Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mary Ellen Brandell, who lost her courageous battle with leukemia on September 24, 2010.

I first got to know Mary Ellen when she was working at Central Michigan University, and I was just beginning my political career. She gave this young candidate a lesson in Mt. Pleasant and Isabella County politics and the confidence to ultimately win a congressional campaign.

Her kindness has stayed with me throughout these years, as I have grown closer to the Brandell family.

In fact, her son Jim is my Chief of Staff. Now a decade into service for this institution, Jim carries with him the sensibilities instilled by Mary Ellen: Family, faith, and true citizenship.

For far too many people, these are mere words, but for Mary Ellen, these were the pillars on which she built and lived her life. And they served her well. She was a constant presence in the Mt. Pleasant community. From continuing her work with the ever-growing Central Michigan University, to her extensive list of charities including most recently with the Isabella County Sesquicentennial Committee, Woodland Hospice, Access to Recreation, and the Rotary Club. In fact, her efforts were so well recognized that she was named Mt. Pleasant Citizen of the Year.

She was also a world traveler, taking yearly trips with Jim to see new corners of our planet. She valued the time she spent with her family, but also used these opportunities to meet distant relatives and make new friends. She was even utilized in her role as a community leader of Mt. Pleasant to reach out to sister cities.

Even with these public and global accomplishments, I know that Mary Ellen's proudest accomplishment was her family, which includes seven children and fifteen grandchildren. She has given them the love and nurturing they needed to grown and excel in their careers and she led by example, by returning to school and getting her master's, specialist and doctoral degrees, after her seventh child was born. And she put her family first, selflessly caring for her husband Dick at home for many years as his health declined prior to his death in 2004.

Mary Ellen was a remarkable woman, and one that cannot be replaced. She will be remembered for all of the lives that she had touched. I will be forever grateful for her kindness and generosity.

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

This House--the people's House--has a simple choice today: raise taxes on families and small businesses or prevent a massive job-killing tax increase from going into effect a mere 16 days from now.

If you think our economy can handle higher taxes, if you think middle class families should lose roughly $100 per week out of their paychecks, then vote ``no'' today. Make no mistake about it, a ``no'' vote today is a vote for higher taxes, taxes that would devastate families and send shock waves throughout our economy.

If you believe we should stop this massive tax increase in its tracks, especially when unemployment is stuck at nearly 10 percent, then vote ``yes.'' If you want to be sure we don't extend the failed Making Work Pay policy from the failed stimulus law that has the IRS writing checks to people who pay no income or payroll taxes, then vote ``yes.'' If you are opposed to the Federal Government taking more than half of a family farm or business due to a death, then vote ``yes.'' And if you are interested in fundamental tax reform--getting rid of exemptions, deductions, and loopholes that complicate our Tax Code-- then vote ``yes'' because this bill gives us the time that we need to rewrite the Tax Code, cut spending next year, and get our economy back on track.

I know some of my friends want to wait until January when Republicans are back in the majority because they think that we can get a better deal. That is as misguided as it is politically callous. And let me be blunt. It's irresponsible to play a game of chicken with the Senate and the White House next year when middle class Americans are literally forced to pay $100 more a week in taxes and are forced to suffer even greater job losses. If this bill fails today, that's what will happen. Paychecks and jobs will burn while Washington fiddles.

If that's your stance, then I ask, What better deal could we get? People talk about making tax rates permanent. That's something I support. That's something every Republican in this House supports. But how does waiting until January, February, March, April, or May make that a reality?

The Senate voted yesterday on the DeMint amendment which would have made the rates permanent, and it failed 37-63. Last time I looked, we didn't pick up 23 seats in the United States Senate. And the President has flatly refused to sign such legislation into law. So again, tell me, how do we get a better deal by waiting? It makes no sense to gamble with the American people's jobs and the very paychecks they rely on to put food on the table and keep the house warm this winter.

Americans are suffering through the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression. This is not a time for political speeches or electoral posturing. This is a time to act responsibly, to do what is right, and to vote ``yes.'' Employers are begging us to pass this legislation. Small businesses and the National Federation of Independent Business are supporting the bill because they know they cannot afford a tax hike. The Business Roundtable which represents the largest employers in the country with over 12 million employees is supporting this bill because they know the economy cannot afford a tax hike.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is supporting this legislation because they know we cannot afford a tax hike. The National Association of Manufacturers is supporting this legislation. Economists across the spectrum, from the far left to the far right, are supporting this legislation, and so should the Members of this House.

By no means is this bill perfect. For example, I think we should have paid for the extension of unemployment insurance and, frankly, we will. I'm committed to producing legislation next year to revamp, reform, and pay for the Federal unemployment benefits our Nation provides. We should not have to choose between adding to the deficit and providing this important help, but we cannot allow that single concern to hold this bill up.

Time has run out. This is our only chance, and the harm to our economy and the hit families would suffer is far too great a risk.

And let's be clear, this bill is about taxes, longstanding tax policy, for that matter, and preventing a tax hike. It isn't about spending. Nearly 90 percent of this bill is tax policy, and that policy is aimed at preventing a tax hike for families and employers or providing direct tax relief to the American worker.

It also protects family farms, ranches and businesses from being hit by the destructive death tax. That will go as high as 55 percent next year if we do not act. Instead, this bill reduces that rate to 35 percent, while increasing the exemption amount from $1 million to $5 million.

Now, I know $1 million sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But think about the family farmers in your districts. Think about the costs of the big machinery it takes to operate and manage their land. Some of the combines I see every day in my district cost a quarter of a million each. That isn't cash in the bank. That's equipment in the field,

and the Federal Government has no right to take half of it when mom or dad passes on.

While I support a total repeal of the death tax, at least this bill makes significant improvements to the estate and gift taxes, and it deserves our support.

Members should also know, and the American people should know, that this bill does not contain new policy. New provisions were not snuck in late in the night or behind closed doors. We took a firm stand against new policy. We took a firm stand against policy that had not been renewed repeatedly and, as a result, more than 70 provisions, some of them my own, were excluded from the bill, well over $100 billion worth.

The most notable provisions of these we terminated were from the failed stimulus bill, like the refundable Making Work Pay credit, the Build America Bonds program, which simply subsidized State and local governments going deeper into debt, and grants in lieu of the low- income housing credit. None of that is in here, nor are there the usual Washington Christmas tree ornaments. This bill is narrowly focused on tax and unemployment policy.

Unlike the omnibus Democrats are preparing, there are no earmarks like the $2 million for an Ice Age National Scenic trail in Wisconsin. There isn't a $3.5 million study on subterranean termites in New Orleans, and there certainly isn't an extra $1 billion for the new job- killing health care law.

My friends, the election's over. Let's not start the next campaign here today. Let's make the right choice. Let's stop this tax hike from going into effect in 2 weeks. Let's put our constituents' jobs before our own. Let's show the American people we can govern and we can take yes for an answer.

So let's pass this bill with broad bipartisan support, as the Senate did yesterday by a vote of 81-19. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

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

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

I yield 4 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say, the gentleman from Arizona who spoke is a cosponsor of the legislation that would reduce the payroll tax that would give the so-called pay hike to Members of Congress. But let me just say, this payroll tax deduction applies to every working American, just as the rate reductions apply to every small business in America.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The majority party has had large bipartisan majorities in the Senate and the House and controlled the White House for the last 2 years. And as we know, in the House, the majority can pretty much do what they want, as was demonstrated with the trillion-dollar stimulus bill, as was demonstrated with ObamaCare.

There is some explaining to do.

Why wasn't this issue dealt with before the election? Why didn't the majority bring a bill to the floor before the election?

Now, as Americans face these tax increases, here we are just a few short days before the end of the year, and now, because there is a bipartisan compromise, which incidentally passed the Senate 81-19, I think there is a recognition that this is just no time to be playing games with our economy. The failure to block these tax increases would be a direct hit to families and small businesses and employers, and it would further delay our economic recovery.

For those reasons, I support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

We've heard a lot of debate on floor this evening, but let's look at what the employers and economists are saying about this legislation and this agreement.

The National Federation of Independent Business, the largest organization in the country representing small businesses: Senate passage of the tax compromise is a good step, the first step, to encourage the certainty that the small business community needs and has repeatedly asked for. Knowing their tax liability will remain low and including a workable estate tax compromise that will not threaten the family business are key components to a small business' ability to move forward, grow their business, and create jobs. Changes to this compromise would jeopardize the needed relief and certainty small businesses need. We encourage the House to take up this measure quickly and pass this bipartisan bill in its current form.

The Business Round Table says: Restoration of these provisions lifts an uncertainty for businesses that will improve their ability to employ more workers and grow the economy.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Enacting this bipartisan framework forged by the President and Congress is one of the best steps Washington can take to eliminate the uncertainty that is preventing our employers from hiring, investing, and growing their businesses.

And what does economist Mark Zandi say, frequently cited by the Speaker as an important voice in economic matters: The fiscal policy compromise reached this week by the Obama administration and congressional Republicans would be good for the economy next year.

It is too risky to play games with the economy. We need to stop this massive tax increase in its tracks. Support this legislation in its current form. Oppose the Pomeroy amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and then I will yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, the national unemployment rate is 9.8 percent. The unemployment rate in my home State of Michigan is 12.8 percent. America is desperately in need of jobs, and American workers need Congress to focus on legislation that will help create jobs. This legislation is a solid step in that direction. I have often said that government can't create jobs; it is the private sector that creates jobs, and Congress can help the private sector by removing barriers to job creation.

This legislation lowers taxes and makes American manufacturers more competitive so they can invest and create the jobs that American workers need now. Therefore, it fits squarely within the core principles of the Republican Party. Republicans support lowering taxes, making American workers more competitive, liberalizing trade, and letting the private sector thrive and create jobs.

At the outset, this legislation extends our trade preference programs, especially the Andean Trade Preferences Act. I would rather see Congress vote on our trade agreement with Colombia, but for over 3 years, the Speaker has refused to permit a simple up-or-down vote on that agreement. The Speaker has refused to bring that agreement to the floor even though it would level the playing field for American workers and generate new exports and support American jobs.

Despite the lack of progress on that agreement, I strongly support the continuation of the ATPA program. This program is crucial to this country and to Colombia, and we cannot subject such a strong ally to the injury of letting the program expire on top of the insult of our inability to act on that trade agreement.

Furthermore, this legislation extends the bipartisan, bicameral 2009 Trade Adjustment Assistance law that is helping trade-affected workers, farmers, firms, and communities retool and compete in the 21st century. The 2009 law provided a more flexible, cost-effective and accountable regime focusing on retraining. It also recognized the important role of services in the U.S. economy by bringing service workers into the program. These improvements to the TAA program help workers by getting them more quickly off government support and back into good paying, private sector jobs.

Importantly, this legislation delays for a year and a half a controversial U.S. Labor Department final rule mandating that the States use exclusively State employment service employees to administer TAA-funded benefits and services. Unless this delay is enacted now, 27 States will no longer be allowed to use a mix of staff.

Similarly, without this delay, even the other States that elect to use only State ES staff would be adversely affected because they could not make different staffing choices in the future. In today's economy, it makes no sense to require States to make costly changes to successful programs that are helping workers find new jobs.

This delay is also important because it would help restore the 2009 bipartisan, bicameral compromise on this issue. In addition, this legislation removes barriers by lowering taxes on imported inputs that enable value-added, American manufacturing and supports U.S. jobs, inputs that aren't otherwise available in the United States. These provisions have been fully vetted through a bipartisan and transparent process. Finally, this legislation is fully paid for, which is crucial in this time of rapidly rising fiscal deficits. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that this legislation accomplishes all these goals and is a truly bipartisan product.

I want to thank my colleague from Michigan, Chairman Levin, for his close cooperation in preparing this legislation and bringing it to the floor today for a vote.

Madam Speaker, I hope the other body takes up this legislation quickly

and passes it. Several of these important programs expire at the end of the year, and there is no time to waste. Further delay would be harmful to American workers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The unemployment rate in October, the latest data available, was 9.6 percent. That marked 15 consecutive months we are at or above 9.5 percent unemployment in this country, the longest period since the Great Depression. All told, 48 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the so-called $1 trillion stimulus bill and nearly 15 million Americans remain unemployed.

What's a Democrat's answer to the Great Recession? Increased taxes, but not just any taxes. Democrats in the bill before us today are targeting half of all small business income in the country. Democrats are targeting the very employers we need, hiring more workers, and buying more equipment, not paying more taxes.

Let's face it, this bill is as misguided as it is futile. This is the wrong policy at the wrong time and the majority is wrong to bring it to the floor today.

In fact, many of their own Members agree with me. I have here in my hand a letter signed by over 30 Democrat Members of the House and let me read what they wrote:

``In recent weeks we have heard from a diverse spectrum of economists, small business owners and families who have voiced their concerns that raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth. Given the continued fragility of our economy and slow pace of our recovery, we share their concerns.''

I want to repeat that: raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth.

Set aside for a minute the economists and the political rhetoric, and let's look at what small businesses say the impact of this tax-hiking legislation will be.

According to the National Federation of Independent Small Businesses, the businesses most likely to face a tax increase by raising the top two rates are businesses employing between 20 and 250 employees.

According to the U.S. Census data, businesses with between 20 and 299

workers employ more than 25 percent of the total workforce. Those who are most likely to be hit by these tax increases employ one out of every four workers in this Nation. This Democrat tax hike is putting a target on the back of every worker in every small business in America.

As for the futility of this exercise, it would be comical if it weren't so irresponsible. Democrats can barely muster the votes for this bill in the House. I'm told they had to whip the bill and hold a special caucus this morning just to move forward. Their position is so precarious, they won't even allow Republicans to offer amendments or any alternative. Why? Because Democrats know the Republican bill to extend the current rates for all taxpayers would pass with broad bipartisan support.

So, once again, House Democrats have closed down the amendment process in order to pass a bill that will never see the light of day in the Senate. Just yesterday, 42 Senators sent a letter to Majority Leader Reid and stated in no uncertain terms that they ``will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers.''

Clearly, this bill is going nowhere. Democrats are wasting time while Americans are looking for work. Democrats are playing games while Americans struggle to make ends meet. The American people did not send us here to posture. They sent us here to provide solutions. I had hoped that after the election, we would get down to working together to solve the serious problems Americans are facing. That's why I was encouraged the President agreed to have Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate Members, sit down with his administration to hammer out a deal on these expiring tax rates. I thought maybe we had turned a corner.

Instead of letting that process work itself out, instead of working with Republicans to prevent job-killing tax increases, House Democrats are back at it again, putting politics ahead of everything else. This is a time for serious negotiations and solutions, not political stunts. Far too much is at stake. Far too many families are out of work, and far too many families will soon see real and sizeable amounts of money taken out of their paychecks if the Democrats continue with these games.

I urge my colleagues to reject this Democratic tax hike, this job- killing tax hike.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, November 29, 2010.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader Reid: The Nation's unemployment level, stuck

near 10 percent, is unacceptable to Americans. Senate

Republicans have been urging Congress to make private-sector

job creation a priority all year. President Obama in his

first speech after the November election said ``we owe'' it

to the American people to ``focus on those issues that affect

their jobs.'' He went on to say that Americans ``want jobs to

come back faster.'' Our constituents have repeatedly asked us

to focus on creating an environment for private-sector job

growth; it is time that our constituents' priorities become

the Senate's priorities.

For that reason, we write to inform you that we will not

agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any

legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the

government and we have prevented the tax increase that is

currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time

left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling

should be focused on these critical priorities. While there

are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the

Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters

above the critical issues of funding the government and

preventing a job-killing tax hike.

Given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase

and providing economic certainty should be our top priority.

Without Congressional action by December 31, all American

taxpayers will be hit by an increase in their individual

income tax rates and investment income through the capital

gains and dividend rates. If Congress were to adopt the

President's tax proposal to prevent the tax increase for only

some Americans, small businesses would be targeted with a

job-killing tax increase at the worst possible time.

Specifically, more than 750,000 small businesses will see a

tax increase, which will affect 50 percent of small business

income and nearly 25 percent of the entire workforce. The

death tax rate will also climb from zero percent to 55

percent, which makes it the top concern for America's small

businesses. Republicans and Democrats agree that small

businesses create most new jobs, so we ought to be able to

agree that raising taxes on small businesses is the wrong

remedy in this economy. Finally, Congress still needs to act

on the ``tax extenders'' and the alternative minimum tax

``patch,'' all of which expired on December 31, 2009.

We look forward to continuing to work with you in a

constructive manner to keep the government operating and

provide the nation's small businesses with economic certainty

that the job-killing tax hike will be prevented.

Sincerely,

Mitch McConnell, Mitch McConnell,

Republican Leader.

Jon Kyl,

Republican Whip.

[40 additional signatures omitted]

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say and comment on my friend's remarks that this is not about giving anybody a tax cut. This is about preventing a tax increase in a time of great unemployment that has gone on, as I said in my remarks, for more than 15 months at 9\1/2\ percent.

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

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

I yield the gentleman from Nevada an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

At this time I reserve.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

And I would just say I listened very carefully to the majority leader's well-reasoned arguments. And if, in fact, this bill were going somewhere, they would have made a great deal of sense. But we know now that the Senate will not take up this bill. Forty-two Senators have signed a letter that they will not take up any legislation unless it is dealing with the potential tax increases on all Americans.

I also have a letter that was sent to the House of Representatives dated today from the National Association of Manufacturers. And there has probably been no State hit harder than Michigan, no sector hit harder in Michigan than manufacturing. And I want to quote from this letter that says, ``Manufacturers strongly support extending the 2001 and 2003 tax relief for all taxpayers. Over 70 percent of American manufacturers file as S corporations or some other pass-through entity and will be significantly impacted by these higher rates. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, fully extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would add between 600,000 and 1.4 million jobs between now and 2011 and between 900,000 and 2.7 million jobs in 2012.''

National Association of

Manufacturers,

December 2, 2010.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives: The National Association of

Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in

the United States, urges you to oppose H.R. 4853, the Middle

Class Tax Relief Act of 2010.

Tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003, which repealed the

estate tax and lowered both individual tax rates and tax

rates on investment income, helped spur economic growth. Now,

however, absent immediate congressional action, these lower

rates will expire, resulting in a top income tax rate of

nearly 40 percent, a 164 percent increase in the dividend tax

and the return of a 55 percent estate tax on family-held

companies.

Manufacturers strongly support extending the 2001 and 2003

tax relief for all taxpayers. Over 70 percent of American

manufacturers file as S-corporations or some other pass-

thru entity and will be significantly impacted by these

higher rates. According to the non-partisan Congressional

Budget Office, fully extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts

would add between 600,000 and 1.4 million jobs in 2011 and

between 900,000 and 2.7 million jobs in 2012.

We urge Congress to reject this legislation and move toward

extending all of the current tax rates.

The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that

votes on H.R. 4853, including potential procedural motions,

merit consideration for designation as Key Manufacturing

Votes in the 111th Congress.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jay Timmons,

Executive Vice President.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I thank the majority leader. And reclaiming my time, I think we would have a much better chance if the vehicle that was sent over to the Senate was actually one that dealt with the potential tax increases on all Americans.

But I know my time is very short, and I just wanted to say I also have a petition, a coalition letter sent to us by over 1,300 businesses, trades, and local Chambers of Commerce urging that we extend the current tax policy for all Americans and prevent a tax increase from going into effect.

Let me just say I think much of what has happened today is a charade, and I am glad it's coming to a close. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

December 1, 2010.

To The Members of The United States Congress: We, the

undersigned companies, chambers, and trade associations

strongly urge Congress to end the tax uncertainty plaguing

the business community by extending the expiring 2001 and

2003 marginal tax rates, as well as dividend and capital

gains tax rates, and the business tax provisions that expired

at the end of 2009.

A permanent extension of all current tax rates would, in

one bold stroke, boost investor, business, and consumer

confidence by taking the uncertainty of tax policy off the

table. It would leave hard-earned income in the hands of the

individuals and businesses that earned it and allow them to

spur investment, boost consumption, promote economic growth,

and create jobs. Further, without expeditious Congressional

action to extend current marginal tax rates, millions of

Americans will face greater withholding for taxes from their

hard-earned paychecks in six weeks.

Another major obstacle to recovery lurks. Thousands of U.S.

businesses and individual taxpayers currently face major tax

increases because tax provisions--such as the R&D credit,

active financing exception, and CFC look-thru rule--have

expired. An extension of these vital provisions would bring

more certainty in U.S. tax law, foster more effective

business decisions, and encourage investment. Moreover, the

Administration asked Congress to extend the tax provisions as

part of the President's 2010 budget request.

While we support the extension of all these provisions, we

believe that the extensions of current tax policy should not

be offset with permanent tax increases. No one should have

their taxes raised during a time of economic weakness--not

individuals, not small businesses, not large businesses. Job

creators are especially sensitive to tax rates and any tax

increase right now would only hinder the already too weak

recovery.

We urge Congress to act expeditiously to remove uncertainty

and address these looming tax increases with a long term

extension of all the expired and expiring tax provisions by

year end, and look forward to working with Congress to keep

the economy on the road to recovery.

Sincerely,

[1318 Organizations Omitted]

I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important bill, which includes a wide mix of policies recently sent to us by the Senate.

Portions of this bill make sense, including extending welfare programs and reducing erroneous unemployment insurance (UI) overpayments. Enacting policies to better prevent and recover unemployment benefit overpayments is good government, and save about $3 billion over 10 years. However, instead of using this money to strengthen UI programs or even paying for an extension of unemployment benefits, the majority instead uses this funding to offset unrelated spending.

Similarly, I am disappointed that the bill uses $2 billion of the funds in the Customs user fee account (about half of available funds) to offset some of the spending provisions in the bill. As a result, such funding would no longer be available for key job-creating trade initiatives, such as the pending free trade agreements or extending existing preference programs. I strongly believe that this offset should be reserved for trade priorities and should not be raided for non-trade provisions.

And that's really at the heart of the debate: instead of using the savings in this bill to reduce our Nation's staggering deficit or pay for extending UI benefits or promoting job-creating trade, the authors of this bill would use those savings for new, unrelated spending. This spending does nothing to help the unemployed, promote job creation, and only makes balancing the budget next year even harder.

The bottom line is that, while this legislation includes some good provisions, it also includes new spending we simply can't afford. To divert savings from UI and trade programs, especially while too many Americans are unemployed and more trade-related jobs are needed, is not the right answer.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, on November 18, 2010, U.S. Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said the fact that the U.S. unemployment rate was 9.6 percent in October 2010 (as opposed to 10.1 percent in October 2009) ``tells you . . . we are on the right path.''

The facts show that the U.S. unemployment rate has been 9.5 percent or above for 15 consecutive months--the longest period since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The unemployment rate hasn't fallen since spring--when hundreds of thousands of temporary Census jobs were ``created.''

And Democrats promised us if their 2009 stimulus law passed, the unemployment rate would be 7 percent by now, which as the chart below reflects didn't happen.

All of which suggests unemployment at 9.6 percent is not the right path for American workers, regardless of what Secretary Solis believes.

This bill reflects a cynical political maneuver by the Democratic leadership. They know the Senate has no plans to pass this unpaid-for bill. So all the claims that today's legislation will save Thanksgiving are just more empty rhetoric.

The fact is, this is exactly what happened this summer, when Democrats brought a similar unpaid-for extension bill up under suspensions. That failed, because enough Republicans and Democrats opposed simply adding to the deficit. You would think our Democrat colleagues would have learned that lesson, and either brought this up for an up or down vote, or actually paid for it. Instead, we get more of the same ``our way or the highway'' approach.

It will not pass, and the other side knows it. We should reject this bill and work together to quickly pass a bill to extend federal unemployment benefits while responsibly paying for it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H. Res. 1648, a resolution that recognizes the importance of federal efforts to encourage adoption, and honors National Adoption Day and Month.

As an avid adoption supporter, I believe that Congress must continue to promote the adoption of children into safe and loving homes. Through our work in 1997 as part of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and more recently through the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, Congress made significant advances in providing more options for children in need.

Yet, far too many children, about 114,000, are waiting in foster care programs throughout our country for families to adopt them. These children should be given every opportunity to lead successful lives, and one way to make that happen is to increase the adoption of these children into safe, permanent, loving homes.

That is why National Adoption Day and Month are so important. This year, National Adoption Day will take place on November 20, 2010, and is designed for communities around the country to highlight adoptions. Over the last decade, these events have grown more and more successful. Last year there were events in all 50 states during which the adoptions of 4,800 children were finalized. Since its inception, more than 30,000 adoptions have been finalized on National Adoption Day.

I have been honored to participate in National Adoption Day over the past several years. To be part of such a special occasion reinforces the need for further efforts to move kids into adoptive homes.

I would also like to highlight the efforts of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute (CCAI) to promote adoption through its annual Angels in Adoption Awards Ceremony, held in October. This event also highlights those that have opened their hearts and their homes.

These initiatives are critically important to not only recognizing those who have promoted adoption, but also to highlight the need for greater action on this important topic.

Before I close, I would like to recognize the efforts of Representative Jim Oberstar, the sponsor of this resolution, for his work on behalf of adoption and children in foster care. Jim and I worked closely together on these important issues as co-chairs of Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute. As an adoptive parent himself, he knows firsthand how life-changing adoption is, and with his experiences he has been an effective and tireless leader for children who need loving homes. His expertise will be missed, but his contributions in support of adoption will be lasting.

I would also like to congratulate and publicly thank Representative Ginny Brown-Waite for her role in promoting adoption and the wellbeing of all children. As a Member of the Ways and Means Committee, she has been an active supporter of efforts to promote adoption and child wellbeing, continuing her prior work as a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute. Ginny is retiring at the end of this Congress, and her deep compassion for and active efforts on behalf of children who have been or are awaiting adoption will continue to inspire those of us she leaves behind. I wish both Jim and Ginny all the best in the years ahead and thank both of them for their distinguished service to our families and country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor retired U.S. Colonel Gerald P. Ziemba for his long and admirable service to the United States.

Colonel Ziemba started active duty in the Army in 1959 as a Second Lieutenant. In 1972, he became Commander of the U.S. Army Reserve's 578th Research & Development Unit in Midland, Michigan. Later, in 1983, the Senate approved his elevation to the rank of Colonel. After this last promotion, the Army appointed Colonel Ziemba to Deputy Commander of Sharpe Army Depot, where he eventually became chairman of a group tasked with developing a next-generation, supply-chain facility. Under his skillful leadership, a $200 million state-of-the-art warehouse was built, for which the U.S. Army awarded him the Meritorious Service Medal for outstanding noncombat achievement.

Colonel Ziemba continued his service in 1994 when the Department of Commerce asked him to manage a newly formed Treaty Inspections Division of the Business, Industry, and Security Agency, BIS. BIS tasked him with implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention within the chemical industry. In this position, he drafted recommendations for implementing legislation and regulations. In addition, he represented the U.S. Government at numerous international forums.

Currently, Colonel Ziemba is involved in licensing activities for dual-use chemicals and equipment with the Department of Commerce. He is also the Commerce Department's representative in a multi-agency committee for improving chemical defense in the United States.

On behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Michigan, I am honored today to recognize Colonel Gerald P. Ziemba's service and dedication to his country. I hope the years to come will bring him health, happiness, and special times with family and friends.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying it is truly disappointing that this is the only trade bill in the past 2 years that has been marked up by the Ways and Means Committee. I find it unacceptable that this is the sum total of our trade agenda. While this legislation addresses an important issue, it will not address many more pressing trade concerns with China, and it will not advance the goal of doubling exports in 5 years.

To achieve those goals, we must move expeditiously on the pending free trade agreements, work harder to open new markets to our exports, and address broader economic issues all over the world and with China.

We have held four separate hearings on China this year alone. At each, we heard from witnesses, including Treasury Secretary Geithner, who stressed that China's currency policy is only one element in our highly complicated trading relationship.

It's not that China's currency problem is not a problem or priority; it's just that there are far larger issues with regard to China and our trade imbalance. Issues like intellectual property rights, indigenous innovation, export restraints on rare earth minerals and other items, and a host of nontariff barriers are wreaking havoc on American employers, their workers, and our economy.

Despite my disappointment about the lack of a broader trade agenda and the lack of action on these other concerns with respect to China, it would be an enormous mistake to give up completely on addressing China's currency policy. We all agree that China's currency is fundamentally misaligned and that China must take prompt action to allow market forces to determine the value of its currency.

At the same time, it is important that any legislation be consistent with our international obligation and be effective. Any legislation that could potentially expose the United States to WTO-sanctioned retaliation would undoubtedly do more harm than good and would undermine our efforts to get China to comply with its own obligations.

At our hearings over the past few weeks, a number of witnesses and Republican Members raised serious concerns about the WTO consistency of the original version of H.R. 2378. As a result of these concerns, Chairman Levin completely rewrote the bill. The version before us today has little in common with the original, which, on its face, violated our WTO obligation. It addresses many of the criticisms raised by witnesses and by Republican Members, and I appreciate that the chairman has taken these concerns into account.

Unlike the original version, this bill does not mandate that the Commerce Department automatically adjust antidumping and countervailing duty calculations to account for China's currency policy. This version allows Commerce to consider many factors in determining whether or not China's currency policy satisfies the technical definition of an export subsidy, as it does today, and does not prejudge an outcome.

While I remain deeply concerned about using countervailing duty law to address China's currency policy, I believe the bill before us today does not, on its face, violate our WTO obligations.

I will vote for this bill because it sends a clear signal to China that Congress' patience is running out but does not give China an excuse to retaliate against U.S. companies and their workers. While we cannot pass legislation that likely violates our WTO commitments and would result in WTO-sanctioned retaliation, we cannot, at the same time, allow ourselves to be afraid of China's reaction to a WTO- consistent measure.

If China retaliates against this bill at this stage, I fully expect that USTR, and the administration as a whole, will act swiftly and aggressively to pursue every option available, including through action at the WTO. China's posturing and bad behavior cannot dictate our trade policy.

This legislation also sends an important signal to the administration: It is time to produce results. The administration must step up its bilateral and multilateral efforts and set a clear timeline for action. The administration should work to ensure that the issue of global imbalances, which naturally includes China's currency policy, is prominently on the agenda at the November G20 meetings in Seoul. We should also reengage in bilateral investment treaty negotiations.

As I noted at our markup, the fact that the administration has not moved aggressively on a multilateral basis has forced us to this point. The legislation we are considering today is better than the original but still won't resolve our trade imbalances with China.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, regulated investment companies, better

known in their most prevalent form as mutual funds, are intended to provide individual investors the ability to invest easily and with low costs in a diversified pool of professionally managed investments. According to the Investment Company Institute, ICI, the main trade association for mutual funds, more than 50 million American families currently invest in mutual funds.

Most of the current law mutual fund rules were last collectively updated more than two decades ago. H.R. 4337 would modify and update certain technical tax rules pertaining to mutual funds in order to make them better conform to, and interact with, other aspects of the Tax Code and applicable securities laws.

On June 15, 2010, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures held a hearing on H.R. 4337. Invited witnesses, including a representative of ICI, were supportive of the bill, and we are not aware of any controversy or opposition to the legislation.

Let me close by making a broader point. It certainly is appropriate for Ways and Means to periodically review the tax law to ensure that targeted provisions of importance to particular segments of the economy, including the mutual fund industry and their investors, are kept up to date; and I certainly appreciate the majority's decision to hold a hearing on this bill before bringing it to the floor, because our committee works best when it works under regular order.

Having said that, I must say that I am deeply disappointed that our committee seems to have lost sight of its responsibility to address the single most significant tax issue facing Americans right now-- preventing a massive $3.8 trillion tax increase at the end of this year. These looming tax hikes on families, seniors, investors, and small businesses not only threaten every American taxpayer with higher taxes, but they're also contributing significantly to the uncertainty we see in the economy as a whole. So while we should continue to work together to modernize the tax rules governing mutual funds, we also should be working together to prevent harmful tax increases, such as the tax hikes on capital gains and dividends that will dramatically affect the very same mutual fund investors we're focusing on here today.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge support for the bill before us.

Investment Company Institute,

Washington, DC, September 28, 2010.

Re: ICI Strongly Supports Mutual Fund Modernization

Legislation.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader, House of Representatives,

U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner: The

Investment Company Institute strongly supports the bipartisan

Regulated Investment Company (``RIC'') Modernization Act

(H.R. 4337). On behalf of the millions of mutual fund

shareholders who would benefit from this bill, we urge all

House members to vote favorably on this bill when it is

considered on the Suspension Calendar.

This bill would modernize the tax laws that govern mutual

funds. These laws have not been updated in any meaningful or

comprehensive way since 1986, almost a quarter century ago;

some of the provisions in current law date back more than 60

years. Numerous developments during the past 20-plus years--

including the development of new fund structures and

distribution channels--have placed considerable stress on the

currently applicable tax rules.

The legislation's many benefits were discussed in detail

during the bill's June 2010 hearing before the Committee on

Ways and Means Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee. The

three key areas in which the bill would benefit funds and

their shareholders involve:

improving the efficiency of mutual fund investment

structures,

reducing disproportionate tax consequences for inadvertent

errors, and

minimizing the need for amended tax statements and amended

tax returns.

As discussed in detail in our testimony before the

Subcommittee, the bill would reduce the burden arising from

amended year-end tax information statements, improve a fund's

ability to meet its distribution requirements, create

remedies for inadvertent mutual find qualification failures,

improve the tax treatment of investing in a ``fund-of-funds''

structure, and update the tax treatment of fund capital

losses.

This bill reflects the sponsors' conclusion, with which we

strongly agree, that it is important to update, clarify, and

streamline the mutual fund tax rules. By eliminating

uncertainties and allowing appropriate innovations, funds

will become more efficient. The ICI supports the pay-fors

included in H.R. 4337, which apply to regulated investment

companies and fully offset the modest revenue costs of the

legislation.

Enacting this legislation will allow our members to focus

on what they do best--serving their shareholders.

We urge your support.

Sincerely,

Paul Schott Stevens,

President and Chief Executive Officer.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, this bill seeks to expand the eligibility for certain current law tax benefits to algae-based fuels. Specifically, it would make algae or algae plant property eligible for both the cellulosic biofuel producer credit and for 50 percent bonus depreciation.

Regardless of whether Members believe these enhanced tax benefits for algae are appropriate, I think it's important to make a few observations about this bill, about the process under which we are considering it, and about the majority's decision to make this the centerpiece of its tax agenda during this, the final week of session. With respect to the bill itself, I would note that these same algae- related benefits, along with many other energy-related tax provisions, were included as a part of Chairman Levin's much broader green jobs discussion draft which had been expected to be formally considered by the Ways and Means Committee as a package. It's worth asking why only the algae-related provisions of that broader energy bill merit special consideration in stand-alone legislation, which is quite unusual for tax legislation from the committee, while the other provisions in that broader bill languish without so much as a committee markup.

If Ways and Means had actually held a mark-up on these algae-related provisions, Members could have fully explored whether it is advisable to expand the cellulosic biofuel producer credit, a credit that has proved controversial over the past several years.

Indeed, Members of both parties supported efforts to close a major potential loophole in that credit that could have permitted ``black liquor,'' an alternative fuel created as a byproduct of the paper- making process to qualify. Given such recent, high-profile alarm about potential abuse of the cellulosic biofuel producer credit, one would think that efforts to further expand the credit would be pursued only after consideration and a formal Ways and Means Committee mark-up under regular order. I think we do the best work when we proceed under regular order. But, instead, these provisions have been rushed directly to the floor.

But what is most disturbing about the tax debate we are having here today is what we are not debating. Rather than using this last week of session prior to the election to prevent a massive $3.8 trillion tax increase from taking effect at the end of the year, the majority's tax agenda for this final week, instead centers on a bill that provides tax benefits for algae. And let me repeat: instead of protecting American families, seniors and investors and small businesses from a job- killing, $3.8 trillion tax hike, we are here debating tax benefits for algae.

Madam Speaker, governing is about setting priorities, and the majority's tax agenda for the week shows just how out of line the majority's priorities are with those of the American people.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1595, and I am pleased to be the lead Republican cosponsor of the resolution along with the distinguished Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.

This important and timely resolution celebrates the 50th anniversary of legislation authorizing real estate investment trusts, or REITs. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed this legislation into law one- half century ago, September 14, 1960.

Over that half century, REITs have helped finance the very projects that have built the main streets and downtowns of each and every one of our communities, from shopping malls and health care facilities, to business parks, high-rises and waterfronts. Today, REITs provide Americans from all income levels the opportunity to pool their resources and invest in large scale commercial real estate ventures.

That has not always been the case. Prior to the 1960 legislation, only the very wealthiest individuals and corporations had the accumulated capital required to invest in commercial real estate. Thanks to REITs and the unique financial incentives they offer to their shareholders, more middle class Americans can save and invest, whether it is for a college education, a new home, or a secure retirement.

I am proud to support this commemorative resolution, and I urge my House colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I along with Representatives Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, submit the following statement for the record with respect the Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair on the Price (R-GA) Lame-Duck Privileged Resolution.

As Members of the Fiscal Commission, we are dedicated to getting spending under control and meaningfully addressing our fast-growing and unsustainable deficits. If the Commission reaches a bipartisan consensus, it is our hope that House and Senate Leadership would work on a bipartisan basis to determine how and when those recommendations would be brought to the floor. There is no greater crisis facing America than the unchecked growth of spending that is fueling massive increases in our deficits.

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

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

Madam Speaker, last Friday we learned the unemployment rate is still at 9\1/2\ percent, and it would be much higher if the official calculations also looked at the fast-growing number of Americans who have become so discouraged that they have given up looking for work. So while Congress should be here trying to find ways to get

Americans back to work, we're here instead to complete action on another extension of stimulus that will also do nothing to reduce the unemployment rate in this country. In fact, this bill and the tax increases in it will hurt job creation.

According to the methodology of Dr. Christina Romer, the President's chief economic adviser, the tax increases in this bill alone will destroy over 140,000 American jobs. In an open letter to Congress this week, the National Association of Manufacturers warned that ``imposing $9.6 billion in tax increases on these companies will jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our fragile economy.'' Similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned they would ``impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth.''

These tax increases are a mistake, and, as I noted during the debate 2 weeks ago, most of these have never been the subject of any committee hearing or markup. It is possible that, upon review, some of these provisions might make sense if packaged with other changes to address the fact that our corporate tax rate is soon to be the highest among all industrialized nations. Our international tax system is deeply flawed, and our tax code is increasingly putting our companies and their employees at a tremendous competitive disadvantage.

But we never got the opportunity to hear from the American employers or to offer any amendments. That's a truly disappointing breakdown of the committee system, which is supposed to ensure that policies are carefully vetted and reviewed before passage.

I also want to mention the phantom tax increases that aren't in this bill but we will soon see. The Speaker has already indicated that she opposes two of the spending offsets included in this bill. One relates to food stamps; the other is a cut in funding for a renewable energy spending program. Together, those items total $13.4 billion, more than half the total offsets in the bill. So next month when the House considers some other legislation, don't be surprised to see another $13 billion in higher taxes to prevent those spending cuts.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

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

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I am prepared to reserve or prepared to close if the gentleman has no further speakers.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have before me letters from the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, as well as PACE, Promote America's Competitive Edge.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation, representing more than 3 million business organizations of every size. They strongly oppose this legislation because they say it would place ``draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth'' and the jobs that come from that.

Likewise, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Nation's largest industrial trade association representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector in all 50 States, they

also oppose this legislation. ``An estimated 22 million workers in the United States, more than 19 percent of the private sector workforce and 53 percent of all manufacturing employees, are employed by companies with operations overseas.'' They oppose these tax increases because, again, it will ``jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our fragile economy.''

Likewise, the Business Roundtable, which, again, is an association that represents more than 12 million employees, has also sent a letter opposing this legislation because they say that this legislation will, again, only make matters worse, make it more difficult for U.S. companies to compete in the world economy and then actually puts U.S. jobs at stake because of that.

Again, PACE, which represents more than 63 million American jobs that depend on the competitiveness of American employers worldwide, said, ``At a time when other countries are taking steps to attract business, this legislation sends exactly the opposite message, with the effect of discouraging business investment and job creation in the United States.''

I think it's actually unfortunate that, again, here on the floor I am having to submit these letters here, when actually the appropriate place would be in the Committee on Ways and Means. But, unfortunately, the Committee on Ways and Means has never had a hearing on these provisions, never had a markup on this legislation. We have not had a process that has been open to employers to come forward before the committee and be heard on the record so that we might be able to adjust this or put this in context.

As I said, we need broad-based international tax reform in the U.S. This piecemeal approach doesn't work, hurts our competitiveness.

Again, I think if we could have had a system where there was actually a committee hearing or a markup, that on review you might be able to improve upon this or find a way to actually address the serious issue that pretty soon our corporate tax rate will be the highest among all the industrialized nations, and we could actually put on the record the deep flaws in our international tax system and the deep flaws in our Tax Code.

Instead, what we are doing today is rushing to the floor again, without transparency, without openness, without hearing--certainly no opportunity for American employers to come forward and be heard on this issue. We are putting them at a tremendous competitive disadvantage at a time when they need to be competing around the world for jobs.

With that, I urge opposition to this legislation.

Business Roundtable,

Washington, DC, August 9, 2010.

Dear Member of Congress: We write today to express our

strong opposition to inclusion of international tax revenue

raisers in H.R. 1586, as approved last week by the Senate.

The measure would raise nearly $10 billion in new taxes on

worldwide American companies through fundamental changes in

U.S. tax law, despite the fact that U.S. tax rules already

put American companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Keeping American companies and workers competitive should

be the number one goal of U.S. tax policy, yet changes in the

tax systems of our major trading partners now place the

United States at a decided tax disadvantage--which runs a

high risk of severely undermining U.S. economic growth and

job creation.

The United States already has the second highest tax rate

among developed countries and an international tax structure

that is a relic of an era in which U.S. companies faced

little competition from foreign-headquartered corporations as

they competed around the world. The current U.S. system is

inconsistent with the free flow of trade and investment, and

it inhibits use of foreign earnings to invest in the U.S.

economy. The provisions included in the House legislation to

be considered today will only make matters worse.

We urge the House to remove the counterproductive

international tax provisions now included in H.R. 1586, and

that any future consideration of U.S. tax policy be done only

in the context of comprehensive tax reform designed to

improve the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the world

economy. U.S. jobs are at stake.

Business Roundtable is an association of chief executive

officers of leading U.S. companies with over $6 trillion in

annual revenues and more than 12 million employees. Our

members share your goal of restoring the U.S. economy to

strong economic growth and job creation.

Sincerely,

Larry D. Burton.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Is the House in session at this time?

Thank you.

Is it in order to ask the Speaker the next order of business?

Does the Speaker have an agenda with the next order of business before him?

I understand there will be a suspension under the committee of jurisdiction of which I am ranking member. I have no information on that.

Does the Chair have any information on that?

We understand that the measure may involve tax implications, which are, of course, of great importance to the American people.

Does this legislation have a bill number?

I am not asking about a matter of scheduling, Mr. Speaker. I am asking about a bill number for tax legislation of great importance to the American people which I understand may be up momentarily. However, we have no information on this side about that. And as the minority, I do believe we are entitled to some notice and understanding of the business that will be coming before the House.

I'm sorry. Could the Speaker repeat that?

The SPEAKER pro tempore: The gentleman may speak to the bill clerk regarding a particular bill's number.

Is the Speaker aware that the clerks have a bill number that I could speak to and obtain?

I understand there is no bill number for the clerks to give me. Is there text available on the legislation?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking about a scheduling matter. I am asking, is the text of the bill available at the desk at which you are standing?

Well, I am asking a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. My inquiries are, I think, a fairly basic one for the American people, and that is, as we conduct the people's business in what used to be the people's House, is there text of the legislation we may consider at the desk at which you are standing?

I have another parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. I didn't receive an answer to my last question. I think that's regrettable.

But I would ask, is any legislative text posted online? Has any legislative text for the bill we are about to consider been put online in bill form for the American people to read?

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

As this bill was just introduced seconds ago, is it in order to ask that the bill be read for the American people and for Members who are going to be required to understand and vote on this legislation in a short time?

And so is it in order for me to make a motion to ask that the bill be read for understanding by the American people?

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

Mr. Speaker, in my 20 years in Congress, I don't think I have seen a more disappointing time for this House. I had great hopes when my colleague from Michigan, Sander Levin, assumed the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee after the ethical charges against a man I worked closely with, Mr. Rangel, who was the chairman. I know it's difficult to come into

a leadership position partway through a Congress, but I have to say to a fellow colleague from Michigan, the lack of consultation, the lack of discussion, the lack of attempts to bring things to this Congress in a bipartisan way, which I believe has more balance than bills written alone, in secret by the Democratic Party late at night than are brought to this floor with maybe moments notice--I think this bill was given to us less than 10 minutes ago. I think that is regrettable. I think it is unfortunate. I don't think it needed to be that way. We have always had a great working relationship. Many delegation meetings over the years in working on behalf of issues common to Michigan, now I had hoped we would work together on behalf of issues important to America.

It is unfortunate that the leaders of this Congress on the Democrat side have really taken control and not given the chairman the latitude he needs to really draft bills in a bipartisan way. I think it's unfortunate that control has been ceded to the leaders in such a way that make it impossible for us to work together on issues that I think the American people are crying out for to be worked on in a bipartisan manner.

This was supposed to be the most open, the most transparent, the most ethical Congress. I think we have seen events of this week prove that otherwise. And I don't mean just the publicity events. I mean events on the way these bills are brought to the floor without any discussions or consultation.

We have great staffs on both sides in the Ways and Means Committee. Our staffs do tremendous work. They are capable of working together if given the opportunity. And I think we could resolve these issues in a way that would benefit all Americans.

Last night, I intended to offer a motion to recommit that we gave full notice to the other side about--unlike what we are seeing today-- that would have eliminated the new onerous job-killing 1099 requirement that's in the health care law. In addition to helping small business, the motion to recommit would have better protected taxpayers from erroneously paying too much in health insurance subsidies. And the motion would have cut taxes, cut spending, protected taxpayers, and reduced the deficit. But as we saw last night, because Democrat leaders were too afraid to let their Members vote on a pro-jobs, pro-small business, pro-taxpayer, pro-deficit reduction bill, they canceled the vote and pulled the bill from consideration by the House.

Instead, we are here today, as we have been so often under the heavy- handed tactics of the majority, voting on a bill that has not been reviewed by committee, that has not been posted online for 72 hours, has not been reviewed by the employers this bill will affect, and most importantly, has not been reviewed by the American public in any way. The result? The Democrats have created a bill that pits American employers against other American employers, worker against worker, neighbor against neighbor. With unemployment stuck at nearly 10 percent, Democrats are again playing politics with American jobs. This is not the time for politics; this is a time to get serious about the economy and helping businesses create jobs. Frankly, it didn't have to be this way, and it should not have been this way. There is a way to pay for the repeal of the 1099 requirement without punishing job providers and their workers and their families.

Additionally, we would have protected taxpayers by cracking down on fraud and abuse. And if someone received an erroneous or excessive benefit that they were not entitled to, they would have been required to repay it. The bill before us leaves that very important flaw in place. I have in my hands a way to do this without raising taxes and killing jobs: It is the motion to recommit I intended to offer last night but was not given the opportunity to do so. I will have it inserted into the Congressional Record so that everyone can see that we can save jobs without raising taxes.

Small businesses supported the measure, Republicans supported the measure, and it's clear that rank-and-file Democrats would have supported the measure. Somehow, Democrat leaders are so opposed to helping small businesses--the real job creators in this country--that they wouldn't even allow a vote on a full repeal of the 1099 requirement that also didn't include a massive job-killing tax increase.

Why are Democrats so afraid to work with Republicans to help America's job creators? Why don't Democrats allow Republicans to offer amendments on behalf of small businesses? And why are they so bent on raising taxes?

Isn't $670 billion alone in tax increases in this Congress enough? Why?

It is because Democrats are more interested in protecting their $1 trillion health care law than solving legitimate problems being expressed by the American people and American employers. So, while it is clear that Democrats have admitted that the burden imposed by their health care law is a job killer, they are offering no solution today, because the bill before us will undoubtedly have the effect of killing jobs.

Frankly, this is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity to fix a fundamental flaw in the health care law, and it is a missed opportunity to truly help American employers in the jobs they provide. A job is a job is a job.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for job providers by demanding a full repeal of the 1099 requirement that does not impose other job- killing tax increases.

Motion To Recommit With Instructions Offered by Mr. Camp of Michigan

Mr. Camp moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5893 to the

Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the

same back to the House forthwith with the following

amendment:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

Will the gentleman yield?

That is just simply an untrue statement, and it is beneath the dignity of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to assert that.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, to correct the Record, I would just say the motion to recommit that I tried to offer last night was available for several hours to the majority. They pulled the bill and didn't allow me to ultimately offer it. That's why I introduced it in the Record today.

At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

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

I would just say I agree with a portion of what the previous speaker said. I agree, there is a serious flaw in this health care bill. This is one of many, and this serious flaw is a job-killer. So I commend the majority for their recognition of these serious flaws in the health care bill and that there are job-killing provisions in it that many of us warned them about before the bill came to the floor but weren't really allowed to be part of the process to try to correct those before they came. And, frankly, not many people here were able to do that either, as it was just rolled out.

But the answer isn't to hurt other job providers. We're in a recession. Unemployment isn't getting better. We know the stimulus didn't work. We're still at a national rate of about 10 percent. But let's look at what job providers say about the way that they pay for this fix. The fix we're for--and we had a legitimate way to do it, as I said, without raising taxes, without hurting other job providers, and by actually helping to prevent the potentially fraudulent way this provision was drafted.

And let me just tell you what an association of employers that promotes America's Competitive Edge Group said. They represent more than 63 million American jobs, and they say the $12 billion imposed in the proposed international tax increases would further disadvantage U.S. companies, harming their competitiveness. We are competing around the world, like it or not, and that would reduce U.S. earnings. That would reduce U.S. earnings and thereby reduce investment in U.S. plant and equipment research and expanding U.S. payrolls.

Let me read to you what the National Association of Manufacturers says about the way they pay for this bill. Why not use the anti-fraud corrections that we had in the motion to recommit last night? They represent about 22 million people in the United States, U.S. workers. Manufacturers feel strongly that imposing this $11.5 billion tax increase on these companies will jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturers. We've already lost 700,000 American manufacturing jobs. Why impose a greater burden on them? It's not necessary, and it would stifle our fragile economy.

The United States Chamber of Commerce, they represent more than 3 million businesses and millions more U.S. employees. They say this legislation would impose Draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies, would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth. If there's one thing this country needs, it's economic growth and the jobs that provides.

I don't know why they're so bent on increasing taxes when we could fix this flaw in the health care bill--which I commend my colleagues on the other side for recognizing the flaw in the health care bill, and there are others that we need to fix as well--but it is not a fix when we have these reputable employers and businesses say that this is going to hurt our recovery, hurt job creation; and, frankly, the record on job creation in the last year has not been a good one. We need to do better. We can do better, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.

With that, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a

distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.