Floor Statements

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

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

There are fewer than 3 weeks until the new year, and yet, here they go again. Republicans are seeking a path of confrontation instead of collaboration. If Republicans were serious, truly serious about trying to come together on behalf of American families, they would have reached out to Democrats in this House. They've done nothing of the sort. They've made a sham out of bipartisanship.

Instead, they, once again, targeted millions of seniors and middle class families for cuts without asking essentially anything of millionaires and billionaires. They've singled out Medicare premium increases that permanently increase seniors' costs by $31 billion.

The bill also, when you look at it carefully, spends $300 million on a special interest provision that helps a handful of specialty hospitals while cutting billions from community hospitals.

They've targeted the unemployed, slashing 40 weeks of unemployment insurance, impacting millions of families still struggling under the weight of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Twenty-two jurisdictions, 22, with the highest unemployment rates would be hit the hardest: Alabama, California, Connecticut, D.C., Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington.

The result would be in the State that Mr. Camp and I come from, Michigan, a maximum of 46 weeks of unemployment insurance.

And what do they ask of the wealthiest Americans? Basically nothing. Not even after the wealthiest 1 percent saw their incomes nearly triple in the last three decades while salaries for middle class families barely budged.

On average, there are more than four unemployed Americans for every job opening. Never, on official records in our Nation's history, have there been so many unemployed Americans out of work for so long. There is nothing normal about this recession. Nothing normal.

One gentleman from my district, Phil of Clinton Township, put it this way, ``I am by no means unintelligent. I am by no means lazy. And I am by no means giving up.''

The unemployed are not people who can ante up $10,000 bets or spend lavishly on jewelry at Tiffany. These are families scraping by, on average, on less than $300 a week trying to keep food on the table, a roof over their heads, and clothes on their backs and the backs of their children as they look for work.

Republicans are out of touch with the families of America. I hope after today's exercise that is going nowhere in the Senate and which the President opposes, House Republicans will get serious about addressing very pressing end-of-year issues on behalf of the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

It is now my special privilege to yield 2 minutes to a leader in our party, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I must say, to talk about a man on the Moon and to essentially disregard the needs of millions of people who are on the ground unemployed in this country is, I think, unconscionable.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I yield the whip an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

It is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who is the lead sponsor on our unemployment insurance bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Camp, we've just received information from the Department of Labor that the Republican bill would cut unemployment benefits for 3.3 million Americans next year compared to an extension of current law. In the name of reform, don't cut the rug out from the unemployed of this country who are looking for work. That is, in one word, inexcusable-- inexcusable.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlelady from California, Lynn Woolsey.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) control 10 minutes of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, Charles Rangel.

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

I yield 1 minute to our distinguished leader, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

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

I want to start by reading one of the 400-plus communications we received. This is from Jackie of Amherst, New Hampshire: ``Unemployment benefits helped me make ends meet while I was using my savings and 401(k) to keep up with everything. Now they are gone. My savings are long gone. My 401(k) is almost gone. I am watching everything I worked so hard for, for my entire adult life, slip away from me. I am 50.''

In the name of reform, what the House Republicans are doing is to retreat, to retreat from assisting the unemployed through no fault of their own. According to the data received from the Department of Labor, 3.3 million Americans would lose weeks of unemployment benefits under this bill compared to an extension of current law.

The President has made his position clear. The Statement of Administration Policy says: ``The administration strongly opposes H.R. 3630. With only days left before taxes go up for 160 million hardworking American, H.R. 3630 plays politics at the expense of middle class families.

``Instead of working together to find a balanced approach that will actually pass both Houses of Congress, H.R. 3630 instead represents a choice to refight old political battles over health care and introduce ideological issues into what should be a simple debate about cutting taxes for the middle class.

``If the President were presented with H.R. 3630, he would veto the bill.''

In good conscience, we should not support this bill. Remembering the 3.3 million who would have their benefits cut under this bill, there should be a resounding ``no.'' A resounding ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Levin

Amendment No. 1: Strike all after the enacting clause and

insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, today we're here to talk about the need to extend unemployment insurance. The numbers are staggering. If we do not act by the end of this month, in January well over a million people will lose their unemployment insurance, by mid-February the total will be well over 2 million, and by the end of next year, if we do not act, over 6 million people. As I said, these numbers are staggering. But the people behind these numbers are overwhelming.

We're here today to talk about the numbers and also talk about the people who are involved. When we've had emergencies like this, we have never failed to act. Today, we face an emergency beyond any we've seen since the Great Depression, and it's absolutely vital as a result that we act.

I'm joined by some of my colleagues. I want to call on them. As I do so, I want to read stories. I'll start by reading just one story and then call on one or more of my colleagues.

Let me start by reading what came in from a person in Amherst, New Hampshire, Jackie: ``Unemployment benefits helped me make ends meet while I was using my savings and 401(k) to keep up with everything. Now they are gone. My savings are long gone. My 401(k) is almost gone. I'm watching everything I worked so hard for my entire adult life slip away from me. I am 50. I will never recover from this.''

I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Texas, if he would like to join me.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for joining us and explaining what this means in his State and throughout the country. We're determined to tell the stories and, as I said, to put faces on these numbers. And to do that, I have joined with other Ways and Means Democrats to launch an extend unemployment program e-call Web site. As of this week, 2,590 Americans have joined the e-call, and we have received 501 stories from jobless Americans.

Before I call on the gentleman from Illinois to join, I would like to read, if I might, just a couple more. This is from Nick of Clinton Township, Michigan. ``I was unemployed from August 2008 until March 2010 after working for 23\1/2\ years at my job.

``My job was sent to Sao Paulo, Brazil. Had it not been for extended unemployment benefits, I would have lost my house.'' Nick of Clinton Township.

And let me read what was said by Peter of Warren, Michigan: ``I was permanently laid off from American Axle. I worked there 15 years and our jobs were sent to Mexico. As of this time, I have not found a job. I have been looking over 2 years now, and nothing in Michigan. I am in the TRA/TAA program to be reeducated, but my benefits will run out before I finish my school, and I will not get the degree in my field.'' Again, from Peter of Warren, Michigan.

I now would like to call, if I might, on the gentleman from Illinois to join us. And then, if I might, the sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Doggett of Texas.

And I thank the gentleman from Illinois for your distinguished service and your passion that you bring to this and so many other issues.

I want to yield to the gentleman from Texas, who's the lead sponsor and ranking member on the relevant subcommittee. But before I do that, since you're from Texas, I want to read one of the hundreds that we've received, a word from people who are the unemployed.

This is Jessie of San Antonio, Texas: ``I have submitted over 350 job applications and have only been called for two face-to-face interviews and five over-the-phone interviews. I am a disabled Navy veteran whose appendix ruptured in October 2010 and was filled with cancer cells. My State benefits expired at the end of August, and now my Federal benefits will expire in 6 weeks.

``It seems that no one is hiring adults over 56 years of age. I'm a very good, positive employee, and I feel that with every job application I'm due to get hired soon. Please help me in any way possible.''

It's now my privilege to yield to the lead sponsor of this legislation, Lloyd Doggett from the great State of Texas.

Thank you. What we're trying to do, as you say, is to bring America into this debate because if the faces are shown and the voices heard, our faith is that somehow we'll act.

And as you say, Republicans tend to blame the unemployed instead of blaming themselves for inaction. And we're not going to leave here, we're not going to leave here until there's an extension of unemployment benefits; isn't that correct? That's your pledge.

It's so important that you've talked about the facts. The more we discuss the facts about unemployment insurance, and the more we talk about the unemployed, the more persuasive is the need for action. There's so much mythology, and the stories help to blast the mythology.

I just would wish that we could get into the shoes--there are 6 million whose benefits are threatened here. If you lined up the 6 million from here, they'd go, I think, to Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

But it's hard for us to receive the stories or to obtain them because, under the Privacy Act, we don't know the names; and that's why you and I and others have joined to, essentially, have a Web site so people can tell us how to reach them.

But your recitation of the facts is so important because, in the end, I think the facts will prevail. The stories will be telling.

And so, Mr. Doggett, you've been such a lead person on this. You're the lead person on this legislation. So many of us have been working on this.

As you said, one of the facts is we have never failed to act, and this is a deeper recession than we've known. In fact, one of the facts is that there are now nearly 7 million fewer jobs in the economy today compared to when the recession started in December 2007. Seven million fewer jobs. And so when people search, they're often hitting a wall.

By the way, this gentleman, Jesse, refers to his age. And it's very true that the older--they're not very old--people are having trouble.

I had a forum in Michigan, and it was so heartbreaking that a person said to me--I would guess in her fifties--that I've taken all of the years off of my CV, when I went to college, when I graduated, when I first had a job, and the date of every position she had because she's afraid that when these resumes come in, people look at the age and a stone wall is hit.

It's my privilege, Mr. Doggett, to join with you. I'd now like to have join us a very distinguished Member from California. And if you give me a minute, Barbara Lee, the very distinguished woman, I want to find a story from California. And so if I might just read this before I yield to you.

This is Benjamin of Los Angeles, California:

``I've been actively looking for work for 8 months now. Unemployment insurance has been crucial in my survival. It has literally kept me alive.

It's allowed me to buy food and pay all my bills. Bills have no conscience. They come, regardless if one is working or not.

``I really feel for and extend my empathy to those who are unemployed and have children. I wholeheartedly support the emergency extension of unemployment insurance.''

Benjamin of Los Angeles California, your home State.

You do such honor to your State and the whole Nation, and it's my privilege now to call upon the gentlelady from California, Barbara Lee.

Thank you for your eloquent statement.

As you said, this is one estimate, four people for every job. You mentioned this is a matter of faith. A few weeks ago, I met a minister. I had never met him before. And we got to talking about the challenge of unemployment insurance. And I paraphrase what he said to me: This is a challenge to America's soul.

Thank you very much.

Before I call on the distinguished colleague from Wisconsin, I want to read one more story.

I have a story that's given to us, one of the more than 400, from Nathan of Madison, Wisconsin.

So let me read this before I call on my distinguished colleague and friend from Wisconsin, Gwen Moore.

I quote: ``I have been unemployed twice in the past 5 years, and they were not by choice. I have a master's degree in organic chemistry and have worked in the pharmaceutical industry and related industries since finding a job out of school in 1998. After 2 years with my first company, I received a double promotion. So my layoffs have not been due to my performance, abilities, or capabilities.

Anyone who says unemployed people are lazy or have it good are ignoring the fact that people are hurting across the board.'' From your fellow resident of the State of Wisconsin.

It is now my distinguished privilege to yield to you, Ms. Moore, from the State of Wisconsin.

I was looking through some of the letters. Let me just read a letter in which the author is a single parent from Geneva:

``I never thought that I would have to start all over again looking for work in my late forties. I hadn't even been 1 year cancer free. I'm a single parent of a teenage daughter. So, when my job terminated, so did my medical insurance . . . I had to move back to my mom's house. I could no longer afford my rent, car note, insurance, and the basic everyday needs of raising my daughter and keeping my own place . . . Please don't take away UI so soon. People like me need to keep it until we can find full-time work to take care of our families and help us keep our self-esteem.''

Absolutely.

We're focusing today on the stories of the unemployed, on the personal stories, in order to put a face on the numbers. It's also important--and you referred to it--for the economy of our country. Every economist, I think without any exception, says that unemployment insurance is one of the two most beneficial instruments that we have in terms of putting money back into the economy because people who are unemployed and who receive their insurance--they work for it--spend it.

We have some other stories from single parents. Let me just, if I might, read another story. Then perhaps we should ask the gentlelady from Texas to join us if she would like.

``I am a military spouse that was forced to move and leave a great- paying office management position since my husband was transferred to a new duty station . . . I have applied for jobs that would barely cover our bills just so that I can be among the working again . . . My soldier can't afford to support us on a military income--and it's not just about me. I have a son to think of. I hope and pray that an extension is approved so that it doesn't cause our family structure to crumble. I believe that an extension should be approved as it is keeping not only my family but millions of other American families from drowning in a sea of financial ruin.''

That's from Rachel of Lemoore, California.

It is now my privilege to yield to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

The gentlelady referred to a particular situation. Let me read from another story, if I might.

This is Linda of Seattle, Washington:

``I am a person, a hardworking American person at that, and I will be forced to live on the streets if EUC is not extended. It terrifies me; and if it happens, the struggle I will face to once again be a productive member of this society, in these times, by myself, is not one that I'm likely to win. There are thousands of stories just like mine that won't be told here. We are people, we have faces and lives and dreams just like everyone who still has a job. I am telling you: we will be on the streets without this extension, and only some of us will ever make it back from that.''

Your chart leads me to the last letter I'll read.

I read from Ralph of Warren, Michigan, because your chart shows what's at stake for middle-class America:

``Unemployment insurance must be extended so you can pay your bills and buy food. Without this insurance you would see the foreclosures go through the roof. Start looking out for the middle class that built this country.''

And this issue of extension of unemployment insurance is critical for all America, and it surely is critical for the middle class that helped to build this country in that now, and the millions are finding, they have lost their jobs, they are looking for work, they can't find it. We need to respond, and we need to respond right now.

And I close with this pledge from all of us on the Democratic side in the House: we do not intend to vote for a motion to adjourn until we have acted on the payroll issue, continuing on the physician reimbursement issue, and very much so on extending unemployment insurance so that people out of work, through no fault of their own, can be assured there won't be millions of people in this country, beginning the 1st of January, who are left out in the cold.

I thank all my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of National Nurse Practitioner Week.

This honorary week, November 13th through the 19th, celebrates the vital service that over 148,000 nurse practitioners provide to patients around the country. At a time when there is a shortage of primary care physicians, more and more Americans are turning to nurse practitioners to help with their medical problems.

Nurse practitioners are highly educated, licensed clinicians that provide a broad range of patient-focused care. Besides treating medical needs, nurse practitioners also focus on health promotion and disease prevention as well as health education that helps guide patients and assist them in making healthy choices in their day-to-day lives. Nurse practitioners improve the lives of Americans and help reduce health care costs. We should celebrate nurse practitioners as a crucial part of our healthcare system and a solution to many of the problems it faces.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in recognizing the important work of nurse practitioners across the nation.

Mr. Hastings has indicated that if we vote down the previous question, we will bring up H.R. 639.

It's a fact that China's currency manipulation is hurting U.S. businesses and workers. According to a recent study, imports from China account for 25 to 50 percent of the manufacturing jobs we have lost over the past decade. That's 1 million to 2 million jobs, and our trade deficit with China continues to grow.

An important factor in this picture is currency manipulation. American manufacturers are forced to compete against an estimated 25 percent discount on imports from China due to that manipulation. That's on top of China's massive subsidies and other policies.

Dr. Fred Bergsten, who heads the Peterson Institute, says that elimination of China's undervalued currency would create a million jobs mainly in manufacturing, and that manipulation is by far the largest protectionist measure adopted by any country since the Second World War--and probably in all history.

Meanwhile, the Chinese government is pushing production of high-end manufacturing products that compete head on with American products-- high-tech products, solar panels, wind turbines, automobiles, aircraft, and others.

This is a bipartisan measure. A majority of the House, 230 Members, have cosponsored the bill, including 62 Republicans. The time has come for action. Eight years of talk have yielded meager results. American workers and businesses cannot wait any longer, and the U.S. economy cannot wait any longer. The time is now for action.

Defeat the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my friend and colleague in public service, Mayor Robert Hison of Saint Clair Shores, Michigan, as he retires after 27 years of devoted and talented service on the City Council. I have deeply enjoyed working with Mr. Hison on a number of significant issues to help serve our mutual constituents.

Mr. Hison had a lengthy and successful career at Detroit Diesel Corp, retiring in 2004 after 38 years of service. He was appointed to Saint Clair Shores City Council in 1984, was reelected several times and ran for mayor in 2004, and has served the last 7 years in that capacity.

Although the position of mayor is part-time in St. Clair Shores, Mr. Hison believed it was a full-time responsibility. He devoted himself to the work and was visible everywhere throughout the city. He made it his goal to improve the city's financial future and under Mr. Hison's leadership, the City of Saint Clair Shores has continued on a path of sound financial footing despite immense economic challenges.

The City of St. Clair Shores is fortunate to be located next to Lake St. Clair, one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems in North

America and a vital resource for fishing, boating, swimming, and other recreational activities. Lake St. Clair is not the largest body of water in the Great Lakes system, but no body of water is more important. During his tenure on the City Council and especially as Mayor, Mr. Hison has worked to restore Lake St. Clair and address longstanding environmental problems that threatened the health of this vital natural resource. In particular, he has worked closely with my office and the Environmental Protection Agency to begin to address the PCB contamination that was discovered in the Ten Mile Drain adjacent to the Lake in 2002.

In addition, while serving as Mayor, Mr. Hison went beyond serving his community and lent his talents to the entire Southeast Michigan area by taking on several leadership roles with the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). He served as chair of both the Data Center and Finance & Budget Committees before being elected as vice chair of SEMCOG in 2007 and later chair in 2010. In 2010 he was nominated by SEMCOG for the open Region IX seat on the National Organization of Regional Councils (NARC) Board which serves Michigan and Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the dedicated public service of Robert Hison and his numerous achievements. I am so pleased to join with the entire community in paying tribute to his achievements, thanking him for years of talented service. I am confident he will continue to play an important role in the community where he is so highly thought of, in addition to enjoying a bit of retirement with his wife Nancy.

More than 400 unemployed Americans have shared their story with us in the last 2 weeks. Here they are. They illustrate in no uncertain terms the urgent need for Congress to extend Federal unemployment insurance through 2012. Without action, 2 million Americans will lose their benefits by February, as shown in this chart. Two million Americans like Phil from Clinton Township. He wrote to us with a resolve common among the stories that we've received, and I quote:

``I am by no means unintelligent. I am by no means lazy. And I am by no means giving up. Without unemployment benefits, I will not be able to pay my bills (including my cell phone so I may receive calls from potential employers) and finding something to eat will become increasingly difficult.''

Congress has never allowed the Federal program to expire with the unemployment rate as high as it remains today, and we must not start now. We must act now.

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

I believe this bill will pass with overwhelming support. Nearly everyone agrees that the 3 percent withholding provision should be repealed. It was a misguided approach when it was enacted by the last Republican Congress and it is misguided now. That is why we tried to repeal it earlier and ultimately delayed its implementation. Its repeal, however, should not be claimed as a significant jobs bill. As economist Mark Zandi has said, ``I don't think it's meaningful in terms of jobs. It's more trying to clean up something that needs cleaning up.''

The veterans provisions added by the Senate are a real jobs bill. They are a useful start in helping those who have loyally served our Nation find work, and I would hope all of us support them, including the tax credits to encourage businesses to hire veterans.

Most on our side support these provisions, and they were included in the President's jobs proposal. But no one should consider these modest steps as a substitute for action on the President's comprehensive jobs plan, which Republicans have so far blocked.

The President's jobs plan includes a payroll tax cut that would save the average family $1,500 a year. It includes tax credits for hiring the long-term unemployed, payroll tax cuts for hiring, and incentives to invest. It includes an infrastructure bank, and $75 billion to build roads and schools. That's a jobs agenda that could help many of the 14 million Americans who are still looking for work. Picking out two of the smaller pieces of that agenda and saying you've acted on the President's jobs bill is really disingenuous. The 3 percent withholding repeal and the veterans provisions are things we should do, but we must do much more.

Millions are counting on us to do more. So passage of this bill today represents a challenge to the majority in this House. End your blockade of comprehensive jobs legislation as proposed by the President of the United States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, it is now my real pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), a gentleman who has worked so hard on veterans issues.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished member of our committee and a cosponsor of the amendment that we now add to the original bill, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The problem is that the 19 bills weren't real jobs bills. So now what the Senate has sent us back is an addition that is a real jobs bill, though not comprehensive.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I now, with pleasure, yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

(Mr. BISHOP of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

It can be stated very briefly.

The unemployment rate for veterans is beyond acceptance, and these bills hopefully will help. We need to pass more comprehensive legislation so that everybody has a chance at a job. For those who are unemployed and looking for work, we need to act so that, by next February, 2 million people will not be left without unemployment insurance.

But again, these provisions added by the Senate, provisions that were part of the President's bill, will help to address this simply inappropriate, unacceptable, unsatisfactory rate of employment and reemployment for people who have served our country so loyally and so well. So I support this bill and urge its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Ferndale Area Chamber of Commerce in recognition of its 75th anniversary.

Beginning in 1934 as a small, localized Chamber, the Ferndale Area Chamber of Commerce has grown over the last 75 years to become one of the most innovative business organizations in Oakland County with nearly 300 members, ranging from sole proprietorships to the local offices of Fortune 500 companies.

Prior to the incorporation of the City of Ferndale, the first acknowledgement of a ``Board of Commerce'' was made in the minutes of a Village of Ferndale commission meeting in 1918. Comprised of local businessman, known as the Ferndale Boosters, the group worked to promote programs for the betterment of the business community.

On May 14, 1936 the ``Ferndale Board of Commerce'' was officially incorporated as a non-profit in the State of Michigan. The organization became the ``Ferndale Chamber of Commerce'' sometime between 1951 and 1965. In 2009, to reflect the growing geographic diversity of its membership, the Board of Directors of the Ferndale Chamber of Commerce voted to change the name to the ``Ferndale Area Chamber of Commerce.'' This name change became official in 2010 and is more reflective of the Chamber's current membership, which includes 40 percent non-Ferndale businesses, a large number coming from surrounding communities such as the Oak Park and Pleasant Ridge.

As the Chamber notes, many of its goals and ambitions following its creation in 1936 after the Great Depression have been revived as the State of Michigan recovers from its deep recession. As a testament to the Chamber's ability to evolve and strengthen with time, they have partnered with a number of neighboring Chambers to form collaborative relationships that capitalize on the strengths of each Chamber. Today, as in 1936, they are a strong advocate for the betterment of the businesses, communities and residents they serve.

The Chamber's mission over the last 75 years has been simple: to support the interests of businesses and the community through dynamic member-driven partnerships and activities.

I have witnessed firsthand the success the Chamber has with accomplishing this goal. From morning coffee hours and after hour events for member networking, to educational workshops and large, community-wide events such as the Hilton Fall Festival, the Chamber remains a vital part of the community it serves. As we have all worked together to move Oakland County forward, the Chamber has been on the forefront working with multiple partners across the community toward common goals, such as rapid transit along the Woodward Avenue corridor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Ferndale Area Chamber of Commerce in recognition of its 75th anniversary and wishing them many more years of effective service to the Oakland County business community.

Mr. Chair, I strongly support the Dingell/Slaughter amendment and urge its adoption by the House.

This is not primarily a shipping issue, or a sportsman's issue, or an issue for the environmental community. For me, it's a Great Lakes issue. I believe that all sides of this debate support reasonable and achievable ballast water standards that are protective of our nation's aquatic ecosystems against the spread of invasive species. But we can do better than the standards that have been grafted onto this Coast Guard bill.

I represent Lake St. Clair, which is a small but important lake in the Great Lakes system. The lake is heavily used for fishing, boating, and swimming, and it is a source of drinking water for millions. Lake St. Clair is also ground zero for the invasion of zebra mussels in the United States. In the mid-1980s, a ship that had come from a port in Europe dumped its ballast water into Lake St. Clair. From that moment, we have fought a losing battle against the zebra mussels. They have spread throughout the Great Lakes and gone on to invade the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and beyond. The zebra mussels have literally changed the very ecology of the Great Lakes. Millions of dollars are spent each year trying to control them.

Unfortunately, the zebra mussels are not an isolated incident. Hundreds of non-indigenous aquatic invaders have made their way into the Great Lakes in the ballast water of ships. At long last, it's time for the United States to adopt strong ballast water discharge standards. It is the failure of the federal government and this Congress to do so that has prompted the states to take action.

The proposed ballast water standards in the bill before the House are inadequate and risk further damage to the Great Lakes and other aquatic ecosystems in the United States. I cannot support them. I urge the House to adopt the Dingell/Slaughter amendment.

I'm glad we're having this debate. This bill isn't basically a jobs bill, and it puts a Halloween mask on it to say that's what it is, basically.

The gentleman from California talks about manufacturing. The President struggled to save the automobile sector, the domestic sector of this country, over the opposition of many Republicans, including who is now apparently the leading nominee for the Republican Presidential nomination.

If we really want to talk about jobs, what we should do is to turn down the previous question on this bill so we can bring up the currency bill. This will put Republicans to the test on a real jobs bill.

The estimate is, by Fred Bergsten, that passage of legislation like this changing the Chinese undervaluation of their currency would create a million jobs.

No one in authority has said this bill will create any jobs. And Paul Krugman, his estimate is 1.5 million jobs.

And you talk about bipartisanship? This currency bill is truly bipartisan. So it will also put to the test whether you believe in bipartisanship when it comes to a real jobs bill. This bill, H.R. 639, now has 230 sponsors, a majority in the House of Representatives, and it has 62 Republicans, and it passed the Senate, a similar, though not identical bill, with strong Republican support.

So this previous question, everyone who votes, will put you to the test. Do you believe in a real jobs bill? It won't destroy the bill on the floor. It will add to it.

And also, do you really want to not only have bipartisan action, but on a currency bill that will really mean hundreds of thousands of jobs to the American people? Not 6 months from now, as this bill before us might bring about a few, but right in the immediate future, tens of thousands.

So I strongly urge that we vote ``no'' on the previous question and free the majority of the Members of this House to act on a bill that they now sponsor. Free us. Take off the bonds.

Mr. Speaker, one of the enduring beliefs of life in America is that a person can rise through the ranks and achieve success through a combination of hard work, determination, and honesty. This link between hard work and success is one of our country's core values, and appropriately so. Our country is a better place because of the efforts of those who quietly go to work every day, meet the challenges of their jobs, and exceed expectations.

These qualities are not uncommon among the men and women who serve in our nation's Armed Forces, but it's not every day that you can point to someone who has lived up to these standards over a career that spans nearly seven decades. I am pleased to recognize a man who has done just that, John Bruce of Troy, Michigan.

Mr. Bruce served in the South Pacific during World War II as a member of the Army Signal Corps. After being honorably discharged following the war, he began a career at the Detroit Arsenal in 1946 as a cost/ price analyst. Mr. Bruce has been with TACOM ever since, accepting greater and greater responsibilities. He has served as Chief of Payroll, Chief of Financial Accounting, Deputy Comptroller, and Chief of the Detroit Arsenal Procurement Office, to name only a few of the positions he has held over the years.

Mr. Bruce has been honored on many occasions for his service. His awards include the Secretary of the Army Award for outstanding achievement in material acquisition; the Commanders Award for exceptional Civilian Service, the Meritorious Civilian Service Award, the Achievement Medal for Superior Civilian Service, the Superior Civilian Service Award, the Commander's Award for Civilian Service, and the Department of the Army Decoration for Exceptional Service.

Mr. Bruce is a graduate of UCLA, where he earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration. He and his late wife, Jean, have two daughters, Nancy and Barbara.

When John Bruce retires on his 94th birthday on December 3, he will be TACOM's and the Army's longest serving employee. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in expressing our gratitude to Mr. Bruce for his many years of service to the nation. Congratulations for a remarkable career and a job well done.

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

I rise in support of this bill. It should have happened earlier. I think most of us, if not all of us, agree that this provision should be repealed. It is not narrowly targeted, and it would indeed impose significant and costly burdens on Federal, State, and local governments. I think we should all remind ourselves it was passed some years ago; and it was, I think, misguided when it was enacted in 2006 when we in the minority here did not control the Congress. Indeed, the Ways and Means Committee when we were in the majority approved a repeal of the provision in 2009, and the Congress ultimately delayed its effective date.

I do want to comment on the title of this bill that refers to job creation, and it should be noted that this is really not going to address the need for creation of jobs in our country. We have been here now 10 months. There is still no effort by the majority here in the House to bring up any meaningful jobs legislation; and when the President brings up proposals to create jobs, they are thwarted by the majority here and by the Republicans in the Senate.

So let's support this bill but not pretend that it will create jobs; and in this respect I refer to a recent statement by Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody's Analytics who said this about this bill: ``I don't think it's meaningful in terms of jobs. It's more trying to clean up something that needs cleaning up.'' Indeed, this needs to be cleaned up. Therefore, we need to pass it.

Let me also comment on--and we'll talk about this later on the second bill--the pay-for. I went before the Rules Committee to ask that there be consideration of a different pay-for, what we'll be considering later. I just want everybody to understand the facts, and each can judge on his or her own how they'll vote. The impact of the pay-for that came through the Ways and Means Committee could cause up to 500,000 individuals to lose health care coverage.

I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that would have offset the cost of a business tax provision by closing a loophole on the business side that's improperly enjoyed by oil and gas industry giants. Unfortunately, my amendment was ruled out of order. We'll talk about that later.

We're now on this bill. I urge its support. Let's not pretend it's a job creation bill. Let's get busy here on bills that will indeed help to promote jobs in the private sector of the United States of America, as our President has proposed and he has pleaded that there be consideration by the House and the Senate, only to be responded to with deaf ears.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is a lead sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to a most active member of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

In closing, I support this legislation. It should not have been passed in the first place. It was not vetted effectively by the then majority. It's time. We tried before. It's time to now support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to a very distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Crowley, from the State of New York.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Does the majority have additional speakers? If so, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Is the majority ready to close?

I yield to the gentleman from New York, and then I will close.

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

First of all, I'm glad that the majority leader came to the floor to talk about jobs. This set of bills is not a jobs bill. To call it that is a pure smoke screen. I quoted Mark Zandi before: ``I don't think it's meaningful in terms of jobs. It's more trying to clean up something that needs cleaning up.'' That's the 3 percent withholding bill.

The Majority Leader called upon the Senate to act, to act on bills that essentially would allow mercury to continue to be accessible. And other bills that are called jobs bills, deregulation where it's necessary to regulate, that's a jobs bill? And the Majority Leader called again on the Senate to act.

We haven't had a single hearing here in the House on the President's jobs bill. Not a single hearing.

The President has proposed to cut the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of the businesses. A complete payroll tax holiday for adding workers; extending 100 percent expensing, not a single hearing on that.

Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, not a single hearing on that. Don't call on the Senate. The majority leader should call on the House himself and the committees to hold hearings on these bills.

The infrastructure bill, a bipartisan national infrastructure bank, not a single hearing.

And then unemployment insurance, at the end of this year, in next month, a million people will lose their unemployment benefits if we don't act and extend the Federal program; and a million and a half by mid-February. So I call upon the House to act.

A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring the long-term unemployed, not a single hearing. No action. I suggest to the majority they not look to the other body, but to look to themselves.

So I'm glad the Majority Leader came here. Now, I want to say just a word about the bill right before us. Mr. Crowley has suggested that we look at the facts, and I think we should. Before we vote, I think all of us want to know what we're voting on. And essentially this revision of the modified adjusted gross income provision in terms of potential impact on health care, according to the Joint Tax Committee and the CBO, will likely have this effect, and I want everybody to understand it: between 500,000 and a million individuals will no longer be eligible for Medicaid. That's their estimate. Of those who no longer are eligible for Medicaid, about 500,000 will be eligible for tax credits unless the Republicans ever succeeded in eliminating them. But of that additional number, between 500,000 and a million, about 500,000 people as a result, if this bill becomes law, will likely lose their health coverage altogether unless they had available to them insurance through their employer. That's the estimate of the Joint Tax Committee.

We're talking about vulnerable populations here. We're talking about early retirees, and we're talking about the disabled. And we need to understand those facts as presented by the Joint Tax Committee and by

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

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