Expressing the Sense of Congress that the United States needs an industrial policy with regard to automobile, aerospace, shipping, and steel industries, which are vital to national and economic security.

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

I appreciate the effort, Mr. Speaker, by Chairman Levin to address the concerns of Ranking Member Camp and other Republican Members that were raised at our various hearings. And while the revised version addresses the WTO consistency issue, my view is that, on balance, the promises that this bill makes to compel China to appreciate its currency to reduce the trade deficit and to create U.S. jobs won't be realized, and, therefore, I oppose this bill.

Rather than focus on China's currency policy alone, a priority must be creating American jobs by promoting U.S. exports, and this bill doesn't do enough to provide new market access for American businesses, farmers, and workers. If we are to meet the President's goal of doubling exports, we must focus our energy on tearing down real substantive barriers to U.S. access to China's consumers. We must require China to better U.S. intellectual property rights and end its directed lending, cease its innovative policy, and move other artificial barriers to U.S. exports. Such an effort would benefit thousands more American workers than the focus on China currency alone.

I am concerned that moving on this bill makes it more difficult for us to resolve these other issues, and I think we ought to be careful to avoid doing more harm than good in tearing down these barriers.

Breaking down barriers to U.S. exports is difficult work and requires concerted effort by Congress and the administration. To begin with, rather than merely paying lip service to new and pending trade agreements, we have to find a way to move these agreements forward.

Currently, there is no clear end date for concluding the Trans- Pacific partnership negotiations, no plan from the administration on how it intends to resolve issues related to the U.S.-Colombian, -Panama trade agreements, and just limited discussion on the U.S.-South Korea trade agreement.

The administration must also return to the negotiating table and complete bilateral investment treaty negotiations with China. Entering into a bit with China could help on many of these issues and is necessary to ensure that Americans have the same rights in China as our other trading partners.

Mr. Speaker, while this bill is improved from its original version, it is no substitute for a comprehensive China policy that the administration and the majority have failed to give us. I urge, and strongly urge, a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), who has played a key role in opening trade barriers for U.S. products.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is focused on jobs, spending, and getting this economy back on track.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would make the point that the Chinese currency appreciated 20 percent during President Bush's administration. It had no impact on the trade deficit. It has only appreciated 5 percent under the current administration, with no impact on the trade deficit.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who is, again, focused on jobs and getting this economy back on track, as well as limiting the size of these dangerous debts and deficits.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I do think it is unfortunate to try to interject partisan politics into a serious issue. There is already concern that after 4 years this bill is now being rushed to the floor a few weeks ahead of the election. I think at this point on an issue so serious, we ought to be thoughtful, understanding there are Members on both sides of the aisle that have come to different conclusions about this bill.

With that, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

General Leave

I am, Mr. Chairman.

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

This is an issue, I think, where good people can disagree. There is unanimity in the desire for China to appreciate its currency. There are differences of opinion about what impact that truly would have on our complex relationship with China economically. And there have been a number of issues raised throughout the hearings on this bill, and I do appreciate, to Chairman Levin, taking into account the number of the objections on the most, we think, troubling provisions that Ranking Member Dave Camp from Michigan and others raised during those hearings. I think some of those issues have been addressed in a very positive way, but there are real concerns about how effective this will be, and if it will truly compel China to change its currency regime or that it will significantly change our trade deficit.

I would like to submit for the Record a letter sent by, I think, almost 30 of our major job creators in America, groups that represent many of our agriculture companies and workers, our technology sector, our manufacturing and financial services sector, those who produce and sell medical devices and services throughout the world, including groups like the National Retail Federation; the broader job creators like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and companies that compete and succeed successfully selling U.S. products in China.

This letter agrees with Chairman Levin and others that China needs a yuan exchange rate response to trade flows and that China should move rapidly toward that. But it says:

``We do not agree, however, that H.R. 2378 as reported can help achieve that goal. To the contrary, we believe that passage of this legislation is counterproductive not only to the goals related to China's exchange rate that we all share but also to our Nation's broader goals of addressing the many and growing challenges in the U.S.-China economic relationship, including inadequate protection of intellectual property, restrictions on market access, financial services liberalization, export of commodities such as rare earths, discriminatory indigenous innovation and other industrial policies. Above all, this legislation will do more harm than good to job creation and economic growth at a time when we need both dearly.''

The point of that, I think, is that there are a number of barriers to selling U.S. products fairly and successfully in that growing Chinese market. We all have the same goal. How we achieve it is where we honestly differ.

This group concludes this way:

``We share Congress' desire to have China act more quickly to adopt a market-determined exchange rate, but the proposed unilateral measure is not going to achieve that result. We urge you to oppose H.R. 2378 and, instead, work with and vigorously call on the administration to develop a robust bilateral and multilateral approach to

achieve tangible results, not only on China's exchange rate policies, but also on other Chinese policies that are harming American businesses, workers and farmers.''

I think that is the point, perhaps, of those of us who believe this bill will not achieve what we hope.

While I urge opposition of this bill, there are those who believe that, as we move forward, regardless of the outcome, we ought to, Republicans and Democrats, join hands and insist on fair access to Chinese markets, on a level playing field and on a growing trade relationship that is balanced to increase Chinese consumption, as well as to increase U.S. savings that will rebalance the trade relationship for decades to come. We share those goals and look forward to working with those in Congress who also share them.

September 28, 2010.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny Hoyer,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader, House of Representatives,

U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leaders Hoyer and Boehner: Like

Congress and the Administration, we agree that China needs a

yuan exchange rate that responds to trade flows and that

China should move rapidly towards a market-determined

exchange rate. In addition to continuing U.S. government

efforts, our organizations support strong, coordinated and

enhanced multilateral pressure, including at the early

October Finance Ministers' Meeting in Washington and

continuing at the November G20 Leaders' Meeting in Seoul, to

achieve concrete progress on China's currency and exchange

rate policies.

We do not agree, however, that H.R. 2378 as reported by the

Committee on Ways and Means can help achieve that goal. To

the contrary, we believe that passage of this legislation is

counterproductive not only to the goals related to China's

exchange rate that we all share, but also to our nation's

broader goals of addressing the many and growing challenges

in the U.S.-China economic relationship, including inadequate

protection of intellectual property, restrictions on market

access, financial services liberalization, export of

commodities such as rare earths, discriminatory indigenous

innovation and other industrial policies. Above all this

legislation will do more harm than good to job creation and

economic growth at a time when we need both dearly.

Unilateral legislation, which seeks to increase tariffs on

imports from China, is unlikely to incentivize China to move

expeditiously to modify its exchange policies. Rather, it

would likely have the opposite effect and could engender

retaliation against U.S. exports into the Chinese market,

currently the fastest-growing market for U.S. exports. Our

companies do not fear retaliation--if it were based on WTO-

consistent actions that would achieve the desired result,

with benefits outweighing the costs. But counterproductive

tariff legislation will not get us closer to the goal of a

market-driven exchange rate and will shift the focus away

from the core issue of China's currency and onto U.S.

unilateral action. Such an action would embolden PRC

retaliation and undermine U.S. government efforts to address

a growing number of discriminatory Chinese policies,

weakening our economy by harming American exports of

manufactured goods and farm products.

Despite efforts to make H.R. 2378 consistent with the rules

of the WTO, it is not clear that the legislation meets the

WTO's standards for the application of countervailing duties

(CVDs). The legislation would require the Commerce Department

to estimate what the ``true'' exchange rate is, a process

that will be highly subjective and potentially politicized.

Since application of CVDs to imports from China on the basis

of this legislation is of questionable WTO legality, China

would almost certainly challenge this action as violative of

U.S. WTO obligations, which would focus the world's attention

on the United States and WTO technicalities, and away from

China's exchange-rate policies.

We share Congress' desire to have China act more quickly to

adopt a market-determined exchange rate. But the proposed

unilateral measure is not going to achieve that result. We

urge you to oppose H.R. 2378 and instead work with and

vigorously call on the Administration to develop a robust

bilateral and multilateral approach to achieve tangible

results not only on China's exchange-rate policies, but also

on other Chinese policies that are harming American

businesses, workers and farmers.

Sincerely,

Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed);

American Chamber of Commerce in China; American Chamber

of Commerce in Shanghai; American Chamber of Commerce

in South China; American Apparel & Footwear Association

(AAFA); American Soybean Association; American Meat

Institute; Business Roundtable; Coalition of New

England Companies for Trade (CONECT); Coalition of

Service Industries; Consumer Electronics Association;

and Corn Refiners Association.

Distilled Spirits Council of the United States; Emergency

Committee for American Trade (ECAT); Fashion

Accessories Shippers Association (FASA); Financial

Services Forum; Financial Services Roundtable;

International Dairy Foods Association; Los Angeles

Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Association;

National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Customs

Brokers and Forwarders Association of America (NCBFAA);

National Fisheries Institute; National Foreign Trade

Council; and National Retail Federation.

Pacific Coast Council of Customs Brokers and Freight

Forwarders (PCC); Retail Industry Leaders Association;

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association;

Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association; Toy Industry

Association; Travel Goods Association (TGA); United

States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel

(USA-ITA); U.S. Chamber of Commerce; US-China Business

Council; U.S. Council for International Business; USA

Poultry & Egg Export Council; and Washington State

China Relations Council.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my State of Louisiana has faced four hurricanes, a recession, and now an oil spill. And every one of us in this body has faced and looked into the eyes of those who lost their homes and lost their jobs. And every one of us in this body feels deep compassion for those who are in those dire straits. And we all want to help. Republicans want to help those looking for work, we want to help those who are struggling with this current economic slowdown, but we also agree with the American people that new spending must be paid for.

This latest unemployment insurance extender bill fails to do what the American people want us to do. Instead, the Democratic approach adds another $34 billion to the already staggering $13 trillion national debt. And that's not because we have a shortage of ineffective, inefficient, wasteful spending that we could cut to offset what's needed to pay for this. We want to do this, but we want to do what the American people want us to do--and that is to pay for it.

Republicans have repeatedly called for the cutting of unspent stimulus spending to offset this new stream of spending. The majority leader himself, Mr. Hoyer, said on June 13, there is ``spending fatigue'' across this country and that ``if we have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act'' that they should be redirected for new spending such as this.

Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago the administration told the American people that their trillion-dollar stimulus plan would create millions of jobs and keep unemployment below 8 percent. Instead, 2 million jobs more have been lost and unemployment surged to nearly 10 percent. Overall, 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the Democrats' February 2009 stimulus bill, including my home State of Louisiana.

Instead of supporting this economy and getting Americans back to work, jobs have been lost, our debt continues to spiral out of control, and the only solution we have here, without an ability to amend, without an ability to offer some alternative approach, is to add another $34 billion in new spending without offsetting it. New spending is unnecessary, and Republicans have been calling for this wasted stimulus money to be put to better use by supporting the long-term unemployed. I suggest the best way to create jobs is to stop destroying good-paying jobs that already exist. And let me explain what I mean by that.

This is the single most important issue in my home State of Louisiana. The people of Louisiana are facing job loss. In addition to a failed economic policy, a failed stimulus, President Obama's ill- conceived and unwarranted and--in the words of a Federal judge-- arbitrary and capricious ban on offshore drilling is galvanizing residents across the gulf coast like I've never seen before. And the long term implications of this, Mr. Speaker, are real. Real lives are affected by this.

Because of this policy, tens of thousands of good-paying jobs along the gulf coast are immediately at risk, and it doesn't have to be this way. But unfortunately, the elites in this administration and the President himself refuse to understand this.

Six weeks ago, the Louisiana delegation--the entire delegation, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate--requested a meeting with the President in writing. And we have not even gotten a response back. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that's just unacceptable, and it's irresponsible.

Already three gulf rigs have left American waters heading to other parts of the world, and the trend is going to continue at an accelerated rate. And once a rig is gone, it could be years before it returns--if it ever returns at all. Each one of these deepwater rigs employs 1,400 workers. You take 1,400 workers and multiply it by six, and those are the immediate support workers. These are jobs that are being lost.

And smaller companies that cannot afford to move are simply losing their workers. People are losing their jobs, costing thousands of jobs.

I met recently with about 35 companies. These are all small companies affected by this. And there was an African American couple. He got started doing janitorial work. And he worked very hard for years to do this, saved his money and started a small business, an oil service company that he was so proud of. The American dream, by God. He started this company and grew it to 20 workers. And he had accelerating work until this ban on drilling, and now he has no work, and he's seeing his life savings go down the drain. Why? Because of an ill-founded, government-imposed moratorium that makes no sense.

These are rig workers and energy engineers, they're plumbers, they're electricians, they're dock workers. They work in the maritime industry. And yet this is the kind of policy we're getting. This ban hurts everybody. We stand united on the gulf coast to support good-paying jobs.

This stimulus has failed, and it's time to direct these funds into more beneficial areas to help those who are chronically unemployed.

The last time this House acted, Mr. Camp, the ranking member of our Ways and Means Committee, offered a motion to extend these benefits while paying for the spending by using unspent funds from the failed stimulus bill. The House could immediately act on that same type of provision today with the Senate following suit to get these benefits to the long-term unemployed in a way that helps the economy, job creation--instead of hampering job creation even more.

That is what we should be doing and what would most help the unemployed get benefits that they need today and the jobs that they need tomorrow.

The American people want President Obama and this Congress to spur entrepreneurship and American competitiveness and to create good-paying jobs. Instead, the President and this Congress continue on a path of increasing uncertainty leading to high unemployment and runaway spending. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is the eighth time this unemployment benefit insurance is extended. I think that, in and of itself, speaks for the failure of the economic policies.

Secondly, a massive tax increase in the face of economic uncertainty is only going to hurt economic growth and job creation, and on our side of the aisle, we'll work to find the offset to avoiding these tax increases on the American people.

And finally, I just want to point out that private sector growth in the year 2010, the rate of private sector growth has actually been slower than what we saw in the Great Depression.

I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), the ranking member on one of the subcommittees of Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, just to briefly respond to the previous speaker, we want to look forward. We don't want to look back. We don't want a cynical look to the past; we want a positive vision to the future for the American people, which means we want to go along and promote growth in the economy and do an extension of unemployment benefits in a responsible way by paying for it, eliminating wasteful spending in the stimulus package as the offset.

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

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is an investment, but it is one we can pay for. And that's the sad state that we're in today because we are being refused the ability to even offer those kinds of amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. Speaker, in addition to what Mr. Hoyer said about using the unused stimulus funds, Mr. Obey has hailed amendments to the Supplemental Appropriations bill made on July 1 that were paid for by repeatedly cutting unspent projects in the stimulus law. And in the other body, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Baucus, has suggested the same. And that's what we're saying here. There is a better way to do this, a fiscally responsible way to not only take care of the forgotten man and woman today, but to prevent even more from being forgotten in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise). Mr. Scalise and I have worked together on American competitiveness, trying to achieve energy independence to meet our national security needs and to grow jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to my friend from the State of Washington.

I would say that I would not have the audacity to speak for the people of Washington, because I haven't had the chance to actually get to know them. I can tell the gentleman that I do know the fishermen, the oystermen, the shrimpers, and those who run boats down in my State of Louisiana.

If they were here on the House floor today, they would say, ``Please do not kick us when we're down. Lift this ban on drilling because, if not, it is going to kill our economy.'' These are the same fishermen and oystermen and shrimpers who are losing their jobs.

That's why we need sensible policies, Mr. Speaker. We are all for extending the unemployment benefit insurance, but we know we can do it in a responsible way--by paying for it with unspent stimulus money.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who serves on the President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend, the distinguished majority leader of the House, that in the 1990s, during the Clinton administration, there was a great bipartisan effort that led to those balanced budgets because there was a Republican majority.

I will yield.

I will reclaim my time, and I will remind the majority leader that we have the opportunity to go forward now and not cast blame on the past. So I would say that President Obama actually got it right in a statement of administration policy on November 2009 regarding unemployment benefit extensions, which was fully paid for. And here is what he said. I quote, ``Fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. The administration therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill.''

All we're saying is there is a better way to do this, and that is to pay for this extension.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

This is about whether we're going to pay for this or not. Consider that this is the eighth time this Congress is going to extend these benefits. The eighth time. That's an indication that the current economic policy of this administration and this Congress is a failure.

I mentioned earlier the fact of the matter is we have a choice. We can do this in a fiscally responsible way, or we can choose to run up additional debt on our children and grandchildren to the tune of $34 billion between now and November.

Again, I think the President, President Obama, got it right in the statement of administration policy in November 2009 when the unemployment benefit extension was actually paid for. Again, I'm going to quote what he said: ``Fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term of the economy and the creation of jobs. The administration therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill.''

Now, if fiscal responsibility helps the economy and job creation, then the fiscal irresponsibility of this bill before us will hurt the economy and job creation.

And I think the American people have spoken. They want us to do this, but they want us to pay for it. Let's do the right thing and actually pay for the spending we approve and help our economy grow, help job creation. As the administration said, a fiscally responsible approach is what's needed.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, when most of our Republican colleagues vote ``no'' against extending unemployment benefits for Americans today, these people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, they will say they are doing it out of concern for the deficit. But, in reality, they are simply trying to make the President fail at any cost.

We have precedent here for that. Back in the 1990s, when Newt Gingrich ruled this place, they thought the American people were stupid, but it didn't work then and it won't work now.

In December 1995, Newt Gingrich thought he could win the Presidency for the Republican Party by shutting down the government and proving that Bill Clinton was ineffective.

You all remember that. Instead, the American people caught on to this foolishness and overwhelmingly reelected Bill Clinton to office in 1996.

Now they have got the same play book again; they are running it again. The Republican leadership in Congress has decided that the way for the Republicans to get the White House back is by denying unemployment benefits to workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Show them that this government doesn't work. For over 6 weeks they have held displaced workers as hostages.

Now, you would think they would have learned from Gingrich back in 1995. It doesn't work. He only held the country hostage for a few days, and then he gave it up because people need to look at what the Senate Republicans are doing in the other body to see exactly what they are doing again today.

Even after the Senate broke the Republican filibuster on restoring unemployment benefits 2 days ago, the Republicans insisted on running out every minute of time left on the clock before allowing a final vote on this bill.

They wanted to dangle those workers out there for yet one more day. They wanted them to sit at home and wonder is it going to happen. How am I going to feed my kids? Can I pay for my house? For families who are without income and rely on unemployment benefits to make ends meet, every day counts.

Republicans clearly couldn't care less, and they forced these unemployed workers to twist in the wind for one more day. This is a slap in the face to millions of Americans who are struggling to find work and rely on unemployment benefits as a lifeline.

This effort to undermine the effectiveness of President Obama by denying unemployment benefits to workers, and by denying the President the power to create jobs, will ultimately fail. Republicans have done nothing more than help ensure that Mr. Obama will be elected a second time.

Good move, guys. The American people will remember and despite what the Republicans think, the voters are not stupid. They don't want the ghost of Newt Gingrich running this country, and they don't want to return to the failed economic policies of President Bush.

They know that they want this government to help people when they need help, and they know that they didn't lose their job because they did something wrong. Greed on Wall Street got them. They are suffering because of that greed which we dealt with a couple of days ago, but they need a check to pay the rent and pay for food.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I can't help but respond to the change of subject from the gentleman from Louisiana.

I guess fishermen aren't worth anything. Fishermen are worthless. All that sea stuff that comes up and that they sell all over the place, they don't care about that. All they want to do is drill for oil. The President is careful and prudent and says let's look at this drilling before we go on with it because we have just proven that the oil companies are reckless. They have proven it for 79 days in the gulf, and if you can't learn from that and realize what it is doing to crabbers and to shrimp fishermen and to oystermen, then you have missed the point.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we close this debate and finally put this on the back burner until November when we have to come back and look at it again perhaps--we'll see--one of the speakers on the other side talked about confusion. My view is that the confusion here is between whether we're going to send unemployment checks or we're going to tell people, Go hungry. That's the confusion.

People say, Well, it's about paying for it. I will remind my colleagues on the other side Mr. Bush was President for 8 years, and when we did unemployment, we did it on an emergency basis. We never paid for it one time and you guys, the Republicans--I'm not supposed to address them directly--they didn't pay for it, Mr. Speaker. They were in charge and their President was in charge, but they called it an emergency.

Now under Mr. Obama, it's not an emergency.

Suddenly we're going to tie up people's minds and try and confuse them. But the fact is that for 6 weeks we have said to workers in this country, We are not going to extend benefits.

Now, we have never, in the history of this country, when unemployment was at 7.2 or above, failed to extend benefits until the Republicans got a serious case of fiscal--well, I'm not going to say exactly what I think--but fiscal disease has overtaken their mind. And they've suddenly caught this thing--it must be in the air around here or somewhere down around the Ohio River between Cincinnati and Kentucky. They've got leadership that said, You know, we can infect everybody with this fiscal fear. We'll just sacrifice a

few million. It's only 2\1/2\ million people who are going to lose their benefits. So it's not very many. There's 300 million in America. We can throw away 2\1/2\ million. That's easy. They won't vote. They're too stupid to know who's doing it to them.

That's the kind of message you're sending when you're saying you won't give unemployment benefits.

This is so easily understood by the American people. This is not climate change. This is not all the complicated stuff. Some people around here think the American people have a very short memory span, but they don't on stuff where it's right down to the bone.

And you will remember this day as the day when finally the Republicans came to their senses. They finally said, You know, this ain't going to work. It really ain't going to work. We're not going to admit it. We're going to say we were doing it on principle.

But there is no principle at the table when the mother opens the cupboard and there is nothing in it. Or when the lights aren't turned on because you haven't paid the utility bills. Or when the water is turned off because you haven't paid your water bill. What does a mother say the principle is? Now kids, get in the bathtub, but there is no water. Clean yourself up, right?

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you think this money is going for people to buy iPads or iPhones or i4Phones or whatever? This is going for the necessities of life. And you're saying to the ordinary people of this country, Well, we have a principle, under the Democrats, we have to pay for it. Now not under the Democrats.

And I can hardly wait until we get the proposals over from the Senate to extend the tax breaks and watch you guys do a double flip. You will get a ``10'' in Olympic terms for your ability to do a double flip and say, Well, now we don't have to pay for it. And watch, they're going to send over the estate tax. They are going to send over a bailout for the people at the very top. And you're going to say, We don't have to pay for them. Oh, no. No, no. They're very rich. No, no, no, no, no, we can't pay for that. No, no. But they're going to make us pay for the people who are in the most dire distress in this society.

It's really shameful, and I'm going to watch with pleasure as you vote ``no'' as you vote yourself out of here.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for bringing this important legislation to the floor today. And indeed, there is some good news in it, but there is some not-so-good news in it as well.

I listened very attentively to the previous speaker talk about why these unemployment benefits had to be paid for, and I was struck by the inconsistency in his remarks and that of the Republicans in the United States Senate and in the House of Representatives. It's important to note that while they demand that these benefits be paid for--$34 billion in unemployment benefits going to those who have played by the rules, worked hard, who are unemployed through no fault of their own, $34 billion, which injected into the economy will indeed create jobs-- while they have said that $700 billion of tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America shouldn't be paid for. ``Inconsistent'' is the politest word I can use to describe that.

Thirty-four billion dollars for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Last week the Economic Policy Institute released a report making it clear that not only do unemployment benefits protect those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, but would lead to more jobs, higher wages, and a stronger economy for all Americans.

And why is that so? That is so because these benefits are given to people who need them. The money will be spent immediately on necessities injecting demand into the economy, creating jobs. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute figured that would be 1.4 million jobs relating to the unemployment benefits that are out there now.

The Congressional Budget Office which is independent and nonpartisan has confirmed that extending unemployment benefits is the most efficient way for the government to generate economic growth.

Now, I know why the gentleman may want to change the subject to other things. He mentions Katrina. We all supported Katrina. Did anybody talk about paying for that emergency? No. It was an emergency. We have a compact with the American people in the time of a natural disaster-- even though that disaster was exacerbated by cronyism in the Bush administration.

But let's not go there. Let's just stay on this subject. And the subject at hand is when this bill was introduced today, this resolution, I'm sure you all heard that it was an amendment to an amendment. Well, the Senate amendment that we are voting on, the amendment that they put in took out the jobs initiatives. And those initiatives were paid for. Build America Bonds. That was part of the original bill, to build the infrastructure of America, the highways and infrastructure of America in a new green way creating new green jobs and new green technologies. And the Build America jobs that went beyond those investments; FMAP to stabilize our State economies.

Thirty States have written their budgets already on the basis of this funding being in the legislation and paid for--not increasing the deficit. We passed it in December. The Senate only now is sending it back to us because the Republicans have objected to that, and the amendment to the amendment eliminates that stability for States.

Summer jobs, well, it's too late for summer jobs, so youth jobs. In December, we passed the bill for summer jobs for America's youth. The amendment to the amendment takes out those youths. And they were paid for, because on the one hand they say everything has to be paid for. Well, when it's paid for, then are they just plain opposed to summer jobs for youths? Are they opposed to Build America Bonds to grow our economy and meet the needs of our country infrastructurewise?

The Housing Trust Fund, very, very important initiative.

Concurrent receipt: I don't think there's any doubt that every person in this Congress supports our veterans. One issue that is a high priority for America's veterans when we meet with them on a regular basis is the issue of concurrent receipt. You may not be familiar with that term, but it's a disability tax on our veterans, and with so many veterans returning home with disabilities from Iraq and Afghanistan this is very, very important. It was in the bill. It was paid for. Again, money given to people who need it for necessities who would spend it, inject demand into the economy and create jobs. So the amendment to the amendment that the Senate Republicans would finally let pass in the Senate removed concurrent receipt, paid for, for our veterans.

The list goes on and on, a list of paid-for initiatives that benefit our veterans, grow our economy, create jobs, help our workers, help our young people, stabilize our States, all paid for. The Republican Senators said ``no,'' and they held up this particular amendment to the amendment for over 6 weeks because they said it had to be paid for.

At the very same time, they were saying we must pay for $34 billion for benefits for the unemployed but we don't have to pay for the $700 billion for the wealthiest people in America to have tax cuts. Those same tax cuts, during the 8 years of the Bush administration, did not create jobs; they increased the deficit. And the Republicans have said they want to go back to the exact agenda of the Bush administration. They look with increased fondness on the Bush administration.

Well, let me say this here today. The good news about this is finally our unemployed will get their benefits. It will be retroactive. It's really sad that it has to come to this. Nonpaid-for tax cuts for the rich; paid-for benefits for our workers.

But it's important to note, contrary to what you might hear from some in this Chamber, that in the first 8 months of the Obama administration, more jobs were created--well, by the time we finish August, more jobs will have been created than in the 8 years of the Bush administration. While they increased the deficit by trillions of dollars, while we lost jobs, where they took us to a brink of financial crisis of our financial industry, where they took us deep into recession, where they took us deep into deficit, they want to return to the exact same agenda.

We are not going back and our step forward into the future, one step into the future is being taken today when we say to American workers, You have played by the rules. You have worked hard. You have lost your job through no fault of your own. You have these benefits, but we must do more to create jobs, to create more jobs.

I urge our colleagues today to understand how important this is, the distinction between those who support our workers. Respect the contract that we have with them so that when the economy ebbs and flows and the cycle of employment and unemployment is not in their favor, that we will be there for them. And being there for them is not just about them. It's also about the entire economy, the entire economy. The economy cannot flourish and be entrepreneurial unless it knows that there's a safety net in case the economy comes down.

The Republicans are saying ``no'' to that. They've said ``no'' over and over again, and they're saying ``no'' today unless it is paid for, again, while they still say, We want tax cuts for the wealthiest, $700 billion worth, 20 times more than this bill for unemployment insurance.

But don't forget what they took out of the bill and don't forget that that includes concurrent receipt for our veterans.

I urge our colleagues to proudly vote for this legislation.

I commend my colleague Mr. Levin for his hard work on this and other legislation, and I know, because it's absolutely essential, that at some point we will get a jobs bill that will come back from the Senate. We agree that it should be paid for. We've sent it over to them paid for, and that they will recognize that we need to create jobs, good- paying jobs that take us into the future and, most of all, that we're not going back to the failed economic policies of the Bush administration.

I urge a strong ``aye'' vote on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, the timeliness of my opportunity to speak is sometimes good, and I think this is one of them.

Mr. Hensarling just spoke. I have great respect for Mr. Hensarling. He works hard. He focuses. He's philosophically well-grounded, and he follows his philosophy. I disagree with his philosophy, his fiscal premises. And his fiscal premises that were part of the last administration's approach to the finances of this country increased our deficit by 87 percent, from $5 trillion, essentially, a little over $5 trillion, to a little over $10 trillion. They didn't quite double it, but 87 percent more debt under the Bush administration.

That I called fiscal child abuse. Why? Because it was not done at a time of fiscal crisis with large unemployment. That unemployment was caused by the policies of the last administration.

Why do I say that? Because under the Clinton administration, we created 21 million jobs in the private sector, just a little short of 21 million jobs, 22.8 overall, when you include public employment.

And during the Bush administration, how did it relate to that 20.1 million new jobs in the private sector? One million. How did it relate per month to job production? 216,000 under the Clinton administration, and 11,000 per month under the Bush administrations. That's what their economic policies wrought. Their economic policies of cutting deeply, not $40 billion or $34 billion borrowed money, but trillions, with an ``s,'' of borrowed money to fund tax cuts which they did not pay for.

They weren't continuations of the Tax Code, as Jon Kyl, the second- ranking Republican leader in the Senate, now argues ought not to be paid for; $687 billion, that we just ought to continue that for the wealthiest in our country, not the little children who are worried about whether their parents are going to be able to afford the mortgage or afford to put bread on the table. That's what we're talking about in this bill for literally millions of people who have run out of support.

Now, will they run out of support in this moral country? They will not ultimately run out of support; they'll be put on welfare and food stamps. And they won't be available for the insurance to which their employer and they participated in, providing for the contingency that we ran the economy into the ditch, the worst economy in three-quarters of a century, wrought by the Bush economic policies, to which Mr. Sessions, the chairman of their campaign committee, says that they want to return to the exact agenda.

I'm so pleased I had the opportunity to come and respond to my friend from Texas. It does demonstrate the difference between our two parties. Absolutely.

Jon Kyl, who says, we ought to borrow $686 billion from the Chinese to

give to the wealthiest in America, and Democrats, who say we want to borrow $34 billion to give to the children of America whose families are in need--yes, that is the difference, if my friend from Texas wants to make that the difference.

This is about saying that we have an emergency. And historically, from Ronald Reagan to today, Ronald Reagan, Bush the first and Bush the second, what did you do when you were in charge? You borrowed at times of economic trouble to give unemployment insurance.

We are doing the same thing. Why did we do that? Because we perceived it to be an emergency. An emergency that people in the richest Nation on the face of the earth were about to run out of the ability to keep their homes, buy their food, clothe their children. A moral and great country thinks that's an emergency. That's what this vote is all about.

This vote is also about, as the gentleman from Texas has said, expressing our values. I agree with that. And I'm going to express my values, and I urge the Members of this House to express their values this day on this vote, as millions of people have lost their unemployment insurance because we could not get 60 votes in the Senate. Had almost every Democrat saying we need to help now. People are running out of ability to support themselves now. We paid insurance for now. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

A few months ago, we passed unemployment insurance through this House by unanimous consent. The election wasn't as proximate then as it is today. The deficit is way too high, and we need to get a handle on it. And I just made a speech, and I have been criticized by some on my side of the aisle and some others for saying that we needed to put everything on the table. I reiterate that today. We need to put everything on the table. No sacred cows.

I have three children, three grandchildren, as all of you will get tired of hearing, and one great granddaughter. And I owe it to her personally, as a Member of this House, to say ladies and gentlemen of this House and of our country, we have a moral responsibility to get a handle on this deficit.

A reporter just asked me as I was walking down the aisle, did I agree with Mr. Bernanke's comment that we ought to pay if we extended the tax cuts? And I said to him this: At a time of fiscal crisis, when our economy is struggling to get back from the ditch it was in when this administration took over--how much of a ditch? During the last year of the Clinton administration, we added 1.9 million new jobs, I tell my friend from Texas. Last year, Clinton administration, 1.9 million new jobs in America. And it was a slowdown period.

During the last year of the Bush administration, after the economic policies that were pursued from 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and through 2009, even though we took the Congress we couldn't do anything because the President would veto legislation, and did in fact veto legislation, 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs. That's a difference of 1.9 million new jobs in the last year of Clinton to 3.8 million lost jobs in the last year of Bush, or a 5.7 million jobs turnaround. Is there any wonder why there is a lot of pain in America and families are in great distress and they're angry and they have angst? And we share that.

Today does not solve the problem. But today reaches out to those folks in distress and say in the short-term, on an emergency basis we are going to continue to give you help so you can support your families in this, the wealthiest Nation on the face of the earth. You worked hard. You paid in. And through no fault of your own, you lost your job.

Maybe because of the fault of Wall Street that my friend believes we were too harsh on, we are imposing rules on so they can play by the rules and not squander and take risks that put Wall Street profits before Main Street stability. Yes, and also we're not going to apologize to the BP oil company and say we're sorry that we expect you to be accountable for the negligence that caused millions of people to be in economic distress. We're not going to say sorry. Some people want to say sorry that the President of the United States suggested, hey, you need to help those people.

Maybe helping people is a difference between our two parties. I don't necessarily think that. I don't want to say that. But if that's the difference, today is a day when 435 of us can stand up and vote ``aye'' to help millions of Americans in deep distress through no fault of their own.

I urge my colleagues to stand up and let people know that you are on their side.

Will my friend yield on that point?

It's a good point. I ask my friend--that is true--why couldn't you do it when you had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency?