare emergency fund jobs only last as long as the funding does. Frankly, nearly half of the ``jobs'' Democrats claim have been created are summer jobs, which are either over or are about to be. Let me just say that it is pretty well-known here that Governors of every political stripe are obviously looking to the Federal Government for cash, but the fact is we are broke.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Look, 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs. If there was such great job creation because of the stimulus bill, why have we seen the unemployment rate continue to hover around 10 percent?

And, frankly, any minor reductions in it are because people have stopped looking for work.

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

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree with my friend. It's not complicated. American employers say this bill will kill jobs. Look, the Democrats promised the stimulus would create millions of jobs. It hasn't. They promised it would create 3.7 million jobs. Well, that hasn't occurred.

Instead, since the stimulus, through June of 2010, the U.S. has lost 2.6 million more private sector jobs, leaving Americans to ask: Where are the jobs? Forty-seven out of 50 States have lost jobs. No wonder more Americans think Elvis is alive than believe the stimulus created jobs.

Democrats promised the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent. It hasn't. Instead, unemployment has reached 10 percent and remains stuck near at that level today.

And in addition to that high official unemployment, over 3 million other Americans are simply dropped out of the labor force, what some call the missing unemployed. And the flood of deficit spending from Democrats' policies have driven the debt to an astonishing $13 trillion. The debt is so huge, it is already hurting job creation.

Using the administration's own forecasts, the surge in debt caused by the stimulus and other Democrat policies has already destroyed 1 million jobs. Unemployment and debt have soared by a combined 60 percent since the President took office. That's an Obama misery index that reflects current and future damage caused by Democrats' failed policies.

And while the job situation seems to have finally stopped getting worse, the trickle of private sector job creation in 2010 is so anemic that, at the current rate, it would take until 2017 to recover the jobs lost during this recession. That's longer than it took to recover jobs during the Depression in the 1930s. Others say it could take as long as until 2021 to get employment back to prerecession levels

However, the Democrats' agenda has helped one industry--government. Managing all of that spending helped government jobs grow by 201,000 since the stimulus, helping to make Washington, D.C., and the area the Nation's strongest job market. Meanwhile, construction, loss of 853,000; manufacturing, loss of 707,000 jobs. Jobs across the U.S. have plummeted despite promises they would grow by 1.1 million.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the look-back. I think it's odd so many speakers today have begun all their remarks with a look-back and attempt to re- litigate history and are sort of picking selective parts of history. The fact is, when this budget was balanced there was a Republican Congress, yes, with a Democrat President. Maybe we ought to try that combination again.

But let me just say, the people back home are concerned about today. They're concerned about the problems today, not re-litigating what may have been or might have been. Back home in Michigan, unemployment is nearly 14 percent; nationwide, nearly 10 percent. The fact is now, today--not in the 1980s, not in the 1990s, not in the Bush administration--today we've lost 700,000 manufacturing jobs, and the fact is employers in America have said this bill will hurt jobs; this will not help us create private sector jobs. And we have group after group that has come forward and said this bill hurts jobs.

That's why I urge a ``no'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear: with unemployment stuck at nearly 10 percent and millions of jobs lost, the Democrats' trillion-dollar stimulus bill has failed.

So what is the majority's response? Raise taxes on American jobs and give more money to State and local government. That won't create the private sector jobs Americans need.

You don't have to take my word for it. Here is what some of the Nation's leading and largest employers say about this bill and the tax increases in it.

The National Association of Manufacturers says: ``Manufacturers believe strongly that imposing $11.5 billion in tax increases on these companies as proposed by H.R. 5893 will jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our fragile economy.''

The PACE Coalition, which represents employers who provide over 60 million American jobs, says: ``The $12 billion in proposed international tax increases in H.R. 5893 would further disadvantage U.S. companies, harming their competitiveness.

``At a time when other countries are taking steps to attract business, this legislation sends exactly the opposite message, with the effect of discouraging business investment and job creation in the United States.''

Mr. Speaker, I submit the NAM and PACE Coalition letters for the Record.

National Association of

Manufacturers,

July 29, 2010.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives: The National Association of

Manufacturers (NAM), the nation's largest industrial trade

association representing small and large manufacturers in

every industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to

oppose H.R. 5893, the Investing in American Jobs and Closing

Tax Loopholes Act of 2010.

An estimated 22 million people in the United States--more

than 19 percent of the private sector workforce and 53

percent of all manufacturing employees--are employed by

companies with operations overseas. Manufacturers feel

strongly that imposing $11.5 billion in tax increases on

these companies as proposed by H.R. 5893 will jeopardize the

jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our

fragile economy.

Many of the tax increases proposed in H.R. 5893, which are

mischaracterized as closing tax loopholes, actually represent

significant changes to the pro-growth tax policy supported by

Congress and the Administration. For example, the proposed

anticompetitive limitation on the use of Sec. 956 loans

removes a greatly needed source of U.S. cash for worldwide

American companies--a source that Treasury and the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) sought to facilitate in guidance issued

as recently as last December. As we continue to work through

one of the greatest credit crunches in U.S. history, taking

away a source of cash for U.S. companies to grow, build and

create jobs puts our fragile recovery at risk.

We are disappointed that many of the bill's proposed tax

increases have not been adequately scrutinized during

congressional hearings. In many cases, taxpayers have relied

on these longstanding tax provisions in structuring their

businesses. Changing the rules without fair and adequate

hearings will cost in terms of jobs, investment and

manufacturers' ability to compete overseas.

Manufacturers believe strongly that changes to our

international tax laws should be considered in the broader

context of tax reform that makes the United States more

competitive--not as ``pay fors'' for unrelated policy

initiatives. Moreover, targeting some international tax law

changes in advance of the tax reform debate would make the

goal of pro-growth, pro-competitiveness reform that much more

difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

The NAM supports provisions in the legislation that would

extend Build America Bonds and lift the state volume cap for

private activity bonds for water and waste water

infrastructure, but our support for these provisions is

heavily outweighed by the significant costs imposed on

manufacturers by the bill's tax increases. Manufacturers urge

your opposition to the bill.

The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that

votes related to H.R. 5893, including votes on procedural

motions, may be considered for designation as Key

Manufacturing Votes in the 111th Congress.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jay Timmons,

Executive Vice President.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1568, I call up the bill (H.R. 5893) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create jobs through increased investment in infrastructure, to eliminate loopholes which encourage companies to move operations offshore, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

This is a bill to stimulate jobs here, not over there, to create American jobs and close tax loopholes that encourage companies to ship overseas. There is no excuse to vote ``no.''

It is noteworthy that we are on pace to gain more private-sector jobs in the first 8 months of 2010 than were added in the full 8 years of the Bush Presidency. There has been private-sector job growth every month of 2010, but there is still a lot of work to do. There are five unemployed workers for every new job opening.

This bill highlights infrastructure development and private-sector jobs. The Build America Bonds (BABs) are the cornerstone of this bill's infrastructure investments.

When the recession hit, local governments could not get credit. BABs helped fill this demand by accessing corporate tax bonds and doing so very successfully. As of March 1, BABs have financed more than $115 billion in local infrastructure programs, private-sector jobs.

Also, we provide for an emergency fund for job creation. By extending this program that soon expires for 1 year at a cost of $3.5 billion, it will help States sustain low-income families and expand subsidized job programs that create jobs for the unemployed.

I want to emphasize, this program has led to the creation of 247,000 jobs, and that is why it has broad support. There is a letter from the National Governors Association, from the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Counties. Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has said, ``It is hard to imagine how any sensible person could oppose it.''

And we pay for it; we pay for it through closing a loophole. We have a Foreign Tax Credit, the FTC, to help businesses avoid double taxation of foreign-sourced income. Some corporations have found ways to use that credit to offset other income while leaving their foreign-sourced profits overseas sometimes permanently. As a result--and I emphasize this--American taxpayers are effectively subsidizing these companies' overseas operations.

These provisions have been before us before--no excuse that you haven't seen them before--and you knew this was coming. This is coming because of the urgency of job creation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

It's urgent. So this Invest in American Jobs Act of 2010 will create the jobs we need to keep moving America forward. To vote ``no'' is to vote America moving backwards.

Mr. Speaker, I and Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Camp have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of H.R. 5893, the ``Investing in American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010''. This technical explanation provides information on the Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind the legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's website at www.jct.gov and is listed under document number

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter of March 3, 2010, from the National Governors Association, signed by a Republican Governor and by a Democratic Governor on behalf of the entire association.

National Governors Association,

March 3, 2010.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure goes to States and to local governments for private sector jobs--like the highway bill. Small business: You voted against the small business bill. Summer jobs: You voted against summer jobs. Now you say this created summer jobs. It is so hypocritical.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I yield 15 additional seconds to the gentleman.

It is now my privilege to yield 2 valuable minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an active member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Davis of Illinois.

It's now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to another distinguished, indeed a very distinguished member of our committee, from the State of Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the very distinguished majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, Steny Hoyer.

I yield 30 seconds to the majority leader.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Build America Bonds, 62 issues as of 6/30/2010 totaling $2 billion, creating all kinds of private sector jobs. We look backward to learn lessons. We have also look forward, and the minority will do neither.

I now am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a distinguished member of our committee.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a most active member of our committee.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), another very vigorous member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I yield myself the balance of our time.

It's really so important to look at the facts. This bill does not basically create government jobs. That is a total myth, and you know it.

The infrastructure money goes to State and local communities like highway monies do. These orange barrels, orange and white in Michigan, Mr. Camp, are put up by private contractors with Federal money.

So why demean the Build America Bonds provisions by calling it money to State and local governments when everybody knows it's for infrastructure that goes to private contractors and their employees?

You mention the number of construction workers out of work; that is very true. And then you vote against the legislation that will give them jobs.

You say where are the jobs? Then you come down here and vote against bills to create jobs.

It doesn't make any sense. Instead, we get the same political speech aimed at November 2, instead of aiming at creating jobs for the thousands and thousands of people who are unemployed in the United States of America.

I want to say something about the double taxation so people understand what this is really all about. We have a foreign tax credit, as there should be, at least in this structure. This is a credit that is supposed to relate to the income by American companies created overseas.

So what has been happening under this loophole is that the credit has been used, not in relationship to that income, but has been used relating to other income. So it isn't double taxation; it's an effort to avoid any taxation, and the rest of us pick up the bill.

Now, one company that has objected to this has dramatically increased their investment offshore and diminished their jobs in the United States and diminished their R&D. So they say close the loophole and we will pay more taxes, yes. What we are saying is follow the rules, like small business does in this country, and like all of us individual taxpayers do in this country. You can come here and say closing a loophole increases taxes. By definition it does, because it says to people who are skipping paying taxes, pay your fair share.

So this is a two-fer, jobs in the U.S. and stopping the shipment of jobs overseas.

And if people come here and vote against this bill, they can expect to hear from constituents, that you have voted to help people and entities that ship jobs from this country elsewhere. We should vote resoundingly for this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, for doing her typical spectacular job and appropriately describing this as an outrageous rule. She's right on target. I'd really say ``pathetic'' when I look at both process and substance, because it is absolutely pathetic. Somebody said to me, well, you can say ``outrageous,'' I can say ``pathetic,'' and we can call the whole thing off.

We'd be a lot better off, Mr. Speaker, if we did, in fact, not consider this rule the way we're doing it. Because while my friend from Houston just said the American people understand the need to get assistance--not a handout but assistance--so that we can get the economy moving, we can get that. But they also want us to do it with the kind of openness and fairness and transparency that we were promised in this great document, A New Direction for America. We've gotten anything but that.

The reason that the substance is pathetic, along with the process itself, is that is not going to do anything to create jobs. This is designed--and while it wasn't directly said, I certainly inferred it from the testimony that we had in the Rules Committee last night. Well, everybody should have a chance to vote on job creation before we adjourn in August. So that's why this rush.

Well, it's done clearly in the most inappropriate way when it comes to the deliberative nature. There was basically no consultation whatever with the ranking member on the committee. When I asked the chairman on the Ways and Means Committee whether or not there had been any consultation seeking a bipartisan approach, he said that he hoped this would have bipartisan support at the end of the day. When I asked, the only response that I was given was that he had a discussion with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, our friend Mr. Baucus, but no consultation whatsoever.

The bill was introduced at 3:30 yesterday afternoon, and the Rules Committee met 90 minutes later to bring up this measure. Gosh. As I recall, looking at the rules, we should have at least had a 24-hour layover. I would say to my friend from Ft. Lauderdale, what is the rush here? We now know that we're going to be in session on Friday. We know that the Senate is scheduled to meet next week. Is there any reason for us not to have had this bill introduced, allow it to lay over for 24 hours, allow Democrats and Republicans alike to look at it so that we could decide what it consists of, and then have a Rules Committee meeting? I don't know why we didn't do that.

I'm happy to yield to my friend if he would like to respond as to why it wasn't introduced with a 24-hour period to allow us to have it lay over.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, if I might reclaim my time, and I do so to simply say we've heard that tired old argument, that we've voted on these items before. We've never had it as a package like this.

I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say the answer is no, we have not voted on this package of items. And let me address this by saying that I don't believe that the litany of items included in this bill which

we're just starting to look at have, in fact, had an opportunity for consideration.

There was somebody who took a glance at it yesterday afternoon who said to me, This is not what we need to be doing to create jobs. What we need to be doing is focusing on reducing the capital gains rate and the dividend tax right now, tax rate. That would do more to stimulate job creation and economic growth than anything that we've got in this piecemeal package that has been put together.

And the transparency, as far as I'm concerned, is based on the following: It's simply a desire to say we've tried to do something to create jobs.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I can understand why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have wanted to do that. We've come forward repeatedly with proposals to do just that. And we have tried the policy of dramatically increasing spending in the size and scope and reach of government, and guess what? We were promised that the unemployment rate wouldn't exceed 8 percent if we passed the stimulus bill. We all know that it's at 9\1/2\ percent nationwide.

I see my friend Ms. Chu here from California. We have a 12.3 percent unemployment rate. In Los Angeles County, it's higher than that. And in the area that I represent to the east, it's 14.4 percent in parts of San Bernardino County. We have an unemployment rate that is far in excess of what we were promised if we passed the stimulus bill. We have tried that, Mr. Speaker.

Let's now focus on job creation and economic growth with a responsible package, not this pathetic piecemeal approach which is outrageous. And to do it without any kind of consultation whatsoever with the minority is beyond the pale.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure. Let's do what the American people want. Let's have an open debate and let's put into place pro-growth economic policies which have been proven to be successful under President John F. Kennedy, a great Democrat, and under President Ronald Reagan, a great Republican President.