Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

I continue to reserve.

I want to say briefly, we have already debated this issue. This is not a germane amendment. Also what it is, is an effort to use emergency funds targeted to create jobs to fund emergency unemployment insurance. This is another excuse on the part of the minority that won't work.

If we pass this, this bill will go over to the Senate. Hopefully, it will be their first order of business when they return. Mr. Speaker, 1.7 million have already lost their unemployment insurance. It will be over that by several hundred thousand when they return.

There's a reference here to jobs that are lost. I want to just quickly repeat what was said during the debate. During the 8 years of the Bush administration, there was a loss of 673,000 private sector jobs. And in the first 5 months of this administration, there has been a gain of 495,000 private sector jobs.

We're aware. Not enough has been done. But compared to the Bush years, we have made some progress. And those who are still unemployed should not suffer because of the indifference of the minority. That's what this is all about.

Point of Order

I now insist on my point of order that the gentleman's motion is not germane to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, Section 211(a) of the bill before us gives funding relief to multiemployer defined benefit plans, by giving them more time to make up for the severe investment losses that they suffered in 2008 and the first quarter of 2009.

One of the options would give multiemployer plans that meet a solvency test permission to amortize the net investment losses incurred either or both of the first 2 plan years ending after August 31, 2008 over 30 years. The other option--which can be elected independent of the plans' decisions on the first choice--would allow multiemployer plans to smooth those losses up to 10 years, in determining the actuarial value of their assets. The full market value of the investment loss is intended to be calculated as the difference between the actual market value of the assets and the expected market value of those assets, calculated using the assumed rate of return used by the actuary for valuation purposes, at the end of the relevant plan year, with adjustments for contributions and disbursements. In addition, it is also intended that multiemployer plans are to be permitted to reflect the full amount of those losses in their funding calculations, including those portions of the losses that will be recognized over a period of up to 10 years in the actuarial value of assets.

The bill limits the circumstances under which plans that elect either or both of the funding relief approaches may only be amended to increase benefits. It is intended that those restrictions apply for the first 2 plan years after the plan year in which relief is first reflected in the funding standard account. For instance, if the multiemployer plan chooses extended amortization for the losses incurred in the 2008 plan year, that would first be reflected in the funding standard account for the 2009 plan year, and the benefit- increase restrictions would apply for the 2010 and 2011 plan years; if extended amortization (or 10-year smoothing) is also used for losses incurred in 2009, the restrictions would apply for the 2011 and 2012 plan years. I note that a special effective date rule applies the restrictions only to benefit increases that become effective after the date of enactment.

The funding relief approaches are also intended to be available to plans that use actuarial funding methods that do not identify experience gains and losses as separate items. Treasury and the IRS is expected to allow all multiemployer plans to use the relief, either as an overlay to a funding method that otherwise does not produce experience gains and losses or by giving blanket permission to multiemployer plans to switch to a method that does produce them, effective for all relevant plan years, and without regard to procedural restrictions in relevant Treasury and IRS guidance (such as Revenue Procedure 2001-40) on the number of method changes a plan can adopt within a given period of years or the deadline for electing the change for a given plan year.

It is also intended that the funding relief approaches be made available in the case of a plan for which the deadline for determining funded status has already passed, and for a plan for which the deadline is approaching so quickly that plan sponsors and actuaries will have little time to take the relief into account in making these determinations. It is intended that Treasury and the IRS will provide a reasonable period for plan actuaries, if directed to do so by plan trustees, to withdraw their zone certifications for the first plan year that started after September 30, 2009, and substitute revised certifications if the result is different when the relief is taken into account. Treasury and the IRS is also expected to treat plan actuaries as not violating the deadlines for pending status certifications, even if they are completed within a reasonable period after the statutory due date, so that they can take account of changes due to the relief.

Finally, because time is of the essence, it is expected that the Secretary of the Treasury and IRS will issue guidance under this legislation promptly after the bill's enactment and that such guidance will provide that an action taken in good faith based on a reasonable interpretation of the legislation (including these statements) until the guidance is issued will be deemed to comply with the legislative provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Almost two years ago, this House was faced with painful dilemma: risk the collapse of our financial system and a second Great Depression, or take action to stabilize financial markets. The comprehensive financial regulatory reform before us will help to ensure that we are never again forced to choose between bailing out banks and saving our economy.

In the run up to the financial crisis, rampant speculation, and in some cases fraud, in the residential housing and mortgage markets combined with an explosion of complexity in our financial markets to create a bubble that when it burst, rippled through our entire economy. The financial crisis that began in 2008 was the worst since the Great Depression and was enabled and made worse by a lax regulatory environment that for many years failed to properly supervise financial markets and control the risks Wall Street was creating.

Under the bill before us, for the first time, there will be a federal regulatory body with the responsibility to identify and address systemic risks to our economy. Transparency will be brought to derivatives markets so that these complex financial instruments cannot transmit shockwaves through our financial system. Consumers will be able to get the clear, accurate information they need to shop for credit cards, mortgages and other financial products, rather than being sold products that are too good to be true by unregulated lenders who know they are unaffordable.

Mr. Speaker, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act will restore responsibility, accountability and transparency to our financial markets. I urge all of my colleagues to stand with the working Americans who have been the victims of the financial crisis rather than defend a discredit ideology that says government is always wrong and markets are always right. We have seen in the last two years that markets can get out of control, and we need appropriate structures in place to ensure that our financial markets work for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5618) to continue Federal unemployment programs.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the

chairman of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), a member of our committee.

I simply want to say to the gentleman from Texas he will have to go home, if he votes ``no,'' and give an explanation why he voted ``no'' when 113,000 residents of the State of Texas will have lost unemployment benefits by the end of this week without the enactment of this bill; 113,000.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a distinguished member of our committee.

It's now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, Charles Rangel.

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

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a distinguished Member, Mr. Rich Neal.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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 H.R. 5618.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I have listened to my colleague from Michigan who comes here almost alone, and I think those who vote ``no'' when they go back home are really going to find themselves basically alone, because those who vote ``no'' have no place to hide.

This is an emergency for 1.7 million people and their families right now; therefore, it's an emergency for the community of the United States of America. And that 1.7 million will grow and grow under this banner that is floated by the minority.

Look, the excuses fall of their own lack of weight. You say we did nothing on the Democratic side. Yes, we passed a bill that extended unemployment insurance. They could not find a single Republican in the Senate to vote for that bill. And so you finger point at those who acted and excuse those who refused to act?

And you bring up the deficit, a deficit that grew under the previous administration. You can't hide behind that. This is an emergency.

You can't hide behind the Republican bill either because, as I understand it, it was for 1 month paid for and that month is gone. You have not come up with any responsible, feasible way to excuse inaction.

Unemployment insurance was extended many times under Republican Presidents, so you don't even have that excuse.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

There's no excuse, and so what was done under previous administrations, Republican and Democratic, should be done right today. I'm afraid you don't see that there's an emergency for the families, soon to be 2 million.

And also, let me say in terms of economic growth, when you provide unemployment insurance to people, they spend it. So, if you're worried about growth and consumer demand, put money in the pockets of people who are desperate, who are out of work, who are looking for work. Instead, you turn your back on them.

I want to read a story. I met this person in Hazel Park, Michigan, last weekend. He served 3 years and 9 months in the U.S. Army, including a year tour in Iraq. He has an associate's degree from a community college and a bachelor's degree. He was employed by a loan company, a mortgage company, as a broker, and then the mortgage crisis came and he was laid off. He was unemployed for 3 years, and then he was hired by Kmart as an assistant store manager. He was laid off in 2009, August, due to store closings.

He has currently, approximately, 4 weeks left on his Tier 1 extension, due to expire on July 14. There are 1.7 million people like this gentleman already in this country.

I don't know how you look them in the face. I don't know how you explain a ``no'' vote. I think the flimsy arguments that are used won't work in this hall and won't work back home.

This is an emergency. I really can't believe that people from the minority are going to come here and vote ``no.'' They are voting ``no'' for millions. I think they are voting ``no'' for what is best in the United States of America. We are a community of people. When people lose their jobs and can't find them, we don't simply stand idly by. This is the time for you to stand up, and the only way to stand up is to vote ``yes.''

I plead on behalf of the millions of people in this country who are out of work, who are looking for jobs, that you provide the unemployment insurance that they have worked for and that should be provided. Don't turn your backs on them. In the end, there will be no excuse, no excuse, no excuse.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5623) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the homebuyer tax credit for the purchase of a principal residence before October 1, 2010, in the case of a written binding contract entered into with respect to such principal residence before May 1, 2010, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, millions of American families have taken advantage of the home buyer tax credit, giving a much-needed boost to home sales at a time when our housing market needed it most. In a word, this tax credit has worked. It gave a boost to our economic recovery, and it helped first-time buyers achieve their dream, the American Dream of owning a home.

Today's legislation helps ensure the credit works for people who have followed the terms of the incentive. Under current law, taxpayers that entered into a written, binding contract to purchase a home prior to May 1, 2010, are eligible for the home buyer tax credit so long as the sale was completed prior to July 1, 2010. The bill would extend this closing date from prior to July 1, 2010, to prior to October 1, 2010. As a result, taxpayers that entered into a written, binding contract prior to May 1, 2010, will have until September 30, 2010, and I emphasize that, until September 30, 2010, to complete their home purchase transactions.

This legislation also takes important steps to eliminate instances of fraud that were recently discovered by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration relating to prison inmates. Last year, the Oversight Subcommittee chair, Mr. Lewis, took the lead in examining issues of abuse, and this clearly is one, and so this bill addresses this abuse very effectively.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a necessary step to extend this benefit to those who qualify and the need to facilitate their purchases, and also, it addresses the issue of fraud. This legislation is fully paid for, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the bill and follow through on our commitment to thousands and thousands of home buyers who have followed the rules and now should be able to follow through with their purchase.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my special privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Kathy Dahlkemper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert any extraneous material in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Speaker, now it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a very vigorous Representative, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Before I recognize the next distinguished gentleman, I just sit here. Even on a bipartisan supported bill, we get such partisan rhetoric. I hope everybody listens to it.

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes, or as much time as he may consume, to a very active Member of Congress, the gentleman from the proud State of Mississippi (Mr. Childers).

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Thompson, to me dated June 29, 2010, and a letter from me as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to Mr. Thompson.

Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, June 29, 2010.

Hon. Sander M. Levin,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing you regarding the

``Homebuyer Assistance and Improvement Act of 2010.''

This legislation contains provisions within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. I

recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and,

accordingly, have waived further consideration of the

measure. I have done so with the understanding that waiving

consideration of the bill should not be construed as the

Committee on Homeland Security waiving, altering, or

otherwise affecting its jurisdiction over subject matters

contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X

jurisdiction.

Further, I request your support for the appointment of

Homeland Security conferees during any House-Senate

conference convened on this or similar legislation. I also

ask that a copy of this letter and your response be placed in

the Congressional Record during floor consideration of this

bill.

I look forward to working with you on this legislation and

other matters of great importance to this nation.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman.

I can close very briefly. This bill is meritorious. It deserves bipartisan support, and I hope very much it will receive it. We owe this to the people who have essentially followed the rules who are caught by a closing date.

This is a credit. There is often question about, is the effort of the recovery program and like programs working? This is an example of it working, and in fact working so actively that now it is necessary and I think correct that we make sure that people who have advantaged themselves of it correctly are able to follow through.

So I urge a strong vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, known as the DISCLOSE Act. This legislation, quite simply, is about giving voters information on who is trying to influence an election and how much money they are spending to do so. The American people deserve the benefit of this information as they decide how to vote.

Unfortunately, the trend in recent years has been toward less transparency in election spending. Organizations hiding behind generic or even misleading names have spent millions of dollars in political advertising, often not to promote their own ideas but to attack a candidate or cause. Posing as grassroots citizens groups, too often advertisements turn out to be astroturf campaigns funded by corporations, industry trade associations, and political interests. Their purposes may be to confuse or even deceive voters and, without the ability to know an advertisement's sponsors, the voters are missing vital information that would help them arrive at their own conclusions.

This trend in political advertisements was already on an unsustainable path when the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on direct corporate and union spending on elections. This decision opened the floodgates to a wave of new money, all of which could be spent from behind a curtain of secrecy.

The DISCLOSE Act pulls back the curtain. It requires the CEO or President of the sponsoring corporation, union, or advocacy organization to stand by their ad, just as candidates must. The bill requires these organizations to inform their members or shareholders of their election-related spending so that the decision makers can be held accountable. It requires spending amounts to be posted online and, for those shadow groups that seem to form overnight, advertisements will be required to list their top five funders, and the organization will need to make a list of their large donors available to the public.

The DISCLOSE Act also steps in to bar spending from those who should not be able to interfere in elections: corporations controlled by foreigners as well as government contractors and TARP recipients who should not be able to spend taxpayer money on election activities.

There is no doubt that the DISCLOSE Act represents a significant improvement over current law and a step worth taking. It is time to pull back the curtain and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3962) to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of my time be controlled by the gentleman

from California (Mr. Waxman), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, on the Senate amendments to H.R. 3962.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall use.

This is a flawed bill that we are now considering. We are forced to consider it because of the Republican filibuster of action on the jobs and tax bill now pending in the other body. This bill does not adequately address the need for a longer-term solution to avoid the disastrous cut in Medicare physician reimbursement that is currently impacting doctors and, most importantly, seniors and military servicemembers.

Republicans in the other body have been stonewalling the basic bill, the jobs bill, week after week after week. Doing so, they have placed a hammerlock on the lives of millions of Americans. A much better course would be for Republicans in the other body to begin to side with the American people instead of stonewalling against them, and not with their party leaders nor the Tea Party, and allow a straight up-or-down vote on the comprehensive jobs bill pending in the other body.

Instead, they are willing to put politics before people, and they are leaving millions of unemployed workers thrown out of work by this recession through no fault of their own without their unemployment insurance benefits. Instead, they seem willing to let loopholes that permit jobs to be shipped overseas continue to remain open. Republicans, in a word, are saying to the American people that they care more about their political futures than they do the daily lives of millions and millions of Americans.

We will not let that stand. We will continue to stand on the side of seniors and the physicians who treat them, on the side of unemployed workers and their families, on the side of millions who are looking for jobs, on the side of youth seeking employment, and on the side of those who would benefit from tax measures and bond measures that are supporting millions of jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman acknowledges he voted for a permanent fix. He was the only one on the Republican side. There was nobody else. You have refused, on the Republican side, to vote for a permanent fix.

I yield myself another 15 seconds.

Instead, we're stuck with this bill because we could not get a single vote for a bill that is better than this in the Senate from a Republican. That's why we're here today.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the Senate amendments to H.R. 3962.

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

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

I understand the Senate is about to vote--I think has begun its vote--on the comprehensive jobs bill, helping to pay for it, so that companies don't ship jobs overseas. So what we're doing now, in view of what seems inevitable in the Senate, is take up one piece of that bill. The SGR provision is in the bill now before the Senate, and that, I'm afraid, will be turned down. And what the fact is, we have to act because patients, military personnel, their physicians, need action. But it's the inaction of Republicans in the other House; it really is bringing us to this point.

And despite efforts, and valiant efforts, by the majority leader in the Senate, in the other House, and the Finance chair in the other body, it now seems absolutely certain there won't be a single Republican vote for that comprehensive bill that has this piece in it.

What the Democrats in the other body have faced is a Republican phalanx, without a single one on the minority side willing to step up and vote for a bill that this country needs. So I serve notice: We on this side will not give up. A million and half Americans today who are out of work, who are looking for work, have lost their benefits because of the phalanx in the other

body. There's reference to turning the corner here. No. The minority in the other House, as was true here, have been turning their backs.

So much is at stake. I mentioned just a few parts of that bill--the R&D tax credit; Build America Bonds that have helped put millions of people to work; provisions regarding housing; summer employment for 300,000 young people who want to work, who need work. So because of this phalanx among Republicans in the other body, as was true here, we were faced with this alternative to pass this so-called fix now.

And it's interesting. We tried some months ago to have a permanent resolution of this. And, as mentioned, only one Republican voted for it. In May, we had a 19-month provision in the jobs bill, and it just could not pass the Senate, apparently, and very, very few, if any, here on the Republican side supported it.

So here we are. A Republican phalanx. So we're going to act on this bill. And I assure you, we on this side will not give up on the basic interest of the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to congratulate Mr. Berman and the ranking member that this indeed is a critical achievement not only because it sends a clear and unambiguous message that Iran must end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, but because it provides the President with powerful tools to achieve this crucial objective.

It will reinforce and enhance the administration's efforts regarding Iran. It provides the administration with a renewed mandate and substantial leverage to employ against the regime of Iran toward the goal of stopping its development of weapons of mass destruction and support of terrorism. What could be more important?

It is also not only fundamentally in the national interest but in the interests of the international community. A nuclearized Iran that supports terrorism is simply unacceptable. And it's encouraging that the U.S. is not acting alone. The international community has spoken. Thanks to the administration's leadership, supported by this Congress and the support of key allies, the U.N. Security Council adopted expansive and severe sanctions on Iran. And this legislation builds off of the Security Council sanctions.

Diplomacy and strong multilateral sanctions have been a critical part of this process. The more countries that participate in this mission, the more effective it will be. And this bill, thanks to the leadership here, has built on this essential premise.

I look forward to the passage of this legislation, and I thank the administration for its leadership on this issue, and you, Mr. Chairman, for your tremendous work on moving this legislation forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to join with John Dingell, a true champion of the automobile industry of this country for over 50 years, as we join together to honor Ron Gettelfinger.

As we know, he recently retired as president of the United Auto Workers. Through a period of unprecedented difficulty, and I emphasize that, for this industry of ours, Ron Gettelfinger worked tirelessly on behalf of auto workers and helped the industry and the union emerge reinvigorated and more competitive. So it is my privilege to join others to pay tribute to you, Ron, today.

A proud auto worker, Ron Gettelfinger joined the UAW in 1964 as a chassis line repairman at Ford's Louisville assembly plant. The workers at the plant elected him to represent him as committee person, bargaining chair, and in 1984 as president of Local 862. His leadership and vigorous commitment to auto workers soon elevated him to the Ford- UAW bargaining committee; to the head of UAW Region 3 representing Indiana and Kentucky; and to UAW vice president. And in 2002, Ron Gettelfinger was elected president of the union and reelected in 2006.

His tenure as UAW president saw exceptional challenges--to understate it--that critics said neither the union nor the automakers could overcome. This indeed was a period of painful job loss for tens of thousands of families. And during this difficult time, Ron Gettelfinger's dedication to working families never waned as he fought to preserve jobs while helping to keep the industry afloat. I am proud to have been among those who worked with him during this period of great uncertainty. This was a collaborative effort. It took leadership and at times political risk. Key leaders stepped up to the plate, management and labor, and the public sector, led by the President and his administration, and Members of the House and Senate.

In the wake of immense challenge, the American automotive industry is emerging anew. Exciting new vehicle technologies, growing consumer confidence and strong quality and safety ratings offer hope for the new prosperity for the American auto industry and its workers.

Ron Gettelfinger's commitment to the American auto industry and its workers has been unyielding over his career.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join in congratulating Mr. Gettelfinger; his wife, Judy; and their children and grandchildren on the occasion of his retirement from the union he loved so deeply, the

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 1436, I call up the bill (H.R. 5486) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for small business job creation, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bill, H.R. 5486, the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act of 2010, is, in a few words, a continuation of our work to spur job creation and to really improve the quality of life in all of our communities. Since the beginning of this year, our economy has created 982,000 jobs. That is a reversal of 22 straight months of job losses, a very long stretch indeed. But we all know that far too many people today are out of work and the unemployment rate remains at a very unacceptably high 9.7 percent. So something considerable has been done, but we have to do more.

According to the SBA--and I think we all know this--small firms created 64 percent of the net new jobs between 1993 and the third quarter of 2008. So small businesses help lead job creation in a recovery, but today, small firms are having difficulty accessing capital.

So what does this bill do? It provides a total of $3.588 billion in tax cuts to help American small businesses. It is part of the partnership between the public and the private sector, relying on the private sector to do the job creation. And I want to emphasize, this bill does not add a dime to our deficit. It doesn't even add a penny to our deficit.

So let me explain the provisions in H.R. 5486. First of all, relating to business stock, small business stock, and capital gains, presently there's an exclusion of 75 percent because of the Recovery Act, and I emphasize that. This would increase the exclusion to 100 percent. It provides relief for small businesses from tax penalties when that is indeed appropriate. It also increases the deduction for startup costs for expenses not related to capital or equipment. It increases it from $5,000 to $20,000. So these are important stimuli for small business to help them create more jobs.

As I said earlier, this is offset. It will not add a dime or, indeed, a penny to the Federal deficit. It includes two provisions that have already passed this House. One relates to what is sometimes called a grandchild of black liquor. It relates to essentially a byproduct. What this does, building on the work that we did in earlier bills, is to prevent people from receiving a windfall from unintended application of renewable fuel credits.

The second part relates to what are called grantor retained annuity trusts, and I want to just say a quick word about this. This is clearly a loophole. This is clearly an abuse. Here's what happens, to try to put it in the simplest terms: A short-term trust usually is created by someone for a child. Then the person who created the trust takes back the value, let's say, in a few annual payments. So there's no gift tax for the grantor. The way it works today, all of the increase in the value of the stock is also outside of the gift tax.

So, essentially, what is happening here is a paper transaction that leads to escape of taxation, and this provides in our bill that there has to be a 10-year term for the trust to be sure that the trust has actual substance. This change raises $5.297 billion over 10 years. So what this means, breaking it down in simple terms, is that about $500 million per year from taxpayers is lost today through paper transactions, and we close the loophole. So, again, because of this, there is not any added cost.

We also, if I might say so and will be discussing this I guess tomorrow, it provides money for the small business lending package, H.R. 5297. So that is also budget neutral, and that provides some additional important small business loan help so badly needed. It's

hard to understand why people would vote against this. Plus, a provision that is $2 billion worth, and it goes to States and local governments, and they have written us, urging that we provide some assistance so that they can increase the flow of loans to small businesses in their States.

So, in a word, we have a bill that is essentially a two-fer. It provides needed assistance for job creation by small business, and it's paid for. So I urge very much that somehow the other side can cross the bridge and join together instead of creating obstacles and vote for this bill and then its partner bill tomorrow.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Before I yield, I just want to say to Mr. Camp, I listened intently, and I can't understand your opposition. You like the provisions. You don't like what we once passed. If you don't like what we passed before--and I disagree with you--it's even more of a reason to vote for this bill.

You complain about permanent changes. We're closing a loophole permanently. You want us to close it temporarily? And we're preventing a provision coming into effect that should never come into effect.

So I just urge people to listen to the quality of this discussion, and I think, so far, it all points to everybody on both sides of the aisle voting for this bill. It helps small business. That's been acknowledged, and you don't challenge the tax cuts in terms of their merits. You talk about another tax cut in another bill you didn't like. I think you find it hard to find anything you like.

I now yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee, our distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

You say do better; you won't vote for anything.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) to explain why this is more than de minimus, a bill that needs to be voted on on a bipartisan basis.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

I yield an additional 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Allyson Schwartz.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished Member from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I think anybody who has listened to this debate, if they're at all objective, will be completely puzzled by the arguments of the minority. They say this bill won't do anything. But then they say there are tax increases to pay for it that are permanent. That's worse than a lame argument. It's completely without merit and is vacuous. The bill is scored for small business in terms of the exclusion from capital gains tax over 10 years at almost $2 billion. That's nothing. It provides relief from penalties. Over $175 million to small business. That's nothing. It provides an increased deduction for startup expenditures that provides over half a billion dollars, as scored. That's nothing.

Now what's nothing are your arguments. And so you come here, I think, afraid to vote ``yes'' because it will blur your political message. You say you agree with these provisions, but then you're going to vote ``no.'' You just don't apparently want to be caught being bipartisan. It's going to blur a political message.

I don't understand your argument that the tax provisions are permanent. You don't argue these aren't loopholes. They're loopholes. And you criticize us for closing a loophole permanently, and then you say it's for spending, but you don't really challenge the validity of the spending. We do pay for some moneys for the second bill that's coming up because it provides loans to small businesses, and it also provides States that have written us supporting this bill, including your State, Mr. Camp, saying that they will use this money well to help collateral support for small businesses.

So it's worse than puzzling. I think it's a pathetic effort to find an excuse to vote ``no.'' So then you come up with the argument you have a motion to recommit.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I'll be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.

So then there's a motion to recommit to repeal an individual mandate. All I can say is that the individual mandate was the basis of the Republican health care proposal in 1993 and 1994. And now you come up and say you want to eliminate it. This is another entangled position of yours. You're tying yourselves into knots trying to oppose a bill that will provide help for small business. Maybe it's useless to appeal for bipartisanship to the other side.

I close asking for support.

Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with today's consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives of H.R. 5486, the ``Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act of 2010,'' I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the provisions included H.R. 5486. This technical explanation reflects the Ways and Means Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind those provisions. It is available on the Joint Committee on Taxation website at www.jct.gov and is listed under document number JCX-31-10.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of the point of order, and I rise in opposition to the motion.

Colleagues, individual responsibility is a cornerstone of health reform to ensure that every American has affordable health insurance coverage, and that's why it was included in the GOP 1994 reform. So this is nothing more, nothing more than a disingenuous political stunt to undermine health reform.

Without individual responsibility, it would mean that we could not eliminate exclusions for preexisting conditions. We could not prohibit insurers from refusing to cover someone when they apply. We could not prohibit insurance companies from charging more when you get sick. And according to the CBO, if this were to pass, it would result in the loss of coverage for more than 16 million Americans: 6 million of the most needy among us, 5 million who would lose their insurance from their employers, 5 million who would lose individual insurance. It would raise health insurance premiums for every American buying coverage through the exchange by nearly 20 percent.

This is a small business bill, and it would hurt small business. It would reduce assistance to them to provide health care to their workers, and it would increase taxes on individuals and employers who failed to cover their workers. This is misguided, period. We should defeat this in a round fashion.

Now I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

I urge a resounding ``no'' vote, and therefore I happily yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with the May 28, 2010, consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives of House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213, ``The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010,'' I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the provisions included in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213. This technical explanation reflects the Ways and Means Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind those provisions. It is available on the Joint Committee on Taxation website at www.jct.gov and is listed under document number JCX-29-10.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment by Representative Murphy to repeal the ``Don't Ask Don't Tell'' policy.

The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is discriminatory and it harms U.S. military readiness. Over the last 17 years, our nation has paid a heavy price for pursuing this policy. Since 1993, more than 13,000 qualified, well trained men and women have been dismissed from the military simply because of their sexual orientation. These are men and women we could ill afford to lose, especially at a time when our armed forces are engaged in two major military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is why so many of this country's highest current and retired military leaders favor repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen. Admiral Mullen recently wrote, ``No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.'' Retired General Colin Powell and the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili also have urged repeal.

The argument has been made that repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell would negatively affect military unit cohesion. The evidence simply does not support this. Many other countries--including Britain, Canada and Israel--successfully allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. In any case, the Murphy amendment specifically states that repeal will take place only after the President and our nation's military leaders certify that the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement repeal and that these policies are consistent with military standards for readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention.

I will be speaking at greater length, though only for a few minutes, when the rule passes.

I want to say just a few things about what this bill is all about. The basic bill has been here for more than a week, and so anyone who says they don't know what's in it has failed to read it. It says, and it means, jobs and jobs and jobs.

There are provisions for business, there are provisions for local communities in terms of infrastructure. We're talking about supporting millions of jobs in this country, and so we will get to that.

I think your discomfort is that this indeed is a jobs bill and it will create more jobs, and the path has been started some months ago. Contrary to the path under the Bush administration, when jobs were lost, now they are being gained, and this bill will help gain them further.

Secondly, the gentleman from California talked about the unemployment rate in California. This bill extends unemployment compensation through the end of November of this year. So when he has a chance to help the hundreds of thousands of unemployed people who are looking for work in California--and those of you on the minority side who also face unemployment and who have tens, if not thousands, of people who are unemployed--how are you going to vote? Are you going to turn your backs on the unemployed who are looking for work? We'll have to see.

And then there is some reference to the tax provisions. As I will explain, there are numerous tax provisions to help small business in this bill, numerous provisions: the R&D tax credit; the biodiesel tax credit, which many want; the provision for real estate improvements to maintain the 15-year depreciation, which helps to stimulate jobs; jobs for service industries overseas, which they want; and allowing manufacturers to be able to use their AMT.

This is paid for, unlike the years I sat on the Ways and Means Committee under the Republicans when there was never anything paid for.

So the complaint is now we are closing loopholes. We're closing provisions worked out with the administration, that asked for a much larger package, that will make sure that the foreign tax credit is not abused so that jobs are shipped overseas. So instead, jobs are created in the United States of America. So this is about a jobs bill, a jobs bill to create jobs in the United States of America and to help those who can't find them get some help.

We will talk about the physician fix, or the effort to treat it--it's not really a fix. It's to provide reimbursement to physicians so that they can provide care for their patients. And so you say it's only 19 months. When you were in power, that was the most you did, and usually there was much less out. You're going to vote against that? Well, we'll see.

And there is a provision here relating to veterans, and I close with reference to this: The Military Officers Association of America has sent a letter saying they ``have strong support for H.R. 4213. The Military Officers Association of America is also grateful that H.R. 4213 includes authority to implement the administration's proposal to phase out the disability offset to military retired pay for servicemembers forced into premature medical retirement as a result of service-caused disabilities.''

``It is patently inequitable that current law forces these members to fund their own VA disability compensation by forfeiting most or all of their military retired pay. H.R. 4213 properly acknowledges that such members should be vested for retired pay earned by service, independent of any service-caused disability.''

The test will come in a few hours where you stand on jobs and where you stand for the veterans of this country.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1403, I call up the bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

We will be voting on two amendments. I want to comment first on that relating to jobs. It is major job legislation. Included are billions for financing infrastructure, Build America Bonds. And here is what one school district said. I read it because it applies to school districts, to communities, to people throughout this country.

The Build America Bonds have been used in virtually every State, probably in most counties. Here is what one superintendent said.

``Build America Bonds proved to be a brass tacks approach to address critical needs in our school district such as new school buses, roof replacements, and technology upgrades. Relief provided by BABs allowed us to ensure taxpayers a lower interest rate while at the same time putting people to work.''

There is also authority for other important bonds. There are tax incentives in this bill for business relating to jobs. The R&D tax credit, the biodiesel tax credit. There is a provision, it's an incentive for retailers to invest in their real estate, infrastructure, building jobs, and also provisions to help U.S. companies compete overseas, not taking their jobs overseas, and allowing manufacturers to use AMT tax credits, otherwise unused for investment in the United States of America and for jobs in the United States of America.

SBA loans to small businesses, summer jobs programs, overall more than $26 billion here for job creation, as well as for individual tax relief.

We essentially pay for this bill with a provision where you invest your own money, you get a capital gains. If you manage other people's money, ordinary income. We phase it in so that there will be a period of time for this to occur, as well as closing loopholes in the use of foreign credit so companies don't shift their jobs overseas.

The second part of this amendment relates to unemployment insurance. I will say this very, very briefly. Those who vote ``no'' are essentially going to say to millions of workers in this country, Your benefits will not be available even though you are looking for work.

The second amendment relates to SGR, and this relates not only to physicians, but most importantly to the families that they treat. If we don't act, there will be a 21 percent cut in reimbursement for physicians and also for military families. Now, this is provided by statutory PAYGO.

So colleagues, the choice is clear. This is about American jobs, this is for unemployment for those looking for work who can't find it, and it's for physicians to avoid a 21 percent cut. This is not only about physicians, but their patients under Medicare.

We must act; we must move on this now. The Senate will then have to move quickly when they return. We must stand on the side of supporting American jobs and preventing outsourcing of those jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman.

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

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee--this is about infrastructure and transportation--Jim Oberstar.

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York, Charles Rangel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4213.

I am privileged to yield 2 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.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. George Miller of California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Lewis of Georgia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), another distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), another member of our committee, a distinguished member indeed.

Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record a letter from the AARP in support of the SGR provision for physicians under Medicare and their patients.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), chair of the Joint Economic Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my more than distinct privilege, and I repeat that, more than my distinct privilege, to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

I yield myself 30 seconds and then the balance of the time to the majority leader.

In a word, the minority objects when we pay for jobs bills after years of their creating deficits. They object when there is an emergency under statutory PAYGO and we provide for unemployment comp. So in a word or a few words, they project nothing either constructive or positive.

Mr. Speaker, I end on both a constructive and positive note by yielding the balance of my time to our distinguished majority leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.