Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the team members of the Midland Northstars Pee Wee AA hockey team on winning the USA Hockey Tier II 12-and-under Youth Nationals on Sunday, April 5, 2009. They have represented the state well with their perseverance and athleticism, and we are very proud of their national accomplishments.

The Northstars' 6-3 win over the East Coast Eagles of Raleigh, NC completed a six-game unbeaten run through the national tournament.

The Northstars--a travel team from the Midland Amateur Hockey League located in my district, outscored their opponents 36-7 in the five-day national tournament.

Team members include Turner Anderson, Tyler Angers, Samuel Brushaber, Drake Cergnul, Cam Fisher, Andrew Healey, Matthew Lee, Michael Leslie, Jacob Mackie, Travis McNally, Zachary Paisley, Steven Roberts, Joshua Ruthig, Derek Striker, Jacob Swartz, Brandon Veihl, Colin Walters. The team is Coached by Gregory Walters, assisted by Scott Cergnul, John Hollingsworth, Terry McNally, and James Roberts. The team manager is Kent Striker. The Northstars are also two-time Michigan state champions.

I am honored today to recognize the Midland Northstars Pee Wee AA team for their accomplishments, and congratulate them on their outstanding performance.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support S. 735, the ``Protecting Incentives for the Adoption of Children with Special Needs Act of 2009.''

Throughout my time in Congress, I have built on the lessons I learned working as an attorney helping families with their adoption proceedings. As a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I have been privileged to continue working on these issues, helping parents adopt children and form loving families. I am still impressed with the number of individuals, organizations, and legislators interested in the well-being and development of children and in encouraging more families to take in and adopt children in foster care.

Congress has made important strides improving the adoption process, by enacting my legislation, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, in 1997, followed by the Adoption Promotion Act in 2003. Additionally, just last fall I was pleased to support the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, which was enacted with bipartisan and bicameral support. The legislation further encouraged adoptions from foster care by revising the Adoption Incentives program and extending its authorization through fiscal year 2013. Among other improvements, this law gave States more generous Federal incentive funds if they succeed in helping more families adopt children now languishing for years in foster care--especially older and disabled children.

Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill (P.L. 111-8), which passed through the House with limited consideration, included a flawed provision that effectively overrides the improvements to the Adoption Incentive program made in last year's Fostering Connections law.

In short, the Omnibus bill incorrectly stipulated that Adoption Incentive funds should be provided under the ``old'', less generous rules Congress wanted to replace, instead of the ``new'', more generous rules included in the Fostering Connections law. That means States would have less incentive to pursue the adoption of older and disabled children in foster care, among others, because they would receive less Federal funds if they are successful in achieving those goals.

We can't know for sure which States would lose if this fix is not made, because we don't yet know which States will successfully improve their performance in increasing adoptions in the wake of the Fostering Connections law. But we do know that America's most vulnerable young people stand to lose if, as a result of this error, they spend more time in foster care instead of with loving adoptive families. We can't and shouldn't let that happen.

That is why I and my colleague Charlie Rangel, the Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, introduced legislation to correct this error. Our bill (H.R. 1840) is identical to the legislation (S. 735) the Senate passed on April 2 and that is being considered by the House today.

I encourage all Members to support this important legislation so it can be signed into law as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Frankly, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and I agree that bypassing the committee is a dangerous way to legislate. That invites unnecessary errors, and I think the stimulus bill is proof positive, and that's why we are here today. But again we are faced today with a bill that has had no public scrutiny and has not come before the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Speaker, let us do our jobs.

When Congress acted to stave off an imminent financial and economic collapse, the results of which would have been Depression-era unemployment levels, we did so with faith that past and current administrations would carefully manage the people's money. That trust has been shattered. Lesson learned.

What has been particularly troubling is the difficulty with which the truth has come out recently. After many varying and contradictory excuses, we now know that the Obama administration, working behind closed doors, secretly eliminated provisions that would have prevented the appalling abuse of taxpayer money. Adding insult to injury, they explicitly protected bonuses at companies that in many cases are operating only due to the generosity of the American people. It's a breach of the public trust that should have the Treasury Secretary, who repeatedly failed to pay his own taxes, looking for a new job.

Several of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and even Chairman Rangel have noted good reasons to oppose the bill before us. It's an extreme use of the Tax Code to correct an extreme and excessive wrong done to the American people. I'm sure we'll hear today that two wrongs don't make a right. But neither does inaction. It is our duty to protect and defend hardworking tax-paying Americans. At the end of the day, this insult to taxpayers cannot, should not, and will not stand, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

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

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, just briefly. We have a chance today to do the right thing by those who acted right, those who went to work every day, paid their taxes, and did nothing wrong, and that is the American taxpayer. This is their money, and we should get it back. I urge support for this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act.

I would like to first thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for bringing to the floor this important legislation. I am also proud to have worked with Mr. Pascrell on Title Three of this bill--which we have introduced previously.

Sewer maintenance is a serious problem in low-lying coastal areas such as Michigan. It is a sad fact that many of the sewer systems in Michigan and throughout the country date back to the Nineteenth Century.

These outdated systems often overflow with untreated human and industrial waste--releasing toxins and disease-causing organisms.

Inadequate maintenance, deteriorated pipes, rainfall and snow melts are too often cited as the cause of these overflows.

It is indisputable that sewer overflows pose a significant threat to public health and safety because they put raw sewage into rivers, streets, basements, and other areas of human exposure. They are also responsible for many beach closures, shellfish restrictions, and violations of water quality standards.

In Michigan alone there have been over 1,000 reported sewer overflows annually. These events have contributed over 20 billion gallons of sewage and wastewater onto the ground and into Michigan rivers, lakes and streams.

Even more staggering, the EPA has estimated that nearly 900 billion-- let me repeat, 900 billion--gallons of untreated wastewater and storm water are released through combined sewer overflows and separate sewer overflows annually in the United States.

The Water Quality Investment Act goes a long way toward ending the public health and environmental crisis associated with sewer overflows by providing federal funds to repair and replace outdated systems. Local governments cannot simply fix this mess and meet their obligations under the Clean Water Act alone.

Also of critical importance in this bill are provisions to reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act to tackle the problem of contamination in the Great Lakes Basin. It would provide the necessary funding to help clean up contaminated sediment in over 30 concerning areas.

My gratitude must also be extended to my esteemed colleague from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, for his steadfast commitment to the Great Lakes and the passage of the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act.

I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 1262 today.

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House believes we should and must act to get this economy moving again to help struggling families and employers through this global economic crisis. But action for the sake of acting will mean little to families if it is not accompanied with positive results.

This morning we awake to a spate of headlines that the deal made behind closed doors, and what we've still not been able to fully review, given its $1.1 million price tag will do more harm than good.

From the McClatchy News Service: ``Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no.''

From the Associated Press: ``Analysis: Stimulus won't jump-start the economy.''

From the Congressional Budget Office--and there's a chart behind me that shows it--``This partisan stimulus package ends up harming our economy.''

And, again, while it's clear we must act, we must ensure the action we take actually stimulates the economy and lays the foundation for real sustained job creation in the private sector.

There's a smarter, simpler way to stimulate the economy. It's not by running up the deficit by funding pet projects that are often wasteful. As you well know, we produced an alternative to both the Senate and House versions that would create twice the jobs at half the cost. Let me repeat that. Republicans developed a plan that would create twice the jobs at half the cost. And that isn't my analysis or some conservative think tank. That fact is based on the data and methodology of Dr. Christina Romer, the Chair of the President's Council on Economic Advisers.

Now, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out to my Republican and Democrat colleagues exactly how they were treated in this process. As one of five Members of this House who was appointed to the conference committee, I think it's my obligation to tell you this story.

As I walked from the House to the Senate for our first meeting of the conferees, I passed a press conference being held by the Senate majority leader announcing a final deal that had been struck by Senators and only by Senators. This is the first conference I've ever been on where the press conference announcing the results happened before the actual meeting. So I can understand why Speaker Pelosi was reportedly incensed.

The people's House should not be trampled on. We were frozen out. And as Chairman Rangel noted, many Democrats were frozen out. But most importantly, the American people were frozen out.

This is what happens when a few select people negotiate behind closed doors. You end up with flawed legislation that better reflects the priorities of a few, rather than those of the entire country.

And under this deal we're bring presented with this morning, the so- called middle class tax cut, the signature tax cut has been reduced to 20 cents an hour for a full-time worker. One of the few provisions to help struggling businesses was more than cut in half by shortening the length of the relief and making thousands of employers ineligible for help.

The work requirements within the historic 1996 Welfare Reform Law-- the hallmark legislation of President Clinton and the Republican Congress--has been eroded. And the stealth health provisions will drive up costs and have the government making more health care decisions instead of doctors and patients.

Given the severity of the crisis American families are facing, to conduct the people's business in this fashion may be the grossest violation of our constitutional duties and the oath of office we swore to uphold that I have seen in my 18 years in the House.

Record me as a ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself 4 minutes.

Just briefly, I want to outline a summary of the Camp-Cantor substitute to H.R. 1. This legislation would provide and reduce the income taxes of every American who pays income taxes and also provide for a maximum family benefit of about $3,400 a year. This bill also contains a health insurance premium deduction which helps bring fairness to the tax treatment of health insurance by providing a new deduction for those who do not receive tax-preferred employer-sponsored coverage, regardless of whether they itemize or take the standard deduction.

We also provide help for America's small businesses and employers by creating a 20 percent deduction for small business income. Now this is a group that employs nearly half of all private-sector employees in America and created nearly 80 percent of the new jobs in the United States in recent years.

We also have bonus depreciation and small business expensing, providing employers, both large and small, enhanced incentives to make the critical investments they need to grow our economy and create jobs. We expand the net operating loss carry-back to 5 years rather than 2. We also repeal the 3 percent withholding requirement for government contracts.

And to stabilize home values, we help reduce housing inventory by extending the $7,500 home buyer tax credit through December 2009. We do require that there be a 5 percent down payment so we don't get into the problems that we are facing again, and also eliminate the complicated recapture rules that currently require home buyers to pay the government back if they claim the credit.

We also provide unemployment assistance. We exempt unemployment benefits from Federal income tax for 2008 and 2009, and we extend unemployment benefits, as the base bill does, through December 2009 with a phaseout through mid 2010.

We also require that younger long-term unemployed are required to pursue a GED or other training, which would certainly help as they move into more training and into the job market. I would also say that, and during debate last night, I mentioned the recent CBO studies that show that tax cuts actually impact the economy more quickly than government spending.

CBO is the Congressional Budget Office, it's nonpartisan, and they help analyze and score the various legislative proposals that we have in the Congress. Not only have CBO and economists from every political stripe confirmed that tax cuts impact the economy more quickly than big government spending, we even have an analysis by President Obama's nominated senior economic adviser that shows that tax cuts provide more immediate growth and job creation in the economy than does spending.

So tax cuts provide a bigger bang for the buck. When the methods and economic models developed by the President's top economic adviser are applied to the Republican plan, it shows the Republican plan could create as many as 6.2 million jobs over the next 2 years. That's more than double the plan, the base bill that we have before us.

Now, let's be clear about where these estimates come from. They come from the President's senior economic adviser. The President's nominee to chair the Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Christina Romer, and her peer reviewed research. This isn't just her statement, this is a statement that's been reviewed by peers and economic analysts from around the country. So even in applying Dr. Romer's most conservative estimate, her analysis, along with that of Jared Bernstein, Vice President Biden's senior economic adviser, shows the Republican plan results in about 6.2 million jobs over 2 years. The cost of our bill is $478 million, so nearly twice the job creation for half the cost.

I would yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

I just want to repeat, the analysis and estimates I am giving you are taken directly from public analysis of the President's senior economic advisers. Republicans didn't develop these ourselves. We are applying their methodology and their analysis to our legislation.

So with the results of the peer-reviewed research, we find that our plan would create 6.2 million jobs. Our bill will create more at a substantially lower cost.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I would ask that the remarks be addressed to the Chair.

I thank the Chair for that admonition. I would yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I would just say that we offered 19 amendments in the committee. None of them were accepted. I think we did get a GAO study accepted. But none of our substantive amendments were.

And I would just say to my good friend from Michigan, who asked how I could go home, I would ask him how he can go home and provide half the jobs at twice the cost.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

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

At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

I yield myself 15 seconds.

We hold harmless in our legislation on the AMT, and we reduce taxes on 100 million American families, every American family that pays taxes.

With that, I would yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, a leader on developing the substitute, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would commend Mr. Neal for his work on the AMT. I just wish you had included it in your underlying bill. But let me just say, look, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, is nonpartisan. It has said that, and economists alike have said that tax cuts impact the economy more quickly than government spending. And what we need to do is act quickly and effectively.

We even have an analysis by the senior adviser to the new President who says that tax cuts will actually have more immediate growth, more job creation and a bigger bang for the buck than we'll see with government spending. And when we use the same methods and economic models that they have used to analyze our legislation, we get twice as many jobs for half the cost because of the great generative power of tax relief. It is something that certainly both President Kennedy and President Reagan recognized to create economic growth.

Let's be clear about what tax relief actually does. The U.S. economy had significant job growth after the tax cuts in the early part of this decade. Between 2003 and 2008, the economy added almost 8 million jobs. As this chart shows, it's according to the Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. economy added these jobs even after dealing with the impact of 9/11, two wars, rising energy prices and government spending.

Now everyone knows that over the last year, the U.S. economy has lost a significant number of jobs, but it took an unprecedented crisis in the housing and financial markets and a world economic slowdown to really knock the economy and the jobs that the economy creates off its feet.

So our estimate of the number of jobs that could be created by these tax relief measures, as we readily acknowledge, cannot fully account for all of the potential impacts on the economy, just as the President's senior advisers note in their analysis the same thing. But we do know the U.S. economy was in recession when Congress enacted the 2001 and 2003 tax relief measures. The U.S. economy responded by growing rapidly and adding almost 8 million jobs. And the families and the prosperity that was created from those 8 million jobs followed.

So the tax relief, the approach we have taken in our bill to emphasize more tax relief minimizes the wasteful government spending that we see in the Democrat, or the present majority's approach, and really shows that it's a proven formula for stimulating the economy, creating jobs and lifting this economy out of a recession.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the House Budget Committee and member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes at this time to the distinguished gentleman of the Ways and Means Committee from Washington State (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

I thank the Chair for that statement.

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

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

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

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I'd like to inquire of the Chair the time remaining.

And on the other side?

At this time we will reserve our time until it becomes a little more balanced, Mr. Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

I continue to reserve.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Chairman, we have one remaining speaker in addition to myself.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, our economy is in a recession and we must act. The question, however, is what action do we take. The President has directly challenged us to put aside partisanship and find an American solution.

I was pleased to meet with the President today and ask about including new provisions in this bill. Frankly, what we saw from the President today was a greater effort to reach out to Republicans than we have seen from the House majority.

Mr. Chairman, the American people know we cannot spend our way to prosperity. What was once an $825 billion ``stimulus'' bill has now grown to be $1.1 trillion.

The American people know that adding $1.1 trillion to the deficit for new spending on old government programs will not create jobs. They know small businesses create jobs, not the Federal Government. And they know families can better manage their budgets than the Federal Government.

So as we go through this debate, we will point out some very simple facts about how effective Federal spending is versus tax cuts in creating real private sector job growth.

Just yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its review of the spending in the House Democrats' proposed ``economic stimulus'' legislation. This CBO review confirms what Republicans have been saying all along: the Democrat package won't stimulate the economy now when it needs it most.

The primary reason is, the Democrat plan relies too heavily on slow government spending initiatives, not tax cuts to do the job. As seen in the chart next to me, even the Democrat stimulus bill proves tax cuts impact families and the economy twice as fast as government spending.

CBO went on to say reductions in Federal taxes would have most of their effects in 2009 and 2010, but purchases of good and services, either directly or in the form of grants to States and local government, would take several years to complete.

Worse yet, CBO expects that the rate of spending in 2009 would be considerably slower than historical rates of spending, and many of the larger projects initiated would take up to 5 to 7 years to complete.

The bottom line is this, Mr. Chairman: The nonpartisan CBO confirms that tax cuts get more money into the hands of American families and our economy faster than government spending. The American people know that tax cuts are a better way to stimulate the economy than borrowing money from China just to increase Federal spending and raise the Federal deficit.

If the Speaker was interested in answering the President's call to reach a bipartisan American solution to this crisis, she would work with Republicans to increase tax relief for every working American.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe every child in America should have access to quality health care. The Children's Health Insurance Program has done just that for those in families without the means to provide or buy insurance on their own.

SCHIP was created as a bipartisan program, and it was one I was proud to support. The bill before us today, however, not only threatens the core mission of the program, which is providing health care to low- income children, but creates a new entitlement that will demand higher taxes on all Americans in just a few short years.

Let me first state the obvious problem with this bill. A children's health program should not be used to cover adults, noncitizens, potentially illegal immigrants and those making $80,000 a year.

There's another problem with the bill, one the majority hopes you ignore. This bill blatantly attempts to hide the true cost of the bill to the American taxpayer. It's irresponsible and untenable to fund a children's health program with the revenue stream that's fast drying up. Increasing the cigarette tax, regardless of your support for such an idea, does not, will not, and cannot cover the cost of this program.

The Democrats are blowing a giant cloud of smoke into the face of the American taxpayers, and I believe the impending tax increases that must come to cover this program will have us all in a severe coughing fit.

The Democrats want you to ignore the fact that the percentage of Americans who smoke has been dropping for decades. But research and logic both show that raising the prices of cigarettes will lead to less smoking and fewer tax dollars coming into the Federal Treasury. Yet, the only way for this funding scheme to work is if the majority finds 22.4 million new smokers. I can't wait to see the look on Senator Daschle's face when the Speaker tells the soon to be Health and Human Services Secretary that little tidbit.

But in all seriousness, with its funding base declining, SCHIP costs will increase exponentially. CBO predicts that SCHIP spending will more than double under the Democrats proposal. The resulting gap between program spending and revenue becomes staggering, a gap the Democrats will soon ask the American taxpayers to fill.

In closing, I'd like to add one final note. This bill represents a broken promise to lower- and middle-income Americans. President-elect Obama promised that no one making less than $250,000 per year would see their taxes go up; yet, under this proposal, a working-class family with two adult smokers would face hundreds of dollars in additional Federal tobacco taxes each year.

We haven't made it to Inauguration Day, and House leaders are already breaking this campaign promise. That might be a record, even here in Washington, D.C.

Let's keep SCHIP focused on low-income children. Let's not ask 22.4 million Americans to start smoking, and let's demand a better bipartisan bill.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana for his leadership, for his thoughtful approach to issues, for his service to the Ways and Means Committee and to the Congress, and especially for his friendship.

I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1424. Is this better than the original Paulson proposal? Yes. Is this bill perfect? Hardly. And this bill is better, especially for taxpayers.

The bill resolves the remaining tax items before the Congress. After months of delay, the House will finally do what Republicans called for back in June, pass an AMT patch without increasing taxes. Without the patch, more than 25 million American families would pay an additional $62 billion in taxes. We must provide this relief sooner rather than later, and I'm pleased this will finally be done without raising taxes.

By passing this bill today, Congress will extend for 2 years the wide array of important tax credits and deductions so many families and employers rely on. We are reaffirming to the auto industry and consumers that incentives for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles will remain law. This is something I have pushed for hard in the House. And this new plug-in credit, like the hybrid credit that I offered in 2005, will spur consumer demand for alternative vehicles and lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

With this bill, we are providing certainty to businesses that are investing heavily in research and development. The Senate amendment extends the R&D credit through 2009 and increases the alternative simplified credit. This is a step in the right direction. We must make the credit permanent to attract high-tech businesses and compete in today's global economy and to keep jobs here in America. Myself and Mr. Levin, my colleague from Michigan, have championed legislation to do just that, and I look forward to making this goal a reality in the next Congress.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to support this legislation so that Congress can provide stability to our financial system and give American workers and businesses the tax relief they so desperately need and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my strong support of H.R. 6950, the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act.

I was pleased to work with Chairman Pete Stark to craft this bill that recognizes those that have donated their organs, and gave the gift of life. And it is a fitting tribute to name this bill in honor of our late colleague, Stephanie Tubbs Jones. A dedicated public servant to the end, she too gave the Gift of Life, helping over 50 individuals.

Enacting this bill will give the thousands of Americans who also donated their organs appropriate recognition for their tremendous gift by presenting them with a Congressionally-sponsored medal. Each year, individuals donate approximately 14,000 organs. This is an amazing success and they should be recognized. Yet there are still nearly 100,000 individuals waiting for transplants.

In order to further encourage individuals to consider organ donation, Congress must publicly thank those that have made this selfless and living saving decision.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank Former Senate Majority Leader, Dr. Bill Frist. As a transplant surgeon and sponsor of this legislation in previous years, Dr. Frist helped to encourage greater organ donation. Mr. Stark and I introduced an earlier version of this bill in honor of Dr. Frist, who has endorsed H.R. 6950. Enclosed is a copy of Dr.

Finally, I want to thank the Tubbs Jones family for allowing this bill to be named in her honor. I am proud that we will pass this bill to ensure that through tragedy, lives will be saved and honored.

Nashville, TN,

September 15, 2008.

Hon. Pete Stark,

Chairman, Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Ranking Member, Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Cannon

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Stark and Ranking Member Camp: Thank you for

your leadership on the Gift of Life Congressional Medal.

Like you, I am truly inspired by those that donate their

organs. I can think of no act that is more honorable or

selfless, and it is befitting of Congress to pass this act to

recognize these outstanding individuals and their families. I

was pleased to sponsor this legislation in the Senate.

It is also extremely fitting to name this legislation in

honor of the late Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. A

tireless advocate for those in need, she cemented her legacy

by donating her organs and tissue, which will help over 50

individuals. Her act, and the thousands that have come before

it, must be recognized.

Each year, there are nearly 14,000 organs that are donated.

As a transplant surgeon, I have seen firsthand how lives are

transformed through these miraculous gifts. For me, it is a

privilege to be part of the transplantation process. I am

continually amazed at the advances in technology that make

transplants more successful every year.

While advances are being made, there are still too few

donors--nearly 100,000 people are waiting on national

transplant lists. To encourage more donors, we should make

every effort to recognize those that make this life-saving

decision. I believe creating a Gift of Life Congressional

Medal is critically important to increasing awareness on this

issue.

Again, please accept my sincere appreciation for your work

and strong support for naming the Gift of Life Congressional

Medal Act in honor of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. It

is a fitting tribute for such an outstanding and committed

woman.

Sincerely,

William H. Frist.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I'm also pleased to rise in support of this legislation, which will make important changes to the Qualified Individual program.

This program helps low-income Medicare beneficiaries pay for their Medicare premiums. While the QI program was extended under the Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act enacted in July, some States were still facing shortfalls.

The bill we are debating today provides $45 million to ensure States like Alabama and South Carolina have sufficient funds to maintain Medicare enrollment for their low-income seniors. Importantly, this bill is fully paid for by requiring State Medicaid programs to electronically submit eligibility determinations to the Public Assistance Reporting Information System.

Mr. Speaker, it is critical to the health of low-income seniors that we enact this legislation promptly, and I urge the House to support this bill.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7060, the majority's latest extenders package, a bill that will never actually deliver the tax relief it's promising because it will never pass the Senate and it will never be enacted into law.

I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee--it's time to be realistic. We are in the waning hours of this Congress, only a day away from our scheduled adjournment, a day or two or three.

Yet here we are, conducting another purely political exercise on a tax bill that is doomed in the other body because of our House majority's insistence on adhering to the misguided PAYGO rules.

Indeed, as the end of the 110th Congress draws near, it's interesting to see the application of PAYGO to expiring tax provisions remain as difficult for the majority today as it has ever been.

Throughout the year, Republicans have insisted that we should not have to raise taxes to prevent a tax increase. Democrats, meanwhile, have insisted that PAYGO requires us to find offsets for these tax extensions. Of course, the majority's adherence to PAYGO has been somewhat intermittent. It has been waived to fund unemployment benefits, and on the housing bill passed in July. And PAYGO has never applied to spending, which continues to grow at unsustainable rates. It has also been waived for extensions of some tax provisions, including just Wednesday on the AMT patch. Nevertheless, the majority has steadfastly refused to waive PAYGO for other expiring tax provisions even in the face of ample evidence that the Senate and the President are not in agreement with that position.

On Tuesday, the Senate acted on a bipartisan basis to find common ground on this issue. They agreed, by an overwhelming vote of 93-2, to approve a comprehensive tax relief package containing extenders provisions that are not fully offset, as many Democrats would prefer, but contain more offsets than Republicans would like.

Is the Senate's package perfect? Of course it isn't. But given the limited time left in this Congress, the Senate's comprehensive package is likely the only option that will lead to enactment of much-needed extensions of expired and expiring provisions, including the AMT patch, the State and local sales tax deduction, the research and development tax credit which is so critical for restarting our economy, and the extension of the subpart F exception for active financial services income.

Why is this our only option? Because the Senate, which has labored long and hard to develop that compromise, has indicated in no uncertain terms that it is not going to reconsider these issues again this year.

The Senate majority leader made that point on Tuesday on three separate occasions. In the morning he urged the House: ``Don't send us back something else. We can't get it passed. If they try to mess with our package, it will come back here, it will die, and we will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.''

In the early afternoon, he told a reporter that he had talked to House leaders and ``told them how important it is that we get a bill back like the one we sent them . . . If they send us back something different . . . it is dead, sorry to say.''

And then, to make sure that there was no confusion, even later in the afternoon the majority leader said, ``If the House doesn't pass this, the full responsibility of this not passing is theirs, not ours.''

So let's be clear. The Senate's comprehensive tax package, which passed 93-2, is the only clear path for enactment of the AMT patch and the tax extender package we are debating here today. Let me say that as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I don't like being told by the Senate what we should or should not do. This is not how I prefer to legislate, of course. However, with adjournment looming and with a continuing resolution that takes us into next year, it is time to be realistic, as the distinguished chairman said. We are headed down a path that will leave all of these critical issues unresolved well into 2009.

Simply put, the majority's insistence on paying for extenders has painted us into this corner. And, unfortunately, we don't have time to wait for the paint to dry. Failing to act on the extenders this year will be burdensome to businesses and families alike.

It is important to note, Madam Speaker, that the House majority's extenders bill contains no net tax relief. None. That is in stark contrast to the Senate's position. The Senate's comprehensive tax package contains approximately $107 billion in net tax relief after subtracting out the AMT patch, the disaster-related tax provisions and the mental health parity benefits from the Senate's package to account for the House's passage of those provisions as separate freestanding bills. We see that the remaining Senate extenders provisions by themselves provide approximately $35 billion in net tax relief. On the other hand, the House extenders bill provides no net tax relief to American taxpayers because every last penny of tax relief is offset with revenue raisers elsewhere, and that is not a good deal for the American taxpayer.

It is also a bad deal for U.S. businesses and employers that are trying to compete with their foreign counterparts. That is because the House bill provides a long-term delay, potentially until 2019, of the implementation of more rational worldwide interest allocation rules that are currently scheduled to go into effect in 2011. These more rational rules, originally enacted by Republicans in 2004, were good policy then and remain good policy now.

While the majority refers to those as an international tax provision, when implemented, these rules will actually help companies avoid double taxation on their foreign income, and we shouldn't push off for nearly a decade the effective date of a provision that will help American businesses and employers compete.

I would also note, Madam Speaker, that the House bill in many instances provides considerably less generous tax benefits than the Senate bill, including and especially with respect to energy-related tax benefits. For example, the House bill omits entirely a number of Senate proposals, including an extension and modification of the election to expense certain refineries, an energy-efficient home credit, and a special depreciation allowance for certain reuse and recycling property. In addition, the House bill places considerable limitations on a number of the Senate's other energy-related provisions, including a reduction in the maximum credit for plug-in hybrids, a key restriction on the credit for producing electricity from most renewable sources.

Moreover, unlike the Senate package, the House bill does not contain $3.3 billion in funding for the Secure Rural Schools Program.

Madam Speaker, when the 110th Congress convened last January, I had high hopes that these 2 years would be spent working on a bipartisan basis on issues people care about. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have real disagreements about what each side believes in. But, unfortunately, in the face of a bipartisan Senate solution to the extenders debate, and the ticking clock on this Congress, the House majority is still clinging to PAYGO on this bill.

Time is short, Madam Speaker. Whether we defeat the House bill now or whether the Senate rejects it later, this bill's life expectancy is exceedingly short. The sooner the majority sees that, the sooner we can begin debating the Senate's comprehensive package which would actually be enacted into law. I urge opposition to this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Well, frankly, in terms of responsibility, if the majority had exercised their responsibility, we wouldn't have let these extenders expire for 9 months and be here at the closing days of the session. We would have dealt with these earlier on in the session.

We've heard a lot of discussion about the House's role and the Senate's role. But as we know, we have three branches of government. And another important point in this discussion is the statement of administration policy, which is, that we have an SAP that says that this legislation, H.R. 7060, if

it were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill. And also in the statement, we have that the administration will support the bipartisan compromise in the Senate.

So this isn't just about turf between the House and the Senate and what our responsibilities are. It's also about what is actually going to become enacted into law. Clearly what we're doing today is not going to go very far.

So the question I have to ask is, why do we continue down this path? We've done this before on mental health parity, which we finally did accept the Senate language on. We've done it before on Medicare, where we finally accepted the Senate language yet this year. So there have been other occasions where we've done this. And I would just urge again my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation because its shelf life is very, very short.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I'd be happy to say that, first of all, we have three branches of government.

Well, of course not.

We have three coequal branches of government.

Madam Speaker, I see there are a few more speakers on that side so I will reserve my time for right now.

I would yield myself such time as I may consume and just briefly say that we will not see those goals achieved because this bill will not be enacted into law. Not only has the Senate majority leader said he will not take it up, we also have a statement from the administration that his advisers would recommend it be vetoed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

At this point, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

That is correct, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to close.

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

We've heard a lot about the principled stand of the majority in terms of PAYGO, but I have to say that to inflict permanent tax increases on the American people to pay for temporary extensions of tax relief is just nonsensical. And let me just say that their application of this principle has been inconsistent at best. It wasn't applied for the unemployment benefits extension that we did; it wasn't applied for the housing bill; it hasn't been applied when they wanted to extend AMT, alternative minimum tax relief; it won't be applied to the stimulus package that's being put through the Rules Committee right now.

So to say that this bill is the only way because it has PAYGO when PAYGO is not applied in any kind of consistent manner across anything that they present to this House I think is an argument that really collapses under its own weight.

Secondly, we have clear indication from the Senate, as the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina so eloquently said, who has stated that they will not take up this bill. They've passed a bipartisan compromise 92-3. We would have bipartisan support for that bill were it to come to this body, were my colleagues to bring that forward.

Not only is it the other body, but it's also the administration. The President has said this bill would be vetoed if it ever reaches his desk. We know it won't get that far.

So recognizing that we have limited time left in this Congress, recognizing that it really takes three branches of government, it really takes particularly the executive and legislative branch to at least get a bill enacted into law, the third branch to make sure it's constitutional; but knowing what the other branch of government has said already about this bill, knowing that we don't have unanimity in the legislative side, it makes absolute sense that we bring forward the Senate bill.

Then on policy grounds, let me just say, the House bill has more tax increases than necessary, and the Senate measure includes a number of key items that are not included in the House bill that some of my colleagues have talked about today, particularly with regard to rural schools, but also especially in the area of energy.

When you look at this bill lacking the credit for small wind power systems, which is going to so help our dependence on foreign oil, the business tax credit for geothermal heat pumps, which is part of our all-of-the-above strategy trying to support wind, solar, alternatives, geothermal, nuclear, whatever we can to help lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and then also the bonds to help municipal and cooperatives to install wind and solar power plants. We see those operating all over the country, efforts to try to get these alternative energy sources up and running. And here we've delayed 9 months to move forward on a bill and then bring a bill forward to this body which is inadequate in those alternative energy methods. Also for refining capacity, for energy- efficient homes, those are critical.

And lastly, which is important to so many Members from the gulf coast still dealing with the aftermath of Katrina, the extension of tax credits for rehabilitating buildings in the GO Zone.

These aren't just minor problems. These are glaring omissions that have received bipartisan support in the Senate. They're lacking in the House bill.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Yes, in its current form.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is really a very simple debate here. What we'd like to do is replace the text of the bill before us with the bill that the Senate passed this week by an overwhelming vote of 92-3, and there are three main reasons for this.

First, that bill provides more tax relief. It includes fewer tax increases, and it can become law. The Senate measure also has a number of key provisions that are not in the House bill. Most particularly, the research and development tax credit is enhanced in the Senate version, which is so important to getting our economy up and going again. This is just simply an extension in the House bill. It's not nearly enough to do the job.

Also, the House bill contains more tax increases, in addition to those that were in the Senate bill. The House bill further extends the effective date of what we call worldwide interest allocation rules which really make its difficult for our employers to compete in today's global economy.

Finally, I think the most important thing is the Senate bill is a bill that could get enacted this year. It's quite clear that the issues that we're debating today with regard to the House bill will never be taken up by the Senate, as the distinguished majority leader of the Senate has made on many occasions and have been made repeatedly on this floor, including the comment that: ``Don't send us back something else. We can't get it passed. If they try to mess with our package, it will come back here, it will die, and we will--we will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.''

So I would urge this House to reject this point of order and move forward so that we can actually have a debate on the issues that we've been talking about all morning, instead of short-circuiting this debate and making it impossible for us to offer an alternative to what the majority is trying to do.

We heard a lot about debate and openness and that the House is place where we shouldn't just say ``yes,'' we shouldn't just agree with what's happening. So I would say to my colleagues, if you're so interested in debate, why are you so afraid of having us bring this motion forward?

Let us have the vote on this motion to recommit, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I come from a large family. My wife and I have three children of our own, so I have seen little kids stick their fingers in their ears and shout ``I can't hear you.''

I never thought I would see the Congress do it, but that is exactly what the Democrats are asking us to do today, stick our fingers in our ears and shout at the Medicare trustees that we can't hear their warning. We couldn't hear it the first time they said it. We couldn't hear it the second time they said it, and we certainly don't hear it the third time they have said it.

The Democrats' response to the looming Medicare crisis is as childish as it is irresponsible. By repealing the Medicare warning, as this rule change would have us do, it is akin to be warned you are out of money and still going out for an expensive dinner and leaving the bill for the next group to sit down.

You know who gets stuck with the tab in this scenario? The American taxpayer, and it is a $1.5 billion tab in the first year alone. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Every year we fail to address entitlement reform, future generations are saddled with an additional $2 trillion worth of debt.

With the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund set to go bankrupt in a decade, I, for one, cannot ignore, and I urge my colleagues not to ignore these Medicare warnings. We should reject this resolution, and we should begin to transform Medicare so it can continue to benefit future seniors.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this is not some huge legislative victory, as some would suggest. Instead, it's about maintaining the status quo.

I am committed to finding a way around this unworkable physician payment system that we have now, which rewards volume over quality. Every 15 minutes doctors have to see somebody else. That system's just plain wrong. But let's be honest. This bill only buys us about 18 months, and where has that gotten us before, as the gentleman points out?

I would like to quote the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, who said back in 2006: ``I am glad that this bill includes a temporary update for physicians, giving us a little breathing room heading into next year. But we're still going to have to do some very heavy lifting in order to dig ourselves out of the $250 billion hole Republicans created by kicking the can down the road the last few years. In the next Congress, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle work with me to address this problem once and for all.''

Well, now we can add Democrats to the list of those digging the hole and kicking the can down the road. And at what cost? CBO estimates that up to 2 million seniors, mostly low income, will permanently, permanently, lose their current health coverage under this bill for a temporary 18-month increase in pay for physicians. Not addressing any of the longstanding problems in terms of rewarding value and not volume.

I can't in good conscience support this bill that pits seniors against physicians. It's a lose-lose proposition and I will vote to sustain the President's veto.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.