Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, the bill before the House is not a serious effort at legislating. Instead, once again, the Republican Majority is using Floor time to try and score political points.

Let's be honest about what's going on here. The legislation should include a disclaimer: ``This bill supports the partisan, political interests of House Republicans, who approve this message.''

Seldom has the nation faced such a backlog of serious problems, yet the Republican Leadership squanders time on political messaging bills like this one.

Double standard. Every year the taxpayers shell out $4 billion in unjustified subsidies to the Big 5 oil companies. Two years ago, BP's Deep Water Horizon well spilled millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Do Republicans come to the Floor with a ``No More BP Spills'' bill? Do they take away the unjustified subsidies to Big Oil? No.

Two years ago in my home state of Michigan, the Embridge oil pipeline spilled 800,000 gallons of heavy crude and fouled the Kalamazoo River. Do House Republicans come to the Floor with a ``No More Embridge Pipeline Spills'' bill? No. Instead they work to rush through the permitting on the Keystone pipeline.

Hypocrisy. Republicans like to decry clean energy grants and loan guarantee programs when many House Republicans, including several Committee Chairmen and their party's nominee for vice president, have themselves written to the Obama Administration to express support for taxpayer support for projects that benefit companies in their states.

Let's be clear. The bill before the House is not about improving U.S. energy policy or creating jobs.

Instead of wasting time on a bill that will never become law, we need to invest in renewable energy, and take the steps necessary to allow United States companies to compete with those in China and other nations to supply the world's growing demand for wind turbines, solar panels, and advanced batteries.

We should renew and expand the 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit that supports American-made clean energy manufacturing. By any measure, 48C was wildly successful. Republicans should join us in extending it.

We should also renew without delay the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit, which has spurred clean, renewable, domestically-produced wind energy across the country--and the jobs that go with it. American jobs are on the line here. 37,000 jobs will be lost next year if the credit is allowed to expire.

It is time for congressional Republicans to stop their political games and get to work on legislation to spur investment, expand clean energy manufacturing, and put Americans back to work.

Well, I have now been here 30 years, with 26 on the Ways and Means Committee. So why are we at this point of serious impasse? I think a major reason is that the radical right has taken over House Republicans. Balance is considered surrender; compromise is considered retreat.

Indeed, since the passage of the Budget Control Act in August of 2011, the Republicans have made sequestration even more likely. Before August of last year, the Republican position was no new revenues. The Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy were untouchable. But in their budget passed this March, the Republicans not only said that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy must continue, but also they should be expanded. They are doubling down on a policy of tax cuts for the wealthiest while annual income stagnation continues for the middle class, and we have the worst income inequality in generations. So, in a word, they went from bad to worse, furthering the likelihood of sequestration.

Under the Ryan budget and the so-called tax reform fast-track bill they passed last month, a recent analysis concluded that the average millionaire would lock in an average tax cut of $330,000, while the average person making less than $200,000 would see their taxes rise by $4,500.

I support tax reform, but so far Republicans have refused to say which policies they would eliminate to pay for it. It's been dodge and deception.

Half of the money in individual income tax expenditures is in the lower rates for capital gains and dividends, and they propose to cut those rates even further, Mr. Ryan down to zero on capital gains. Most of those benefits go to those making over $1 million. Most of the other major tax expenditures--mortgage interest, health insurance, education benefits that would have to be decimated--are mainly middle class benefits.

This bill ignores the fact that the President put forward a balanced deficit reduction package over a year ago that would have cut the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years.

I close by emphasizing the word, ``balanced.'' Essentially, the Republican Party that I've known over the years has become very deeply imbalanced in terms of the mainstream of America.

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

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

Yesterday, Republicans voted to make tax cuts for millionaires their priority over giving 114 million middle class Americans certainty.

Today, they are doubling down on that agenda. The so-called principles laid out in this bill would rig tax reform to shift the burden of taxes further onto the middle class and ship jobs overseas.

The Joint Economic Committee analysis--it's described here--found that the average millionaire would get another $331,000 in tax cuts, while middle class families making less than $200,000 would see their taxes go up by an average of $4,500. For millionaires, a tax break of $331,000; for middle class families, a tax increase of more at $4,500. That's the Joint Economic Committee's analysis.

Why? Because the only way to finance these massive tax cuts for the highest earners is to eliminate or significantly curtail provisions that support the middle class. These are not loopholes. These are policies that in many cases help made the middle class of this country. Seventy percent of the benefit of the mortgage interest deduction, for example, goes to those who make less than $200,000. And 82 percent of the benefit of the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance goes to those making less than $200,000. And likewise, the provisions relating, for example, to education.

Republicans like to say they will eliminate loopholes--and we just heard that language--and special interest provisions to pay for lower rates. But the provisions I mentioned are not loopholes. They are the policies that helped to build the middle class of America. They are basically middle class provisions, and now they are on the chopping block under this Republican plan. One way, among other ways to describe it, H.R. 6169 is Grover Norquist on steroids.

We need tax reform, but not as a tactic to sock it to the middle class and help the very wealthy. Yet that is exactly what Republicans in Congress want to do.

We recently received an analysis of the plan of Governor Romney. It's also a plan highly offensive to the middle class. A report from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center yesterday made no bones about what it would do to the middle class. They wrote that it is not mathematically possible to write a plan like the one drafted by Governor Romney ``that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers.''

The House Republican plan to lower the corporate rate to 25 percent would require eliminating every provision that encourages American manufacturing--the R&D credit, accelerated depreciation, and the manufacturing deduction. Every one of those.

And, the Joint Committee on Taxation has found that even if you eliminated everything, you could only lower the rate to 28 percent on a revenue-neutral basis.

We need tax reform--indeed, we do--but not a tax rewrite that discourages companies from making it in America and that would move us to a territorial system that taxes no businesses' offshore income and helps to ship jobs overseas.

Well, surely a plan this radical--and that's really what it is, a radical Republican proposal--should be subject to the full scrutiny of regular order and full debate. But not under this bill. Under this bill, the pathway Republicans are setting up is really a railroad to shift the tax burden onto the middle class and ship jobs overseas.

It creates a tax czar, and I'm opposed to any of us being a tax czar, Republican or Democrat, Mr. Camp, myself, or anybody else. It would be a tax czar who creates the plan and then certifies their plan, that it achieves their goals. It would allow him or her to add any other proposal to this high-speed train through Congress. Social Security privatization, that could become part, not of this fast track, but this railroad. Repeal of health reform, or anything else.

We should reject that path and adopt the Slaughter substitute, which would articulate principles for tax reform that would strengthen the middle class, create jobs in the U.S., and reduce the deficit.

You know, we continue to hear about small businesses. 97 percent would receive the full tax benefit under what was rejected yesterday and that we put forth. And in terms of this report about 700,000 jobs, every fact checker has said it's essentially bogus. And I think that's how bankrupt the majority is.

Coming forth, I'd like them to answer the Joint Economic analysis.

I'd like them to answer the study that came out from three people about Governor Romney's proposal. One of the Romney spokespersons said: It's a liberal think tank that analyzed it that way. Oh, no; two of the three authors served in Republican administrations. It's not a partisan analysis, it's a bipartisan analysis, and it shows essentially what's being proposed here, and what Governor Romney is proposing, is, sock it to middle class America in order to help the very, very wealthiest. That isn't the America that we want.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman from Texas talks about loopholes. Is the mortgage interest deduction a loophole? Is the charitable contribution deduction a loophole? State and local taxes a loophole? Municipal bonds a loophole? The health care provision a loophole? You keep using that word, I think, demagogically.

I now yield 4 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

The Republican bill indeed picks winners and losers. The winners are the very wealthy, and the losers are the middle class Americans of this country.

I now, with pleasure, yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a distinguished member of our committee.

I now yield 5 minutes to a veteran of negotiations on taxes and tax reform, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I now yield 4 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts.

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

I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts an additional 1 minute.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

The majority leader continues to use a tool of propaganda, grabbing small business as his mantra. I want to repeat a fact given to us by Joint Tax: under our bill, 97 percent of small businesses would keep all of their tax cuts--97 percent.

I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of our committee.

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the eloquent gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my real pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a veteran of many battles on this floor.

It's now my real pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I can be very brief, in part, because so many of us have come forth on the Democratic side with real conviction, with real passion, and not basically reading from prepared speeches that simply go over and over the same themes, but really talking about what's at stake for this country and why this proposal is worse than flawed; it's flagrant.

I bring back that chart. No one has refuted it. It's based on the work of the Joint Economic Committee.

Essentially, what this bill would do is to say to America, if you're very wealthy, you get a $331,000 tax cut. But for the typical family, it's a $4,500 tax increase. And so tax cuts for the very wealthy is, essentially, this Republican plan.

Tax increases for the middle class, more and more deficits, jobs overseas instead of making it in America, this is the Republican plan and, essentially, it's Governor Romney's plan. It's, as I said, worse than misguided. It would be a terrible mistake for this House to adopt it, and even a worse mistake for the American people to embrace it.

I don't have confidence in the House Republicans. I have confidence that the American people will say ``no.'' Vote ``no'' here today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

There is a choice to be made here, and it isn't what the chairman has put forth for one second. Everyone in this body agrees that we should extend the middle class tax cut. The Senate passed a bill that does just that. The President is ready to sign it this week.

The middle class families of this country need certainty, not some

vague promises about something to be done in the future. The question is: If everybody agrees that we should continue the middle class tax cut, why don't we come together? The answer is this: The Senate bill continues all of the tax cuts for every American household on their first $250,000 of income; 114 million families would see their tax cuts extended in full; 97 percent of small businesses would keep all of their tax cuts, according to the Joint Taxation Committee. Why don't the Republicans join us in acting?

I think the answer is clear. This chart shows it. They're insistent. Their priority is cutting taxes for the very wealthy. They want to give households that earn more than $1 million a year a tax cut on average of $160,000. This chart shows it. What we have here for middle class families, $2,200; for the very wealthy, $160,000. That's over 70 times more of a tax cut for millionaires than for typical families. What makes it worse, if possible, is it would add $49 billion to the deficit.

This Republican bill also would raise taxes on 25 million families. Those who benefited from the EITC, the child tax credit, and a higher education tax credit, that they would eliminate altogether. It's still worse. The bill we're going to discuss tomorrow, the so-called ``tax reform,'' essentially would provide someone earning more than $1 million a $331,000 tax cut.

This debate is not about tax reform. It's about whether or not we protect the very wealthy at all costs--at all costs at the expense of middle-income families, and everybody except the very wealthy. This talk about 700,000 jobs being lost, that study was financed by special interest friends, and it's been discredited by every fact checker.

They're talking about 70 times more for the millionaire than for middle-income families on average, when in 2010, 93 percent of income growth went to the top 1 percent of wealthy households. And they come here and say that their first priority is protecting the very wealthy.

This isn't about tax reform. We need to work on this. This is about whether the first priority of the Republicans is protecting the very wealthy, holding hostage middle-income families. Let the middle-income family hostages be released. Join together for what everybody says they're for. Let's pass today our substitute and give a middle-income tax cut to everybody, including 97 percent of small businesses.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

When you look at Mr. Herger's district, he's standing up to protect 180 people who have income over $1 million, sacrificing a middle-income tax cut for 285,000.

I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished former chairman and a gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

I yield myself 15 seconds.

You know, it's ironical that the gentleman from Illinois minimizes adding $50 billion to the deficit over 10 years, if continued, which is your policy, continued the high income. A trillion dollars, that's something you just shrug your shoulders at?

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, Earl Blumenauer, another distinguished member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Look, no one here should distort the facts. From Joint Tax: 97 percent of small business people would keep all of their tax cuts. And in the Speaker's district, there are 144 people with income over a million, compared to the 300,000-plus. He's sacrificing the middle class for a few with over a million dollars.

I now have the pleasure of yielding 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Crowley, from the great State of New York.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Look, I want to repeat, Joint Tax says 97 percent of small businesses would keep all of their tax cuts. And in Mr. Paulsen's district, there are 1,345 people with income over 1 million compared with over 325,000 households. That's the equation at stake here. That's the equation.

I now have a real pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the very active gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Could the Speaker indicate how much time there is on each side?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Could you tell us, please, again how much time there is remaining?

I now yield 2 minutes to another active member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), our ranking member on the Budget Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Velazquez), who is the ranking member on the Committee on Small Business and who has toiled in the vineyards and beyond on behalf of the small businesses of this country.

How much time is left on this bill?

We have one more speaker on this.

Mr. Camp, do you have more than one?

Why don't you call on the one, and then Mr. Hoyer is going to wrap up on this bill.

I now yield the balance of my time on this bill to the distinguished whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I now call up the substitute amendment.

Could the Chair be clear as to who has the right to close on this amendment?

I now yield 2 minutes to another Member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

It's now my real pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) who is the chair of our caucus and an active member of our committee.

I would ask my colleague from Michigan how many further requests for time do you have left?

It's now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California, our distinguished leader.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

There are a few undisputed facts. Small business--97 percent of small businesses will receive all of their tax cut. Don't listen to the propaganda to the contrary. Everyone will receive their tax cuts up to $250,000 of income. Don't listen to propaganda that says otherwise. And income over $1 million, for those who have that, would receive under the Republican bill 70 times more than the typical family. And when the two bills are combined, 150 times more than the typical family.

Let me say just a word about tax reform, which I favor. It's being used as an argument for inaction. But, look, let's be realistic. No matter who controls the Congress next year, there won't be tax reform until maybe the spring or the summer. So are you going to use that same argument for tax reform, say, in a lame duck against middle-income tax cuts? Or in January, are you going to use the same argument? Are you going to use tax reform as a shield to protect the high-income taxpayer? In a word, the Republican bill is a path to nowhere for middle-income taxpayers.

Our substitute is a sure path. Pass it. The Senate already has. The President will sign it. Act now. Vote for the substitute.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

After seven decades of frustrated efforts, the Congress and the President acted on health reform. It was seven decades that this institution wrestled with health reform. Finally, it happened.

The Republican answer: Repeal. First, it was repeal Social Security, then repeal Medicare, then repeal Medicaid by block-granting it to the States. Now it's the same old song: Repeal health care reform.

This Republican Party, the party of repeal, captured by the radical right, would now put insurance companies back in charge of health care and repeal coverage for 17 million children with preexisting conditions, repeal coverage for 6.6 million adults now covered under their parents' insurance plan, repeal tax credits for 360,000 small employers covering 2 million workers, repeal ending lifetime caps on insurance for 105 million, and repeal closing of the burdensome doughnut hole for seniors' prescription medicines.

The Republican Party of Repeal says: Repeal and replace. Yet there has not been a single comprehensive bill proposed by the Republicans at any point in this session or before. Indeed, the only comprehensive health plan presented by the Republicans was put forward by Mitt Romney when he was Governor of Massachusetts. This is how he described his plan as recently as 2010:

Right now, in lots of parts of the country, if individuals

do not have insurance, they can arrive at the hospital and be

given free care paid for by government. Our current system is

a Big Government system. A conservative approach is one that

relies on individual responsibility. But in my view, and

others are free to disagree, expecting people who can afford

to buy insurance to do so is consistent with personal

responsibility, and that's a cornerstone of conservatism.

Well, the ones who are free to disagree are his fellow Republicans. The Massachusetts plan, with an individual mandate, reflected an original conservative Heritage Foundation proposal. Indeed, bills with an individual responsibility provision have been cosponsored by Republicans for two decades.

Now, however, Republicans have been captured by the radical right and taken a 180-degree turn. This repeal bill only deepens and widens the gulf handcuffing this Congress. You know, it's as if we live in two different universes. Let me tell you about the universe that is lived in by people who have sent letters to me.

I quote one, for example, from Warren:

I am 41 years old, and I was diagnosed with a form of

arthritis about 3 years ago. Because the Supreme Court upheld

ObamaCare, I don't have to worry anymore. I know that I can't

be dropped from my insurance carrier.

A letter from Pamela of Madison Heights, talking about the premiums that she has seen. She is a nurse. She has seen how many people have been hurt by these costly premiums. She says:

I have watched those who have to undergo painful

procedures, or those who have been given a poor prognosis,

because they have not had access to preventive or even

standard medical treatment due to the cost. She says the

Affordable Care Act is right and just.

From David in Saint Clair Shores who says:

Honestly, I am a Republican, but I don't believe the health

insurance bill should be repealed. I would like to see

compromise towards improving the legislation, rather than

destroying it entirely.

From Nancy of Clinton Township, who writes this:

The part of the CARE Act that is most important to my

family, even my Republican husband, is the provision for our

college-age daughter. Our insurance dropped her at the age of

19, and we had to buy a separate policy

that was very expensive and had poor coverage. Now we can

save several thousands of dollars a year, which helps with

her education. And it makes me sad that more people don't

understand how wonderful this is. I would like the message to

get out to more people.

It makes me sad, she says, that more people don't understand how wonderful this is.

You know, middle class families have had lots to worry about since trying to recover from the worst recession in decades. So instead of making it harder for them, putting insurance companies back in the driver's seat, we should let reform proceed.

I'm the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee. The chairman is here, too. We've had jobs bills thrown into the hopper that never come forth. Today we're going through the motions of repealing health reform for the 31st time this Congress.

What we need instead is to get the bills that are lodged in Ways and Means on jobs out on the floor and work together, instead of against each other and against the interests of the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

If repeal occurred in California, it would mean the loss of coverage for 435,000 young adults. It also would mean over 12 million Californians would lose the ability to be sure that their lifetime limits would not kick in.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a very distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Rangel.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member from Washington, a member of our committee, Mr. McDermott.

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

I yield myself 10 seconds.

The gentleman from Louisiana voted for the $500 billion in Medicare savings twice. You come here and criticize, I guess, yourself.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

In Tennessee, as of December 2011, 59,000 young adults in Tennessee gained insurance coverage because of ACA, and almost 800,000 with Medicare received free preventive services--almost 800,000.

I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished colleague of mine from Massachusetts, a member of our committee, Mr. Neal.

I yield myself 20 seconds.

While there is a reference to disaster in Kentucky, here are the facts:

48,000 young adults in Kentucky gained insurance coverage;

Since ACA was enacted, Kentucky residents with Medicare have saved a total of $68 million;

538,000 people with Medicare in Kentucky received free preventative services.

That isn't a disaster; that's progress.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, our distinguished colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Thompson.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

There was a reference by the gentleman from Illinois about facts. Let me mention the facts.

As of December 2011, 125,000 young adults in Illinois gained insurance coverage. Since it was enacted, ACA, Illinois residents with Medicare have saved a total of $155 million on their prescription drugs and 1,350,000 people with Medicare in Illinois have received free preventive services. Those are the facts about health care reform.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another very distinguished member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman from New York voted on the $500 billion Medicare provision twice, voted for it.

As of 2011, 160,000 young adults in New York gained insurance coverage because of health care reform. Since it was enacted, New Yorkers with Medicare have saved a total of $270 million on their prescription drugs. In 2011, 2 million people with Medicare in New York received free preventive services. Since 2010, over 3 million New Yorkers with private health insurance gained preventive insurance.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is there remaining on each side?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Twenty-five percent of the people of Texas go to sleep every night without insurance--25 percent. And people come here defending the status quo?

As of December 2011, 357,000 young adults in Texas gained insurance coverage. Since it was enacted, Texans with Medicare have saved a total of over $220 million on prescription drugs, and over 2 million people with Medicare in Texas have received free preventive services. That's progress, in

contrast to the status quo, 25 percent uninsured.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if you would tell the two of us from Michigan how much time there is on each side.

So why don't I reserve one more time, and then I'll go forward.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another distinguished member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I ask my colleague, how many speakers do you have left?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

As I stand here, I want to remember others from the State of Michigan who years and years ago argued this issue. I think I'll go back to John Dingell's father, who was from Michigan, a Member of this distinguished body, and who started this effort with others to bring health insurance to every person in this country.

After seven decades of failure, we succeeded. Yet the Republicans want to repeal it without offering anything to replace it. So I'll quote again Governor Mitt Romney. He said:

A conservative approach is one that relies on individual

responsibility. But in my view, and others are free to

disagree, expecting people who can afford to buy insurance to

do so is consistent with personal responsibility, and that's

a cornerstone of conservatism.

It's really a cornerstone also of America as a community. To repeal this is to undermine the sense and reality of community in the United States of America. Remembering the past and looking to the future, we must vote ``no'' on repeal.

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

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

This bill is mainly a smoke screen. It is an effort to cover up the failure, indeed the refusal, of Republicans to act on the key issue facing our Nation: jobs and economic growth.

As ranking member, I sent a letter last Friday to Dave Camp, who chairs the committee with the jurisdiction over the bill before us today, urging action on six major jobs bills within the committee's jurisdiction: extension of the section 48(c) advanced energy manufacturing credit; extension of the production tax credit for wind power and other vital advanced-energy incentives; extension of the highly successful build America bonds program, which financed more than $180 billion in infrastructure investment; extension of the 100 percent bonus depreciation; creation of a 10 percent income tax credit for small businesses that do create new jobs or increase their payroll; an extension of a jobs-related expired provision, such as the R&D tax credit.

The answer: silence and continued inaction by Republicans in this House.

Another bill over which the committee has jurisdiction, the highway bill, remains unacted upon. That bill would mean millions of jobs. No action. The Republican House message on the highway bill is: our way or the highway. And that means no highways.

It is June. There is now the likelihood of no action or none before the construction season is over in numerous States. That inaction is not an accident. It is deliberate. It is implementing the goal stated 20 months ago by the Senate Republican leader:

``The single most important thing we want to achieve is for

President Obama to be a one-term President.''

It is reflected in the recent interview by the House Republican leader. Mr. Cantor said the rest of the year will likely be about ``sending signals, we have huge problems to deal with.''

Sending signals? The American people don't need and want signals. They need for us to take action to strengthen the economic recovery.

We will hear today Republican efforts to describe the bill before us to repeal the tax on medical devices as a jobs bill. What it really is is another Republican effort to repeal health care reform, step by step, costing, in this case, $29 billion.

We Democrats want more Americans to have access to medical devices. Health care reform helps do this by expanding insurance coverage to over 30 million individuals, which indeed will help the growth of and the innovation in the medical device industry. And as was true for other health groups benefiting from increases in health coverage, the medical device industry was asked to help to pay for health care reform so it would be fully paid for, not add to the deficit, as so many Republican measures, but it would be fully paid for.

They signed a letter with others pledging:

``We, as stakeholder representatives, are committed to

doing our part to make reform a reality in order to make the

system more affordable and effective for patients and

purchasers. We stand ready to work with you to accomplish

this goal.''

The first signature on that letter is from and by the President and CEO of the Advanced Medical Technology Association.

Now the Republicans are attempting to give that industry a free pass--a free pass--contrary to their stated commitment. The industry has not proposed any alternative whatsoever to meet that obligation reflected in the letter they signed. There is an effort here to cast repeal of the tax as a small business bill.

The 10 largest companies in this submarket would pay 86 percent of the taxes relating to nondiagnostic devices. According to CRS, the 10 largest companies that manufacture medical devices had total companywide profits on all their lines of businesses, both devices and other products, of $42 billion in 2010, including companies mentioned here, and $48 billion in 2011, and these companies had gross revenues from the sale of medical devices in 2010 of $133 billion.

There was an effort here also to cast the bill as an effort to stop offshoring, but this point needs to be made. It's a fact: The tax applies to all covered devices, including those that are imported. So if anybody thinks they can just move overseas and bring it back here and not pay a tax, they're simply incorrect.

The effort to cast this as a jobs bill involved allegations repeated here during the debate on the rule, which were analyzed by a neutral source and found to be simply erroneous. A Bloomberg group analysis made that clear: ``The study used by Republicans cites no evidence for the job loss claim.''

Further, the study's assumptions, ``conflict with economic research, overstate companies' incentives to move jobs offshore, and ignore the positive effect of new demand'' created by the health care reform law.

Before Rules yesterday, I asked that my substitute be placed in order to allow debate on two real jobs initiatives mentioned in my letter to you, Chairman Camp: a tax credit for employers that expand their payrolls, and an extension of bonus depreciation. Those two provisions would help create hundreds of thousands of jobs, not speculation, but real, including in small businesses. This has not been allowed.

So we have open rules, as we have seen the last few days on some bills, that often mainly result in numerous amendments, shifting some monies from one place to another in an agency, not often helping to create a single job, but a closed rule when it comes to

bringing up provisions helping to create American jobs and economic growth.

This is further evidence of what is really going on here in this Congress, a deliberate effort now increasingly undisguised to close the door on action to engender job creation and economic growth before the election.

November 6 is what is driving the Republican Congress. Politics, not people. That is only not cynical, it is, indeed, pernicious. We owe it to the American people to blow the whistle on this. Too much, indeed, is at stake.

National Women's Law Center,

Washington, DC, June 6, 2012.

Re Vote No on Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2011, H.R.

436.

Dear Representative: The National Women's Law Center writes

in strong opposition to H.R. 436, the Protect Medical

Innovation Act of 2011, because it would undermine a critical

protection in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and reduce

financial security for women and families. The bill would pay

for the elimination of the modest excise tax on medical

devices and other revenue provisions of the ACA by increasing

the tax liability of individuals and families receiving

premium tax credits through the new insurance exchanges.

The modest excise tax on medical devices is a fair way to

raise revenue to help finance affordable health care coverage

for millions of Americans. The expansion of health care

coverage will benefit a wide range of health-related

industries, including the medical device industry, by

increasing demand for their products. Other industries in the

health sector are contributing to financing an expansion from

which they will profit; it is entirely appropriate to require

the medical device industry to make a contribution as well.

The tax will have minimal impact on consumers, because it

does not apply to medical devices that consumers buy at

retail, such as eyeglasses or hearing aids, and spending on

taxable medical devices represents less than one percent of

total personal health expenditures. And the tax will not

encourage manufacturers to shift production overseas: it

applies equally to imported and domestically produced

devices, and devices produced in the United States for export

are not subject to the tax. Repealing this tax and forgoing

$29 billion in needed revenues would be irresponsible--even

without the outrageous step of imposing this cost directly on

Americans without access to affordable health care coverage.

Increasing the tax liability of individuals and families

receiving premium tax credits for health insurance coverage

is unfair and would reduce coverage for hundreds of thousands

of Americans. The ACA provides premium tax credits to

families with household income at or below 400 percent of

poverty who enroll in coverage through an exchange. An

advance payment of the premium tax credit will go directly to

insurance companies so that the monthly insurance premium

paid by families is reduced, thereby making health coverage

more affordable for millions of families. However, there is a

``reconciliation'' at the end of the year when a family files

taxes to ensure that the right amount of credit was paid to

the insurer on the family's behalf. The ``reconciliation'' is

based on actual household income for the year, while the

advance payment is based on a projection that could be based

on current income or past tax returns. The ACA included an

important protection by including a cap on the amount of

repayment penalty a family would have to pay based on

``reconciliation.''

The proposal expected this week would entirely eliminate

this protection, leaving families vulnerable to an

unaffordable tax bill. Many families will be discouraged from

enrolling in coverage because of the potential tax liability

at the end of the year. Much of the savings from the proposal

are achieved because hundreds of thousands of people are

expected to refuse coverage if the cap is eliminated. Women

will be particularly affected by the elimination of the cap.

Women have lower incomes than men and experience larger

income variability from one year to another. This suggests

women will be more at risk for repayment penalties. Women

also often make the health care decisions for the family and

will be faced with the difficult decision of enrolling in

affordable coverage or forgoing that coverage because of a

potential tax penalty.

The cap on the repayment penalty has already been

increased. Eliminating the cap would eliminate all

protections for families that are doing their best to provide

the right information to the exchange but face mid-year

changes in income or family size. A server in a restaurant

could gain new shifts or be promoted to manager. An employer

may give unexpected bonuses in December. A couple could get

married mid-year without fully understanding the impact on

household income and poverty level. The cap on the repayment

penalty needs to remain in place in order to protect families

and provide the stability promised in the ACA.

We urge you to protect the security of families and the

revenue provisions of the Affordable Care Act so millions of

Americans can receive affordable health care by voting no on

H.R. 436 and any proposal to eliminate the cap on the

repayment penalty.

Very truly yours,

Judy Waxman,

Vice President, Health and Reproductive Rights.

Joan Entmacher,

Vice President, Family Economic Security.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, a senior member of our committee, Mr. Stark.

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

It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to another important member of our committee, the gentleman from Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to another very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

It's now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished Member from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I now have the privilege of yielding 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Could you please indicate how much time there is on each side?

I yield myself 30 seconds.

It's the Republicans who've combined these three bills. The Republicans.

And the leader talks about jobs. I wish he would give instructions to the Ways and Means Committee to consider and bring up jobs bills that are just languishing from inaction. We need more than signals. We need action.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a distinguished member of our committee.

It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

I yield myself 30 seconds.

We very much favor the medical device industry. They agreed to pay for health insurance coverage. In 2011, Stryker had revenue of $8.37 billion on these products with a net income of $1.3 billion. Everybody is going to have to participate, as they promised, to make health care work. If everybody ducks out, people will go uninsured.

It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

In a sense, there is much at stake in this debate. If this bill were to become law, it would unravel health care reform. What this industry seems to be asking is a reversal of their commitment to make health care reform work. If this Congress and the President were to say okay, every other industry that participated in saying they pay their share to make it viable, they'd come in line, and there would be no answer to them. In that sense, this debate, this issue is significant.

But in another sense it really isn't. This bill isn't going anywhere. The Senate leadership has already said it's not taking it up. There's been issued a Statement of Administration policy. The recommendation is the President would veto it. There's a certain emptiness to this debate because the bill isn't going anywhere.

The real significance is that it's being brought up despite that, raising the question, Does the majority in this House want a bill that goes somewhere relating to jobs?

The word ``jobs'' has been mentioned here more than any other word. As mentioned earlier, there is no evidence that jobs would be lost, as indicated by the majority.

The only study says that the 43,000 claim is wrong. So what's really at stake here, the significance of this debate is this: Will the majority do more than signal in this session, in its remaining months, or will it take up jobs legislation? I think there's an increasing indication that they, the majority, do not want a jobs bill that will go anywhere.

I mentioned earlier the letter I wrote to the chairman of our committee. I mentioned in there six provisions clearly relating to jobs in America, the 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit that once had bipartisan support.

The production tax credit for wind power, the Republicans came before the Ways and Means Committee and said, Extend it. But, silence. The Build America Bonds program. It helped to create hundreds and thousands of jobs--$180 billion in infrastructure investment. The 100 percent bonus depreciation that both sides say they support. But nothing but inaction. The proposal by the President for a 10 percent income tax credit for small businesses that could create jobs, not the illusory statements mentioned here. And then the R&D tax credit that the chairman of this committee and I have championed for years--and all we do is have a hearing.

And so this bill raises starkly this issue: Does this majority want bills going nowhere, or will they do more than signal and act to help create jobs that the people of this country badly need. That's the real issue before us today.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill on the merits. I urge the majority to start saying ``yes'' to jobs bills for the people of the United States of America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of May 2012 as National Cancer Research Month.

National Cancer Research Month recognizes the important role that cancer research plays in the lives of all Americans. Over 570,000 people in the U.S. die from cancer every year. However, federally and privately funded cancer research has led to the development of innovative diagnostics and treatments that have greatly increased the odds of survival. As a result, the country's cancer death rate has decreased 17 percent in the past 20 years.

Besides improving the health of Americans, cancer research also has dramatic impacts on our economy. Research funding supports employment at universities and research institutes and it also leads to the formation of new businesses that spread biomedical innovation and sustain jobs.

Despite real progress in recent years, now is not the time to rest on our laurels in terms of either funding or attention. There is still significant progress to be made in the battle against cancer. Continued investment in research through the federal government is vital for ensuring that we move forward in this fight for health and survivorship. That is why I joined Representative Markey and over 150 of my House colleagues in asking the Appropriations Committee to provide at least $32 billion in funding to the National Institutes of Health for the 2013 fiscal year. Fighting cancer is a national priority, and Congress must step up and provide the necessary resources.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in recognizing the importance of cancer research and its essential role in supporting the health, economy, and international leadership of our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Lewis N. Walker, who will retire next month after years of distinguished service at Lawrence Technological University in Southfield, Michigan.

Dr. Walker joined Lawrence Tech in 1994, serving as provost for 12 years. During that time, he improved student access to computer technology, expanded international partnerships, and developed facility improvements to support emerging technologies and career fields. Dr. Walker is also credited with fostering and instituting the only required undergraduate leadership program in the country outside the Nation's three military academies.

In 2005, again through Dr. Walker's efforts, the University began a unique partnership with the Ferndale Public Schools to establish University High School, which offers a rigorous preparatory curriculum for public school students. This partnership is making a difference. A full 99 percent of University High School's first three graduating classes received their diploma, and 85 percent have gone on to higher education.

In 2006, Dr. Walker was made President of LTU. The severe economic downturn that began the following year brought a time of extraordinary challenge for the country, and especially for the State of Michigan. With steep job losses, especially in our State's vital auto and manufacturing sectors, there was a clear need for retraining of displaced workers. Through Dr. Walker's leadership, Lawrence Tech stepped up and addressed the challenge through the ``Recovery Starts Here'' initiative, which provided grants to over 650 displaced workers and supported efforts to diversify Michigan's economy. This program was widely replicated and serves as an example of the vital synergies that can and should exist between institutions of higher education and our Nation's economy.

Building on the successful redevelopment of the campus quadrangle and A. Alfred Taubman Student Services Center, Dr. Walker set in motion the next phase of growth of LTU by laying the groundwork for development of a state-of-the-art Engineering, Life Sciences, and Architecture Complex. Over the years, my office has been pleased to work closely with Dr. Walker and his team on efforts to expand

the University's Center for Innovative Materials Research. Dr. Walker has signed 40 agreements with other leading universities around the world to encourage partnerships and exchange programs.

Prior to his career at Lawrence Tech, Dr. Walker served at the University of Hartford as dean of engineering and a professor of electrical engineering. He holds three degrees from the University of Missouri-Columbia and has published more than 50 technical papers.

In so many ways, Dr. Walker's years of service at LTU have left the University and the community better than he found them. I urge all my colleagues to join me in honoring Lewis Walker as he steps down as President of Lawrence Technological University next month. I feel certain that the University and the State of Michigan will continue to benefit from his talents for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is vivid evidence of the radicalization of the Republican Party.

I recall decades ago chairing a committee in the Michigan State Senate

and addressing a number of reforms affecting the lives of working men and women. I directly engaged in give and take and negotiated final legislation with Governor George Romney, resulting in legislation that passed on a bipartisan basis.

Today, the radicalization of the Republican Party would make that impossible. Instead, we have a bill that would take away food stamps for 2 million Americans, children, working parents, and seniors. It would threaten 280,000 school meals and end the Social Services Block Grants, which provide home care, transportation for individuals with disabilities, protection for abused children, and Meals on Wheels. All of this and much more extremism to carry out an additional tax cut of $240,000 for the very wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers.

We can turn off the budget sequester and the damaging across-the- board cuts, but not with this extreme partisan bill. The House leadership refuses to follow a bipartisan path. This bill is sad proof of how the Republican Party of today has moved dramatically to the extreme, leaving behind most Americans, except the very wealthy.

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to enter into the Record letters from organizations that are opposed to this bill's drastic cuts in services for the elderly, the disabled, and children:

Catholic Charities USA,

Alexandria, VA, April 25, 2012.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Ryan: As the House Committee on the

Budget evaluates the priorities expressed in the federal

budgeting process, we urge you to reject the proposed

elimination of the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) as

proposed by the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Everyday thousands of individuals who are disabled,

children, preschoolers, homeless, elderly, or at risk of

being abused are receiving services because of SSBG funding.

These funds prevent the need for more expensive and less

desirable interventions. SSBG is a flexible federal funding

source that allows states, local governments and non-profit

organizations to support local programs and services for

vulnerable children, youth, and elderly and disabled people.

States have a long history of cooperation with community and

faith-based organizations in the allocation of SSBG funds.

Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) is a network of more than

1,600 social service agencies and institutions providing

services to more than 10 million people annually. As one of

the nation's largest social service providers, CCUSA

recognizes the critical need for SSBG funding and uses these

funds in almost every category of direct services.

Among those vulnerable populations that receive critical

assistance from SSBG-funded programs are: Children: Local

Catholic Charities agencies use SSBG funds to provide child

care to low-income families; foster care support service; and

prevention and protective services for neglected and abused

children. Youth: Local Catholic Charities agencies utilize

funds from SSBG to supplement work with expecting and

parenting teens; drug counseling for troubled youth; and

special services for youth involved in or at risk of

involvement with criminal activity. Elderly: Local Catholic

Charities rely heavily on SSBG funds to support Meals on

Wheels programs that address both nutrition and isolation

issues for frail elderly persons; transportation services for

persons who also need assistance with their grocery shopping,

doctor appointments, and during church services; adult day

care; and emergency shelter and assistance for victims of

elder abuse.

The following provides some examples of programs at local

Catholic Charities agencies that would be affected by the

elimination of SSBG funding:

New Jersey: In Newark, SSBG funds are used to support many

programs and services, among them counseling and child abuse

prevention services for families referred from the State

child welfare system; supervised housing for youth exiting

the child welfare system for independent living; The funds

are used to provide services directed towards preventing,

reducing or eliminating dependency; achieving or maintaining

self-sufficiency; preventing neglect, abuse or exploitation

of children and adults; and preventing or reducing

inappropriate institutional care.

Pennsylvania: In Wilkes-Barre/Scranton SSBG funding

supports activities at a homeless veterans residence,

Maternity Home and Senior Citizens Housing.

Texas: In Beaumont, SSBG funds the soup kitchen, long term

disaster recovery, financial education and counseling

programs. In Brownsville, SSBG funds are used to assist with

long-term recovery from disasters including replacing

essential items for those who were rendered homeless from

such disasters.

Wisconsin: In LaCrosse, SSBG funds provide services for

children and adolescents in their Disabilities Services

Program. Its mission is to keep these young people in their

homes and prepare them for congregate or semi-independent

living and provides a unique niche and without it many would

not be able to be in mainstreamed into the community and

would be at risk for institutional care.

We acknowledge that tough choices will be made as part of

your ongoing budget discussions and that every one of these

tough choices will be met with frustration, disappointment

and even anger from certain segments of the population.

Catholic Charities USA recognizes that social service

initiatives will not be immune to those difficult decisions.

However, as you look for savings within the budget, we reject

the notion that those most vulnerable among us should feel

the greatest impact of future reductions.

Rather than simply embracing quick answers to the immediate

need to shave dollars off the federal budget by impairing

local organizations' ability to deliver critical services to

those in need, now is the time to work together to create a

new national approach to service delivery that enable the

country to permanently make a difference in the lives of

those living in poverty.

Sincerely,

Fr., Larry Snyder,

President.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

The Wall Street Journal calls support for the Export-Import Bank ``job creation, French style.'' I'm not sure why they pick on the French.

While the House Republicans have been agonizing about acting, export powerhouses like China have been dramatically increasing their export financing programs. Over the past year, China issued four times the amount invested by the U.S. And China is not alone. Germany, France, and India all provided at least seven times more export assistance, as a share of GDP, than the U.S.

The rigid attitude of The Wall Street Journal is that, if the other side rigs the field of competition, you should do nothing. They believe that those nations will only hurt themselves if they act and that it will all work out in the wash in the end. The problem is that, in the meanwhile, you drown.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

The Republicans have taken a 180-degree turn on helping with student loans. The Republican budget said ``no,'' and in February, Governor Mitt Romney said this:

The right course for America is to make sure that we

provide loans to the extent we possibly can at an interest

rate that doesn't have the taxpayers having to subsidize

people who want to go to school.

Now he and the Republicans here have shifted--shifty indeed. How they are doing so is not only politically expedient, but extremely harmful. They hit health care--health care. They refuse to end a tax break for Big Oil that never should have been given in the first place, even though the Big Five oil companies made more than $32 billion in the fourth quarter of last year alone. This bill is shameless, and it is shameful. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in commemorating the 97th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

Ninety-seven years ago, the government of the Ottoman Empire started a ruthless and systematic campaign of genocide against the Armenian people. Beginning with the targeted execution of 300 Armenian leaders, this intentional attempt at extermination ultimately claimed the lives of over 1.5 million people and forcibly exiled another 500,000.

And despite these chilling numbers and a clear historical record of fact, there remains a failure to acknowledge this vast human tragedy for what it truly is: genocide. That is why it is essential that we continue to speak out and solemnly commemorate the Armenian Genocide. Accordingly, I am proud to support a resolution this session of Congress that affirms the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide and honors its victims and survivors.

By acknowledging this dark chapter of human history, we help protect against the possible creation of a violent culture of impunity. We cannot allow past acts of evil to be erased from our collective consciousness if we are to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future.

In closing, I encourage all my colleagues to take time today to remember and honor the victims and survivors of the Armenian Genocide.

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

This bill needs to be graded, and the grade it gets is F, a fat F grade. It fails all tests of sound tax policy.

Let me start with truth in advertising, a grade F. This is not a small business bill. It's small business in name only. It's totally untargeted, totally. It applies as long as an entity has under 500 employees--law firms, sports teams, financial consultants, lobbyists, corporate farmers--and regardless of what their annual receipts are. They can be tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars.

Interestingly, when the SBA looks at its loan program, it has what's called a common standard. What that is is that generally the businesses it serves cannot have more than $7 million in average annual receipts for most nonmanufacturing firms. This bill has no limits--none--as to function or amount of receipts, so really this bill mocks the use of the title ``small business.'' This isn't about mom and pop. It's about popping the cork for wealthy taxpayers.

Secondly, graded on tax fairness, F. According to the most cautious estimate, 56 percent of the tax break under this bill goes to taxpayers making $250,000 or more annually. It provides 125,000 taxpayers making $1 million a year with a tax break of over $58,000. Another model says that 49 percent of this $46 billion revenue loss goes to people with incomes over $1 million. This is Bush tax cuts on steroids.

Thirdly, in terms of job creation, another grade F. Listen to the Joint Tax Committee analysis. It says this bill's economic impact ``is so small as to be incalculable.'' The only thing calculating about this bill is its political nature.

We've looked at the Web site of the majority leader. He uses Mr. Robbins, who was the one who advised Herman Cain on 9 9-9. Here's what Mr. Robbins says about this bill: He estimates that a 1-year tax cut would create 39,000 jobs. This is on the majority leader's Web site. So, according to the analysis that the leader is touting on its own Web site, H.R. 9 would increase the Federal deficit by $1.1 million for every job supposedly created. So, another big F.

Now let's talk about where these jobs would be created. The bill is so untargeted to require that the jobs that are created here would really be created, because a company would get this benefit if it sheds jobs or if it uses the deduction to hire workers overseas.

Let's next go to fiscal irresponsibility, another fat F in terms of responsibility. This bill adds a whopping $46 billion to the deficit in 1 year; if it's made permanent, one-half trillion dollars over the next 10 years. So I say this to anybody who votes for this bill and then goes home and utters the word, once, ``Federal deficit.'' They will sell short the intelligence of their constituents, because they will know when someone is selling them a pig in a poke.

Now let's talk about tax reform, another fat F. This bill is the antithesis of tax reform. What it does is ridicule supporters who claim their fealty to tax reform. It doesn't simplify tax structures; it complicates it. That's why I quote The Wall Street Journal this morning. This is what they say about your bill: It's another tax gimmick.

Just earlier today somebody got up here and read from The Wall Street Journal. It was some months ago. Again, The Wall Street Journal says: ``The U.S. economy does not need another tax gimmick.'' So this is tax policy gone haywire.

I'm going to offer a substitute, after we finish debate here on general debate, that's targeted; that will help create jobs; that's fair; that is fiscally responsible and continues a policy that both Republicans and Democrats have supported in the past.

This flies in the face of anything bipartisan. It flies in the face of anything that is truthful in advertising. It flies in the face of anything that is fair. It flies in the face of anything that creates jobs. It flies in the face of fiscal responsibility, and it flies in the face of tax reform.

So I more than urge people to vote ``no'' and vote ``yes'' on our substitute. I really urge that they exercise their responsibility to try to get this country moving in the right direction, not with policies that deserve a total F on the test of sound tax policy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

We have a Statement of Administration Policy in total opposition to this. The Small Business Administration would not provide a loan for innumerable people who benefit from this. They have a $7 million limit.

Supply-side economics, we tried that for a number of years, and we were losing 700,000 jobs a month when this administration took over-- 700,000, and you raise supply-side economics as something we should embrace? No way. No way.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington, Dr. Jim McDermott, a member of our committee.

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

I yield myself 5 seconds.

Is it worth $1.1 million a job in Washington?

I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Oregon, an active member of our committee, Mr. Blumenauer.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I now yield 3 minutes to another very active member of our committee, the gentleman from California, Xavier Becerra.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

What the leader said is not correct. The substitute provides some help to those who invest in property, plant, and equipment. That's not Paris Hilton.

Let me finish.

You didn't yield at all to us, so let me finish.

It has to be a factory that's built here.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

May I ask the distinguished gentleman from the State of Ohio how much time remains on both sides?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), another active member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to another very active member of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining, please?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the balance of my time to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Democratic amendment in the nature of a substitute offers a 1- year extension of 100 percent bonus depreciation for certain U.S. businesses.

Most importantly, the amendment offers a stark contrast to the majority's untargeted giveaway to the very wealthy Americans.

First, bonus depreciation is available only to businesses that make investments in depreciable property. As a result, most of the benefit from the bonus depreciation provision will flow to businesses such as manufacturers that make significant investments in property, plant, and equipment. These are the types of businesses that create good jobs here in our country.

In contrast to the majority's mistaken bill, very little, if any, benefit would go to lawyers, lobbyists, hedge fund managers, and entertainers, to mention just a few. These service professionals simply do not make large investments in depreciable property.

Second, bonus depreciation is only available for property used in our country. So a business that builds a new factory only gets the deduction if the factory is built in this country.

In contrast, the majority's bill provides a benefit to businesses regardless of where they're expanding or investing. Businesses that cut jobs in the U.S. and expand overseas could get the benefit of H.R. 9. In practice, they would get no benefit from this amendment.

Third, the incentive to purchase depreciable property provides a benefit to all of the businesses that produce the property. The result is a more general and widespread economic stimulus.

Fourth, and finally, bonus depreciation is a proposal that has had bipartisan support, unlike H.R. 9. H.R. 9 is going nowhere--nowhere-- and it should not.

Vote for and pass this substitute. It is sound policy and can become the law of the land.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman is correct in that the contrast is very stark. They've tried to raise taxes on millionaires in the Senate so they pay like the people who work for them. This bill would provide a tax break of $58,000 to those who make over $1 million, which are 125,000 taxpayers. That is a stark contrast. Have people very wealthy pay a fair share on the one side, and have this House give them a big break.

I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentlelady from Nevada, Shelley Berkley.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

Does the gentleman from Michigan have any other speakers?

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

There is a criticism that the bonus depreciation provision doesn't go far enough. My answer to that is: let's pass this and then join together. You have supported bonus depreciation in the past. You haven't acted on it. We do.

Let me just say what's at stake. This bill isn't going anywhere--it's going nowhere, but it says everything about the majority's priorities.

They oppose raising taxes on the very wealthy, they take a pledge that applies to the very wealthy, and they end up with a bill they won't pay for. They make empty rhetoric about the deficit. Essentially what they're coming here today to do is to make it worse, by giving a tax break to the very wealthy through this bill.

We've said it many times, nobody refutes it. You're stuck on a pledge not to raise taxes even for the very wealthy, and you come today with a proposal for a tax break for 125,000 taxpayers making more than a million dollars with a tax break of 58,000. Then to make it still worse, you cut necessary programs for lower- and middle-income families, from child care and Meals On Wheels. Where's your conscience?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Clinton River Watershed Council as it celebrates 40 years of making a positive difference to the Clinton River and its watershed.

Forty years ago, the Clinton River was a very different waterway than it is today. Decades of uncontrolled dumping of industrial wastewater and raw sewage had taken a huge environmental toll on water quality in the river. There were no fish to speak of in the river, and certainly none that you would care to eat. Far from being an asset to the communities along its banks, the Clinton River was slowly dying.

That might have been the end of the story except for two key developments in 1972. The first was the passage of the Clean Water Act which spelled out ambitious programs for water quality improvement. The second key development was the formation of the Clinton River Watershed Council. Both of these had a profound impact on water quality in the Clinton River.

Passage of the Clean Water Act 40 years ago was one of the most important environmental milestones in our nation's history. It marked a fundamental change in how our nation views and manages water in this country. After decades of polluting the Great Lakes and their tributaries--including the Clinton River--we finally recognized that healthy rivers and lakes are vital to the health of our communities, and we required that steps be taken to restore them.

The formation of the Clinton River Watershed Council marked another important turning point. It takes time and resources to undo decades of pollution and neglect, and still more time for an ecosystem to heal. Restoring an urban waterway like the Clinton River is especially complicated. I am convinced that the effort to heal the Clinton River has gone much faster because it had advocates to coordinate action and focus attention and resources. Thanks to the work of the Clinton River Watershed Council and its members and member units of government, real progress is being made on water quality, and once again the Clinton River is being used for fishing, canoeing, and hiking. The Council's efforts in the areas of watershed management, stewardship and education have also had a tangible, positive impact.

There was a time when we turned our backs to our rivers and lakes. Today, we know better. As the hard-won progress in the Clinton River and Lake St. Clair shows, waterfront development is a real generator of economic activity and a one-of-a-kind asset to communities.

We need to build on the progress that has been made in the Clinton River Watershed as well as Lake St. Clair. This absolutely requires a partnership of effort by Federal, State, and local governments, as well as local stakeholders and advocacy groups. It also means a continued commitment of resources from the Federal Government, especially when it comes to funding the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Now is not the time to cut funding for this vital initiative. Congress and the Obama Administration must also work to clarify and restore long-standing Clean Water Act protections for U.S. streams, wetlands, and other waters.

But the real work of completing the restoration of the Clinton River will continue to be done by groups like the Clinton River Watershed Council and the many volunteers and sponsors that support their efforts. The Watershed Council's work underscores the value that a healthy Clinton River holds for our citizens and communities. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Clinton River Watershed Council as it begins its fifth decade of work to protect, enhance and celebrate the Clinton River and its watershed.