Floor Statements

This week, representatives from employee-owned S corporations from around America will be on Capitol Hill, giving a chance for Members and staff to hear directly from these employee owners how their investment and hard work facilitated by this unique ownership helps create jobs and helps their employee owners prepare for retirement; how they expanded jobs here in America, even in this difficult environment.

In 2008, for instance, ESOP increased employment 2 percent, while our economy overall shed almost 3 percent of the jobs. Employee-owned business wages increased at twice the national average. Each company is a unique American success story. That's why I hope you will join me in cosponsoring H.R. 3586, the ESOP Promotion and Expansion Act, to protect and enhance employee-owned corporations.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate his leadership.

This bill is perfectly timed to help American families increase the efficiency of their homes, saving money on their energy bills, and create jobs for those in the construction industry which has been especially hard hit by the recession.

I am pleased that the bill includes incentives for States to support programs where utilities make loans to consumers to make upgrades and repay the cost on their utility bill. This is an important tool. It is especially important in the Pacific Northwest which has pledged to meet 85 percent of our future energy demand with energy efficiency. The Northwest has recognized not only that energy efficient is carbon free, but it costs less than half as much as new power plants.

This bill will provide our region with the tools we need to meet our ambitious targets for a low-carbon, energy-efficient future to revitalize the economy and protect the planet. I am deeply appreciative of this, and look forward to its enactment.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the Motion to Recommit on the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act because it undermines the underlying legislation. The Home Star legislation will help homeowners, the environment, and the construction industry.

This Motion to Recommit is a political ploy. It aims to solve problems that no one has shown exist. It brings up issues that were never raised in Committee or on the Floor during consideration of the bill.

Specifically, this Motion removes provisions in the legislation that I strongly support, such as the energy efficiency loan program, which provides important tools for states to help consumers make energy efficiency upgrades.

The Motion adds additional burdens for contractors who are performing the work, sowing doubt and confusion in the program. At a time when we are trying to stimulate the economy and create jobs, it doesn't make sense to add additional meaningless procedural hurdles. The authors of the Motion claim to be preventing money from being spent on child molesters and gambling. Money from this bill is not going to be spent on those items anyway. No one has demonstrated that is an issue we need to deal with. If so, there are already anti-fraud provisions in the underlying legislation that would prevent this type of activity. The Motion contains no enforcement mechanisms, so any additional prohibitions are meaningless.

This Motion is another example of how the Republican leadership has chosen to work to score political points instead of taking seriously the challenges facing our country.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of Portland, Oregon's--my hometown--leadership as America's Sustainability Capital. And thanks to the Port of Portland, we just acquired another symbol of that sustainability.

The Port of Portland is one of five major consolidated port authorities in the United States and one of the greatest economic engines of our region. It operates an international airport, a major seaport, general aviation airports, and several thousand acres of industrial property. And for the first time, its entire administrative workforce will be housed in one location, a beautiful new structure that's not only iconic but is also cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and expecting to be certified LEED Gold.

Virtually every employee has access to natural light, sits in open visible cubicles, including the executive director, and is surrounded by the kind of sustainable development features that Oregon is known for. All of the building's wastewater is treated using a ``Living Machine,'' a sort of indoor wetlands, and the water is reused in restrooms and the cooling tower. There are 200 pipes sunk 340 feet into the ground to use the Earth's temperature to dramatically lower the energy costs required to heat and cool the building. By locating 450 administrative employees in one place, it eliminates 15,000 hours of interoffice commuting every year, which saves the port millions of dollars in operating expenses and improves efficiency at the same time and, I would dare say, the satisfaction of its many employees.

Good news that no taxpayer dollars were used in construction of this marvelous new facility. The port's customers, airlines, shipping companies, and others, will not experience any increase in their costs. Indeed, they will share in cost reductions.

My commendations to the Port of Portland Commission and its employees for a job very well done.

Mr. Speaker, the last 40 years of Earth Day represent some of my personal highest hopes, fondest dreams, and greatest frustrations about the environment. At times we have watched retreat, denial, and in some cases destruction. But we have also seen people mobilized and government respond with groundbreaking legislation.

Today, Earth Day is not so much an issue of hope or despair as one of determination. The current path we are on is not sustainable. It's, indeed, destructive. More and more people know the devastating facts. But what is exciting is that we know what to do about it. From Girl Scout troops to community colleges to the United States military, people are moving in the right direction with solutions that are cost- effective and that most agree we should implement even if we aren't concerned about destabilizing the Earth's climate.

The Big question is, Where will we be on the 50th anniversary of Earth Day? Will we have risen to the challenge of global pollution, leading by example, making real progress to a low carbon future while we revitalize American industry to compete for business at home and abroad? We can, and I hope that we will.

I thank the chairman for his courtesy and keeping me in his thoughts.

I rise in strong support of this outstanding piece of legislation. The National Estuary Program has been funding work around the country for 20 years to monitor and restore estuaries of national significance. It is really, I think, extraordinarily positive for us to hear the message repeated today here on the floor about the importance, the scope, the significance, and the progress that has been made.

I have a special interest in one area in Oregon and Washington; the Lower Columbia River Estuary has been part of the program since 1995. This stretches 146 miles from the Bonneville Dam to the mouth of the Pacific Ocean. It supports hundreds of species of fish and wildlife and thousands of people's economy and their quality of life. It is the largest river in the Pacific Northwest, supplying fishermen with jobs, serving as a recreational resource, and providing power through the Pacific Northwest.

I have been privileged to work for the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, which heads our local estuary program. It is an unparalleled bi-State, public and private partnership involving collaborative efforts among key Federal partners, including EPA, NOAA, USGS, the Army Corps of Engineers. They work with government at all levels as well as a broad array of stakeholders that address these many challenges facing the estuary from habitat degradation, to wetland loss, to endangered species, to toxic contaminants. This is a model non-regulatory, community-based program that gets results. National Estuary Partners focuses on on-the-ground activities and involving local communities with technical support and base funding coming from the Federal Government.

The accomplishments in the Columbia are impressive. The partners have restored 2,600 acres of habitat, opened more than 53 miles of stream, completed toxic and conventional pollutant water quality monitoring, and engaged the public in innovative cleanup efforts around the region such as ``drug take back'' days and working with volunteers to remove invasive plants.

There are many challenges remaining in the Lower Columbia, and this legislation will provide important funding to further progress there and around the country. Each local estuary also leverages National Estuary Partnership funds. In 2009, in our community, we were able to bring in $14 for each dollar that was provided by the Federal Government. In addition to restoring the ecosystem, these dollars create jobs for construction, design, contractors, engineers, biologists, hydrologists, builders and educators, family-wage jobs in the community. And beyond today's economic impact, the restored area will support the recovery of a commercial fishing industry that was reduced 90 percent in the course of 20 years.

Importantly, this legislation will also, for the first time, open the door to other estuaries to participate in the program. While funding goes to all estuaries, it will have benefits for the entire country. You have heard here on the floor repeatedly that healthy estuaries mean a healthy national economy. They cover a huge portion, 13 percent, of the land area of the United States where half the gross domestic product is produced, and almost 43 percent of the population.

These coastal areas provide tens of millions of jobs, which means more people employed if we have healthy estuaries. It provides fresh seafood, it provides habitat for 75 percent of the United States commercial fish catch, and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fish catch.

These are also prime destinations for tourism. In any given year, 10 percent of the population will visit coastal Florida, 12.5 percent will visit coastal California, and every coastal State will host over 1 million out-of-state visitors.

The benefits of clean and healthy estuaries are multiple. I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for this outstanding work and look forward to its support.

Mr. Speaker, in Oregon, we pride ourselves on our strong community and a commitment to quality of life and education. Public libraries are a vital piece of this fabric and, in fact, Oregon has the second highest circulation of public library materials in the nation and the only 5-star library in the Northwest. As the economic downturn has pushed family budgets to the brink, these resources are more important than ever. In addition to public reading and visual materials, libraries offer Internet and computer access for all, free of charge. Many also serve as vibrant community spaces for gatherings and events.

Another library that deserves particular recognition is our very own Library of Congress. To highlight the world-class work of this institution, in 2008 I formed the Library of Congress Caucus, now nearly 70 Members strong. My friend Congressman Zach Wamp serves as co- chair and our goal is to draw further attention to the nation's library, its collections and curators, and to encourage further use by Members of Congress and the public.

The Library of Congress not only houses the outstanding Congressional Research Service, it also offers 1.6 million visitors access to 15 million primary-source documents and operates the Veteran's History Project. One of my favorite programs, the Surplus Books Program, is an innovative service through which

Members may send extra books from the Library of Congress to schools and libraries in their home district. At a time when funding for public schools and libraries is scarce, this is a simple way to reduce waste and distribute excess resources to our communities and schools where they are critically needed.

I strongly encourage members to take advantage of these extraordinary programs and resources, and congratulate all our nation's libraries, librarians, and library-enthusiasts.

Mr. Speaker, well, it's been 72 hours since health care reform was passed and, as near as I can tell, nobody has to go to the post office to get their prostate checked. They're not getting mammograms in the DMV, and we aren't herding doctors to gulags across the country.

The fact is people are seeing what is in this bill: simple, commonsense health insurance reforms that will make a difference for Americans this year in extending coverage, in being able to put children on their health insurance program until they're 26; eliminating the insidious practice of denying coverage when you get sick.

And as Americans see more and more what is in this legislation, we'll have an opportunity to build on this important foundation of health care reform for economic health and security, a better health care for our families, and maybe, just maybe, showing that in the Federal Government here some of us can work together to get things done.

Madam Speaker, there is a certain amount of irony hearing our friends on the other side of the aisle talking about a recovery package that hasn't worked as well as all of us would like because it was deliberately scaled down in an effort to try to secure Republican support. More of it was put in tax cuts than we would have liked rather than in infrastructure to rebuild and renew America. We know if it would have been done the way the Democrats wanted, it would have worked better. Nonetheless, I hate to think what would happen in the State of Michigan without economic recovery money, in the State of Oregon without this money.

I have three brief points. One, by putting more money in infrastructure, we are going to be putting people to work. Second, this is fully paid for, unlike what we have seen with the efforts of our friends on the Republican side of the aisle when they were in charge. And, third, the pay-for is incorporating recommendations that came from the Bush administration Treasury that recognized there were corporations that were not meeting their obligations to the United States Treasury.

These provisions will affect companies in a small number of countries--there are less than 10 percent of the countries that don't have a tax treaty with us--they will be encouraged to have a relationship to avoid tax avoidance. It will be an opportunity for people who are not paying their fair share now to put some money behind renewing and rebuilding America.

It is a good bargain for the taxpayer, it is a good bargain for revitalizing our communities, and I appreciate the committee bringing this bill forward.

Today we have an historic opportunity, more than a century after President Teddy Roosevelt first raised this subject, to establish the foundation for health care reform.

We have some of finest health care in the world, but for too many Americans, they're unable to get it, millions are uninsured, hundreds of thousands of people with health insurance are going bankrupt each year from medical costs.

Today, the House will enact landmark legislation to save Medicare, improve quality, which is not just fully paid for but actually helps reduce the deficit. Americans will enjoy benefits not just in the future but this year. More tax credits to help small business provide care, kids able to be on their parents' insurance until age 26, help for seniors paying for prescription drug costs.

But the real story is not numbers and slogans. Today, Congress will finally give Americans the health care they need and deserve.

Today's victory for health care reform and coverage for 32 million Americans is not just the culmination of 15 months of hard work in this Congress. It represents the historic accomplishments sought by Presidents and Members of Congress dating back to Teddy Roosevelt. That the accomplishment was achieved in the midst of difficult economic times, a toxic political environment without any bipartisan support, makes it all the more remarkable.

Passage tonight will start making a difference for our families this year and, most important, the bill is fully paid for. We're reforming Medicare, we improve the quality of health care in this country and reduce the deficit. Tonight's victory starts America on the road to better health and economic security.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this rule, and for his unequivocal call for being realistic about

some of the outrageous things that we've heard on the floor.

I just heard my friend from Texas talk about demonizing the Canadian system and calling it socialized medicine. It's really kind of ironic. First of all, Canada has basically Medicare for all. It is a government-funded insurance program, but Canadians pick who they want to be their doctor, just like Americans who are on Medicare pick their doctor. And I would say, frankly, that most Americans would be happy with the overall outcome of the Canadian health care system. They pay less, they get sick less often. When they do get sick, they get well faster, and they live longer than Americans.

The sad truth is that our nonsystem of health care, which is very good for veterans, it's pretty good for senior citizens, but for other Americans, particularly the uninsured now approaching 50 million, it's a problem. And increasingly, if we don't do something, the increasing premiums that we're seeing for private insurance, higher copays, higher deductibles, and coverage that is getting skinnier and skinnier puts us on a path that is disastrous for American families.

I hope that we'll be able to come forward, move past some of the outrageous rhetoric and the falsehoods, to look at the facts. Americans have, if they can afford it, some of the best health care in the world.

For those who can afford it, they have some of the best health care in the world. But Americans, overall, by any objective measure of performance, like life expectancy, or how soon babies die, we don't perform very well.

And increasingly, the pressure on small business to deal with the failing system, what's happening on families who are having more and more insurance bureaucrats trying to prevent them from getting coverage, is a prescription for disaster. That's why this year there will be more than 1,000 people that I represent who will go bankrupt from medical costs, and most of them have insurance.

Madam Speaker, that doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. And if we're able to move forward with this health care reform, it will no longer happen in the United States.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This week marks the homestretch of the health care debate. Reform will pass if people focus on the facts and the opportunities. No more outsourcing our analysis to the talking heads. Now, facts matter and the American people should find them.

Health care is in crisis not just because we pay more for mediocre results in our health care system. The number of uninsured Americans is increasing, soon to reach 50 million Americans. And health insurance is getting worse for those who already have it. It's getting more expensive, people will have higher co-pays, higher premiums. Then people will have to fight to get their health bills paid. The United States is the only industrialized country where people go bankrupt from health care. This year, a thousand people that I represent back in Oregon will go bankrupt from health care costs--and most of them will have health insurance.

Medicare is a great success story. Most of us recognize that. It was enacted 45 years ago over many of the same objections that we are now hearing from my Republican colleagues 45 years ago. Medicare has been responsible for our senior citizens getting the health care outcomes that people in most other developed countries enjoy.

Opponents attack government-paid insurance in France, Germany, Switzerland, and Canada. But most American families would welcome the health care results in those countries where people get sick less often, they get well faster, and they live longer, and they pay far less than Americans.

We have a huge problem because Medicare is at risk. It's on an unsustainable financial path while it penalizes low-cost, high-value States like mine--Oregon--and others such as Wisconsin and Iowa. The House bill shows how to make those important reforms.

Finally, part of the problem today is that there continues to be brutal political attacks that are unfettered by the truth and history. I take some of this a little personally because my bipartisan legislation to help families make sure that their end-of-life decisions are respected morphed into the Sarah Palin's ``death panel''--which I am pleased to report was judged the lie of the year by Politifacts.com.

The mandate to buy insurance, which has been an object of attack, was in fact a Republican idea that was introduced in the early 1990s as an alternative plan to the approach that was offered by the Clinton administration. And now we are having people fight to prevent any change in Medicare despite the fact that they admit it's on an unsustainable path, and they themselves have proposed some of the most Draconian efforts to cut--some would say gut it--in the past.

Is the legislation that we will be considering this week perfect? No, it's not. Of course, I have only been here 14 years and I've not yet seen a ``perfect bill.'' And the sad decision that was made to follow Republican Leader Boehner's admonition to not legislate but to communicate, to talk and argue, actually made it harder to make good legislation.

Is this the final word in health care reform? Not by a long shot. We will be working to refine and improve this legislation for months, and indeed, years to come. But is it worth doing? Absolutely. This is a critically important step, the most important since Medicare was created 45 years ago.

This legislation passed the Senate 10 weeks ago. A month before that, the House passed its legislation. The facts are clear. The legislation is available. If the public and Congress focus on the facts, this bill will pass and a sick American health care system will start to get better.

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

This has been a particularly difficult period of time for all of us as we witnessed the victims of these two enormous tragedies attempt to repair the devastation that resulted from two of the largest earthquakes that we have seen in recent times.

As we laid witness to the victims of the Haiti earthquake in January, I had a chance a couple of weeks ago to see for myself the magnitude of the devastation. As somebody who was on the scene shortly after the tsunami 5 years ago, I will say that what I saw in Haiti not only rivaled that, but was actually worse than anything I had seen in Banda Aceh or Buket or in Sri Lanka. Then, just a few weeks later, we had an earthquake even larger, an 8.8, rock the country of Chile.

But through these tragedies, one thing is abundantly clear, and that is the generosity and compassion of the American people being as strong as ever. It is hard to explain, really, the impact that we see of these dedicated volunteers on the ground, moving to provide services that in some cases were not available at all prior to the tragedy.

Then looking at the earthquake in Chile last week, the outpouring of

American support is even more remarkable, given the fact that everybody put all these resources just a few days before into Haiti. Clearly, there is no compassion fatigue on the part of the American public.

We need to take a step back and realize that we are talking about almost a quarter million people who have died between the two, and over 1 million people displaced, and we are still finding the definition of the problem. Particularly as it relates to Haiti, we are going to find that the death toll is likely to grow much higher if we are not able to deal with the problems of water and sanitation.

Here again, American voluntary efforts from nongovernment organizations are providing critical services, and donations in Haiti alone have already reached $1 billion. They enable these charitable organizations and nongovernment organizations to expedite the care and services needed for those who are injured and homeless, to help our neighbors get to safety and begin picking up the pieces and rebuilding their lives.

We must be clear that the road to recovery will not be short in either country. We know that we need to expedite anything we can for Americans to be part of that process. American families who have given to facilitate the recovery ought to know that we are working to show appreciation of that compassion to incent further actions with this adjustment.

As both my colleagues have made clear, but we need to drive home, any contribution after February 26 and before April 15 to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, people can claim these contributions, charitable contributions, on the tax return that they are preparing now for the last tax year.

In addition, the adjustment being made for Haiti, extending it to April 15, is an important addition. This is in keeping with what we did with the tsunami that struck in 2004.

There is a special provision here that I want to call note to, because we have watched the innovation take place in the charitable sector. The era of the cell phone and text messaging has made it possible for hundreds of millions of dollars of charitable contributions to be made through cell phone text messaging. It enabled people to do it conveniently and quickly. It speeded the aid along and, no doubt in my mind, it increased the amount of money that went to these people in need.

Under current law, obviously, taxpayers must receive documentation from the charity or rely on bank records to claim a deduction on their tax return, but when you are making a contribution through a text message, the only paper documentation individuals receive is from the telephone company. Right now, it is unclear whether individuals will be able to rely on a telephone bill to claim a charitable deduction. As a result of this legislation, we are clarifying that taxpayers making charitable contributions to victims of the Haiti earthquake through the text messaging effort will be able to rely on their cell phone bill when claiming a charitable deduction.

To be clear, we all know that Americans are not doing this primarily for a tax deduction. It is the generous spirit of the American public and concern for men and women around the world who suffer from tragedy. But providing this incentive and clarifying the law makes it a little easier for the families who have given of themselves and others, and I would urge my colleagues to support its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by just saying that I do appreciate the rapid response of the committee, the bipartisan support, to honor the generosity of Americans in both these tragedies, to clean up the legislation and move it forward. But I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is a symbol of a longer-term commitment on the part of this Congress, that we match the generosity of spirit of Americans and of our partners overseas. We have seen other countries step forward, along with charities and other nongovernmental organizations.

I am hopeful that we will exhibit a commitment to follow through after the initial dust has settled to be full partners with other countries, with the people in Chile and Haiti, to deal with the long and difficult recovery. Lives have been traumatized. There are still people at risk from disease. I am hopeful that we in Congress will have the support and the follow through to make sure that the United States Government is a full partner with these other critical areas to make sure that we make life hopefully return to normal as quickly as possible for the people who have suffered this devastation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. I continue to have profound reservations about our troop commitments, first in Iraq and more recently with President Obama's decision to escalate our presence in Afghanistan.

History suggests we will not be successful in stabilizing Afghanistan with military force. No one has. I don't think anyone ever will. Afghanistan today is perhaps the most corrupt country in the world, ranked next to last out of 180, according to Transparency International. If you have a culture of corruption, it's hard to plant seeds. It's hard to rent allies and have them remain loyal. Global economic development through roads and water are not esoteric, abstract issues. These are things that make a difference between people being thugs and, in some cases, feeding their families in any way they can, having little sympathy for infidels and drug problems.

The magnitude of spending that we're involved with here needs to be put in perspective. Each one of these additional troops that we are sending over costs $1 million a year to support. We are going to be spending as a Nation $7,000 for each of the 14.5 million Afghanis in the workforce.

Our military spending per Afghan worker is 20 times what that worker will earn in an entire year in Afghanistan. At the same time, there is a dire need for the most basic of services. In rural Afghanistan, 80 percent drink polluted water and only 10 percent have adequate sanitation.

I have profound reservations about the course we are on and the ability to generate positive long-term, fundamental changes that will persist over time. I think it is absolutely essential that we have this debate. While I don't agree with the resolution that somehow we are going to be able to pull the plug and be able to end this in 30 days or 30 weeks, I do think it is important for Congress to focus on what is here, what is possible.

What we need to be doing is redirecting our effort. We need to start reversing the course that we are on there. We need to narrow our focus. We need to make more efforts to involve the Afghans themselves with water, with sanitation, with education. And we need to make sure that Congress has a voice and is pushing back as the elements come to us.

I don't agree that we are powerless on some of the defense appropriations, for instance. We can in fact push back. We can be heard. And we can start reversing what I think is an inappropriate course.

I welcome the debate today. While I am not going to support the particular resolution, I appreciate my colleagues bringing it forward. I think it is important to engage and for us to imagine how we can do a better job in that troubled country and in that troubled region. The time to begin the discussion is long overdue. I look forward to continued progress.

Thank you. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to follow my dear friend from Ohio with whom I look forward to the day when we can come to this floor and we can deal with a broad-based approach to renew and to rebuild America. That is how we are really going to create jobs.

I commend the gentleman from Ohio for having the courage to stand up to his leadership when they tried to pull the plug on extending the Highway Transportation bill. I think it's interesting that he has a proposal that he would like to transfer some of this money into infrastructure. Would that we were playing with two Chambers that were playing by the same rules and were committed to the well-being of America, I'd be happy to see that happen.

One of the reasons we have the bill before us today in the forum is that we have seen what has happened when one member of the Senate decides that his personal pique is more important than millions of people, their welfare, causing thousands of people to be laid off, stopping critical money going to the State. It's an example of how the nondemocratic operation on the other side of the Chamber puts us at this point.

If we monkey with this, there is no guarantee that we will, in fact, have an extension of the part of this bill that is the great jobs generator--and that's the extension of the Surface Transportation Act-- through the end of this calendar year and stop this stupid game of Russian roulette, that sadly, my friends on the other side of the aisle have decided they are going to play games with.

As my friend from Minnesota pointed out, the distinguished Chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we never, when we were in the minority, played games with the critical infrastructure needs. When they were stumbling around when they were in control and required not one, not two, not three, but 12 extensions, we never made it partisan. We always helped them. We didn't play parliamentary games.

Yet the combination of parliamentary games from my dear friends on the Republican side of the aisle and the meltdown of responsibility in the Senate has left us with this. This is the vehicle. I am not contending that the best the Senate can do in terms of job creation is going to be a panacea. I think it's relatively minor, and I'm not impressed, but it is a small price to pay to guarantee the $77 billion to make sure that America's transportation system continues while we try and get people here to act like grownups. With all due respect, to somehow seize on less than $1 billion out of $77 billion and claim that only four States benefit is not true. It's not true.

I mean, first and foremost, what we have had is the chairman, who happens to agree that he wants that formula changed. He is committed. The Senate is committed. We're going to work with the administration and refine that. But even if you put aside the $800 million, we have $77 billion that we are relying on, and I think that ought not to obscure.

It's kind of ironic that our friend from California got up and talked about doing what----

It's kind of ironic that our friend from California got up and talked about why we don't do what Ronald Reagan and President Kennedy would have done. We've done that. We've cut taxes. We cut taxes several times before that. In fact, his facts are completely wrong when he says that American taxes on companies that create jobs are the second-highest in the world except for Japan. That is the effective tax rate. That's what's on the books. That's not what they pay. When we get through all of the gimmicks, and loopholes, and exemptions, those tax rates for American businesses are actually the second-lowest in the world. Effective tax rates and what people actually pay, that's not the problem.

The problem is we need to get the economy unfrozen. We need to have people stop playing political games. We need to invest in infrastructure to rebuild and to renew America, and we need to do so in a way that doesn't have us talking past one another and playing games with jobs across America that are at risk if we don't pass this Bill.