Floor Statements

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

I rise in support of the Improving Access to Clinical Trials Act before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I was an original cosponsor of the House version of this bill introduced in June 2009. To date, there are 141 Members from both sides of the aisle who have cosponsored that House bill. The Senate version passed unanimously last month, and I urge all Members to support this needed legislation.

This bill would allow Americans with serious diseases to retain the benefits they need while they help find treatments and cures for themselves and others with similar afflictions.

In the field of medicine, clinical trials are an important tool to find new and more effective treatments for incapacitating and often deadly diseases. Under current NIH standards, sponsors of clinical research may provide modest payments to trial participants for their out-of-pocket costs and time spent participating in the trial. Such payments average about $500 per participant. That compensation must be provided to all participants if it is offered to any to ensure financial concerns don't affect the outcome of such trials. That means individuals cannot opt to not be paid for their participation in clinical trials.

Yet, under current law, such payments also must be counted as income in determining an individual's eligibility for SSI disability payments and Medicaid coverage, if they receive those benefits. That means that participating in a clinical trial could reduce or even eliminate those important benefits for some individuals. That forces individuals to choose between maintaining their current health and disability benefits and the chance to participate in a clinical trial that could improve or even cure their condition, as well as help others like them in the future. And when a large share of people with rare diseases like cystic fibrosis are receiving SSI benefits, this policy may actually prevent trials from going forward altogether, since it restricts the already small number of people able to participate in the trial in the first place.

So this bill makes a simple correction. Over the next 5 years, it directs the SSI and Medicaid programs to ignore modest compensation that program beneficiaries might receive for participation in clinical trials when determining program eligibility. This is consistent with current SSI program exemptions, as well as common sense. Importantly, given the small number of people affected and the program red tape this would actually prevent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will result in no net costs to the Federal Government. And the legislation directs the Government Accountability Office to study this issue to ensure the bill is having its intended effects of assisting people with diseases and improving participation in clinical trials while holding the Federal program costs down.

Mr. Speaker, this is a reasonable approach that merits our support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), one of the coauthors of the House bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), a physician who knows a little bit about clinical trials.

I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am glad we can work together on this bipartisan bill. It is an important step in improving access to clinical trials.

I thank my colleague from Louisiana for sharing his personal story. It is a very poignant story, and it highlights the importance of this small step that we are taking to improve access to clinical trials.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 5297.

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot today about the centerpiece of this bill--the highly controversial $30 billion small business lending fund, a provision sometimes referred to as TARP III. That provision is certainly of major concern to me, and it is reason enough to vote against this bill, though I want to focus my remarks on aspects of the bill that are within the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdiction.

This legislation includes approximately $12 billion in small business tax provisions, including a number of items that Republicans have long supported. For example, there is widespread, bipartisan support for expanded business expensing and for the extension of bonus depreciation as ways to encourage additional capital investments.

In addition, this bill includes a provision originally authored by our colleague from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) that would eliminate the outdated requirement that employees keep extensive records documenting their personal use of their employer-provided cell phones so they can include the value of that benefit in their incomes.

It also includes a provision that I have been working on with Chairman Lewis of the Oversight Subcommittee that would reduce penalties on small businesses that unintentionally violate certain disclosure rules under section 6707(a) of the Tax Code. Republicans don't object to these provisions. In fact, we think they should have been enacted months ago.

The tax portion of this bill also contains a highly troubling provision that would essentially double down on a particularly flawed element of the majority's new health care law. It is the requirement that small businesses file form 1099 with the IRS for every business and individual to which they make total payments of more than $600 each a year. We already know that this highly confusing and burdensome information-reporting regime, which could cause the number of required tax forms to quintuple, will drive up the cost for small businesses across the country. It is clear that this added expense will mean that employers will have less money to hire new workers and to retain existing ones.

Instead of working with Republicans to repeal these onerous new 1099 reporting requirements, the majority is now actually seeking in today's bill to substantially increase the penalties for failure to comply with them. Although proposals to increase the penalties for failure to file correct information returns have not always been particularly controversial, these penalties now apply to a much larger universe of transactions because of the majority's new health law. Because those new requirements are so confusing and burdensome, especially for small businesses that are already struggling to meet payroll, increasing the penalties for what could be inadvertent mistakes seems especially unfair.

To add insult to injury, the legislation before us would also expand the types of transactions subject to 1099 reporting requirements even further. The bill would generally require that a recipient of rental real estate income file an information return on his rental property's expense payment as well. For example, an individual who rents out even a single condo unit would generally be required to file a 1099 for his purchase from Home Depot or other corporate establishments if he buys more than $600 in supplies from them over the course of the year.

This new requirement, which would raise more than $2.5 billion over 10 years, could prove to be every bit as burdensome for owners of small rental real estate holdings as the health law's 1099 requirements are for small businesses, especially considering the increases in penalties I mentioned a moment ago.

But let me close by making a broader point. The majority boasts about how much this bill's tax provisions like increased expensing and extending bonus

depreciation will help small businesses--and let me be clear. Those are proposals that Republicans continue to support. But any tax benefits provided by this bill at the margins will pale in comparison to the enormous tax increase the majority has in store for every taxpaying small business at the end of this year.

By failing to extend the critical tax relief that is scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, the majority will impose a $3.8 trillion tax hike on American taxpayers--including every small business in America that pays income taxes--over the next 10 years. Especially with unemployment continuing to hover near 10 percent and economic growth very sluggish, that is a terrible idea for small businesses. It's a terrible idea for the economy, and it's a terrible idea for job creation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I mentioned earlier the small business provisions that we do agree upon, but we think that these are going to be outweighed by the onerous 1099 provision that is in the health law, and the impact on businesses is going to be terrible.

I want to just mention something here. The IRS's own National Taxpayer Advocate highlighted several problems with this particular 1099 reporting requirement. ``The new reporting burden, particularly as it falls on small businesses, may turn out to be as disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvements in tax compliance. Small businesses may have to pay for additional accounting services, incurring additional costs. In our view, it's highly likely that the IRS will improperly assess penalties that it must abate later after great expenditure of the taxpayer and IRS time and effort. Small businesses that lack the capacity to track customer purchases may lose customers, leaving the economy with more large national vendors and less local competition.'' Those are the words of the National Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS.

This 1099 reporting burden on small businesses is particularly onerous and outweighs many of the advantages of some of these tax provisions that we all agree upon. It's a shame that we couldn't have gotten together to put together a better small business package that would actually promote small business growth, promote jobs, and promote our economy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I mentioned that we are for some of this tax relief in this bill. But if you talk to small business owners across this great country of ours, you talk to workers, you talk to families, what they're concerned about is the uncertainty, the uncertainty of what's happened over the last 2 years under this administration. This atmosphere of uncertainty is what's killing small business growth, and it's killing jobs.

Now, we highlighted the 1099 provision in the health care bill. That's just one provision in a massive bill that has led to this tremendous uncertainty, this atmosphere that is just like cold water on all business activity.

Yes, I admit the credit problems are real. Small businesses are struggling with it. But why is that? It's because there is uncertainty in the economic climate.

Now, it's nice. We have a bill that offers some good tax provisions in there. But where one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away with onerous provisions that are going to add costs to our businesses that are trying to hire and trying to make a living and trying to prosper, trying to create wealth and prosperity for American families.

The bottom line is we need good, solid policies that are going to basically eliminate this uncertainty. That's why I have to say I lament the fact that we couldn't get together and work on something that would really promote job growth, promote economic growth and prosperity for families. But, no, we have to play these political games, and we have to put provisions in there for certain reasons that actually are going to work counter to what we're trying to do.

The 1099 provision is just one of many, many elements that have led to this intense uncertainty across the board. I challenge my friends. I say go across the country, visit your districts, talk to small business owners and ask them what is the problem. They'll tell you it's credit. But they'll tell you, We don't know what's coming with this health care and what it's going to cost us.

There are a number of provisions the way this is going to be implemented, the 1099 provision being one. New taxes, the tax uncertainty--my God, that is a huge issue. Why can't we get together and extend the tax relief from 2001 and 2003 and keep the capital gains and dividend taxes where they are today? That will create an atmosphere of certainty for our businesses that want to hire, they want to produce goods, they want to export.

Why can't we articulate a coherent trade policy that's really going to promote exports? We've got three trade agreements on the table ready to go that immediately promote exports that will create high, good- paying jobs. One-out-of-five jobs in this country are related to trade. But, no, we won't take up those trade agreements. Ask why. Special interest. It's not what's best for America; it's for special interest.

We have a moratorium on drilling down in my district, in my State. It's killing small business growth. Killing it. These are small businesses that provide services and equipment and manufacturing to support American energy. And guess what. We have an arbitrarily imposed moratorium that defies any basis in fact or science at this stage, and we can't even get answers from this administration to bipartisan letters inquiring why that's the case.

So let's talk about how you get rid of uncertainty in this economic climate. We've got a climate of fear right now. People are fearing what's coming out of Washington.

What we need is certainty, and we need good, solid politics that are going to help American workers and American families.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6190.

This is a straightforward bill to extend for 3 months, through December 31, the existing FAA authorization law, the excise taxes that support the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and the trust fund's expenditure authorities. The current FAA authorization, as well as the excise taxes and spending authorities, are currently scheduled to expire on October 1.

For the past several months, the House and Senate have been negotiating on a long-term FAA reauthorization bill, but those negotiations have not yet come to a close. This extension will give Congress additional time to try to resolve the differences between the Chambers' bills and to determine whether modifications to the financing structure of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund are appropriate.

I would note, however, that because the majority has chosen to extend the FAA authority only through the end of the year, they are ensuring that Congress must return for a lame duck session to prevent the FAA authorization from expiring. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have voiced legitimate concerns about the mischief that could be made in an extended lame duck session, with various pieces of must-pass legislation being held hostage to unpopular tax increases and spending increases that the majority might decide to postpone until after the election.

Despite this risk, it is important that we take the necessary steps to extend the current FAA authorization and its related excise taxes and expenditure authorities on a temporary basis, and I join with my colleagues across the aisle in support of this legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Eunice Elementary School in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana, for being recognized by the United States Department of Education as a 2010 National Blue Ribbon School.

Eunice Elementary is one of the 304 schools honored this year for great academic achievement and far-reaching improvement. Nominations and applications were sent by numerous public and private elementary, middle, and high schools. More than 6,000 schools have been honored since 1982, when the Blue Ribbon Program began.

Eunice Elementary educates students from pre-kindergarten through fourth grade. The school's accelerated reading program also excelled at the national level this year. LEAP scores from spring 2010 were proficient with mathematics being the most improved.

The hard work of the students and dedication of the faculty and staff prove the school deserving of this honor. The entire St. Landry Parish community, which has contributed to Eunice Elementary's success, should be very proud. Commending this Louisiana school for its wonderful achievement is both an honor and a pleasure.

Again, congratulations to Eunice Elementary School, a 2010 National Blue Ribbon School.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Florida for his kind words, and we share the same sentiments with regard to hurricanes, and we've both dealt with them. I appreciate his work as well and his leadership for the State of Florida.

Madam Speaker, September 24 marks the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Rita's landfall in my southwest Louisiana district. This category 3 storm came ashore with wind speeds of more than 120 miles per hour and 115 feet of storm surge, causing an estimated $11.3 billion in damages, making it the third most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history.

Hurricane Rita caused widespread destruction to our communities, fragile working wetlands, and critical energy infrastructure in Vermilion, Cameron, and Calcasieu Parishes.

On a personal note, I'd like to thank all of my colleagues who traveled to southwest Louisiana in the months after the storm to witness firsthand the devastation and to offer assistance. I also want to thank Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and the committee staff, as well as the entire Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who all worked with our delegation to help address some of the problems we faced in this storm's aftermath.

In the past 5 years, I've worked hard to ensure that Rita is not the forgotten storm and to further assist in the region's recovery and building. I'm proud we have initiated the first-ever hurricane protection plan for southwest Louisiana and included provisions in the 2007 WRDA bill to help expedite the Corps of Engineers' work to ensure projects are not delayed.

Rita exposed the critical state of our coastal wetlands and the role they play in supporting the U.S. energy industry. These wetlands serve as a critical buffer against hurricanes and protect industries and cities located further inland. Before the 2005 storms, the projected land loss in Louisiana was 24 square miles per year. After Katrina and Rita, the national wetland center reported 217 square miles of Louisiana coastal lands were transformed to water.

Protecting and strengthening our coasts is not only a Louisiana problem--it's an American problem. Families and businesses rely on the energy we produce in Louisiana and transport throughout the country each day. We were just starting to regain our way of life along the gulf coast, and Louisianans now face new challenges.

The current moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico threatens good-paying jobs and our economic livelihood. This moratorium has idled 33 rigs and the workers on these platforms, and it's hampering south Louisiana's recovery. There are also thousands more support workers affected by this, including welders, electricians, mariners, caterers, and engineers, that aren't directly employed by the drilling operator.

The ramifications of the deepwater moratorium and the de facto shallow water moratorium are being felt as layoffs have begun along the gulf coast. The same hardworking citizens who stayed in south Louisiana to rebuild their homes with their own hands after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are now experiencing economic devastation.

American energy production in the gulf can be done safely, and we need to work together to quickly implement improved safety standards to put gulf coast residents back to work delivering the energy that this Nation relies upon.

Louisianans are resilient, and I'm proud to work with my community as we continue the long recovery process.

Madam Speaker, I want to salute the dedicated first responders, volunteers, and professionals who offered assistance to those affected by the storm and recognize the progress southwest Louisiana has made in 5 years of restoring and rebuilding our coastal communities.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee and as the ranking member on Oversight, I was sitting in my office. This debate began, and the bill was not even in electronic form for us to review.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am in my office. This debate begins, and we can't find the actual bill language in electronic form. I understand it is now available, but to have the debate begin I don't think is very fair to Members of this House, and it is not what the American people would expect of us.

I think it is entirely regrettable that--we are dealing with an issue of national importance. This body can act. This body can act in the national interest if we work together, but these kinds of trust- destroying measures are not in the interest of this body or in the interest of the American people.

My objection to the bill still stands. Even though there is a move to incorporate the repeal of the 1099 provisions, I still have a significant objection because we are talking about some very complicated international tax provisions for which we really have not had the kind of hearings necessary to understand the consequences. We should not be doing this type of ad hoc tax tinkering.

We ought to be taking a more comprehensive approach in understanding the economic consequences. These tax provisions, from what I am hearing from those who are trying to engage in international business to create American jobs, will be a job killer. They will destroy American jobs. What we need to do is look at this in a more comprehensive way.

Now, if we haven't had the kind of hearings to vet this, to explore this, how can we expect the American people to understand the complexity of the nature of these tax provisions?

What we ought to be doing is creating jobs. What we ought to be doing is promoting American competitiveness. What we ought to be doing is promoting economic growth and private sector job growth. That is the problem with the bill.

Now, if you have U.S. companies that are trying to compete against foreign-owned companies in a very complex economic environment and if U.S. companies are subject to double taxation, you can call it a loophole. I call it hurting American competitiveness.

The bottom line is we want a Tax Code that promotes private sector job growth. We want a Tax Code that promotes American corporations and businesses that are going to be competitive worldwide to create jobs at the highest standards possible, and we want to see economic growth, which we know will lead to private sector job growth.

So my objection to the bill still stands based on the policy. But I am deeply, deeply regretful and distressed at the way this bill has been taken to the floor of the House this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member of the full committee.

I want to respond to a couple of things the gentleman from New York brought up. This 1099 provision, we agree on it. It's an egregious issue. It needs to be repealed. We need to do it in the right way, along with many of these other issues in the health care bill.

But with regard to small businesses, the President himself has said that he wants to double exports in 5 years, and the best way to do that is to expand export opportunities. And if we're going to do that for small businesses and mid-sized companies, we have to do this in a way that allows them to partner with large corporations and have the infrastructure. These tax provisions in the bill will subject our companies, who are doing this type of work, to double taxation, making us less competitive, inhibiting economic growth, and reducing our ability to export. It's clear.

Secondly, we haven't had the hearings to actually flesh all this out. I think it's critical that we really look at this if we're going to promote American competitiveness. My fear is that, yes, we might double exports in 5 years, but it will be the export of American jobs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, we in Louisiana have seen this tragedy firsthand, and we know about it more than anybody else in this Chamber.

I will say this, there is an even bigger tragedy, it's the moratorium that's in place today which is leading to a hemorrhage of jobs. Just a couple of days ago, 300 jobs in my hometown gone, 300, and each day it's ratcheting up to a thousand jobs a day.

This is a tragedy. It's a man-made tragedy. It's awful policy. I will tell you, this bill, on top of that tragedy, is going to add to more woe on the gulf coast, running up the cost of American energy production, killing more jobs.

Let me just say this: the President said he wanted to double exports in 5 years. Well, his policies and the policies of our friends across the aisle are going to basically export American jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that we extend the time of debate equally between the two sides for a total of 30 minutes on this very important issue affecting our State and other States on the gulf coast. We are really talking about jobs, and I think having this extra time of debate will be very important.

We would like to extend the debate. We ask unanimous consent to extend it for 20 minutes, equally divided.

Ten minutes on each side.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the efforts on the part of my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon). But what we have seen is, we have a current moratorium on deepwater drilling and a de facto moratorium on shallow water drilling. And I'm afraid that this amendment doesn't fully address the issue. It doesn't address the current moratorium, whereby we are hemorrhaging jobs. The 300 jobs my colleague over here, Mr. Scalise, just referenced were from Baker Hughes in my district, and those don't count the shallow water jobs that we are losing daily from companies I have been hearing about each day.

So the problem we have is with the section on page 2, which continues to allow the Secretary this wide latitude beyond the normal permitting process. So we have a real problem with this. We think our motion to recommit that we are going to offer later will actually give a clean break on getting rid of this moratorium, which is killing American energy production jobs, making us more dependent on foreign oil. It's not the kind of policy that we need. I know my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) wants to solve this problem, but we have concerns about this specific language.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the full committee for yielding time.

I rise in opposition to the bill. And while a few of the tax provisions in this bill may not be unobjectionable, let's be clear, this bill is a continuation of the same failed economic policy that has given us an atmosphere of uncertainty for families and American businesses with the unemployment rate still hovering around 10 percent.

The bill raises taxes $31.8 billion over 11 years. Now, let's look at how it raises taxes. I just want to look at one of these tax increases here. What it does is it raises taxes in a weakened economy, but in a way that threatens American competitiveness. It threatens the competitiveness of U.S. businesses that are trying to compete overseas with foreign-owned companies. These are businesses that employ U.S. workers in the private sector. It's going to kill jobs.

This bill contains a series of international tax changes that could have far reaching consequences on the competitiveness of U.S. businesses trying to compete overseas. These provisions will kill jobs. It's very clear.

Now, if we're going to do this kind of tax policy, these kinds of changes should be done in a broader context as part of a comprehensive tax reform bill. That's the responsible way to do this.

And I know our Democratic colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee should understand that, that what we really need to be doing is a comprehensive approach to tax reform and not this piecemeal, ad hoc and mischievous tax reform in little bitty pieces and bits that basically are wrecking our Tax Code.

Now, I would submit that what we really need to do is get back to some basics here. We need to lower the corporate tax rate down to the average of what our major trade partners are looking at to really enhance U.S. competitiveness. That's going to help us create jobs and stop this assault on U.S. businesses that are trying to work within the constraints of the U.S. Tax Code.

These changes are actually hurting the competitiveness of U.S. businesses.

Again, we don't need to do this kind of ad hoc, harmful tax reform. We need a comprehensive approach. The responsible approach is what I think we probably all agree on, a comprehensive approach that's going to promote economic growth, promote American competitiveness and private sector job growth.

I thank the ranking member on the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Brady from Texas, for yielding time to me.

I think it's important to recognize, and I agree with the gentleman who just spoke, Mr. Pascrell, that the United States has the most vibrant, open market in the entire world, and we need to take advantage of our leadership position. The U.S. has led globally since 1945 in setting the standards for open trade.

Trade agreements give access to American workers and businesses to other markets for U.S. services and products. Let's face it, 95 percent of the consumers of the world are outside of the borders of the United States. So our trade agreements create U.S. jobs.

Despite having the trade deficit that we've talked about, the U.S. trade balance with 13 countries that we have free trade agreements implemented through Trade Promotion Authority has really improved our export capacity by 476 percent between 2001 and 2009, creating a trade surplus with those respective countries of over $25 billion.

Case by case we can look at these: CAFTA-DR, Chile, Morocco, Singapore, Australia. These trade agreements actually exceeded actual export growth estimates initially put forth by the International Trade Commission. The U.S. had a trade surplus with each of these countries, enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. workers and businesses.

The failure to implement an aggressive trade strategy that focuses on exports puts the U.S. at extreme risk of falling behind competitively. We know that China's embarking on a very aggressive trade policy globally. Other countries, Brazil. We have a very multipolar world today with very aggressive trade policies working against us, and our country has really been on the sidelines for the last year-and-a-half in trade. This failure threatens U.S. credibility globally. Frankly, it threatens the U.S. credibility. And it's also a threat to the historic U.S. leadership role that we have set in setting open standards for global trade.

Now, I believe that this new commission really is unnecessary. I am going to support it if it's the only way we can jump-start something on trade, but I really do think it's unnecessary. And if you go back and look at the historic role that the Ways and Means Committee has played in implementing an open trade policy, a trade policy that benefits U.S. businesses and U.S. workers, it goes all the way back into the twenties, and possibly even before that.

I remember reading about Cordell Hull as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, a Democrat who espoused open trade, and then went on to become Secretary of State and continued to espouse open trade. Our committee, the Ways and Means

Committee, has an illustrious history in doing this, and I believe that's where the leadership should come from.

Mr. Chairman, I believe we can work together in trying to implement in working with this current administration to come up with a really good, solid trade strategy that really promotes U.S. competitiveness. That's where I believe the authority should lie.

I believe it's pretty clear what we need to do. We ought to implement the three pending free trade agreements: South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. Let's move forward on these. These will immediately help enhance exports and create U.S. jobs. They already have access to our market. We need access to those markets. In the hearing just yesterday, Stu Eizenstat, who served in the Clinton administration, talked about these being no-cost stimulus, no-cost job creation mechanisms.

I also believe, in addition to implementing a very aggressive trade strategy that focuses on U.S. exports not just for large corporations but small and mid-sized companies as well, where we can really enhance our export capacity, we also need to take a look at the other things holding us back on U.S. competitiveness.

We need to lower the corporate rate. If we lower the corporate tax rate, this will enhance U.S. competitiveness. And we also need to back away from some of these proposals in international tax that are hurting U.S. competitiveness.

If we lower our corporate tax rate at least down to OECD averages, that will enhance U.S. competitiveness. And we do have a different tax system than other countries utilize that I think actually hurts our competitiveness. But if we actually take steps such as what the administration has proposed in its current budget in the international tax treatment of U.S. companies, we're actually going to hurt U.S. job growth, we're going to hurt exports, and we're going to hurt U.S. competitiveness. So I think it's imperative that we take a look at this. And our committee, the Ways and Means Committee, should take the lead in this issue as well.

Madam Speaker, I rise to highlight what the President's capricious and arbitrary moratorium on American energy production is doing to families.

The wife of a rig worker forwarded a letter to me that she sent to the President and to Secretary Salazar saying that while they may not need regular work, she and her family cannot keep going without jobs. Her family has bills to pay which are now 3 months behind, and they will lose almost everything they've ever worked for as a result of this arbitrary moratorium on energy production.

Her husband relies on rig exploration jobs, and even sent copies of their bills. She said her bank will not wait out the moratorium to receive her mortgage payment of over $3,000 past due. She said her family will probably lose their cars. They won't even have a car to live in if this thing persists.

Due to the moratorium, her husband lost a 30-day exploration job that would pay $732 a day, a total of $21,960 for 30 days. This is an arbitrary and malicious moratorium, and it needs to end.

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.

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.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague and friend on the Ways and Means Committee in strong support of H.J. Res. 83, which would continue the imposition of sanctions against the repressive regime in Burma for another year.

The purpose of imposing sanctions against Burma is to promote democracy, develop a respect for human rights, and improve living conditions for the Burmese people. Unfortunately, the ruling junta is still dedicated to working against, not toward those objectives. For that reason, I am in favor of continuing our practice of extending import sanctions against Burma for another year.

Burma's regime is one of the world's most repressive. And it continues to oppress democratic movements and humanitarian efforts. In reading the State Department's human rights report on Burma, I am appalled at the extent and scale of grave human rights violations. According to the State Department, this repugnant regime, in which military officers wield the ultimate authority at every level of government, routinely continues to abridge the right of citizens to change their government and commits to other severe human rights abuses. Specifically, government security forces allowed custodial deaths to occur, and committed extrajudicial killings, disappearances, rape, and torture. The regime detains civic activists indefinitely and without charge, and engages in harassment, abuse, and detention of human rights and pro-democracy activists.

Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi is still being falsely detained by the regime. And as of March 2010, the regime held an estimated 2,100 political prisoners. The army attacks ethnic minority villages. Violence and societal discrimination against women, recruitment of child soldiers, and trafficking in persons have continued. The regime also severely restricts freedom of assembly, expression, association, movement, and religion.

In addition, I am very concerned that the regime has taken steps that seem to guarantee that the elections that will be held in Burma later this year will not, in the words of the State Department, be transparent, inclusive, or credible. And I am still disappointed that there has not been additional multilateral pressure against this regime.

I strongly urge the administration to put more pressure on our trading partners and the United Nations to put the leaders of this regime and its cronies under targeted economic pressure that denies them access to personal wealth and sources of revenue. I call on the United Nations, Burma's Southeast Asian neighbors in ASEAN, and the People's Republic of China to step up engagement considerably.

I am pleased that this Congress amplified our sanctions 2 years ago to eliminate trade in jewelry containing Burmese rubies and jadeite, even if the jewelry was made in and exported from a third country. The expansion was designed to bring about multilateral pressure on the regime through the United Nations and World Trade Organization, similar to successful legislation on conflict diamonds. We are still in the process of assessing the effectiveness of that law.

The General Accountability Office reported to us several months ago on the effectiveness of the expanded sanctions, and we are considering its recommendations for improving the administration of the program and assuring that legitimate trade in these stones is not constrained. I must be clear that I generally view import sanctions with great skepticism. However, if there is a right way to impose sanctions, I think these Burma sanctions are crafted to maximize their ability to effect change.

For example, they require the administration to issue annual reports on

Burma that include whether U.S. national security, economic, and foreign policy interests are being served so we can make an informed decision. Perhaps the most critical aspect of the Burma sanctions program is that they require us to redirect our attention every summer to the question of whether these sanctions should be continued. They are not self-executing. We here in Congress must consider this issue and vote to continue them on an annual basis.

I continue to believe that our greatest hope for effecting real change in Burma is multilateralism. The whole world, particularly China and the ASEAN countries, must put economic pressure on this regime. I support this resolution because it increases our chances to bring about this multilateral effect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further Members wishing to speak on this issue, and I am prepared to yield back my time. I look forward to working with my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee in this effort to hopefully change this regime's behavior.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my ranking member's remarks here. The gentleman from New Jersey made a very compelling emotional argument. We all agree that we have to do something. But the American people want us to pay for this. They have been speaking very loudly and very clearly. They're tired of the fiscal irresponsibility.

Now our friends across the aisle here predicted that their trillion- dollar stimulus would create 3.7 million jobs. Since then, what have we seen? Let's look at the record. Debt has grown by $2 trillion and nearly 3 million jobs have been lost, with unemployment hovering just under 10 percent.

I think if our friends across the aisle would take the time and talk to the job creators in this country--the small business owners, the entrepreneurs--what they would find is that these tax-borrow-spend policies are creating tremendous uncertainty for the job creators-- small business owners across this country. And these policies are leading to more unemployment and more debt. Look at what the administration is advocating--a job-killing moratorium on exploration for oil in the deep water. This is going to kill potentially a couple hundred thousand jobs on the gulf coast. We need to get back to some real debate on these issues here.

Now what does this bill do? It's $34 billion to extend the unemployment benefits. But it's not paid for. The American people want these policies paid for. And there's no reason why this couldn't have come to the floor with the opportunity for us to amend it and to have a real debate over some of the merits of this amendment of how we can pay for this. It's just not right. More debt, more uncertainty, more unemployment, higher taxes. The American people deserve better.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question and the rule because American families continue to struggle with rising health care costs.

Recently, the Congressional Budget Office and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that health care costs for families and for services will rise even higher due to this massive new health care law.

Today's YouCut vote helps to stop one of the major problems with the new health care law, and it could save taxpayers across this country between $5 billion and $10 billion.

Under the new health care law, the IRS will be in charge of verifying that every American taxpayer has obtained government-approved, acceptable health coverage for every month of the year. In other words, if the IRS determines that a taxpayer lacks government-approved health insurance for even a single month, then the IRS can have the power to withhold tax refunds. This is an unprecedented new role for the IRS-- one that injects the IRS even farther into the personal lives of American families. So today's YouCut vote would prevent the IRS from hiring thousands of examiners and auditors required to implement this new individual mandate.

As a former heart surgeon, I know we can do better and I know we can agree on many commonsense approaches to cutting health care costs for families and for seniors. We have many proposals to do this which are not part of this health care law. But I'll tell you this: An individual mandate enforced by the IRS is not one of them.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and vote against this rule. Join me and cut $5 billion to $10 billion from the IRS while preventing yet another mandate on health care from the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud the Federal District Court ruling yesterday overturning the administration's job-killing moratorium on American energy production in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico. This moratorium on drilling will ship thousands of good- paying jobs overseas. It will also make us more dependent on foreign oil. And finally, it's contrary to and in fact distorts the recommendations by a panel of independent scientists and engineers that the administration put together. It distorts their whole view that this industry-wide moratorium will in fact hurt safety by pushing the most experienced workers overseas and actually shipping all of our most advanced drilling rig technology overseas. It will hurt safety.

I urge the administration to back down from this ill-conceived, job- killing, arbitrary moratorium on American energy production.