Floor Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to repeat that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, July 28, 2010.

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

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

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses and organizations of every size, sector,

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

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

impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide

companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the

competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic

growth.

This legislation contains numerous changes to longstanding

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

American worldwide companies. For example:

Denial of foreign tax credit with respect to foreign income

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

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

which allows taxpayers the ability to characterize stock

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

acquisition can be concluded as either a share acquisition or

an asset acquisition. Acquisitions by American worldwide

companies are good for the U.S.

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

tax base. Section 338 recognizes the inherent challenges and

obstacles to asset acquisitions and, in effect, levels the

playing field, allowing taxpayers the ability to choose the

tax implications of an acquisition, regardless of the

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

a particular deal. Moreover, Sec. 338 unquestionably serves

to encourage acquisitions by American worldwide companies by

minimizing the competitive advantage that certain foreign

competitors enjoy due to the participation exemption systems

in which most are headquartered. This legislation would

significantly strip away the benefits of Sec. 338 and would

likely serve to further impede any competitive advantages of

American worldwide companies in their bids for foreign

targets.

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

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

longstanding provision of the Code, allows companies to

repatriate cash to the United States in a tax-efficient

manner. Foreign business acquisitions generally result in a

series of intermediate foreign holding companies which block

the repatriation of earnings for a variety of reasons such as

local statutory earnings deficits or other local restrictions

on actual dividends. American worldwide companies have had

the ability to overcome such obstacles through the use of

Sec. 956. This provision was particularly beneficial during

the recent economic downturn and ensuing credit crunch when

it was necessary for American worldwide companies to

repatriate significant funds in order to meet the financial

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

for this provision seems to assume that taxpayers would

simply bear the additional cost of the provision. However,

the Chamber believes that most taxpayers, given the choice,

would choose simply to not repatriate the earnings.

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

would significantly reduce the repatriation of foreign

earnings that otherwise might have been repatriated to the

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

enact provisions which stimulate economic growth and drive

job creation.

The Chamber strongly opposes H.R. 5893 because this

legislation would make significant changes to U.S.

international tax law which would stifle job creation and

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

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

scorecard.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten,

Executive Vice President, Government Affairs.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Association of

Manufacturers,

July 29, 2010.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives: The National Association of

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

association representing small and large manufacturers in

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

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

Tax Loopholes Act of 2010.

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

than 19 percent of the private sector workforce and 53

percent of all manufacturing employees--are employed by

companies with operations overseas. Manufacturers feel

strongly that imposing $11.5 billion in tax increases on

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

jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our

fragile economy.

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

mischaracterized as closing tax loopholes, actually represent

significant changes to the pro-growth tax policy supported by

Congress and the Administration. For example, the proposed

anticompetitive limitation on the use of Sec. 956 loans

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

American companies--a source that Treasury and the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) sought to facilitate in guidance issued

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

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

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

create jobs puts our fragile recovery at risk.

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

increases have not been adequately scrutinized during

congressional hearings. In many cases, taxpayers have relied

on these longstanding tax provisions in structuring their

businesses. Changing the rules without fair and adequate

hearings will cost in terms of jobs, investment and

manufacturers' ability to compete overseas.

Manufacturers believe strongly that changes to our

international tax laws should be considered in the broader

context of tax reform that makes the United States more

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

initiatives. Moreover, targeting some international tax law

changes in advance of the tax reform debate would make the

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

difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

The NAM supports provisions in the legislation that would

extend Build America Bonds and lift the state volume cap for

private activity bonds for water and waste water

infrastructure, but our support for these provisions is

heavily outweighed by the significant costs imposed on

manufacturers by the bill's tax increases. Manufacturers urge

your opposition to the bill.

The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that

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

motions, may be considered for designation as Key

Manufacturing Votes in the 111th Congress.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jay Timmons,

Executive Vice President.

Thank you for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of 9/11 will never be forgotten nor will we ever forget the heroic actions of the brave men and women who, without regard to their own well-being, rushed in to aid, rescue, and recover their fellow Americans. Theirs were acts of compassion and patriotism that would be repeated in the days and months that followed.

Today, many of those who were at and around the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks are still struggling physically and mentally.

While I have great sympathy for the intent of this legislation in providing assistance to those Americans, the legislation has been paired with a fundamentally flawed and job-destroying tax increase. Therefore, I will vote against it. To pay for this new health care entitlement, the majority has opted for a tax increase that has no chance of becoming law and with good reason. It taxes American jobs. It is in clear violation of our international obligations.

While the provision in question closely tracks legislation that has passed the House on a partisan basis, the Senate has repeatedly rejected it. Even the Obama administration has raised objections to the way this provision violates our carefully negotiated tax treaties. There is never a good time to raise taxes on employers and American workers, but given the continued weakness in the economy, now may be the worst time. Data from the Department of Labor confirms that:

Forty-seven States have lost jobs since the Democrats' stimulus passed;

Over 2 million jobs have been eliminated; and

Unemployment remains unacceptably high--over 13 percent in my home State of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, the tax hike in this legislation is unacceptable. The hardships suffered by our first responders do not change that basic fact. I urge my colleagues to, again, reject these tax hikes and to vote ``no'' on the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago we were here talking about this. Two months ago we were here talking about this. And even if this bill becomes law, in four months we will likely be back again talking about this. The specific subject is extended unemployment benefits.

But the real issue, and what is driving the need for a record 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, is this Administration's woeful record when it comes to creating jobs that provide paychecks, instead of unemployment checks.

In February 2009, the President signed into law the Democrats' trillion-dollar ``stimulus'' plan. That was the plan Democrats promised would create 3.7 million jobs, keep unemployment under 8 percent, and stimulate strong private sector job growth.

None of that happened.

Instead, over 2 million more jobs were lost and unemployment spiked to 10 percent, though the number of government jobs has grown somewhat.

So here we are again--extending unemployment benefits because stimulus failed to create the millions of jobs Democrats promised.

But instead of doing this responsibly, this bill will simply add another $34 billion to our $13 trillion mountain of debt.

We can do better than this.

Both Republicans and Democrats support helping the long-term unemployed. And both Republicans and Democrats want to responsibly pay for these benefits.

That would be far better than adding to the unchecked growth in our debt that is already costing us jobs, and that threatens to overwhelm our economy in debt and higher taxes for decades to come.

The fact is, we can both provide this help and pay for it by cutting less effective stimulus spending.

The last time we debated unemployment benefits, I offered a motion to pay for that spending. That is what the Heller substitute to this bill would have done if it was made in order today. Even the Democrat Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, has also proposed cutting stimulus to pay for certain extenders.

The American people know it isn't right to add these costs to our already overdrawn national credit card. They want to help those in need. But they also know someone has to pay when government spends money. That assistance must not put our fiscal house as a Nation in even worse shape--and we are already in terrible shape.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this bill today and instead work together to quickly pass a bill to extend Federal unemployment benefits while responsibly paying for it.

That is what we should have been doing all along, which would have prevented the lapse in benefits millions have already experienced. Democrat Leaders rejected that obvious compromise, leading to needless additional suffering in recent weeks by millions of unemployed workers who want a job. But it is not too late to fix this, and to do so responsibly, so that we do right by the unemployed, as well as future generations.

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

I'm disappointed that I can't support this legislation. The Miscellaneous Tariff bill has long been a bipartisan effort that helps both American manufacturers and consumers obtain lower-cost access to products that aren't made in the United States.

I appreciate the chairman following my statements so carefully and even quoting them to this House, because the process used to assemble this legislation is a model in transparency and accountability. It has been a longstanding process used by many Congresses under both Republican and Democrat control, and it should serve as an example of how similar legislation should be prepared.

Every provision is first introduced as a separate bill. Each provision is vetted by the administration and by the U.S. ITC, the International Trade Commission, and is subject to public notice and comment. All information is posted on the committee Web site. And any provision receiving any opposition is removed from the final package.

In my view, this bill technically does not contain earmarks in the form of limited tariff benefits. Each provision lowers duties on imports; and any company or entity or person that imports that product receives the benefit of those lower duties, not just those few that we can positively identify today. But despite these facts, Democrats have written the rules of the House in such a way as to treat limited tariff benefits like other earmarks, and the Democrats were wrong to do so.

The Republican Conference has taken the position, and correctly so, that we are taking a 1-year moratorium on all the provisions included in the Democrat rule to demonstrate our commitment to getting government spending under control. I am committed to both the letter and spirit of that moratorium and therefore will vote against the bill.

In fact, the majority is well aware of our earmark ban, and I can't help but wonder if this wasn't put on the suspension calendar after 3\1/2\ years without a vote so that it would fail and they might avoid taking the blame. It's a sham and it won't work. The business community knows it, the American workers whose jobs depend on it know it, and we know it. Democrats have had 3\1/2\ years to pass the Miscellaneous Tariff bill and they have failed to do so.

Congress has not passed a miscellaneous tariff bill since December of 2006, right before the Democrats took the majority and except for the Peru Free Trade Agreement have brought no trade legislation to the floor in the time that they have been in the majority. Given the state of our economy, given the loss of jobs, I think that record is not only an embarrassing one; it's a shameful one.

And the record speaks for itself. Republicans have long supported the MTB and U.S. employers, while the Democrats have written the rules of the House to discriminate against this bill. Under this majority, business investment and hiring are frozen in the face of looming tax hikes, smothering government regulation, and little, very little-- frankly, no action on the trade agenda. A true commitment to trade and the good-paying U.S. jobs it provides would involve passing the pending bilateral trade agreements which economically are even more important to this country than the bill before us today.

Mr. Speaker, what you're seeing today is merely one more attempt by the majority to distract American workers and employers from the real damage they've done to the American economy. This legislation cannot overcome the $670 billion in new taxes already passed by this Congress and the billions more coming. It cannot overcome the anti-business attitude of so much of the legislation produced by the majority.

Mr. Speaker, if my friends on the other side of the aisle were truly interested in helping American manufacturers, they would be lowering taxes, knocking down trade barriers, and supporting the private sector. This legislation is no substitute for those policies.

The House should take a breather from earmarks as called for in the moratorium from the Republican Conference. It is unfortunate that this pause includes the MTB; but we didn't write the rule, the majority did. I urge my colleagues to show the American people that we are serious about reforming the way Washington works and vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time. I will make a statement when it's time to close.

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

First, let me address the rule of the House. It's very clear that these are treated the same way, if you look at the rules. In fact, if you pull the rules of the House out, there is subsection called ``Congressional Earmarks.'' All of this is listed in that section. So it's very clear that there was an intent to incorporate, unfortunately wrongly, these kinds of provisions in the earmark process. We didn't write that rule. The Democrats wrote that rule. We are trying to have some integrity to the entire process.

Now, I realize that on the other side, whether it's a budget, and the Budget Act of 1974, you ignore that; whether it's PAYGO, you ignore that whenever it suits your needs and, quote, ``find an emergency'' to get around that. But the fact is we need to reform this process. We have not done that.

And I have in personal terms urged the chairman not to bring this under suspension of the rules. The last time this bill was on suspension in the 109th Congress it failed, and a majority of the Democrats voted against the bill. I think this is not the process in order to find a bipartisan path forward on this bill. What we really need to do, I think what should have been done, is not bring this bill where it requires a supermajority, because I think it is very likely the bill will fail. And that may be the political outcome that my friends on the other side wanted.

But in order to move this legislation in a bipartisan way forward, I think it's going to be important to get a rule, which I am certain will occur, and we will be back on the floor very shortly addressing this matter with a rule and a simple majority vote.

So I would just urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill until we can find a way to bring this legislation to the floor with a bipartisan rule that we have had the ranking member on the Rules Committee come forward and say he would be willing to work with the majority to find a way to resolve this issue.

Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my friend from Michigan that not even Democrat Senator Ben Nelson supported the bill last night. I know my friend is trying to paint this as a totally Republican issue, but there were Democrat Senators who didn't support the bill, and I mentioned one of them.

Let me just say that I realize this is about Republicans and Democrats who care about the future of this country. Yet it is said that Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Well, that's exactly what the Democrats are doing today--trying to pass, for the third time, an unpaid-for extension of unemployment benefits that the Senate Republicans and Democrats--and the American people--have repeatedly rejected. In fact, just last night, the Senate again said, thanks, but no thanks, to this fiscal insanity. Democrats should put an end to this sham and should pay for this $34 billion spending bill so unemployed Americans can get the help they deserve.

Let me be clear: I support and Republicans have supported extending unemployment benefits, but we must not do so at a cost to the deficit, to the economy, and to future generations. Our inability to get our fiscal house in order isn't just damaging future generations; it is wreaking havoc on job creation today. Surely, if Congress can find money to protect doctors, then we can find money to protect the unemployed.

On Tuesday, the House defeated this same bill, one that would add $34 billion to the deficit under a process that banned any amendments, including any efforts to pay for this bill. Again today, we are on the floor, under a process that bans all amendments. Any attempt for us to offer a way to pay for this legislation is banned under the Democrat autocratic rule of this House.

The only way we can address this issue is to offer a motion to recommit to actually pay for benefits. There is a way to pay for this spending, and it is something we ought to do. Any Member who is serious about reining in the deficit should vote in favor of this MTR. There is an inability or an unwillingness--or both--on the part of the Democrats to pay for this bill. Unemployment benefits have been expired for almost a month, leaving hundreds of thousands of long-term unemployed people without the benefits they need, and that number grows every week.

Let me repeat that fact. Americans are not receiving their unemployment checks because Democrats refuse to pay for these benefits at a time of record Federal deficits.

As I said on Tuesday, the American people know it isn't right to simply add the cost of this spending to our already-overdrawn national credit card. They want us to help those in need, but they also know that someone has to pay when government spends money. That assistance must not put our fiscal house as a nation in even worse shape, and we are already in terrible shape.

The stimulus hasn't worked. In its wake, nearly 3 million private- sector jobs were lost, unemployment soared to 10 percent nationwide, and 48 out of 50 States lost jobs. The American people should not be punished for the failure of the stimulus, and our children and grandchildren should not be punished for the failure of this Congress to act in a fiscally responsible manner.

Even the administration has agreed in the past that paying for unemployment benefits, and I quote, ``is fiscally responsible, and that fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs.''

That is a quote from the Statement of Administration Policy on a bill last fall extending these same benefits, the only one of eight unemployment extensions so far that was fully paid for.

So let's heed their admonition. Reject this bill, as the Senate already has, and vote to support the unemployed in favor of a fiscally responsible way by supporting the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

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

I would say to my friend from New Jersey, we agree this is important.

This is important. This is so important that we believe that we should pay for this. And let me just quote the majority leader, who was on ABC's This Week, said, ``There is spending fatigue across the country.'' His words. And that he's encouraging the administration to look at last year's $787 billion stimulus package to see if some money can be redirected.

I would just say, if this is so important, why not let us offer an amendment to use the unspent stimulus dollars to cut some other wasteful part of government to find some way to pay for this important program.

That's all I say. If we could just get an agreement to offer an amendment to do that and move forward. But no, this bill comes to the floor under the most restrictive rule the House can possibly pass. We cannot offer any amendments. If this is that important, why not let us offer an amendment to find some way to pay for this bill?

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller), a distinguished Member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What we've been hearing most of today is really a false choice, that we either do this bill unpaid for or do nothing at all. And in a $3 trillion budget, we can't find the $34 billion to pay for this bill?

As I said before, I have supported the extension of unemployment benefits. I've voted for the extension of unemployment benefits. But given the fiscal shape this country is in now, we believe that it's important to offer these benefits and also pay for these benefits so that we don't help today's unemployed at the expense of tomorrow's future job seekers.

And the effect on the debt, and I could go through the litany. Obviously, it didn't start last year. But if you look at what has happened since January of 2009, a $410 billion supplemental that included 8,500 earmarks, a $1 trillion stimulus, a $1 trillion health care bill. We've got hundreds of billions of dollars in unspent stimulus that isn't being returned to the taxpayers that could be redirected to pay for these unemployment benefits that isn't.

So what I hear is, We just need to spend. And this is an important need, but why not let us offer an amendment to find a way to pay for these extended unemployment benefits?

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

Mr. Speaker, this debate has shown the length the majority will go to in order to avoid paying for any government spending, even calling the eighth extension of unemployment benefits an emergency. One would hope that even the Congress would see this coming after the first seven times.

We could pass this bill with broad bipartisan support if Democrats would just agree to pay for the spending. Instead, their refusal to pay for these benefits will mean hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans are losing unemployment benefits at a time when the unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent, and it shouldn't be this way, because this bill is going nowhere.

The American people know we must pay for the spending, and the Senate appears to have heard that message. Just last night the Senate rejected this bill, so it has no hope of being signed into law.

Given the Senate vote, this isn't just an exercise in fiscal irresponsibility; it's an exercise in futility.

The unemployed are facing a personal emergency, and our country's facing an emergency that affects us all and future generations. The mountain of debt this bill will only add to.

If we want to help those who are out of work, let's pass something that might actually pass the Senate and won't increase the deficit, such as the motion to recommit that I'll be offering in a moment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit on H.R. 5618 has a provision to pay for the extended unemployment benefits proposed in the underlying bill. We think it is important to help long-term unemployed people, and we want to do it without adding another $34 billion to the Nation's record $13 trillion debt.

We know that the stimulus hasn't worked. In its wake, nearly 3 million private-sector jobs were lost, unemployed soared to 10 percent nationwide, and 48 out of 50 States lost jobs. So this motion to recommit pays for the $34 billion in Federal unemployment costs by cutting that much in unspent stimulus spending.

Only a portion of the $1 trillion stimulus has been paid out, $414 billion as of June 18, as reported by the official Recovery Act Web site. That leaves hundreds of billions of dollars unspent and available to offset this bill.

I would like to quote from the Statement of Administration Policy last November: ``Fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. The administration therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill.''

That statement was about the only one of the eight unemployment benefits extender bills so far that was actually paid for. But the same can and should be said about this motion. It is fiscally responsible, and it is central to the recovery of our economy and job creation.

I would also like to read a quote from Speaker Pelosi that appeared in Congress Daily AM on Monday. She said, ``I am hard-put to pass any more initiatives here unless there is some reasonable prospect of success on the Senate side.'' Well, there isn't a reasonable prospect of success on the Senate side unless we adopt this motion to recommit. Just last night, the Senate rejected the unpaid-for version of this bill. Rejecting this motion ensures this bill will die in the Senate and that hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans will continue to go without their unemployment benefits.

I urge all Members to join me in supporting this motion to recommit, which will help today's unemployed workers and improve the future for our children and grandchildren by not adding to our debt.

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

Mr. Speaker I would like to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, at a time of record deficits, it should always be germane to consider proposals to offset higher spending. And, in light of the Senate already rejecting an unpaid-for version of this bill just last night, I ask that the Speaker deny the point of order so we can pay for this bill and ensure that unemployed Americans do not continue to go without unemployment benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the chair.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Here we go again. Another month, another bill extending unemployment benefits and extending the Federal deficit. Only this time, the Democrats have waited now almost an entire month since these programs last expired to come up with a plan for how to extend them, leaving hundreds of thousands of long-term unemployed people without needed benefits. And it's all because the Democrats refuse to pay for these benefits, despite record Federal deficits.

Madam Speaker, I'm one of many on this side who support helping long- term unemployed people. I voted for these benefits. Even though my home State of Michigan recently ended its 4-year run, the highest unemployment rate in the Nation, the pain suffered by our residents remains real.

But the American people know it isn't right to simply add the cost of this spending to our already overdrawn national credit card. They want to help those in need. They also know that someone has to pay when the government spends money. That assistance must not put our fiscal house, as a Nation, in even worse shape. And we're already in terrible shape, thanks to the other side.

The Democrats' trillion-dollar stimulus plan created millions of unemployed workers, instead of millions of promised jobs. We can and should cut that ineffective stimulus spending to pay for extending UI benefits, as my colleague, Mr. Heller of Nevada, has proposed.

Stimulus hasn't worked. In its wake, nearly 3 million private-sector jobs were lost. Unemployment soared to 10 percent nationwide, and 48 out of 50 states lost jobs. The only thing we stimulated is more government jobs.

Even Democrats now question the wisdom of all that spending, as is evidenced by the fact the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee proposed last week to cut some of it to pay for expending other expired policies.

But instead of that commonsense approach, our colleagues on the other side have brought up this unpaid-for bill, under a process that prevents any amendment, including an effort to pay for this spending. So I expect, because of those reasons, this bill will be defeated. And they know that. They want a campaign issue. Not because Members on both sides oppose helping the unemployed, but because Members reflecting what they're hearing from their constituents, listening to the people they represent, are opposed to adding another $33 billion to our $13 trillion mountain of national debt. Our national debt is now more than 90 percent of our total economy.

Look around the world. Countries are sinking in debt. Yet, the Democrat leaders of this House seem among the last to recognize that this reckless spending cannot go on forever.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this deficit-extending bill today so that we can bring up a real bill that allows us to pass and actually pay for these benefits for the long-term unemployed. That's the only road out of this policy dead-end into which the other side's spending ways have driven us.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I said in my opening comments, there are many people on this side who have and do support helping the long-term unemployed. I voted for these benefits. This will represent the eighth extension of unemployment benefits since July of 2008. Of those eight bills, one has been paid for.

I heard my friend on the other side so eloquently speak of the forgotten man. What about the future of this country? What about the children and grandchildren who are going to be left paying this debt?

The issue isn't should we extend benefits to the unemployed. The issue is should they be paid for or should they simply add to the deficit and further compound our problems.

I happen to serve on the debt commission, the fiscal responsibility commission. We had testimony there from an expert who analyzed 200 years of world history and every country in the world and said that when your national debt gets to 90 percent of your GDP, which we're at now, you end up hurting the economic growth of the country by about 1 percent, and in America, that means 1 million jobs. That means by adding to the debt and deficit, we're costing jobs.

Now, what we need to do is help grow this economy, and let me just say that these unemployment insurance benefits are not paid for in this bill. Of the $34 billion that would be spent on UI, not a penny is paid for. This bill is declared an emergency, and therefore, this $34 billion will be added to our already record $13 trillion debt, but it doesn't have to be that way.

The House actually passed, as I mentioned, one extension bill last fall that was fully paid for, and here's what a colleague of mine on the Ways and Means Committee, a senior Democrat, said in a press release, and this is also found on his Web site: ``In passing the legislation . . . the bill does not increase the deficit . . . the extension is fully paid for.''

And here is what the Statement of Administration Policy said about that bill: ``Fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. The administration therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill.''

So, by the administration's logic, the fiscally irresponsible bill before us undermines the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs.

Let's vote ``no'' on this bill today so that we can come back tomorrow and pass a bill that extends unemployment benefits that is fully paid for and does not jeopardize the future of this country and the need for economic growth that is so important to getting us out of this recession.

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

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding and for the introduction of this very timely resolution. Last weekend, in a free and open democratic process, Colombia elected a new President. The people of Colombia should be commended for continuing their long tradition of democracy.

President-elect Santos is a strong U.S. ally who will continue Colombia's efforts to strengthen the rule of law, restore peace and stability, and promote economic growth for all Colombians. Colombia's progress is undeniable and its workers are safer now than ever before.

So, while we should be reaffirming our alliance today, we should also be strengthening that alliance by passing the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. The United States already offers Colombia almost total duty-free access to the U.S. market, yet American exports face significant tariffs entering the Colombian market. The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement would lift these barriers and level the playing field, increasing U.S. exports by at least $1 billion.

The Administration and Congressional Democrats have instead allowed this agreement to languish and this valuable ally to twist in the wind. As a result, U.S. employers have paid over $2.8 billion in unnecessary duties on American exports to Colombia. Those duties would vanish under the agreement and would allow U.S. employers to use this cash to create new job opportunities.

But that's not the worst of it. In disregarding our agreement, the Administration and Congressional leadership have allowed other countries to race ahead of us, giving foreign workers a competitive advantage.

American farmers are already experiencing the ramifications of this inaction. U.S. farmers have lost millions in potential exports to Colombia; those sales are instead being made by farmers in Argentina and Brazil, because those countries already have an agreement in place with Colombia.

The damage to American workers and farmers will only get worse if Colombia's agreements with Canada, the EU, and others go into effect before our agreement. There is absolutely no reason for this to happen. The U.S.-Colombia agreement was signed over 1,300 days ago. The United States had a huge head start that the Administration and leadership has willfully conceded. For over a year now, the Administration has promised to find a way forward on this Agreement and present Colombia with the list of things it needed to do. The Colombians are still waiting for that list.

If the Administration is serious about doubling exports and creating jobs, it must to do what's necessary to bring this Agreement up for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference agreement.

I am deeply concerned that Iran continues to pursue nuclear capabilities in defiance of the international community. Such actions pose a profound threat to our national security interests.

I have repeatedly supported efforts to give U.S. Presidents the tools and capabilities needed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and engaging in terrorism, and I continue to do so today through this conference agreement.

In pursuing the critical goal of preventing Iran's nuclear proliferation, I am pleased that the conference agreement expands the sanctions available to the President to include refined petroleum resources. In addition, the severe financial restrictions imposed under this agreement will prevent banks from doing business with blacklisted Iranian entities.

However, while domestic sanctions are critical, it is also important that our allies participate in an international coalition so that combating Iran's nuclear proliferation is a powerful multilateral effort. This conference agreement encourages this vital endeavor.

The original House bill, like other Iran sanctions bills that have preceded it in this chamber, was referred to the Ways & Means Committee. I am pleased that as a conferee, I have been able to work with my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee to address the issues in our jurisdiction in a way that maintains the strength of the bill. This has been a bipartisan and productive effort resulting in a robust agreement that takes powerful action against Iran, gives the Administration the best chance at continuing to cultivate and maintain international multilateral pressure, and is consistent with our trade obligations.

I thank Chairman Levin for his valuable efforts, as well as Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, in achieving this exemplary outcome and urge my colleagues to support this conference agreement.

Madam Speaker, today, my district laid to rest a local hero, a man who truly

embodied the community spirit that makes our country so great.

George Hoddy, an extraordinarily accomplished businessman, booster, and philanthropist in Owosso, Michigan, died on Sunday at the age of 105. His life is an example for all Americans.

He moved to Owosso in 1936 as an enterprising young man, driven by a truly American spirit to provide jobs and help Owosso recover from the Great Depression.

He founded Universal Electric Company in Owosso, becoming a community icon and providing steady employment for thousands. George was a constant innovator, developing ideas and obtaining 32 patents in the small-motor field.

Not content with simply being a business leader, George was also icon in many-community organizations. A run-down of just a few of those include Memorial Healthcare, the Rotary Club, the Boy Scouts, Shiawassee YMCA and YWCA, Shiawassee United Way, Owosso-Corunna Area Chamber of Commerce, Owosso Industrial Development Corporation, the Shiawassee Foundation. His service truly was life-long: he was a Mason for more than 80 years.

And there are many more. George's involvement illustrates how working together and giving back can better one's community.

One of his crowning achievements was to encourage Baker College to come to Owosso. He served as the original Board of Regents chair for Baker College of Owosso. Most recently, he donated his home and four other buildings to the school, and established a scholarship in his and wife Lois's names there.

He has been, rightly, called an ``honorary founding father'' by Owosso's Mayor. George Hoddy's belief in and commitment to the founding strengths our nation; free enterprise, limited government, and involvement in his community made him a giant among men. I valued his friendship and counsel. His life was one to be truly celebrated.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains many positive features but also some negative ones, and thus, I reluctantly plan to oppose it.

Like my friend on the other side of the aisle, I'm pleased to see that it does include some tax relief, albeit limited, for small businesses, including provisions championed by both Republicans and Democrats. I'm also pleased, unlike earlier versions of this legislation, the most objectionable revenue raiser, a provision that could provoke retaliation by other countries and that even the Obama administration officials warned would violate our international treaty obligations, has been dropped from this bill. But despite those positive features, I will be voting against this bill for several important reasons.

First, while the tax relief in here is welcome, it's not enough and won't actually help small businesses create the jobs we need to reduce our stubbornly high unemployment rate. While I would certainly support further lowering taxes on small businesses, the last thing they need is higher taxes, which is exactly what they are facing from this Congress.

Just last month, the majority pushed through an $11.2 billion tax hike on certain small businesses that would subject their profits to employment taxes, and at the end of 2010, all individual income tax rates, as well as taxes on dividends and capital gains, are scheduled to rise dramatically. Because so many small businesses pay taxes at the individual level, the fear of these increases is chilling expansion and hiring and, therefore, job creation. So the majority's record on tax policy affecting small businesses is spotty at best.

Second, this bill, like others before it, provides a stark reminder of the majority's view of the Ways and Means Committee as an ATM machine to fund other spending. Here, the majority is seeking to generate $7.1 billion in additional tax revenue but would only provide $3.6 billion in tax relief over the next decade. The rest of the money raised will be used to offset the cost of another bill, H.R. 4297, which was reported by the Financial Services Committee, that creates another TARP-like program. Some might call it TARP III.

While I'm glad the majority found offsets that are less economically damaging than some that have previously passed the House, the practice of using permanent changes in tax receipts to fund temporary spending is disappointing and portends further and larger tax hikes in the future, perhaps as soon as the end of this month when the majority hopes to complete action on a financial system reform bill.

Mr. Speaker, especially with the unemployment rate continuing to hover near 10 percent, our small businesses, the engine of economic growth and job creation, need help, but this bill isn't enough, and it takes us further down the dangerous road of higher spending our Nation cannot afford.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to respond to my friend from Michigan, the chairman, and say it's really about the reality of this legislation, not just the rhetoric. And while excluding capital gains on the sale of small business stock is a great provision, the problem is this is drafted so narrowly that the small businesses have to be C corporations. And as we know, only a fraction of small businesses will be considered qualified small businesses to take advantage of this provision. This is the largest piece of this so-called ``small business relief'' bill. And while it's great to talk about, the reality of it is going to be very limited.

As I said in my statement, there are some positive things in this bill. Obviously, closing the Black Liquor 3 loophole is something I support, but on balance, because the bill isn't really going to do anything to create jobs, A, and, B, because there are, again, going to be temporary provisions that are paid for with permanent tax increases, and, third, the revenue raiser on the estate tax area on the Grantor Retained Annuity Trust is really one that ought to be reserved for when we have to deal with estate tax reform. As you know, the law has expired. There are bills moving through the Congress to reinstate the estate tax. This really is appropriate to that area.

I think it is absolutely unconscionable that we've gone all this time with no estate tax, with everyone understanding that the majority is going to create a retroactive death tax bill that's going to try to come back through the beginning of the year. This is where that provision should be.

So, again, I reluctantly oppose this bill. I think there are some good things

in it; unfortunately, they don't go far enough.

I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

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

This bill is going to spend taxpayers' money. I believe we have an obligation, if we're going to spend taxpayers' money, that we do it effectively. On Friday night, the Treasury released a report that in 2015 our debt will exceed the gross domestic product of this country. We've had expert testimony before the Debt Commission that said when your debt gets to 90 percent of GDP, you lose 1 percent off economic growth, which translates into 1 million jobs.

This bill, because of how narrowly focused it is, how narrowly drafted it is, virtually no small businesses will take advantage of the exclusion of capital gains because they have to be C corporations. And if there is one trend we've seen, it's that businesses are being organized as passed-through entities now. That's how America, particularly small business America, is being organized. So while this is great rhetoric, this bill isn't going to be effective in doing anything.

And let me just say, I heard the former chairman say that Republicans just say no. On the health care bill, we had a viable alternative. In fact, I will say the vote on the health care bill was bipartisan opposition, only majority partisanship support for that legislation. Whether it's been stimulus or health care or energy, we have had viable alternatives on the floor that we have brought forward. On this particular bill, I think that better work could have been done, more effective work could have been done. And, frankly, in this era of the highest debt ever this country has seen, I think we have an obligation that if we're going to spend taxpayers' dollars, it's done in an effective way and a way that gets results, and this bill falls short.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield the customary 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

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

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

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

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

I agree with much of what some of the speakers have said today about the importance of small business and the job creation that small business has been responsible for. You can see statistics where 80 percent of the job creation in recent years has been because of small business. Certainly, if we're going to recover as an economy, small business will lead the way, and needs to recover. And we've seen over the past few years the way small business has been organized. Increasingly,

they're pass-through entities. The vast majority of small businesses are pass-through entities.

So what does the majority do? They pass a small business bill that doesn't apply to the majority of small businesses. This provision here, which is the bulk of the bill that excludes capital gains on the sale of certain small business stocks, only applies to qualified small businesses. Well, what is a qualified small business? A C corporation. That's how most large businesses are organized. So this bill won't do anything.

Again, while we have record debt, the largest in the history of this country, well over $13 trillion and an estimate from the Treasury Department that, in 2015, the debt will exceed the size of the entire economy of the United States for the first time in history--before we spend taxpayer dollars, we ought to do it in a way that's effective.

There are things that we could do for small business. I will say the majority has made this bill better than it was the first time by dropping some of the controversial provisions that would have potentially caused our trading partners to retaliate against us. Obviously, closing the black liquor provision is something that I think every Republican supports as well. That's a good thing. But the fact that this legislation is not where it should be doesn't mean that we should just look the other way and pass it, because it doesn't meet the standard that this Congress should be meeting in this difficult economic time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I thank the gentleman for those comments. He makes a very important point.

In closing, I just want to say that we look at the costs that the individual mandate particularly is going to hit hard on small businesses and how difficult that's going to make it for them to continue to be able to expand and hire workers. And we know that the small business health care tax credit is virtually a fraud; that 90 percent of small businesses won't be able to qualify for that because, again, that's so narrowly drafted that there's the rhetoric of being able to say, Aren't we doing all these great things? But the reality is there's nothing there.

Let me just say that at the end of 2010, when all the individual income tax rates increase, as well as on dividends and capital gains, that's going to hit small business particularly hard because most small businesses file as individuals. And that's going to make it much more difficult for them to expand. It's going to make it much more difficult for them to hire and much more difficult for job creation to occur.

Also, I would say that another difficult problem is that this bill, while it generates $7 billion in tax revenue, it only provides about $3.5 billion in tax relief. So, again, taxes are being raised permanently for temporary spending in other parts of our economy, and it's my understanding that most of that extra revenue will be used to help pay for another TARP-like program--TARP III as some call it-- that's going to be coming our way.

So, again, with our unemployment rate continuing to be at a lingering 10 percent, the difficulty our small business, the engines of economic growth and job creation are facing, the help they need, this bill is not enough. Again, it takes us down a road of higher spending that our Nation cannot afford at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, with the unemployment rate stuck at nearly 10 percent, far too many Americans and small businesses are struggling to get by. While the bill before us contains some very limited benefits, it does little to help small businesses create the jobs so many Americans desperately need.

The motion to recommit the underlying bill keeps the underlying bill intact and provides real help to Americans by repealing one of the most onerous provisions of the new health care law, the individual mandate that, while exempting illegal immigrants, forces Americans to buy government-approved health insurance or pay a tax if they don't.

The Federal Government has never required its citizens to purchase a particular product before, and doing so with health insurance violates the basic principles of freedom and individual choice. No American should be forced to buy or purchase health insurance they don't want or can't afford.

This provision is so controversial that 20 States and the Nation's leading small business organization, the National Federation of Independent Business, have filed a lawsuit questioning its constitutionality. While legal experts will soon start arguing that case, we already know that the individual mandate tax penalty will fall hardest on middle- and low-income Americans.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2016, nearly 75 percent of the Americans who pay this tax will have household incomes below 500 percent of the Federal poverty level. That's roughly $73,000 for a married couple with no children. CBO also tells us that the Democrats' health care law will increase premiums for millions of Americans by up to 13 percent. That's a premium increase of about $2,100.

As the Democrats' health care bill drives up the cots of health care premiums even higher, it will become more and more unaffordable for American families to comply with the mandate. Repealing this mandate will directly benefit millions of Americans and uphold the freedoms upon which this Nation was founded. It has the added benefit of eliminating the need for the IRS to hire thousands of additional employees, possibly as many as 16,000, just to enforce the new health care law.

The recently enacted health care law is bad for workers, bad for employers, and bad for America. Clearly, we need to repeal and replace this law with commonsense reforms that will actually lower health care costs and let Americans keep the plan they have and like.

And let me remind my colleagues of a quote from then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama. And I quote, ``A mandate means that in some fashion everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. . . . But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to

avoid getting health care. The problem is they can't afford it.''

This health care law increases premiums by $2,100 for millions of American families and requires them to buy this government-approved insurance that they cannot afford.

I urge my colleagues to stand with the American people and vote for the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Let's be clear about what we are doing here today, and, that is, absolutely nothing. This bill is going nowhere. It will not be signed into law, and it will be totally rewritten in the Senate. Majority Leader Reid made that perfectly clear on the floor of the Senate last night. So if you want to walk a $54.2 billion deficit-increasing, tax- hiking, job-killing plank, vote ``yes.'' If not, vote ``no.''

Let's also be clear that this bill has nothing to do with jobs. In fact, virtually every business group is opposed to this package: the Chamber of Commerce, Home Builders, Associated General Contractors, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the list goes on and on. Employers across the country say this bill will hurt our economic recovery. With employment stuck at nearly 10 percent, this is the last bill this House should be passing.

And here we are addressing yet another fundamental flaw in the Democrats' health care overhaul. Had the Democrats not hidden the true cost of that law, we would not be here today voting on another so- called ``doc fix,'' a fix that expands the deficit by $22.9 billion, kicks the can 19 months down the road, has doctors facing a 33 percent cut in 2012, and will force us to spend billions more. We could have paid for a much better package--like the ones the Republicans offered on the House floor last fall--by simply standing up to the trial lawyers and passing commonsense lawsuit reform.

Let's also be honest about the real deficit impact because it is much, much more than the $54.2 billion we have before us. Every Member of this House knows we will be back voting again to increase the deficit in order to again extend these programs and to extend COBRA and FMAP subsidies, both of which were deleted from the bill early this morning. Now, whether you eat the cookie in one bite or several little bites, it has the same number of calories. We owe it to ourselves and to the American people to be honest about just how much deficit spending we're being asked to swallow.

Given that this bill adds $54.2 billion to the deficit but is somehow PAYGO compliant, I think we can officially declare dead the myth that PAYGO will instill fiscal discipline.

So just what are we getting for this deficit spending? Not jobs and not tax cuts. There is no net tax relief before us today. In fact, the Democrats are imposing permanent tax increases at the worst possible time to pay for temporary extensions of current law.

There is a $17.7 billion tax on carried interest, including real estate partnerships and venture capital firms, that would discourage the entrepreneurial risk-taking that is crucial to economic growth and job creation.

The proposed tax on small business income is perhaps even more troubling. President Obama himself claims that 70 percent of new jobs come from small businesses, yet the bill would increase taxes on certain small businesses by subjecting to employment taxes the business profits as opposed to wages.

The bill also includes more than a half dozen complex changes to our international tax rules. These new changes collectively raise close to $15 billion but have not been reviewed by the Ways and Means Committee. Given the desperate shape of our economy and the need to remain competitive with other countries, we should not be rushing forward with massive tax increases without knowing their exact impact.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on increasing the deficit by over $50 billion and to vote ``no'' on raising taxes permanently when unemployment is stuck at nearly 10 percent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a list of all of the American businesses that oppose this bill because it will cost us American jobs.

Job Creators Oppose Democrats' Deficit Extender Bill

Cite Concerns that Provisions Will Hinder Job Creation, Decrease

Competitiveness of American Businesses

Since Democrats introduced their latest version of H.R.

4213, ``The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act,''

business leaders and organizations that represent millions of

American businesses and their employees have voiced their

opposition to the job-killing, deficit extending bill. These

employers say that the legislation is anti-job growth, will

place American businesses at a worldwide competitive

disadvantage, subject them to higher taxes and will harm the

nation's path to economic recovery.

Given the disconnect between House Democrats' rhetoric on

jobs and their votes for tax increases, it is no wonder

employers are confused, new investments aren't being made and

unemployment continues to hover at close to 10 percent. Below

are just some of the concerns expressed by employers.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce: ``However, Congress' decision

with this legislation, to saddle small business, American

worldwide companies, and investment partnerships with

draconian tax increases that will hinder job creation,

decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and

deter economic

growth, leaves the Chamber no choice but to oppose this

legislation as currently drafted.''

Business Roundtable: ``These tax increases would take us

two steps backwards in terms of the job-creating legislation;

we strongly need to move our economy forward, not backwards,

to stay competitive with the rest of the world.''

National Association of Home Builders: ``NAHB estimates

that the economic impact of taxing carried interest as 100

percent ordinary income would be a loss of 33,000 jobs due to

reduced multifamily rental housing construction and $1.2

billion in reduced annual property tax revenues to state and

local governments.''

National Association of Manufacturers: ``Unfortunately, the

onerous tax increases...could outweigh the benefits of the

pro-growth changes by imposing significant new costs on

American businesses and threatening job creation, U.S.

competitiveness and overall economic growth.''

Associated General Contractors: ``Unfortunately, the bill

reduces the effectiveness of these provisions by reducing

capital available for private construction and limiting

private job creation by increasing taxes on many small

businesses in the construction industry.''

National Foreign Trade Council: ``These new revenue

proposals will make American businesses less able to compete

in foreign markets, will subject them to double taxation, and

as a result may have significant negative consequences on

worldwide American businesses and their U.S. employees.''

Promote America's Competitive Edge: ``The proposed changes

in the international tax rules will make a bad situation

worse, making it even more difficult for American worldwide

companies to compete.''

Technology CEO Council: ``At a time when innovative

companies are looking for more certainty and stability, the

extenders bill as currently drafted fails to provide either .

. . last-minute proposals to raise revenue could outweigh the

bill's positive aspects, possibly costing--not creating--

jobs.''

IBM: ``The pending legislation would impose significant new

tax increases that will completely overwhelm any positive

economic effect of the R&D tax credit, harming the U.S.

economy just as recovery has begun.''

Black Entertainment Television Founder Robert Johnson: ``In

my opinion, this legislation would cause a rapid decline in

minority private equity firms and possibly eliminate minority

participation in this important financial sector of the

American economy . . . If minority funds are reduced or

eliminated it will also impact investments in urban cities

and job creation and economic development in markets where it

is most needed.''

Finance Executives International: ``With more Americans out

of work than any other time in the last 50 years, businesses

in the U.S. have an obligation to get our citizens back to

work. Other countries seem to understand this call to action,

and are working tirelessly to lower tax rates and bring in

businesses from around the globe. By passing H.R. 4213, the

United States would be harming the competitiveness of

American worldwide companies.''

Emergency Committee for American Trade: ``H.R. 4213 will

undermine U.S. commercial engagement overseas and put U.S.

enterprises and their workers at an even greater competitive

disadvantage . . . H.R. 4213 is a major step in the wrong

direction.''

Silicon Valley Leadership Group: ``We are concerned that

the recent revenue off-sets are being used as `pay-fors' at

the expense of U.S. jobs.''

Real Estate Roundtable: ``Capital formation is what leads

to job and tax base creation--this proposal would discourage

it. Now is not the time to raise taxes. The tax hike will

further delay economic recovery and make financing and

refinancing more difficult.''

S Corporation Association of America: ``It represents an

$11 billion tax hike on employers in the middle of a very

difficult economy, and it should be rejected.''

Organization for International Investment: ``[S]everal of

the international proposals in the Amendment may diminish the

ability of foreign multinationals to continue making

significant contributions to the U.S. economy and U.S.

employment.''

Investment Company Institute: ``Congressional action at

this time would be both redundant and counterproductive.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

My friends on the other side have essentially claimed Republicans don't care about unemployed Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. We believe these programs must be extended. But we also believe they must be paid for, as legislation introduced by Mr. Heller of Nevada does, and of which I am a cosponsor.

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

I yield 2 minutes, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record a letter to the Speaker of the House by 12 physicians' organizations representing 155,000 physicians opposing this legislation.

May 26, 2010

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi, On behalf of the undersigned national

surgical societies, we would like to thank you for your

leadership and ongoing efforts to pass a permanent

replacement for the flawed Medicare physician payment

formula. It is vital that Congress adopt a policy that

provides long-term stability to ensure that our nation's

seniors, disabled and military families enrolled in the

TRICARE program maintain access to high quality surgical

care. Unfortunately, short term approaches--including the

sustainable growth rate (SGR) policy contained in the

proposed House amendment to H.R. 4213, the American Jobs and

Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010--fall short of this goal,

so we must oppose such legislative proposals.

With regard to H.R. 4213 (as released on May 20), our

specific concerns include:

Rather than permanently repealing the SGR, the bill only

provides temporary relief from the pending payment cuts for

three and a half years; the formula applied in 2012 and 2013

will likely result in a pay freeze for most surgeons; the

bill reverts back to the SGR in 2014 when physicians will

once again be facing cuts in excess of 35 percent; and with

an estimated price tag of nearly $500 billion in 2014, it

will be virtually impossible to permanently fix the problem

at a later date.

These continued payment cuts, rising practice costs and a

lack of certainty going forward, make it difficult, if not

impossible, for already financially challenged surgical

practices to continue to treat Medicare patients. A February

2010 survey conducted by the Surgical Coalition confirms that

surgeons and anesthesiologists will be forced to make

significant changes in their practices if Medicare payments

continue to decline, jeopardizing timely access to surgical

care. The survey found that 37 percent of respondents will

change their Medicare status to ``nonparticipating'' and an

additional 29 percent will opt out of Medicare altogether. In

addition, those remaining in Medicare will also make

significant changes to their practices, with 69 percent

limiting the number of Medicare patient appointments; 47

percent reducing time spent with Medicare patients; and 45

percent no longer providing certain services. Finally, the

survey demonstrates a direct connection between Medicare

payment cuts, jobs and the economy, as 43 percent of

respondents stated they would reduce staff; 44 percent would

defer the purchase of new medical equipment; and 32 percent

would defer purchases of health information technology.

Surgeons are keenly aware of the fiscal challenges

confronting Congress and our nation. We believe, however,

that the most fiscally responsible approach is to permanently

repeal the SGR today, rather than growing the cost by acting

on it tomorrow. We remain steadfast in our commitment to

ensure and improve all Americans' access to quality surgical

care and we stand ready to work with you to find a solution

that will achieve this goal.

Sincerely,

American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive

Surgery;

American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery;

American Association of Neurological Surgeons;

American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons;

American College of Osteopathic Surgeons;

American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists;

American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics;

American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery;

American Society of Plastic Surgeons;

American Urological Association;

Congress of Neurological Surgeons;

Society for Vascular Surgery.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

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

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

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

This legislation before us raises the deficit by $54 billion. It is not the fiscally responsible legislation that some claim it to be.

I insert in the Record the analysis by the Congressional Budget Office that shows the deficit increases by $54.2 billion under this legislation.

Estimate of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Effects for H.R. 4213, the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010 (As reported by the Committee on Rules on May 26, 2010 with a subsequent

draft amendment transmitted to CBO on May 27, 2010)

[Millions of dollars, by fiscal year] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1339, to designate May as National Foster Care Month.

Nearly one half million children are currently in foster care. This is a sobering statistic, and one that we must tirelessly work to reduce.

For many children, a positive permanent outcome can be found in reunification with their biological parents, or adoption into a new family.

However, far too many children languish for years without getting the help and love they deserve from permanent families. In 2008 over 10% of children leaving foster care, nearly 30,000 children, did so through emancipation and without the family support they deserve.

Equally alarming, for 2008 the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System estimated that there were 1,740 child fatalities resulting from abuse or neglect. This is simply unacceptable.

With the passage of the 2008 Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, Congress made a significant commitment to reforming our nation's foster care system, giving states and families new tools to cut down on the amount of time that kids spend in foster care and more opportunities to find permanent homes. Yet, more can and should be done to make the system work for foster children.

I am pleased that we are taking the opportunity today to discuss the pressing needs of our foster care system. Children in foster care deserve our unwavering support. We must redouble our efforts to find them permanent families and until then, ensure their safety while in our care.

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

I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for his comments and also for his effort and leadership on this legislation, as well as my colleague from Michigan.

I want to echo these comments and also place in the Record a letter that we each received from both President Clinton and President Bush supporting this effort today.

I rise in support of this legislation. The images of the devastation caused by the January earthquake that ravaged Haiti and its people were difficult for all of us to watch. And while those stories may no longer be splashed across the evening news, we know the Haitians continue to need help in rebuilding.

The legislation before us today is the example of how the process should work. Bipartisan, bicameral cooperation, and working closely with all stakeholders has allowed us to craft a bill that provides meaningful assistance to Haiti. These benefits will encourage the long- term investment in Haiti that Haiti desperately needs for its economic recovery and future stability. I am convinced that the bill will promote trade and investment in the region and create a strong hemispheric partnership with U.S. interests.

This legislation builds on the short-term assistance that Congress provided earlier this year to accelerate the tax benefits for charitable donations to the Haiti relief effort. And I am pleased to have participated in both of these bipartisan efforts.

This legislation also supports U.S. textile manufacturers and their workers by providing a long-term extension of the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act. The CBTPA program provides strong incentives to our trading partners throughout the region to use fabric and inputs produced in the United States, supporting American exports and American jobs. That is why this legislation is supported by the American textile industry. And I have a letter from the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition that I will insert into the Record supporting this legislation.

The success of this bill also demonstrates the benefits of tailoring our preference programs to the needs of a specific country or region. Congress is able to provide these expanded benefits to Haiti because they are customized to its specific needs and limit any negative impact on the U.S. textile industry. The careful balance of interests this legislation represents is unique to Haiti and wouldn't be possible if we tried to expand it to all of our preference programs in a one-size- fits-all approach.

I hope we can build on this bipartisan success and continue this policy of economic integration by working together to find a path that will enable Congress to bring pending trade agreements with Colombia and Panama to the floor for a successful vote. Like the legislation before us today, these agreements will promote economic development both here at home and for our trading partners as well.

American Manufacturing

Trade Action Coalition, National

Council of Textile Organizations,

April 26, 2010.

Hon. Sander M. Levin,

Acting 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 Acting Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Camp: As

representatives of the United States textile industry, we are

writing in regard to the Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of

2010, a bill to provide enhanced market access for apparel

products manufactured in Haiti.

After lengthy negotiations with your staffs, we are pleased

that we were able to reach an acceptable compromise on this

important legislation. While the bill provides Haiti with a

path forward for long-term economic recovery in the wake of

its devastating earthquake, it also takes into account

various sensitivities from the perspective of the U.S.

textile industry.

For example, the bill grants significant increases in duty

free treatment through a system of Tariff Preference Levels

(TPLs) but also institutes sub-limits on highly sensitive

products that can be exported under the TPLs. The sub-limits

were a key priority for the domestic industry and will

prevent over concentration of exports in one or two key areas

that could be particularly damaging to U.S. producers. In

addition, the bill extends the current Caribbean Basin Trade

Partnership Act (CBTPA) through 2020. This extension will

help to provide long-term certainty for a program that is of

significant value for U.S. and Western Hemispheric trading

partners.

Obviously, we take very seriously the impact that

additional duty free imports may have on U.S. producers and

workers as well as our Western Hemispheric customers. Noting

those concerns, we also recognize that the devastating

circumstances in Haiti produced an exceptional case that

motivated Congress to develop a quick response and have

worked with the Committee to develop a package that strikes

an acceptable balance. We must stress, however, that this

package does not set a precedent for any future trade

preference legislation.

For all these reasons, we are encouraging our Congressional

members that represent the nearly 500,000 U.S. textile and

apparel workers to approve this legislation in an expeditious

manner under suspension of the rules in the House and by

unanimous consent in the Senate.

Sincerely,

Augustine D. Tantillo,

Executive Director, American Manufacturing Trade Coalition

(AMTAC).

Cass M. Johnson,

President, National Council of Textile Organizations

(NCTO).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that there is and has been strong, bipartisan support for this legislation. This legislation certainly deserves that support. I do want to note that I think it's important as we move forward that we not seek to establish a trade framework or a trade policy framework that requires standards for other countries that could exceed our own U.S. law and that this legislation in that respect not be a precedent for other preferences as we move forward.

This legislation, I think, is important. It will help a devastated country through investment and begin to create more economic activity. I urge my colleagues to build on this success from this legislation; to work together in a bipartisan fashion; to take the steps necessary to further the economic benefits that come from increasing U.S. exports to our partners not only in this hemisphere but other hemispheres as well by bringing the pending trade agreements with Colombia and Panama to the floor for a successful vote.

With that, I urge a ``yes'' on this legislation.

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