Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote cast my vote on rollcall 374 and rollcall 375. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``nay'' for rollcall 374 and ``yea'' for rollcall 375. I am proud to support the men and women of the Armed Forces and I appreciate the work of my colleagues to pass the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2012 (H.R. 1540).

Mr. Speaker, I have said many times on this floor and in meetings with constituents, this country does not have an energy strategy, and the only thing worse than not having an energy strategy is having bad energy policy. Yet the answer lies right here in our own backyard. We have the resources, but this administration continues to block access.

Today we're voting on H.R. 1229, the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act. It is crucial to restoring our own capabilities to produce energy by moving forward with permit applications in a sensible amount of time.

It's deplorable that businesses, like Leed Petroleum in Lafayette, Louisiana, with 22 employees, cannot get back to work and have no options unless we hold these regulators' feet to the fire and force them to do their jobs. These independent producers and service companies, the backbone of American energy production, deserve answers and real solutions.

With oil and gas prices skyrocketing, there is no excuse for any delays to offshore energy production. The people of this country are tired of uncertainty. They are tired of dependence on foreign oil, and they're tired of record gas prices.

The bottom line is we must begin the path toward a solid energy policy to get Americans back to work. There's no excuse for delay.

Mr. Speaker, this country has never had an energy strategy. And the only thing worse than not having an energy strategy is having an energy policy that is actually hurting our country, hurting American energy production and American workers, and making us more dependent on foreign oil. That is what the Obama administration is doing right now.

Let's review the record. A moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, hurting American energy production. A budget proposal that offers $50 billion in new taxes on independent, small energy companies working throughout the United States. Also, tax policy that is going to hurt large U.S. companies trying to compete for limited reserves around the world to meet U.S. energy needs. And finally, an attack on horizontal drilling because we have now found large reserves of oil and gas in our shale formations, and this administration is looking to shut all of that down.

And then they come forward because the price of oil, the price of oil at $105 a barrel today, they now want to open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is supposed to be used in severe shortages. That is not an energy policy; that actually hurts our country.

It is time to stop these wrong-headed policies that are hurting American energy production and hurting American workers.

Mr. Speaker, the time to act on this provision is now. Why? It's very, very simple. It's about jobs. It's about removing an onerous provision, a burdensome provision on small businesses that create jobs. If we wonder why we have a high unemployment rate, it is because of provisions like this.

This 1099 provision was bad legislation from day one. The American people have made it clear they want this law repealed.

The President thinks it's bad, Democrats think it's bad, Republicans think it's bad, even the Senate thinks it's bad. It has taken long enough to move on this. Let's do it. Let's get it done. Further delay is unacceptable.

Look, if we don't repeal this now, businesses are going to assume more expenses. If we repeal it later, we continue to delay this.

They will incur expenses that, once it is repealed, they wouldn't have had to incur from the beginning. I am already hearing from many, many Louisiana businesses right now that want to grow, want to hire; and they are worried about this. They are already spending money to prepare for this.

That's why we need to take care of it now. We want to create jobs, repeal this provision now and let's move forward. The American people want to see action on this from this Congress, and they want to see it now. It's important now to do it.

Americans are growing impatient. Small business owners are growing impatient. I ask that we repeal this provision today. Repeal it now.

I thank my friend from Missouri for giving me time to speak here.

As we talk about American competitiveness and growing jobs, private sector jobs in this country, coming off the heels of this recession where we still have high unemployment, there are two aspects to it: One is cutting back on government spending, as you've already suggested with the pie chart you have there. We have to get our debt under control. This is imperative because it's going to strangle private investment in the form of higher taxes on the American people.

But the other side of this is the growth side of the equation, stimulating economic growth. And if you look at how to do that, we want economic growth in the private sector which will help spur job growth. The way we have to do that is we have to look at an energy strategy for the United States because so much of what we do depends on cheap, affordable energy to fuel our plants, our factories, transportation, you name it. So it's critical that we have an energy strategy for the country, which we don't have, and we never have had one. In fact, what you're seeing now, instead of the lack of an energy strategy, we're actually seeing energy proposals that are detrimental to the country that are being proposed by this administration. Let me list what's going on.

First of all, the moratorium on drilling for American energy in the Gulf of Mexico has been in place since May. This is killing jobs back home in Louisiana, along the gulf coast, but it's also hurting our energy security in this country. As we lose these jobs--these are highly skilled workers, as they leave this industry and go find other jobs and move, you cannot turn that light switch back on and get that kind of skill back on these platforms. That's number one.

That's exactly right.

We have basically shut down our production in the Gulf of Mexico, and it's a boneheaded policy to do that. But not only that, the administration in its budget proposal is now proposing nearly $50 billion in new taxes on small, independent oil- and gas-producing companies. Now that's going to put a lot of these guys out of business; they can't cash flow. And they do a lot of the work on the Continental Shelf in shallow water areas, and also our onshore production in oil and gas. And there's a distinction between oil and gas----

It's ridiculous. And these taxes are indiscriminate; they hit oil companies, those drilling for oil, but also natural gas.

And there are many--even our friends on the other side of the aisle will admit that natural gas usage is a very important transition strategy as we look at our energy needs going into the future whether for transportation fuel, electricity generation. Those taxes proposed by the administration will put a lot of these gas companies out of business. And keep in mind, 97 percent of the natural gas used in this country is produced here in this country by these small companies.

A given rig will employ 65 people on one rig. So, if a company that has--let's say they have to cut back 50 rigs. Do the math. You're talking 3,000-plus jobs.

These are private-sector jobs. They're good-paying jobs, and they help promote U.S. energy security. It's critical.

So what we have is an administration that is proposing policies counter to what American interests are with regard to our energy security, and I would submit to you it hurts our national security as well.

And I'm really worried about the situation in the country of Oman, for instance. It's right across the Strait of Hormuz from Iran. That strait is very narrow. Forty percent of the world's oil crosses through that strait, and if it were to shut down because of unrest in Oman and Iranian mischief, we would see oil prices spike up to $400 a barrel, and we'll pay a lot at the pump.

It will hurt our farmers. Rice farmers back home are trying to export rice and grow rice for domestic consumption. It will hurt our chemical manufacturing.

And speaking of the natural gas piece----

Well, it is bizarre.

And again, Americans want to compete. And we know, if given the opportunity to compete, we can win in the global economy. And we've got to have

energy production in this country to allow our companies to compete.

Now, let me point out something. One of the biggest areas of exports for the United States is chemicals, petrochemicals and other chemicals, fertilizer, that are produced here, manufactured here in the United States.

Natural gas and petroleum products.

And if you shut down our natural gas production, then our companies, which have a price--on a basis of price, we can compete because we have cheap natural gas here in this country compared to around the world. Our companies are competitive.

Yes.

We know we have the world's largest reserves in coal. We have potentially the largest reserves in the world in natural gas here in the United States. And some argue that the estimates of oil are vastly underestimated because of two things: one, the shale oil that's available that currently is off limits because of administration policy and environmental policies; and, secondly, on the east coast and west coast, Outer Continental Shelf area, we don't have accurate seismic information. So when they say we only have 3 percent of the world's reserves, that's an inaccurate figure. That's not been thoroughly looked at with modern seismic activity.

But our companies that manufacture these chemicals and fertilizer have a competitive advantage because of the low price of natural gas in this country. If we tax it, as this administration is proposing, it will actually make us less competitive. Our exports will go down, and it will be counter to what the President wants to do by expanding exports. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Parliamentary Inquiry

No, I have not spoken.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in very strong support of the Scalise amendment, and let me explain why. One word: accountability.

Americans across this country are tired of the lack of accountability. They want to know what is going on with their government, and they are tired of empty platitudes.

We have seen this when we brought Cabinet Secretaries and others who are in official positions in front of our committees, and we can't get answers to simple questions on energy policy, tax policy, health care policy. No, we get empty platitudes, because the policy is being formulated in the White House with these so-called advisers, these czars, whatever you want to call them.

I just want to point out something. When we had this situation with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and a panel of experts, engineers, scientists, came forth and looked at this and gave their initial report, there was no recommendation for an industry-wide

moratorium on drilling. They issued a formal report. And what happened? This formal report was altered after the fact by somebody within the White House, the so-called Special Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.

Now, this is not the kind of open and transparent policymaking that the American people deserve and demand. I think in the last election they spoke out because they did not like what was happening, the lack of oversight. And if this Congress is going to do oversight, we have to have access to those who make the policy and get answers. When we get railroaded and the runaround and just empty platitudes time and time again, whether it is on health care policy or energy policy or tax policy, trade policy, whatever it is, that is not what the American people want, and if this Congress is going to be able to legislate and do right by the American people, we have to be able to get the information from this White House.

That is why I stand here with the American people and say it is time to put an end to this opaque atmosphere in Washington. Let's be open with the American people. Those who are making policy should come before our committees and testify so we know what the policy is the White House is advocating and we can legislate in a responsible way.

So for those of you who didn't understand the Russian word ``no,'' which is ``nyet,'' I want to say it is ``no'' to the czars.

I yield back.

Offered By: Mr. Boustany

Amendment No. 555: Page 215, beginning on line 9, strike

``and front-end nuclear facilities'' and insert ``, front-end

nuclear facilities, and conditional loan guarantee

commitments''.

Madam Speaker, I rise in favor of repeal of this bill because it's going to fail on cost, it's going to fail on coverage, and it's going to fail on quality.

First, cost. Premiums are going up. In fact, they're going up even higher and at a faster rate than they would have if we had done nothing in many cases.

With regard to the deficit, there are a number of gimmicks in this bill: double counting, excluding the doc fix, creating new entitlements, such as the CLASS Act, which is a Ponzi scheme. And, finally, it does not account for the discretionary spending for this massive increase in the bureaucracy that's going to be created. Taxes are going to go up on innovation, especially medical innovation.

On coverage. What kind of coverage are we expanding? Medicaid coverage. That's a ticket to the emergency room. It doesn't lead to a good doctor-patient relationship, and it's ultimately the most expensive and inefficient way to provide health care. And those costs are going to be passed on to the States.

And on quality. Let me relate an instance from my own medical practice as a cardiovascular surgeon. I was once called to see a patient who was 101 years old. He had carotid artery blockage and was getting ready to have a stroke. He had imminent symptoms. I was skeptical. I went to see the guy. This fellow was vigorous, strong handshake, lived by himself, independent, worked in his own yard, took care of himself without any help, and so I chose to do the carotid operation on him. Thankfully, it was successful, and it gave him 6 more years of a high-quality life as a result of this. He died from some unrelated cause later. But in the absence of that, he would have had a stroke. He would have been in rehab, in a nursing home, acute care, lots of expense, no quality to his life.

Madam Speaker, there is an art and a science to medicine, and the art involves the doctor-patient relationship. It's built on mutual trust and understanding, knowledge of the patient, trust on both the patient and the doctor's part to do what's in the best interest of the patient. But not only

that; the doctor-patient relationship is where costs are incurred and quality occurs. This gentleman would not have had the quality of life if he had not had this operation and if this law had been in existence, which would have delayed or prohibited such treatment.

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Acadiana High School Wreckin' Rams football team of Lafayette, Louisiana, for winning their second 5A State

Championship. With their win at the Superdome in New Orleans on December 11, 2010, the team joins the level of elite high school football teams in the State. Their win is a source of pride for the students, faculty, and alumni of Acadiana High School, as well as of the people of Lafayette.

This year's squad overcame many hardships this season on their way to the Superdome. The strength, tenacity and determination of the players and coaches to overcome adversity proves that they indeed deserve to be called ``champions.''

After compiling a 6-4 record in the regular season, the Rams cruised through the playoffs, recording big wins on their drive to New Orleans. The team defeated some of the strongest programs from across Louisiana: East St. John by a score of 56-6; Zachary, 49-7; St. Paul, 41-20; and St. Thomas More in the State semifinals by a score of 31-0.

In the State championship game, the Rams played one of the top teams in the State, the West Monroe Rebels, a team which had won 29 straight games and was the defending State champion. In one of the best high school games of the year, the Rams played their hearts out and emerged victorious with a 21-14 victory over the Rebels.

This team represents the strength, determination, and resilience of the people of Acadiana. I want to commend head coach Ted Davidson for his leadership through the highs and lows of this season, and applaud him and his fellow coaches for keeping the team focused and determined to achieve their goal of a State championship.

Very few teams have won more than one State championship in the history of the Louisiana High School Athletic Association, and with this team's win this year, Acadiana High School joins those select few Louisiana high school football programs. For overcoming adversity early in the season and delivering resounding wins throughout the post season, I congratulate the 2010 Acadiana High School Wreckin' Rams football team for their victory in the 5A State Championship.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, indeed, this is a sad state of affairs in which we find ourselves and having to deal with this in the waning days of the 111th Congress. In just a mere 16 days, a massive tax increase--$3.8 trillion--will hit every American taxpayer at a time when we are dealing with high unemployment, very sluggish economic growth, and uncertainty about our future.

American families and businesses have had uncertainty hanging over their heads for months, and we have known about the date of the expiration of these tax provisions. It is time for this Congress to act. It is way past due.

No one is satisfied. No one in this body, I'm sure, is satisfied completely with this bill. I certainly don't like provisions in it. We may not like the situation that we find ourselves in, but it is this situation that determines our duty to act.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot roll the dice with the American economy and with the fate of American families and American businesses. That would be the height of irresponsibility, and we have seen enough of that in this 111th Congress. Let's examine just some of the provisions in this bill.

If you vote ``yes,'' you are voting to prevent tax increases on working Americans. You are voting to prevent tax increases on small businesses and job-creating investments.

If you vote ``no,'' you are voting for a job-killing $3.8 trillion tax increase that kicks in on January 1, and it will be paid for by every taxpayer and most small businesses in this country. If you vote ``no,'' you are basically voting to allow for the average middle class family to see $100 pulled out of their paychecks every week. That is a lot of money for the average family.

If you vote ``yes,'' you are voting to prevent a hike in the death tax on our family farmers and small business owners, who take risks and who have built farms and small businesses--taking those risks in a uniquely American way.

Why do we want to penalize that? Mr. Chair, now there are some who say on our side that we ought to wait. They may think it's good politics. They may think we may have more leverage. Well, it's not all that clear as to what could be gained if we were to wait. But I will say this, Mr. Chair: It's inevitable that there would be delays in enacting any kind of a package, and as a result of the delays, months going by perhaps, we'll see a job-killing massive tax hike on everyone.

For those concerned about the deficit, certainly a concern I share, this tax increase will basically hit economic growth, hit prosperity in this country like a category 5 hurricane. It will put us back into a recession, and the prospects to try to correct these problems will be even worse and make it much more difficult for us to act in the future.

Let's be clear. This is not a pro-growth program as my colleague Mr. Ryan said earlier. This is a 2-year agreement. It is a first step in correcting the severe problems that we find ourselves in. This will give us time to move forward with fundamental tax reform which, when coupled with spending decreases, cutting spending, we can get our country back on a sustainable economic course, a sustainable path to prosperity, a sustainable path to restore American competitiveness and to restore American leadership at a time when we need to do this from a position of economic strength.

So let's clear the slate so that we can start anew in January to get our country back on a competitive basis. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize Sergeant James J. Bollich who was recently named Legionnaire of the Year by American Legion Post 241 in Lafayette, Louisiana. Sergeant Bollich served this Nation with honor and distinction, and has lived an exemplary American life worthy of approbation.

Sergeant Bollich was born in the small farm community of Mowata and attended college at

Southwestern Louisiana Institute, now the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. His time there was cut short, as in 1940 he joined the Army Air Corps at Barksdale Field in Shreveport, and participated in the Louisiana Maneuvers in 1941. His squadron was sent overseas, where he fought for the defense of the Philippines.

Serving as an infantryman during the Battle of Bataan, Bollich was captured by the Japanese and was forced to participate in the Bataan Death March as a prisoner of war. Despite the cruelty endured at the hands of his captors, and the thousands of deaths of his fellow servicemen he witnessed, Bollich bravely persevered and survived. He ultimately spent three and a half years at the Japanese POW camp in San Fernando before he and his fellow survivors were freed by the Russian Army in 1945.

After his harrowing ordeal, he returned to the United States and returned to college. Upon graduating, he worked as a subsurface petroleum geologist until his retirement. He has written several books, including ``A Soldier's Story'' which told his story of his time as a prisoner of war. For his courage in the face of unimaginable hardship, he received several commendations and medals, including the Bronze Star, the Victory Medal, and the POW medal. In addition to this, he was recently inducted to the Louisiana Veterans Hall of Honor. He has sacrificed much for his country, and should serve as an example and a reminder of true patriotism to this Nation.

It goes without saying that Sergeant James J. Bollich is very deserving of the honor of being named American Legion Post 241's Legionnaire of the Year. His story is one of bravery and dedication, and I am honored to serve as his member of Congress. He is part of our ``Greatest Generation'' and my words cannot express the gratitude we should all show to those who served in World War II. I wholeheartedly thank Sergeant Bollich for his service to the United States, and I congratulate him on this most recent honor.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, well, as Yogi Berra said, This bill is like deja vu all over again--and not in a good way.

The bill before us today is the ninth extension of unemployment benefits since mid-2008. Benefits recently stretched up to 99 weeks, or almost 2 years, in most States. With the exception of just one bill last November, every one of those extensions was not paid for. That's a total of $135 billion added to our $14 trillion debt.

Meanwhile, our Democrat colleagues swore their policies would create jobs--but they haven't. Instead of paychecks, millions of Americans were left with only an unemployment check. In February 2009, the President signed the Democrats' trillion dollar stimulus plan. At that time, Democrats promised that the plan would create 3.7 million jobs and lower the unemployment rate to 7 percent by now. None of that happened.

Instead, over 2 million more private sector jobs were lost, and unemployment spiked to 10 percent while the debt has grown by almost $3 trillion. A total of 48 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the Democrats' stimulus bill passed. Yet here we are again--extending unemployment benefits because the Democrats' trillion dollar stimulus failed to create the millions of jobs they promised it would. Even more sadly, instead of doing this responsibly, this bill will simply add another $12 billion to our current mountain of debt.

We can do better than this. We certainly can do better than this.

Both Republicans and Democrats support helping the long-term unemployed. The chairman of the committee expressed a great deal of empathy in his opening statement. We share that empathy. Every one of our congressional offices has dealt with families dealing with this tragedy of unemployment, but Republicans and even some Democrats want to responsibly pay for these benefits. In fact, there are sufficient unspent stimulus funds to do just that, to cover the $12 billion cost of the bill before us. This is not a new Republican idea or a new idea. This is something we have discussed before, but the other side insists on bringing this forward, unpaid for.

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has proposed cutting stimulus to pay for certain measures. Last June, the Democrat leader himself, Mr. Hoyer, admitted there was spending fatigue across the country, and ``if we have dollars not yet expended in the Recovery Act,'' they should be ``applied to'' new spending like this. That would be far better than adding to the unchecked growth in spending and debt that has already cost us an estimated 1 million jobs.

The fact is we can both provide this help and pay for it by cutting less effective stimulus spending. That's what we should be debating today, not a bill called up under special rules that permit no amendments and no chance to offer ways to pay for this. Even if this were to pass, the sad thing is that there are no plans in the Senate for a vote on this bill any time soon. So the fact of the matter is this bill is going nowhere.

The American people know it isn't right to add these costs to our already overdrawn national credit card. We all want to help those in need, but the American people also know that someone has to pay when government spends money, and it shouldn't be our children and our grandchildren. The American people sent us here to do a job. We should pay for this spending today. We can pay for this spending today, and there is no reason why we couldn't bring a bill forward with a way to do this, with a way to pay for it.

So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this bill today. Instead, let's work together to quickly pass a bill to extend Federal unemployment benefits while finding a responsible way to pay for it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just regret to say that we're hearing oversimplifications and many generalizations from the other side.

Look, this is not one of those you either pass it or you don't types of issues here. We could pay for this, and the sad thing is all I'm hearing on the other side is a great deal of cynicism. But furthermore, look, the American people have spoken about this, and they are saying we've got to get a handle on national debt if we're going to get the economy going again and create jobs because the American people want paychecks. They want good-paying jobs. They want an end to this uncertainty.

We have information from the MacArthur Foundation, a very respected organization. They released a poll showing that over 70 percent of voters in this month's election say it is very important to reduce the national debt. Overwhelmingly, voters want us to reduce the debt by cutting spending, but instead of doing this fiscally responsible thing and actually paying for this new spending, which we could very easily do, the bill before us today does exactly the opposite. It adds $12 billion to our Nation's debt in a program that's already added $135 billion to the national debt. The sad thing is, Madam Speaker, we could extend these unemployment benefits, and we could pay for them.

Look, the bill reflects I think a very cynical political maneuver by the Democratic leadership because they

know that the Senate has no plans to pass this unpaid-for bill. We've been down this path before, and in fact, the liberal Huffington Post has broken the code on really what's going on here. There was a recent headline, Jobless Benefits About to Lapse as Senate Democrats Mull Strategy. That was a headline on Tuesday. And, No Plans in Senate For a Vote on Unemployment Benefits read the headline yesterday. To quote Senator Reed from Rhode Island, a Democratic leader on this legislation: ``At this point it's not been scheduled. I can't point to a specific time it will come up for a vote this week.''

The American people are tired of the cynicism. They want answers. And the sad thing is there's a simple answer on this one, unlike many of the other problems our country is facing which are more complex. We could extend unemployment benefits and we could pay for it, but our friends on the other side of the aisle currently control the House, they control the Senate, they control the White House, and they can't even get their act together to do this, especially when there are Republicans who would be willing to do this extension if it were paid for. The simple answer is ``yes'' there is a way to pay for it. It's staring us right in the face, and yet our friends across the aisle refuse to see this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to remind our friends on the other side that in the past when they did bring the bill up on suspension, it failed, and yet when you did on one occasion bring it up on regular order, it did pass.

We all have to work hard to listen to the will of the American people. Yesterday, Speaker Pelosi herself said, ``Our consensus is that we go out there listening to the American people. It's about jobs. It's about reducing the deficit.''

Yet today, here we are again being asked to increase the deficit by another $12 billion. That's another $160 in debt for every family of four in the United States, just for 3 months of benefits under one program, all on top of the $2.8 trillion in debt we have racked up since President Obama took office, a 44 percent increase.

The question, Madam Speaker, is, Is the Speaker really listening to the American people? Because what we heard earlier this month is that people want us to provide help to those in need but not add to the mountain of debt that we are currently leaving to our children and grandchildren.

The sad thing--again, I repeat--the sad thing, we could have achieved both goals today. The Congressional Budget Office has informed us there is enough unspent stimulus spending that we can cut to cover the additional spending in this bill. It's just unconscionable that the other side has not heard the American people about the concerns about unfettered debt passed on to our children and grandchildren.

Again, Mr. Hoyer this past summer suggested we do just that. In June he said, ``If we have dollars not yet expended in the Recovery Act,'' that they should be ``applied to'' new spending like this. In July, 59 Democrats signed a letter saying: ``Extending critical, economic investments is no more important than paying for them. America is facing a debt crisis that is threatening to undermine our economic and national security. We can no longer afford to exacerbate the problem because the decisions about how to pay for what we spend are getting harder.''

This one is fairly easy. We have a way to pay for it, and yet the majority chose to bring this to the floor unpaid for, and without an opportunity to even offer an amendment.

So I ask our colleagues on the other side, Are you listening to the American people? Madam Speaker, are they even listening to each other? And do they agree with the Speaker that it's about debt? All we're hearing are mixed signals. If so, join us in voting down this unpaid- for bill and begin working together on a new bill, which we could do very quickly, that does right by the unemployed as well as our children and our grandchildren. That's what the American people expect of us today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again I say, there was a way to pay for this. We have to be frank with the American people on this. Jobless benefits have cost so far $319 billion, and yet unemployment is still at 9.6 percent; and we've seen really nothing coming from the other side who has controlled the majority in the House, controlled the majority in the Senate, controlled the White House. We've seen nothing to help small businesses get going again to hire. We've seen nothing to promote competitiveness in the U.S. economy. Their answer is to continue to extend unemployment benefits unpaid for.

Now there's agreement. We're not disagreeing about extending the unemployment benefits at this time. We're saying, let's do it in a responsible way and pay for it.

It wasn't always this way. This is the ninth attempt to extend this program. And when Democrats passed their only paid-for unemployment insurance extender bill in November of 2009--the only one that was paid for--the Obama administration hailed that ``fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits,'' adding that ``fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs.''

That was from the administration's statement of policy about the Democrats' one paid-for UI extension bill, which was H.R. 4548. There were 156 Republicans who supported that November 2009 bill.

By the administration's own logic, the Democrats' latest fiscally irresponsible bill, H.R. 6419, which increases the deficit by an estimated $12 billion, undermines the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. The sad thing, Madam Speaker, is this: we could extend unemployment benefits and pay for it. This is not a hard one. There are harder decisions coming with the debt that our country is facing and economic uncertainty. Republicans are ready to move forward and get this country going again and restore American competitiveness, but I see our friends on the other side of the aisle are up to their old ways.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this Chamber salutes the heroic actions of those countless brave Americans, both first responders and ordinary citizens, who put sacrifice over self in responding to the tragic events of 9/11. In the wake of unspeakable tragedy in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, we also saw America at its best.

Now, we have already heard considerable debate today, passionate debate, about the new health care entitlement this bill would create, and I think reasonable people can disagree about whether that program, that particular entitlement is appropriate. But I want to focus my remarks on the other part of this bill and on the unfortunate decision of our friends in the majority to pay for this legislation with a highly controversial tax increase on employers that our economy and our workforce simply cannot afford.

Mr. Speaker, the bill would impose a $7.4 billion tax hike on U.S. businesses that happen to be headquartered overseas but that create good, high-paying American jobs right here at home in communities across this great country. These ``insourcing'' companies provide significant employment in the United States, with many of these jobs in the manufacturing sector.

This tax increase will make it less attractive for many of these insourcing companies to initiate or expand operations here in the United States, potentially encouraging them to ship these jobs overseas. With the unemployment rate hovering near 10 percent

and businesses across the country continuing to struggle to meet payroll, now is the worst possible time for a tax hike on employers that will cost us more jobs.

This is not the first time House Democrats have tried to enact this particular tax hike, and it probably won't be the last. That is because even the Senate, Senate Democrats, continue to reject it, since it would not only cost jobs, but also violate our international treaty obligations. Even the Obama administration's own Treasury Department has testified before the House Ways and Means Committee that it ``has concerns about the specifics of this provision and whether it will override many of our income tax treaties.''

Mr. Speaker, all of us, all of us in this Chamber recognize the hardships experienced by those brave Americans who responded to the events of 9/11. But a tax increase on employers that will cost other Americans their jobs is not the answer. We could have done this in a bipartisan way, but it is unfortunate we are not there today. I urge my colleagues to reject this harmful, misguided tax increase.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I am from Louisiana and we are no stranger to tragedies, but this is being presented on the other side as an either/or proposition. The bottom line is we could have actually done better, we could have done better, and I am deeply concerned about those who will lose their jobs as a result of these tax provisions. It is important to recognize that.

Don't just take my word for it. I have three letters here that I want to enter into the Record. These were addressed to the House Ways and Means Committee leadership. One is from the Organization For International Investment, a second from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a third from the National Foreign Trade Council, all of which highlight the potential for significant job loss.

As a physician I can say one of the first maxims I have always followed is first do no harm. We could have done better, Mr. Speaker.

Organization for

International Investment,

September 29, 2010.

Hon. Sander Levin,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Levin and Representative Camp: On behalf of

the Organization for International Investment (OFII), I am

writing to express continued concern with section 301 of the

James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act (H.R. 847).

While we recognize the need for revenue, we must oppose this

provision as an offset because it represents a clear and

harmful override of our existing U.S. income tax treaties.

Although positive changes were made to this proposal since it

was originally introduced as an offset to the 2007 Farm Bill

(H.R. 2419), OFII remains opposed because it still uniquely

discriminates against U.S. subsidiaries of companies

headquartered abroad and clearly violates many of our

international agreements.

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

companies headquartered abroad. U.S. subsidiaries play an

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

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

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

exports. A discriminatory tax increase sends a negative

signal to international investors and may dissuade these

companies from choosing the United States as a location for

job creating investment.

As drafted, this proposal would unilaterally override many

of our bilateral income tax treaties and could lead to

retaliatory actions by other countries or withdrawal by our

treaty partners from existing treaties, negatively impacting

international business transactions. The Senate has opposed

this and similar provisions twice in the past two years for

these reasons.

Congress has not held any hearings to examine this issue

and whether the proposal is the appropriate remedy to address

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

that existing safeguards, including the substantial and

restrictive anti-treaty shopping provisions (so-called

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

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

ineffective. Further, if material tax abuses were evident,

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

Treaty that would avoid the negative consequences of

violating our international agreements.

Since a similar proposal was introduced in 2007, the

Treasury has taken great strides to update the three

bilateral tax treaties without LOB provisions (Iceland,

Hungary, Poland).

A protocol adding an LOB provision to the Iceland treaty

was negotiated by Treasury and ratified by the Senate in

2008. A similar protocol with Hungary has been negotiated and

initialed and could be ratified this year. Treasury is

expected to pursue a similar amendment to the treaty with

Poland during 2010-2011.

Consistent with the conclusions in the Treasury Report that

was released in November 2007 that reviewed potential abuse

of income tax treaties, OFII believes re-negotiation of

existing income tax treaties without LOB provisions is a more

appropriate way to address the concerns underlying this

provision and we urge you to oppose including this provision

in the final version 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. We

would be glad to discuss our concerns with your staff in

greater detail.

Sincerely,

Nancy L. McLernon,

President & CEO.

Mr. Speaker, let me just be clear to start. China's currency policy is wrong, and it is harmful for the U.S. and for China. But it is one of many problems, a whole host of problems that we have heard about: indigenous innovation, IPR protections, licensing and standards, all of these nontariff barriers that we have heard so much about.

So if we're going to look at how we approach this, we have to, A, be consistent with our WTO and other international obligations; and, B, whatever we do has to be effective. Those are the parameters that Secretary Geithner himself laid out. I have questions as to whether this approach will meet either of those. Yes, the bill on its face is WTO compliant. But if we are to implement this connection between countervailing duties and currency valuation, I believe that will be subject to challenge. And I regret that we have not heard from the Department of Commerce, U.S. Trade Rep, Treasury on their read on this. In fact, the administration's not even made a statement with regard to this bill as to the effectiveness or as to whether or not it is consistent with our international obligations.

But to a broader point: If we're going to have leverage, we need trade policy, and we do not have a trade policy. Ranking Member Camp has already made the statement that we have had nothing beyond this in the discussions about what are we going to do to really have leverage and to move forward with a trade policy. I have heard from the administration that we do need to move the South Korean free trade agreement. Clearly we need to do that. We need a bilateral investment treaty with China and with other countries. We have had no movement on that.

Finally, I just think it's unacceptable that this administration did not send a representative to the ASEAN conference in Asia recently. We are not even showing up on the playing field. How can the U.S. be truly credible if we're not actively engaged in a trade policy that makes sense? U.S. credibility is on the line. We have to prove that we keep our commitments.

Passing this bill is going to do nothing to solve our trade imbalance with China. It is not the kind of tool, I believe, that we need. We need to move forward in multilateral negotiations in a vigorous way and enlist other allies who also have the same concerns that we do.

We are starting to see the makings of a currency war out there, where others are devaluing their currencies at our expense. That's why this needs to be addressed at a multilateral level. I feel we can do this in a responsible way. So because of these concerns, I am going to oppose this bill.

But I do want to thank you, Chairman Levin, for working back from what was originally a very bad bill to something that is improved. I think we can do better. I can only wish that we were able to work further on this to where we could have a truly strong bipartisan agreement to approaching our very complicated and important commercial and economic relationship with China.