[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 120 (Tuesday, August 10, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6604-H6625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATION JOBS AND MEDICAID ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1606, I call up
the bill (H.R. 1586) to modernize the air traffic control system,
improve the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by
air in the United States, provide for modernization of the air traffic
control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and
for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to
the Senate amendment thereto, and offer the motion at the desk.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment.
The text of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment to House amendment to Senate amendment:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
short title
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``______Act
of____''.
TITLE I
EDUCATION JOBS FUND
education jobs funds
Sec. 101. There are authorized to be appropriated and there
are appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise obligated for necessary expenses for an Education
Jobs Fund, $10,000,000,000: Provided, That the amount under
this heading shall be administered under the terms and
conditions of sections 14001 through 14013 and title XV of
division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5) except as follows:
(1) Allocation of funds.--
(A) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be
available only for allocation by the Secretary of Education
(in this heading referred to as the Secretary) in accordance
with subsections (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 14001
of division A of Public Law 111-5 and subparagraph (B) of
this paragraph, except that the amount reserved under such
subsection (b) shall not exceed $1,000,000 and such
subsection (f) shall be applied by substituting one year for
two years.
[[Page H6605]]
(B) Prior to allocating funds to States under section
14001(d) of division A of Public Law 111-5, the Secretary
shall allocate 0.5 percent to the Secretary of the Interior
for schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs on the basis of the schools' respective needs for
activities consistent with this heading under such terms and
conditions as the Secretary of the Interior may determine.
(2) Reservation.--A State that receives an allocation of
funds appropriated under this heading may reserve not more
than 2 percent for the administrative costs of carrying out
its responsibilities with respect to those funds.
(3) Awards to local educational agencies.--
(A) Except as specified in paragraph (2), an allocation of
funds to a State shall be used only for awards to local
educational agencies for the support of elementary and
secondary education in accordance with paragraph (5) for the
2010-2011 school year (or, in the case of reallocations made
under section 14001(f) of division A of Public Law 111-5, for
the 2010-2011 or the 2011-2012 school year).
(B) Funds used to support elementary and secondary
education shall be distributed through a State's primary
elementary and secondary funding formulae or based on local
educational agencies' relative shares of funds under part A
of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for the most recent fiscal year
for which data are available.
(C) Subsections (a) and (b) of section 14002 of division A
of Public Law 111-5 shall not apply to funds appropriated
under this heading.
(4) Compliance with education reform assurances.--For
purposes of awarding funds appropriated under this heading,
any State that has an approved application for Phase II of
the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund that was submitted in
accordance with the application notice published in the
Federal Register on November 17, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 59142)
shall be deemed to be in compliance with subsection (b) and
paragraphs (2) through (5) of subsection (d) of section 14005
of division A of Public Law 111-5.
(5) Requirement to use funds to retain or create education
jobs.--Notwithstanding section 14003(a) of division A of
Public Law 111-5, funds awarded to local educational agencies
under paragraph (3)--
(A) may be used only for compensation and benefits and
other expenses, such as support services, necessary to retain
existing employees, to recall or rehire former employees, and
to hire new employees, in order to provide early childhood,
elementary, or secondary educational and related services;
and
(B) may not be used for general administrative expenses or
for other support services expenditures as those terms were
defined by the National Center for Education Statistics in
its Common Core of Data as of the date of enactment of this
Act.
(6) Prohibition on use of funds for rainy-day funds or debt
retirement.--A State that receives an allocation may not use
such funds, directly or indirectly, to--
(A) establish, restore, or supplement a rainy-day fund;
(B) supplant State funds in a manner that has the effect of
establishing, restoring, or supplementing a rainy-day fund;
(C) reduce or retire debt obligations incurred by the
State; or
(D) supplant State funds in a manner that has the effect of
reducing or retiring debt obligations incurred by the State.
(7) Deadline for award.--The Secretary shall award funds
appropriated under this heading not later than 45 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act to States that have
submitted applications meeting the requirements applicable to
funds under this heading. The Secretary shall not require
information in applications beyond what is necessary to
determine compliance with applicable provisions of law.
(8) Alternate distribution of funds.--If, within 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, a Governor has
not submitted an approvable application, the Secretary shall
provide for funds allocated to that State to be distributed
to another entity or other entities in the State
(notwithstanding section 14001(e) of division A of Public Law
111-5) for support of elementary and secondary education,
under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may
establish, provided that all terms and conditions that apply
to funds appropriated under this heading shall apply to such
funds distributed to such entity or entities. No distribution
shall be made to a State under this paragraph, however,
unless the Secretary has determined (on the basis of such
information as may be available) that the requirements of
clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph 10(A) are likely to
be met, notwithstanding the lack of an application from the
Governor of that State.
(9) Local educational agency application.--Section 442 of
the General Education Provisions Act shall not apply to a
local educational agency that has previously submitted an
application to the State under title XIV of division A of
Public Law 111-5. The assurances provided under that
application shall continue to apply to funds awarded under
this heading.
(10) Maintenance of effort.--
(A) Except as provided in paragraph (8), the Secretary
shall not allocate funds to a State under paragraph (1)
unless the Governor of the State provides an assurance to the
Secretary that--
(i) for State fiscal year 2011, the State will maintain
State support for elementary and secondary education (in the
aggregate or on the basis of expenditures per pupil) and for
public institutions of higher education (not including
support for capital projects or for research and development
or tuition and fees paid by students) at not less than the
level of such support for each of the two categories,
respectively, for State fiscal year 2009;
(ii) for State fiscal year 2011, the State will maintain
State support for elementary and secondary education and for
public institutions of higher education (not including
support for capital projects or for research and development
or tuition and fees paid by students) at a percentage of the
total revenues available to the State that is equal to or
greater than the percentage provided for each of the two
categories, respectively, for State fiscal year 2010; or
(iii) in the case of a State in which State tax collections
for calendar year 2009 were less than State tax collections
for calendar year 2006, for State fiscal year 2011 the State
will maintain State support for elementary and secondary
education (in the aggregate) and for public institutions of
higher education (not including support for capital projects
or for research and development or tuition and fees paid by
students)--
(I) at not less than the level of such support for each of
the two categories, respectively, for State fiscal year 2006;
or
(II) at a percentage of the total revenues available to the
State that is equal to or greater than the percentage
provided for each of the two categories, respectively, for
State fiscal year 2006.
(B) Section 14005(d)(1) and subsections (a) through (c) of
section 14012 of division A of Public Law 111-5 shall not
apply to funds appropriated under this heading.
(11) Additional requirements for the state of texas.--The
following requirements shall apply to the State of Texas:
(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (3)(B), funds used to support
elementary and secondary education shall be distributed based
on local educational agencies' relative shares of funds under
part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for the most recent
fiscal year which data are available. Funds distributed
pursuant to this paragraph shall be used to supplement and
not supplant State formula funding that is distributed on a
similar basis to part A of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
(B) The Secretary shall not allocate funds to the State of
Texas under paragraph (1) unless the Governor of the State
provides an assurance to the Secretary that the State will
for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 maintain State support
for elementary and secondary education at a percentage of the
total revenues available to the State that is equal to or
greater than the percentage provided for such purpose for
fiscal year 2011 prior to the enactment of this Act.
(C) Notwithstanding paragraph (8), no distribution shall be
made to the State of Texas or local education agencies
therein unless the Governor of Texas makes an assurance to
the Secretary that the requirements in paragraphs (11)(A) and
(11)(B) will be met, notwithstanding the lack of an
application from the Governor of Texas.
TITLE II
STATE FISCAL RELIEF AND OTHER PROVISIONS; REVENUE OFFSETS
Subtitle A--State Fiscal Relief and Other Provisions
extension of arra increase in fmap
Sec. 201. Section 5001 of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``first calendar
quarter'' and inserting ``first 3 calendar quarters'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Phase-down of general increase.--
``(A) Second quarter of fiscal year 2011.--For each State,
for the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, the FMAP
percentage increase for the State under paragraph (1) or (2)
(as applicable) shall be 3.2 percentage points.
``(B) Third quarter of fiscal year 2011.--For each State,
for the third quarter of fiscal year 2011, the FMAP
percentage increase for the State under paragraph (1) or (2)
(as applicable) shall be 1.2 percentage points.'';
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``July 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2011'';
(B) in paragraph (3)(B)(i), by striking ``July 1, 2010''
and inserting ``January 1, 2011'' each place it appears; and
(C) in paragraph (4)(C)(ii), by striking ``the 3-
consecutive-month period beginning with January 2010'' and
inserting ``any 3-consecutive-month period that begins after
December 2009 and ends before January 2011'';
(4) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following:
``Notwithstanding paragraph (5), effective for payments made
on or after January 1, 2010, the increases in the FMAP for a
State under this section shall apply to payments under title
XIX of such Act that are attributable to expenditures for
medical assistance provided to nonpregnant childless adults
made eligible under a State plan under such title (including
under any waiver under such title or under section 1115 of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315)) who would have been eligible for
child health assistance or other health benefits under
eligibility standards in effect as of December 31, 2009, of a
waiver of the State child health plan under the title XXI of
such Act.'';
(5) in subsection (g)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``September 30, 2011''
and inserting ``March 31, 2012'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``of such Act'' after
``1923''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Certification by chief executive officer.--No
additional Federal funds shall be paid
[[Page H6606]]
to a State as a result of this section with respect to a
calendar quarter occurring during the period beginning on
January 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2011, unless, not
later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this
paragraph, the chief executive officer of the State certifies
that the State will request and use such additional Federal
funds.''; and
(6) in subsection (h)(3), by striking ``December 31, 2010''
and inserting ``June 30, 2011''.
treatment of certain drugs for computation of medicaid amp
Sec. 202. Effective as if included in the enactment of
Public Law 111-148, section 1927(k)(1)(B)(i)(IV) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(k)(1)(B)(i)(IV)), as
amended by section 2503(a)(2)(B) of Public Law 111-148 and
section 1101(c)(2) of Public Law 111-152, is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``, unless the drug is an
inhalation, infusion, instilled, implanted, or injectable
drug that is not generally dispensed through a retail
community pharmacy; and''.
sunset of temporary increase in benefits under the supplemental
nutrition assistance program
Sec. 203. Section 101(a) of title I of division A of Public
Law 111-5 (123 Stat. 120), as amended by section 4262 of this
Act, is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the
following:
``(2) Termination.--The authority provided by this
subsection shall terminate after March 31, 2014.''.
Subtitle B--Revenue Offsets
rules to prevent splitting foreign tax credits from the income to which
they relate
Sec. 211. (a) In General.--Subpart A of part III of
subchapter N of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. 909. SUSPENSION OF TAXES AND CREDITS UNTIL RELATED
INCOME TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
``(a) In General.--If there is a foreign tax credit
splitting event with respect to a foreign income tax paid or
accrued by the taxpayer, such tax shall not be taken into
account for purposes of this title before the taxable year in
which the related income is taken into account under this
chapter by the taxpayer.
``(b) Special Rules With Respect to Section 902
Corporations.--If there is a foreign tax credit splitting
event with respect to a foreign income tax paid or accrued by
a section 902 corporation, such tax shall not be taken into
account--
``(1) for purposes of section 902 or 960, or
``(2) for purposes of determining earnings and profits
under section 964(a),
before the taxable year in which the related income is taken
into account under this chapter by such section 902
corporation or a domestic corporation which meets the
ownership requirements of subsection (a) or (b) of section
902 with respect to such section 902 corporation.
``(c) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Application to partnerships, etc.--In the case of a
partnership, subsections (a) and (b) shall be applied at the
partner level. Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary,
a rule similar to the rule of the preceding sentence shall
apply in the case of any S corporation or trust.
``(2) Treatment of foreign taxes after suspension.--In the
case of any foreign income tax not taken into account by
reason of subsection (a) or (b), except as otherwise provided
by the Secretary, such tax shall be so taken into account in
the taxable year referred to in such subsection (other than
for purposes of section 986(a)) as a foreign income tax paid
or accrued in such taxable year.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Foreign tax credit splitting event.--There is a
foreign tax credit splitting event with respect to a foreign
income tax if the related income is (or will be) taken into
account under this chapter by a covered person.
``(2) Foreign income tax.--The term `foreign income tax'
means any income, war profits, or excess profits tax paid or
accrued to any foreign country or to any possession of the
United States.
``(3) Related income.--The term `related income' means,
with respect to any portion of any foreign income tax, the
income (or, as appropriate, earnings and profits) to which
such portion of foreign income tax relates.
``(4) Covered person.--The term `covered person' means,
with respect to any person who pays or accrues a foreign
income tax (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the
`payor')--
``(A) any entity in which the payor holds, directly or
indirectly, at least a 10 percent ownership interest
(determined by vote or value),
``(B) any person which holds, directly or indirectly, at
least a 10 percent ownership interest (determined by vote or
value) in the payor,
``(C) any person which bears a relationship to the payor
described in section 267(b) or 707(b), and
``(D) any other person specified by the Secretary for
purposes of this paragraph.
``(5) Section 902 corporation.--The term `section 902
corporation' means any foreign corporation with respect to
which one or more domestic corporations meets the ownership
requirements of subsection (a) or (b) of section 902.
``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such
regulations or other guidance as is necessary or appropriate
to carry out the purposes of this section, including
regulations or other guidance which provides--
``(1) appropriate exceptions from the provisions of this
section, and
``(2) for the proper application of this section with
respect to hybrid instruments.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
A of part III of subchapter N of chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``Sec. 909. Suspension of taxes and credits until related income taken
into account.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to--
(1) foreign income taxes (as defined in section 909(d) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this section)
paid or accrued in taxable years beginning after December 31,
2010; and
(2) foreign income taxes (as so defined) paid or accrued by
a section 902 corporation (as so defined) in taxable years
beginning on or before such date (and not deemed paid under
section 902(a) or 960 of such Code on or before such date),
but only for purposes of applying sections 902 and 960 with
respect to periods after such date.
Section 909(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
added by this section, shall not apply to foreign income
taxes described in paragraph (2).
denial of foreign tax credit with respect to foreign income not subject
to united states taxation by reason of covered asset acquisitions
Sec. 212. (a) In General.--Section 901 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection
(m) as subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l)
the following new subsection:
``(m) Denial of Foreign Tax Credit With Respect to Foreign
Income Not Subject to United States Taxation by Reason of
Covered Asset Acquisitions.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a covered asset
acquisition, the disqualified portion of any foreign income
tax determined with respect to the income or gain
attributable to the relevant foreign assets--
``(A) shall not be taken into account in determining the
credit allowed under subsection (a), and
``(B) in the case of a foreign income tax paid by a section
902 corporation (as defined in section 909(d)(5)), shall not
be taken into account for purposes of section 902 or 960.
``(2) Covered asset acquisition.--For purposes of this
section, the term `covered asset acquisition' means--
``(A) a qualified stock purchase (as defined in section
338(d)(3)) to which section 338(a) applies,
``(B) any transaction which--
``(i) is treated as an acquisition of assets for purposes
of this chapter, and
``(ii) is treated as the acquisition of stock of a
corporation (or is disregarded) for purposes of the foreign
income taxes of the relevant jurisdiction,
``(C) any acquisition of an interest in a partnership which
has an election in effect under section 754, and
``(D) to the extent provided by the Secretary, any other
similar transaction.
``(3) Disqualified portion.--For purposes of this section--
``(A) In general.--The term `disqualified portion' means,
with respect to any covered asset acquisition, for any
taxable year, the ratio (expressed as a percentage) of--
``(i) the aggregate basis differences (but not below zero)
allocable to such taxable year under subparagraph (B) with
respect to all relevant foreign assets, divided by
``(ii) the income on which the foreign income tax referred
to in paragraph (1) is determined (or, if the taxpayer fails
to substantiate such income to the satisfaction of the
Secretary, such income shall be determined by dividing the
amount of such foreign income tax by the highest marginal tax
rate applicable to such income in the relevant jurisdiction).
``(B) Allocation of basis difference.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A)(i)--
``(i) In general.--The basis difference with respect to any
relevant foreign asset shall be allocated to taxable years
using the applicable cost recovery method under this chapter.
``(ii) Special rule for disposition of assets.--Except as
otherwise provided by the Secretary, in the case of the
disposition of any relevant foreign asset--
``(I) the basis difference allocated to the taxable year
which includes the date of such disposition shall be the
excess of the basis difference with respect to such asset
over the aggregate basis difference with respect to such
asset which has been allocated under clause (i) to all prior
taxable years, and
``(II) no basis difference with respect to such asset shall
be allocated under clause (i) to any taxable year thereafter.
``(C) Basis difference.--
``(i) In general.--The term `basis difference' means, with
respect to any relevant foreign asset, the excess of--
``(I) the adjusted basis of such asset immediately after
the covered asset acquisition, over
``(II) the adjusted basis of such asset immediately before
the covered asset acquisition.
``(ii) Built-in loss assets.--In the case of a relevant
foreign asset with respect to which the amount described in
clause (i)(II) exceeds the amount described in clause (i)(I),
such excess shall be taken into account under this subsection
as a basis difference of a negative amount.
``(iii) Special rule for section 338 elections.--In the
case of a covered asset acquisition described in paragraph
(2)(A), the covered asset acquisition shall be treated for
purposes of this subparagraph as occurring at the close of
the acquisition date (as defined in section 338(h)(2)).
``(4) Relevant foreign assets.--For purposes of this
section, the term `relevant foreign asset' means, with
respect to any covered asset acquisition, any asset
(including any goodwill, going
[[Page H6607]]
concern value, or other intangible) with respect to such
acquisition if income, deduction, gain, or loss attributable
to such asset is taken into account in determining the
foreign income tax referred to in paragraph (1).
``(5) Foreign income tax.--For purposes of this section,
the term `foreign income tax' means any income, war profits,
or excess profits tax paid or accrued to any foreign country
or to any possession of the United States.
``(6) Taxes allowed as a deduction, etc.--Sections 275 and
78 shall not apply to any tax which is not allowable as a
credit under subsection (a) by reason of this subsection.
``(7) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such
regulations or other guidance as is necessary or appropriate
to carry out the purposes of this subsection, including to
exempt from the application of this subsection certain
covered asset acquisitions, and relevant foreign assets with
respect to which the basis difference is de minimis.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to covered asset
acquisitions (as defined in section 901(m)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this section) after
December 31, 2010.
(2) Transition rule.--The amendments made by this section
shall not apply to any covered asset acquisition (as so
defined) with respect to which the transferor and the
transferee are not related if such acquisition is--
(A) made pursuant to a written agreement which was binding
on January 1, 2011, and at all times thereafter,
(B) described in a ruling request submitted to the Internal
Revenue Service on or before July 29, 2010, or
(C) described on or before January 1, 2011, in a public
announcement or in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
(3) Related persons.--For purposes of this subsection, a
person shall be treated as related to another person if the
relationship between such persons is described in section 267
or 707(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
separate application of foreign tax credit limitation, etc., to items
resourced under treaties
Sec. 213. (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 904
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7) and by inserting
after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
``(6) Separate application to items resourced under
treaties.--
``(A) In general.--If--
``(i) without regard to any treaty obligation of the United
States, any item of income would be treated as derived from
sources within the United States,
``(ii) under a treaty obligation of the United States, such
item would be treated as arising from sources outside the
United States, and
``(iii) the taxpayer chooses the benefits of such treaty
obligation,
subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section and sections
902, 907, and 960 shall be applied separately with respect to
each such item.
``(B) Coordination with other provisions.--This paragraph
shall not apply to any item of income to which subsection
(h)(10) or section 865(h) applies.
``(C) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such
regulations or other guidance as is necessary or appropriate
to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, including
regulations or other guidance which provides that related
items of income may be aggregated for purposes of this
paragraph.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
limitation on the amount of foreign taxes deemed paid with respect to
section 956 inclusions
Sec. 214. (a) In General.--Section 960 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(c) Limitation With Respect to Section 956 Inclusions.--
``(1) In general.--If there is included under section
951(a)(1)(B) in the gross income of a domestic corporation
any amount attributable to the earnings and profits of a
foreign corporation which is a member of a qualified group
(as defined in section 902(b)) with respect to the domestic
corporation, the amount of any foreign income taxes deemed to
have been paid during the taxable year by such domestic
corporation under section 902 by reason of subsection (a)
with respect to such inclusion in gross income shall not
exceed the amount of the foreign income taxes which would
have been deemed to have been paid during the taxable year by
such domestic corporation if cash in an amount equal to the
amount of such inclusion in gross income were distributed as
a series of distributions (determined without regard to any
foreign taxes which would be imposed on an actual
distribution) through the chain of ownership which begins
with such foreign corporation and ends with such domestic
corporation.
``(2) Authority to prevent abuse.--The Secretary shall
issue such regulations or other guidance as is necessary or
appropriate to carry out the purposes of this subsection,
including regulations or other guidance which prevent the
inappropriate use of the foreign corporation's foreign income
taxes not deemed paid by reason of paragraph (1).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to acquisitions of United States property (as
defined in section 956(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986) after December 31, 2010.
special rule with respect to certain redemptions by foreign
subsidiaries
Sec. 215. (a) In General.--Paragraph (5) of section 304(b)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) and by
inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) Special rule in case of foreign acquiring
corporation.--In the case of any acquisition to which
subsection (a) applies in which the acquiring corporation is
a foreign corporation, no earnings and profits shall be taken
into account under paragraph (2)(A) (and subparagraph (A)
shall not apply) if more than 50 percent of the dividends
arising from such acquisition (determined without regard to
this subparagraph) would neither--
``(i) be subject to tax under this chapter for the taxable
year in which the dividends arise, nor
``(ii) be includible in the earnings and profits of a
controlled foreign corporation (as defined in section 957 and
without regard to section 953(c)).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to acquisitions after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
modification of affiliation rules for purposes of rules allocating
interest expense
Sec. 216. (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section
864(e)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, a foreign corporation shall be treated as
a member of the affiliated group if--
``(i) more than 50 percent of the gross income of such
foreign corporation for the taxable year is effectively
connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the
United States, and
``(ii) at least 80 percent of either the vote or value of
all outstanding stock of such foreign corporation is owned
directly or indirectly by members of the affiliated group
(determined with regard to this sentence).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
termination of special rules for interest and dividends received from
persons meeting the 80-percent foreign business requirements
Sec. 217. (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 861(a)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
subparagraph (A) and by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and
(C) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively.
(b) Grandfather Rule With Respect To Withholding on
Interest and Dividends Received From Persons Meeting the 80-
percent Foreign Business Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 871(i)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as
follows:
``(B) The active foreign business percentage of--
``(i) any dividend paid by an existing 80/20 company, and
``(ii) any interest paid by an existing 80/20 company.''.
(2) Definitions and special rules.--Section 871 of such
Code is amended by redesignating subsections (l) and (m) as
subsections (m) and (n), respectively, and by inserting after
subsection (k) the following new subsection:
``(l) Rules Relating to Existing 80/20 Companies.--For
purposes of this subsection and subsection (i)(2)(B)--
``(1) Existing 80/20 company.--
``(A) In general.--The term `existing 80/20 company' means
any corporation if--
``(i) such corporation met the 80-percent foreign business
requirements of section 861(c)(1) (as in effect before the
date of the enactment of this subsection) for such
corporation's last taxable year beginning before January 1,
2011,
``(ii) such corporation meets the 80-percent foreign
business requirements of subparagraph (B) with respect to
each taxable year after the taxable year referred to in
clause (i), and
``(iii) there has not been an addition of a substantial
line of business with respect to such corporation after the
date of the enactment of this subsection.
``(B) Foreign business requirements.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (iv), a
corporation meets the 80-percent foreign business
requirements of this subparagraph if it is shown to the
satisfaction of the Secretary that at least 80 percent of the
gross income from all sources of such corporation for the
testing period is active foreign business income.
``(ii) Active foreign business income.--For purposes of
clause (i), the term `active foreign business income' means
gross income which--
``(I) is derived from sources outside the United States (as
determined under this subchapter), and
``(II) is attributable to the active conduct of a trade or
business in a foreign country or possession of the United
States.
``(iii) Testing period.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `testing period' means the 3-year period ending with
the close of the taxable year of the corporation preceding
the payment (or such part of such period as may be
applicable). If the corporation has no gross income for such
3-year period (or part thereof), the testing period shall be
the taxable year in which the payment is made.
``(iv) Transition rule.--In the case of a taxable year for
which the testing period includes 1 or more taxable years
beginning before January 1, 2011--
``(I) a corporation meets the 80-percent foreign business
requirements of this subparagraph if and only if the weighted
average of--
``(aa) the percentage of the corporation's gross income
from all sources that is active foreign business income (as
defined in subparagraph (B) of section 861(c)(1) (as in
effect before
[[Page H6608]]
the date of the enactment of this subsection)) for the
portion of the testing period that includes taxable years
beginning before January 1, 2011, and
``(bb) the percentage of the corporation's gross income
from all sources that is active foreign business income (as
defined in clause (ii) of this subparagraph) for the portion
of the testing period, if any, that includes taxable years
beginning on or after January 1, 2011,
is at least 80 percent, and
``(II) the active foreign business percentage for such
taxable year shall equal the weighted average percentage
determined under subclause (I).
``(2) Active foreign business percentage.--Except as
provided in paragraph (1)(B)(iv), the term `active foreign
business percentage' means, with respect to any existing 80/
20 company, the percentage which--
``(A) the active foreign business income of such company
for the testing period, is of
``(B) the gross income of such company for the testing
period from all sources.
``(3) Aggregation rules.--For purposes of applying
paragraph (1) (other than subparagraphs (A)(i) and (B)(iv)
thereof) and paragraph (2)--
``(A) In general.--The corporation referred to in paragraph
(1)(A) and all of such corporation's subsidiaries shall be
treated as one corporation.
``(B) Subsidiaries.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the
term `subsidiary' means any corporation in which the
corporation referred to in subparagraph (A) owns (directly or
indirectly) stock meeting the requirements of section
1504(a)(2) (determined by substituting `50 percent' for `80
percent' each place it appears and without regard to section
1504(b)(3)).
``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such
regulations or other guidance as is necessary or appropriate
to carry out the purposes of this section, including
regulations or other guidance which provide for the proper
application of the aggregation rules described in paragraph
(3).''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by striking subsection (c) and by redesignating
subsections (d), (e), and (f) as subsections (c), (d), and
(e), respectively.
(2) Paragraph (9) of section 904(h) of such Code is amended
to read as follows:
``(9) Treatment of certain domestic corporations.--In the
case of any dividend treated as not from sources within the
United States under section 861(a)(2)(A), the corporation
paying such dividend shall be treated for purposes of this
subsection as a United States-owned foreign corporation.''.
(3) Subsection (c) of section 2104 of such Code is amended
in the last sentence by striking ``or to a debt obligation of
a domestic corporation'' and all that follows and inserting a
period.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2010.
(2) Grandfather rule for outstanding debt obligations.--
(A) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
not apply to payments of interest on obligations issued
before the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) Exception for related party debt.--Subparagraph (A)
shall not apply to any interest which is payable to a related
person (determined under rules similar to the rules of
section 954(d)(3)).
(C) Significant modifications treated as new issues.--For
purposes of subparagraph (A), a significant modification of
the terms of any obligation (including any extension of the
term of such obligation) shall be treated as a new issue.
limitation on extension of statute of limitations for failure to notify
secretary of certain foreign transfers
Sec. 218. (a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section
6501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``In the case of any information'' and
inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--In the case of any information''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Application to failures due to reasonable cause.--If
the failure to furnish the information referred to in
subparagraph (A) is due to reasonable cause and not willful
neglect, subparagraph (A) shall apply only to the item or
items related to such failure.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in section 513 of the Hiring
Incentives to Restore Employment Act.
elimination of advance refundability of earned income credit
Sec. 219. (a) In General.--The following provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are repealed:
(1) Section 3507.
(2) Subsection (g) of section 32.
(3) Paragraph (7) of section 6051(a).
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by striking paragraph (8) and by redesignating
paragraph (9) as paragraph (8).
(2) Section 6302 of such Code is amended by striking
subsection (i).
(3) The table of sections for chapter 25 of such Code is
amended by striking the item relating to section 3507.
(c) Effective Date.--The repeals and amendments made by
this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2010.
TITLE III
RESCISSIONS
Sec. 301. There is rescinded from accounts under the
heading ``Department of Agriculture--Rural Development'',
$122,000,000, to be derived from the unobligated balances of
funds that were provided for such accounts in prior
appropriation Acts (other than Public Law 111-5) and that
were designated by the Congress in such Acts as an emergency
requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget
or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
Sec. 302. Of the funds made available for ``Department of
Commerce--National Telecommunications and Information
Administration--Broadband Technology Opportunities Program''
in title II of division A of Public Law 111-5, $302,000,000
are rescinded.
Sec. 303. Of the funds appropriated in Department of
Defense Appropriations Acts, the following funds are
rescinded from the following accounts in the specified
amounts:
``Aircraft Procurement, Army, 2008/2010'', $21,000,000;
``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army,
2008/2010'', $21,000,000;
``Procurement of Ammunition, Army, 2008/2010'',
$17,000,000;
``Other Procurement, Army, 2008/2010'', $75,000,000;
``Weapons Procurement, Navy, 2008/2010'', $26,000,000;
``Other Procurement, Navy, 2008/2010'', $42,000,000;
``Procurement, Marine Corps, 2008/2010'', $13,000,000;
``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2008/2010'',
$102,000,000;
``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 2008/2010'', $28,000,000;
``Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force, 2008/2010'',
$7,000,000;
``Other Procurement, Air Force, 2008/2010'', $130,000,000;
``Procurement, Defense-Wide, 2008/2010'', $33,000,000;
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2009/
2010'', $76,000,000;
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force,
2009/2010'', $164,000,000;
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide,
2009/2010'', $137,000,000;
``Operation, Test and Evaluation, Defense, 2009/2010'',
$1,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Army, 2010'', $154,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy, 2010'', $155,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, 2010'',
$25,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, 2010'',
$155,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, 2010'',
$126,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve, 2010'',
$12,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve, 2010'',
$6,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve, 2010'',
$1,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve, 2010'',
$14,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, 2010'',
$28,000,000; and
``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard, 2010'',
$27,000,000.
Sec. 304. (a) Of the funds appropriated in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), the
following funds are rescinded from the following accounts in
the specified amounts:
``Operation and Maintenance, Army, 2009/2010'',
$113,500,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy, 2009/2010'',
$34,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, 2009/2010'',
$7,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, 2009/2010'',
$61,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve, 2009/2010'',
$3,500,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve, 2009/2010'',
$8,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve, 2009/
2010'', $1,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve, 2009/
2010'', $2,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, 2009/
2010'', $1,000,000;
``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard, 2009/
2010'', $2,500,000; and
``Defense Health Program, 2009/2010'', $27,000,000.
(b) Of the funds appropriated in the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252), the following
funds are rescinded from the following account in the
specified amount:
``Procurement, Marine Corps, 2009/2011'', $122,000,000.
Sec. 305. (a) Of the funds appropriated for ``Procurement
of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'' in title III
of division A of public Law 111-118, $116,000,000 are
rescinded.
(b) Of the funds appropriated for ``Other Procurement,
Army'' in title III of division C of Public Law 110-329,
$87,000,000 are rescinded.
Sec. 306. There are rescinded the following amounts from
the specified accounts:
(1) $20,000,000, to be derived from unobligated balances of
funds made available in prior appropriations Acts under the
heading ``Department of Energy--Nuclear Energy''.
Sec. 307. Of the unobligated balances of funds provided
under the heading ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission'' in prior
appropriations Acts, $18,000,000 is permanently rescinded.
Sec. 308. Of the funds made available for ``Department of
Energy--Title 17--Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee
Program'' in title III of division A of Public Law 111-5,
$1,500,000,000 are rescinded.
Sec. 309. There are permanently rescinded from ``General
Services Administration--Real
[[Page H6609]]
Property Activities--Federal Building Fund'', $75,000,000
from Rental of Space and $25,000,000 from Building
Operations, to be derived from unobligated balances that were
provided in previous appropriations Acts.
Sec. 310. Of the funds made available for ``Bureau of
Indian Affairs--Indian Guaranteed Loan Program Account'' in
title VII of division A of Public Law 111-5, $6,820,000 are
rescinded.
Sec. 311. Of the funds made available for ``Environmental
Protection Agency--Hazardous Substance Superfund'' in title
VII of division A of Public Law 111-5, $2,600,000 are
rescinded.
Sec. 312. Of the funds made available for ``Environmental
Protection Agency--Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust
Fund Program'' in title VII of division A of Public Law 111-
5, $9,200,000 are rescinded.
Sec. 313. Of the funds made available for transfer in
title VII of division A of Public Law 111-5, ``Environmental
Protection Agency--Environmental Programs and Management'',
$10,000,000 are rescinded.
Sec. 314. Of the funds made available for ``National Park
Service--Construction'' in chapter 7 of division B of Public
Law 108-324, $4,800,000 are rescinded.
Sec. 315. Of the funds made available for ``National Park
Service--Construction'' in chapter 5 of title II of Public
Law 109-234, $6,400,000 are rescinded.
Sec. 316. Of the funds made available for ``Fish and
Wildlife Service--Construction'' in chapter 6 of title I of
division B of Public Law 110-329, $3,000,000 are rescinded.
Sec. 317. The unobligated balance of funds appropriated in
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995
(Public Law 103-333; 108 Stat. 2574) under the heading
``Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'' is
rescinded.
Sec. 318. Of the funds appropriated for the Commissioner
of Social Security under section 2201(e)(2)(B) in title II of
division B of Public Law 111-5, $47,000,000 are rescinded.
Sec. 319. Of the funds appropriated in part VI of subtitle
I of title II of division B of Public Law 111-5, $110,000,000
are rescinded, to be derived only from the amount provided
under section 1899K(b) of such title.
Sec. 320. Of the funds appropriated for ``Department of
Education--Education for the Disadvantaged'' in division D of
Public Law 111-117, $50,000,000 are rescinded, to be derived
only from the amount provided for a comprehensive literacy
development and education program under section 1502 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Sec. 321. Of the funds appropriated for ``Department of
Education--Student Aid Administration'' in division D of
Public Law 111-117, $82,000,000 are rescinded.
Sec. 322. Of the funds appropriated for ``Department of
Education--Innovation and Improvement'' in division D of
Public Law 111-117, $10,700,000 are rescinded, to be derived
only from the amount provided to carry out subpart 8 of part
D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965.
Sec. 323. Of the unobligated balances available under
``Department of Defense, Military Construction, Army'' from
prior appropriations Acts, $340,000,000 is rescinded:
Provided, That no funds may be rescinded from amounts that
were designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
or as appropriations for overseas deployments and other
activities pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget
or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
Sec. 324. Of the unobligated balances available under
``Department of Defense, Military Construction, Navy and
Marine Corps'' from prior appropriations Acts, $110,000,000
is rescinded: Provided, That no funds may be rescinded from
amounts that were designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement or as appropriations for overseas deployments and
other activities pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the
budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985.
Sec. 325. Of the unobligated balances available under
``Department of Defense, Military Construction, Air Force''
from prior appropriations Acts, $50,000,000 is rescinded:
Provided, That no funds may be rescinded from amounts that
were designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
or as appropriations for overseas deployments and other
activities pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget
or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
Sec. 326. Of the funds made available for the General
Operating Expenses account of the Department of Veterans
Affairs in section 2201(e)(4)(A)(ii) of division B of Public
Law 111-5 (123 Stat. 454; 26 U.S.C. 6428 note), $6,100,000
are rescinded.
Sec. 327. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title X of division A of Public Law 111-5, the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, under the
heading `` Departmental Administration, Information
Technology Systems'' $5,000,000 is hereby rescinded.
Sec. 328. (a) Millennium Challenge Corporation.--Of the
unobligated balances available under the heading ``Millennium
Challenge Corporation'' in title III of division H of Public
Law 111-8 and under such heading in prior Acts making
appropriations for the Department of State, foreign
operations, and related programs, $50,000,000 are rescinded.
(b) Civilian Stabilization Initiative.--
(1) Department of state.--Of the unobligated balances
available under the heading ``Department of State--
Administration of Foreign Affairs--Civilian Stabilization
Initiative'' in prior Acts making appropriations for the
Department of State, foreign operations, and related
programs, $40,000,000 are rescinded.
(2) United states agency for international development.--Of
the unobligated balances available under the heading ``United
States Agency for International Development--Funds
Appropriated to the President--Civilian Stabilization
Initiative'' in prior Acts making appropriations for the
Department of State, foreign operations, and related
programs, $30,000,000 are rescinded.
Sec. 329. There are rescinded the following amounts from
the specified accounts:
(1) ``Department of Transportation--Federal Aviation
Administration--Facilities and Equipment'', $2,182,544, to be
derived from unobligated balances made available under this
heading in Public Law 108-324.
(2) ``Department of Transportation--Federal Aviation
Administration--Facilities and Equipment'', $5,705,750, to be
derived from unobligated balances made available under this
heading in Public Law 109-148.
Sec. 330. Of the unobligated balances of funds apportioned
to each State under chapter 1 of title 23, United States
Code, $2,200,000,000 are permanently rescinded: Provided,
That such rescission shall be distributed among the States in
the same proportion as the funds subject to such rescission
were apportioned to the States for fiscal year 2009: Provided
further, That such rescission shall not apply to the funds
distributed in accordance with sections 130(f) and 104(b)(5)
of title 23, United States Code; sections 133(d)(1) and 163
of such title, as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of Public Law 109-59; and the first sentence of
section 133(d)(3)(A) of such title: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 1132 of Public Law 110-140, in
administering the rescission required under this heading, the
Secretary of Transportation shall allow each State to
determine the amount of the required rescission to be drawn
from the programs to which the rescission applies.
TITLE IV
BUDGETARY PROVISIONS
budgetary provisions
Sec. 401. The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, jointly submitted for printing in the
Congressional Record by the Chairmen of the House and Senate
Budget Committees, provided that such statement has been
submitted prior to the vote on passage in the House acting
first on this conference report or amendment between the
Houses.
Motion Offered by Mr. Obey
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:
Mr. Obey moves that the House concur in the Senate
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to
H.R. 1586.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1606, the
motion shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations, the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Ways and Means, and the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Madam Speaker, today we have heard from our friends on the minority
side an ample amount of sarcasm and cynicism and partisan hyperbole
mixed in with fiscal fiction. I hope we can cut through that today.
Today, we can either sit frozen in the ice of our own indifference,
as Franklin Roosevelt once said, or we can take action to help States
meet their safety net obligations and to protect our children's
education by keeping teachers in the classroom while we continue to
claw our way back from the most devastating economic crisis since the
Great Depression.
{time} 1350
Last year, in the first job recovery package, we recognized two
reasons for providing Federal aid to States and school districts. The
first was to reduce the human carnage that occurs when we take kids off
health care coverage or let their education suffer because of teacher
layoffs. The second was that standing by while States, localities, and
school boards cut essential investments in services and impose
significant new taxes will cripple the ability of the economy to grow
and cause additional job weakness in both private and public sectors.
It is important, Madam Speaker, to remember how we got here. The
failed
[[Page H6610]]
economic policies of the previous 8 years obliterated hard-won budget
surpluses inherited from President Clinton. Federal oversight of Wall
Street banks was gutted, allowing them to morph into casinos, and drive
the economy into catastrophic collapse. That produced monthly losses of
750,000 jobs in each of the last 3 months of the Bush administration.
We now know that the economic crisis was even deeper and more broad
than we initially expected. While the economy has improved, the effects
of the recession are still not behind us. They are still affecting
people's lives and livelihoods.
Three times before today, in December, in May, and in July we tried
to take additional actions to ease the problems, and three times we
were blocked. Now, today we have this much-reduced bill to provide $10
billion in funding to save somewhere around 160,000 education jobs and
$16 billion in health assistance to the States.
Our friends in the minority accuse us of including job-killing tax
increases to pay for it. That's ridiculous. The bill closes a tax
loophole that encourages companies to ship jobs overseas. Not only will
that help pay for this package, it will fix a hole in the tax code that
is rewarding companies for sending American jobs elsewhere.
Still others, including the leadership of the minority, call this a
special interest bailout. To that I say since when do we regard
America's kids as a special interest group?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
You don't get a second chance to educate kids. We should not fool
ourselves into thinking that this package will do as much as we ought
to be doing to ease the squeeze on the national economy. We will have
partially offset with this bill the human wreckage caused by the
recession, but we will still have done nothing in this round to address
the macro reality that the economy is still incredibly weak. This bill
will soften the blow of State budget cutbacks, but those very cutbacks
have had a negative and neutralizing effect on the Federal fiscal
stimulus in the first place.
This is a far less dramatic action than the Nation needs to recover
from the recession. But this aid is long overdue, and the time for
arguing is past. The cutbacks in food stamps in the bill are plain
wrong. But face it, the minority party in the Senate is using the rules
of the Senate to give them the functional equivalent of the majority's
ability to determine the agenda of that body, and they have decided to
follow a rule or ruin approach to governance, blocking every action
they can, and in this case delaying action to the point of complete
confusion.
Our Nation's kids are getting ready to go back to school. They need
this help now, inadequate though it is. I urge all Members to vote
``yes'' to give it to them. It's the least we should do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
States across America have as their number one responsibility the
education of our young. If the States cannot allocate their own
spending in order to carry out that top responsibility, we will never
solve the problem with a bailout from Uncle Sam. A multibillion-dollar
bailout today will set the stage for nationalized education tomorrow.
That will surely push our economy over the cliff of bankruptcy.
Why are we talking with each other here today? We should be meeting
with our constituents, holding town hall meetings, and listening to
what's on the hearts and minds of our voters. The folks in my district
have made their concerns very clear. They're saying, ``Jerry, tell
those big spending politicians in Washington to stop spending our
money.'' But the Democrat majority is so addicted to spending that they
have called Congress back just to vote on yet another multibillion-
dollar bailout.
I'm left scratching my head, because in the past few months this
Congress has done virtually none of the work that the voters sent us
here to do. We haven't passed a budget, we haven't funded defense and
homeland security. We made our troops wait months before passing funds
to support their fight against international terrorism.
The majority leadership calls the bill before us a major
accomplishment. They hope it will please teachers' unions and inspire
the Democratic base 2 months before the November election. I believe
most voters will see it for what it is, further evidence that this
Congress has a spending problem. To the voters, the 111th Congress will
go down in history as the bailout Congress. The Congress has already
spent $75 billion in stimulus dollars to help States with education.
That was supposed to be a one-time, temporary bailout, approved by the
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
I am very proud of the fact that three of my four children are
teachers. They work very hard to provide quality education in the
classroom. They know that schools should be run by parents, teachers,
and local communities. The more we approve these bailouts, the more the
Federal Government takes over that role.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my Democrat colleagues say that this
legislation is quote, ``fully paid for.'' On the other hand, the bill
spends the entire $26 billion in just 2 years, while the offsets take
place over 10 years. The so-called offsets in this legislation are
produced by almost a $10 billion increase in taxes, $13.4 billion in
reductions in two programs that are popular with Democrat leaders. That
is the food stamp program and renewable energy projects. Some Democrat
leaders have already pledged to restore funding to these programs. Some
of these so-called cuts could be eliminated as soon as November in a
lame duck session.
Mr. Speaker, beware of a lame duck session called by this Congress. I
want to emphasize this again to my colleagues. The voters do not want
us to throw more money at our Nation's problems, yet that is exactly
what this bill does. It's time, Mr. Speaker, to put Uncle Sam on a diet
and put an end to the congressional spending spree.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation, and reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to thank him for his persistence in pushing this legislation,
and finally to have this legislation back from the Senate today so that
we can help school districts.
The scandals that were permitted under the Bush administration cost
middle class families trillions of dollars in the loss of their wealth
in their pension plans, in their jobs, in the value of their homes. Now
the question is whether or not school children in this Nation should be
further victims of these financial scandals that were tolerated, and
whether or not these school districts that have had the revenues that
they rely on to fund the schools that have been ripped away because of
the loss of property values, because of the loss of sales tax, because
of the loss of income tax, because of the results of those scandals.
The answer in this bill is no, that in fact we should help school
districts make sure that children can get a first class education, that
they don't lose a year of education because of those financial scandals
that happened on the watch of the past administration as the banks and
Wall Street ran amok.
So we should pass this bill and make sure that those 160,000 teachers
can return to the classroom. I would like to ask the gentleman a
question.
It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman, under this legislation, that
when the governor makes application for these funds, under the bill the
Secretary can require the governor to choose one of two formulas, the
State allocation formula or the title I formula, and to post that
formula so school districts would then be able to know their allocation
as soon as possible so they could start to rehire people and start to
reduce class sizes or other decisions that school boards hope to make
to provide for that education. Is that your understanding that that's
permitted under this legislation?
{time} 1400
Mr. OBEY. That is the committee's intent.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So the Governor would put that in
the application, declare the formula, and
[[Page H6611]]
post that, so that school districts would be on the earliest possible
notice,
Mr. OBEY. That is our intent.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Again I want to thank you. You have
sent the bill to the Senate, the House sent it last year, and you sent
it three times this year. Thank you again for your persistence and your
work on this issue.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes
to the former chairman of the Education Committee, now the senior
Republican on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon).
(Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Today I rise in opposition to this measure, which will increase
domestic spending at the expense of national security. Specifically,
the Federal Government will spend $10 billion for this teacher bailout,
paid in part with a $3.3 billion cut in defense programs. As the
ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, I can assure you
that the Department of Defense has need of these funds, including
unfunded requirements related to our operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. I say this fully aware of the needs of our educational
system as the former chairman and ranking member of Education and
Labor.
Those in favor of this bill will say that this money was previously
identified by the Department of Defense as unspent and available for
higher priorities, but this arguments misses two larger points.
First, as yesterday's Military Times observed, diverting money from
the defense budget to education programs would eliminate any
opportunity for the Defense Department or Congress to take unobligated
money from one defense program to spend on another defense program.
Second, rescissions to the defense budget this late in the fiscal
year are problematic and disruptive to operations. As the Department of
Defense Comptroller has told the Armed Services Committee, this
rescission will require that Defense restructure or postpone programs,
and in some cases the money is no longer available in these accounts.
Finally, I remain concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery
slope. The Secretary of Defense has initiated an ongoing effort to
generate $100 billion in savings within the Department of Defense over
the next 5 years, the only secretary that has been asked to do this. My
ultimate concern is these savings will not be reinvested into America's
defense requirements, but will be harvested by congressional Democrats
for new domestic spending and entitlement programs.
We see today that this is already happening. Congressional Democrats,
with the full support of the White House, are taking critical defense
funding to pay for another State bailout.
Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this measure, which will
increase domestic spending at the expense of national security.
Specifically, the Federal Government will spend $10 billion for this
teacher bailout, paid for in part with a $3.3 billion cut in defense
programs. As the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee,
I can assure you that the Department of Defense has need for these
funds, including unfunded requirements related to our operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. I say this fully aware of the needs of our
educational system, as the former Chairman and Ranking Member of
Education and Labor.
Those in favor of this bill will say that this money was previously
identified by the Department of Defense as unspent and available for
higher priorities. This includes $683.5 million unspent from last
year's economic stimulus package and $325 million for military
construction projects. They will use this argument to convince members
that these cuts will not harm the Department and to assure you that
this next bailout is fully paid for.
But this argument misses two larger points. First, as yesterday's
Military Times observed, ``. . . diverting money from the defense
budget to education programs would eliminate any opportunity for the
Defense Department or Congress to take unobligated money from one
defense program to spend on another defense program.'' For example, in
the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, we used the
unobligated balances for military construction projects to fund other
more pressing infrastructure needs, such as barracks and armories, and
many of the services' unfunded requirements. Now these funds will no
longer be available for these purposes and the services will have
outstanding needs go unmet.
Second, rescissions to the DoD budget this late in the fiscal year
are problematic and disruptive to operations. As the Department of
Defense Comptroller has told the Armed Services Committee, this
rescission will require that DoD restructure or postpone programs. I am
confident the Department will try to avoid adverse effects on the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when this nation is fighting two wars,
Congress should not be pulling the financial rug out from under DoD at
the end of the year.
Moreover, while these funds were identified as ``unspent'' earlier
this year, some of these ``unspent'' dollars have already been diverted
to other defense programs. When we cut the original accounts now, it
will mean that some of these accounts no longer have enough money in
them. Think about your own checking account--at the beginning of the
year, you see that you have $1000 more than your budget says you'll
need. So you move $800 into another account or give it to one of your
children. If the government comes and takes $1000 from you at the end
of the year, your remaining account balance may not be sufficient and
you find yourself in an overdraft situation. In the case of government
agencies it is against the law to overdraft an account. We have been
told that the Department of Defense may find itself in violation of the
Antideficiency Act in some accounts.
Finally, I remain concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery
slope. The Secretary of Defense has initiated an ongoing effort to
generate $100 billion in savings within the Department of Defense over
the next five years. Yesterday he announced a series of spending
freezes and closures of organizations within his office and combatant
commands. Secretary Gates plans on plowing these savings back into
force structure and modernization accounts. As elected officials,
Members of Congress have a responsibility to ensure U.S. taxpayer
dollars are not wasted on inefficient, wasteful or redundant programs.
All of us support efforts to identify and curb such programs. Yet, as
Members of the House Armed Services Committee, we are also tasked with
the unique responsibility of providing for America's national defense
and meeting the needs of our military services, which is why we will
need to receive more information from the Department of Defense so we
fully understand the rationale behind each decision and potential
impact of every cut.
My ultimate concern is that these savings will not be reinvested into
America's defense requirements, but will be harvested by Congressional
Democrats for new domestic spending and entitlement programs. We see
today that this is already happening. Congressional Democrats--with the
full support of the White House--are taking critical defense funding to
pay for another state bailout. What's to stop them from taking this
money, too?
At his press conference yesterday Secretary Gates stated, ``. . . my
greatest fear is that in economic tough times that people will see the
defense budget as the place to solve the Nation's deficit problems, to
find money for other parts of the government . . . And as I look around
the world and see . . . more failed and failing states, countries that
are investing heavily in their militaries . . . as I look at the new
kinds of threats emerging from cyber to precision ballistic and cruise
missiles and so on--my greatest worry is that we will do to the defense
budget what we have done four times before. And that is, slash it in an
effort to find some kind of a dividend to put the money someplace else.
I think that would be disastrous in the world environment we see today
and what we're likely to see in the years to come.''
I urge my colleagues to heed the advice of the Secretary in this
matter and vote no to a cut in defense spending. Instead of another
Federal bailout, let's make sure our men and women in uniform have the
resources and equipment they need. Leave this money in the Department
of Defense where it belongs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. OBEY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute
to our former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in
opposition to this legislation.
H.R. 1586, the State bailout bill, extends many of the same
provisions included in the original stimulus bill by increasing taxes
and using questionable offsets. It increases taxes on American
businesses, America's job creators, by $9.8 billion over 10 years, and
these tax increases will kill jobs,
[[Page H6612]]
reduce American competitiveness, discourage investment, and prevent
economic recovery. This is a permanent tax increase on job creators in
exchange for a temporary fix for the States.
A series of international tax changes in the bill could have far-
reaching consequences on the competitiveness of worldwide American
businesses. The National Association of Manufacturers states that an
estimated 22 million people in the United States, more than 19 percent
of the private-sector workforce, and 53 percent of all manufacturing
employees are employed by companies with operations overseas.
Manufacturers feel strongly that imposing $9.6 billion tax increases
on these companies as proposed in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586
will jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle
our fragile economy.
The new spending in the bill is meant to give states money to deal
with their current fiscal problems, rewarding states for years of
excessive spending in their budgets. It is not the responsibility of
the federal government to bail out the states when they have difficulty
balancing their budgets--the federal government should balance its own
budget instead.
The bill is not really ``fully'' paid for because it spends the
entire $26.1 billion in just two years while the ``offsets'' take place
over ten years, relying on future Congresses to abide by the offsets--
spending money today that we won't ``pay for'' until years from now.
Once again, this Congress kicks the can down the road.
This is a very detrimental tax increase. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this legislation.
Mr. OBEY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, this bill ignores a simple truth: Government cannot
inject a single dollar into the economy that is not first taken out of
the same economy. We see the jobs that are saved or created when the
government puts the money back in. What we don't see directly are the
jobs lost or prevented when the government first takes that money out
of the economy. Those lost jobs are seen in chronic unemployment rates
and a stagnant job market, despite unprecedented government spending.
Nor is this necessary to save teaching jobs. A school board faced
with the choice between a couple of good teachers and an overpaid
bureaucrat is probably going to keep the teachers and fire the
bureaucrat. But this bill says it doesn't have to make that choice.
Indeed, this actually prohibits school boards from doing anything that
would reduce their spending below last year's levels.
Madam Speaker, it is time to invoke the first law of holes: When you
are in one, stop digging.
Mr. OBEY. Could I inquire how many speakers the gentleman has?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I have no additional
speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I would simply say yes, this bill spends
money. Yes, it saves money. It saves more than it spends to the tune of
$1.3 billion, according to CBO.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is now prepared to recognize
members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I rise in strong support of this bill for education, jobs and
Medicaid assistance. This will provide critical relief for the States
and local governments. This is a vote for jobs, for education, for
health care.
The States and local governments are faced with a decrease in income
or taxes as people have lost their jobs, and yet in the Medicaid area
there is an increase for services, as some people have lost their
insurance. This will help the States avoid the massive cuts in Medicaid
eligibility payments and payments to providers.
The Federal Medicaid Assistance Program was adopted in February of
2009. It expires in December. This will extend that temporary FMAP
program for an additional 6 months through June 30, 2011, when most
State fiscal years end. There would be no change in the current formula
for targeting additional fiscal relief at States with high unemployment
rates.
I urge support for this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am sorry, Madam Speaker, that we have to be
here today to spend money that the taxpayers don't have, that Congress
can't afford, for an economic stimulus program that doesn't work.
The provision that is in the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce
Committee is the Federal Medicaid Assistance Program, specifically
called FMAP. This is a program to help low-income constituents in a
cost-share between the State government and the Federal Government.
Spending on this program over the last 2 fiscal years has gone up
almost 50 percent. The stimulus package that was enacted last year
increased it an additional 6 percent, I believe, through December of
this year. The bill before us would extend that extension until June of
next year.
{time} 1410
There is no emergency in this program. There is no pending financial
catastrophe in Medicaid. There is a long-term unfunded mandate,
obviously, but in the short term this is not something that absolutely
has to be done.
The $16 billion that would be spent on this program ostensibly is to
be spent for Medicaid, low-income health care assistance, but if you
read the fine print, it doesn't have to. As we all know, Madam Speaker,
money is fungible, and under this particular bill, while the nameplate
says for Medicaid, the truth is the money can be spent for whatever
purpose the State wants to spend it for. I don't think that's
appropriate.
We on the Republican side were prepared to offer an amendment in the
Rules Committee last evening that would have at least said, if you're
going to say the money is for Medicaid, it actually has to be spent for
Medicaid. We were told that no amendments would be made in order and
that they were put in what's called a martial law lock-down rule. So we
did not offer that amendment, but it is an amendment that should have
been offered and should be accepted.
What this bill really is about is, in my opinion, some sort of a
panic attack on the Democratic leadership side, that they see the
election coming up and they need to get more money to their special
constituencies, and this is a bill that would do that. So we're going
to spend $180 million a day. We're going to be paying taxes on this
money for the next 10 years. This $180 million a day is only for 6
months. It's not going to reduce the unemployment rate, which right now
is a little under 10 percent. It's going to be used, purely and simply,
for some of those States to have more money that might help
constituencies that might help our friends on the majority side of the
aisle. As I said earlier, the money that is in the jurisdiction of the
committee that I'm on, Energy and Commerce, doesn't have to be spent
for Medicaid.
So I would urge a ``no'' vote, Madam Speaker.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my chairman.
I want to differ strongly with the gentleman from Texas, as much as I
admire him as our ranking member. I would remind the gentleman that
this bill is fully paid for by eliminating tax loopholes that send jobs
overseas. The fact of the matter is that many States have already
budgeted for these Federal dollars and simply don't have their own
State dollars to make up for it if they lose the Federal dollars.
Traditionally, in the past, this was a bipartisan issue. Republicans
supported
[[Page H6613]]
it. And I would say that many Republican governors, including my own in
my State of New Jersey, have asked for this money because they know
that if they don't get it they're going to have a huge shortfall in
their budget. I don't see this at all as a partisan issue, and I really
don't understand why our ranking member continues to look at it that
way.
I think it's crucial that Congress extend extra help to the States to
pay for their citizens who are on Medicaid. The Medicaid rolls have
expanded considerably for States because of unemployment. Many people
have lost their jobs and a lot more people are on Medicaid, and States
with high unemployment will continue to receive additional percentage
points. This legislation simply allows States to avert Medicaid cuts at
a time when the economic recession requires a strong safety net.
It's also the most efficient way to help States avoid further layoffs
and service cuts that would otherwise slow the economic recovery. It is
really bipartisan. Many Republican governors have asked for it, and
this is something that in the past has always been done on a bipartisan
basis. I urge support.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Olson).
Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague from Texas.
Madam Speaker, the Obama stimulus plan was a waste of taxpayer
dollars, and I'm proud that the elected officials in the Texas
Statehouse had the good sense to keep those funds in reserve. If a
Member of this body has a problem with the way the rightfully elected
representatives of the people of Texas choose to use their money, then
I have some advice for him or her: Go to Austin.
Madam Speaker, the eyes of Texas will be watching her congressional
delegation as they cast their votes. You will either be for Texas or
against her. You will either stand for our State and national
constitutions or ignore them. This is exactly the sort of arrogance,
pettiness, and political chicanery that the people of America are tired
of. I know that Texans are.
I have great hope that November will bring a much-needed change in
direction in Washington.
I urge my colleagues to vote no-no-no against this bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, it seems like we have a lot
of Texas voices here today, and I want to share mine. I thank my chair
of our Energy and Commerce Committee for yielding to me.
I support, obviously, the full passage of the bill, but, Madam
Speaker, I rise in support of the students and teachers who will
benefit from passage of the Education, Jobs, and Medicaid Assistance
Act.
Madam Speaker, I would like to place in the Record two letters from
education groups supporting this legislation.
At a time when local and State governments from coast to coast are
cutting funding for basic services such as education, public safety,
and transportation, this legislation will bring much-needed assistance
to keep 161,000 educational professionals working now; 14,500
educational jobs in Texas will be saved.
I want to speak to the important provision my Texas colleagues on
this side of the aisle worked hard to get into this bill. Last year,
the governor of Texas took $3.25 billion in Federal stabilization funds
specifically designated for educational purposes and used it to build
up the State's rainy day fund, which may sound good, but it was nothing
more than the governor taking much-needed resources from the students
and educators of Texas.
In order to make sure the governor of Texas does not repeat history
and misuse the Federal education funds, my colleagues and I pushed to
have language added to the bill that will require the governor provide
assurance to the Secretary of Education that the funds allocated to
Texas be used to supplement and not supplant State K-12 education
funding through fiscal year 2013. The governor and his political allies
have stated in recent days that it cannot make such assurances because
of its being unconstitutional. Well, our governor obviously is not a
constitutional lawyer, so let the record show that the governor had
made the same assurance before, including in the State's Fiscal
Stabilization Program application last year.
This language is supported by the Texas Association of School Boards
as well as Statewide groups representing teachers, principals, and
school administrators across the State and ensures that these funds get
to the classrooms and will hopefully delay property tax increases.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.
Texas Democratic Delegation Statement on Protection for Schoolchildren
Last year, we voted for the Economic Recovery Act, which
included $3.25 billion to support local Texas school
districts. But instead of using these funds as Congress
intended, State Republican Leadership used them to replace
state education funding, thereby denying an increase in
support for our local school districts.
We want to ensure that any new emergency funds Congress
provides for education actually help our Texas schools. We
have requested additional protections be incorporated into
any Supplemental Appropriations legislation specifically for
Texas schoolchildren to ensure local districts actually
receive this federal help. These protections will ensure that
the $820 million in new emergency federal funds for education
go to preserve teacher jobs throughout the State and meet
other local education needs.
These funds would go to local schools as long as the
Governor certifies that (1) federal funds are not used merely
to replace state education support, and (2) education funding
will not be cut proportionally more than any other item in
the upcoming Texas General Appropriations Act. This prevents
any further shell games with federal education dollars at the
expense of local school districts. This approach has been
endorsed by Texas statewide education organizations
representing teachers, principals, school boards, school
administrators, and nearly 40 superintendents.
A solid education is the foundation on which our economy
and our democracy rest. Our support for our local school
districts reflects a twofold understanding: First, local
districts know best what the needs of their students,
teachers, and administrators are. Second, especially in times
of a difficult economy, we need to invest in our schools.
Our language helps ensure local school districts in Texas
have the support they need.
Charles A. Gonzalez; Sheila Jackson Lee; Silvestre Reyes;
Henry Cuellar; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Ciro D.
Rodriguez; Lloyd Doggett; Solomon P. Ortiz; Ruben
Hinojosa; Gene Green; Chet Edwards; Al Green.
____
June 22, 2010.
Hon. Arne Duncan,
Secretary, Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Hon. Steny Hoyer,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. David Obey,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Duncan, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader
Hoyer, and Chairman Obey: Last year, before the education
Stabilization funds were provided to Texas, many of us joined
together to urge you to ensure that these funds would
increase the funding for Texas schools instead of merely
replacing state education funding. Unfortunately, as the
legislation was written the State was able to reduce its own
obligations to fiscally support public education and supplant
those funds with $3.25 billion of federal stabilization
monies. As the Administration considers additional emergency
education funding to save teachers' jobs, we urge you to
prevent history from repeating itself and ensure that any
funds Texas receives go to help Texas schools, teachers, and
students.
We support the legislative language that Members of the
Texas Delegation have proposed that would guarantee these
emergency federal education funds are actually spent on
education in Texas. As drafted, this Texas fix has no impact
on any other state and would ensure that the law is
implemented as Congress and the Administration intended: to
save and create teacher jobs. Specifically, this language
includes four provisions that we would like to see included
in any emergency education jobs bill: Limits the additional
requirements to states with Texas-sized rainy day funds;
requires the emergency education jobs funds be distributed to
local education agencies within the state according to the
Title I-A formula; prohibits supplanting of state Title I-
type funds with these new emergency federal funds for
education jobs; and requires maintenance of state primary and
secondary education support in FY11, FY12, and FY13 at the
current percentage of revenue provided for FY11.
This language does not prohibit cuts to education in
Texas's budget, but it does prevent the state from singling
out education for more cuts than other budget items due to
the influx of funds from the emergency federal monies for
education jobs. With Texas facing a serious budget shortfall
in the coming biennial budget, the last thing we need to
allow is these funds to be diverted to fill
[[Page H6614]]
non-education gaps in the budget. We hope that you will
ensure that Texas school districts do not fall through the
legislative cracks this time around.
The Texas superintendents and education organizations
listed below are in agreement with this letter and have given
permission to add their names in support.
Texas Superintendents
Total of 33 From Across the State of Texas
Wanda Bamberg, Aldine ISD;
Meria Carstarphen, Austin ISD;
Jamey Harrison, Bridge City ISD;
Brett Springston, Brownsville ISD;
Reece Blincoe, Brownwood ISD;
Jeff Turner, Coppell ISD;
Scott Elliff, Corpus Christi ISD;
David Anthony, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD;
Michael Hinojosa, Dallas ISD;
Leland Williams, Dickinson ISD;
Bob Wells, Edna ISD;
Lorenzo Garcia, El Paso ISD;
Melody Johnson, Fort Worth ISD;
Paul Clore, Gregory-Portland ISD;
Jeremy Lyon, Hays CISD;
Terry Grier, Houston ISD.
A. Marcus Nelson, Laredo ISD;
Michelle Carroll Smith, Lytle ISD;
James Ponce, McAllen ISD;
Richard A. Middleton, North East ISD;
John M. Folks, Northside ISD;
Sharron L. Doughty, Port Aransas ISD;
Alfonso Obregon, Robstown ISD;
Robert J. Duron, San Antonio ISD;
Mike Quatrini, San Elizario ISD;
Patty Shafer, San Marcos CISD;
Greg Gibson, Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City ISD;
Rock McNulty, Smithville ISD;
Lloyd Verstuyft, Southwest ISD;
Robert Santos, United ISD;
Richard Rivera, Weslaco ISD;
H. John Fuller, Wylie ISD;
Michael Zolkoski, Ysleta ISD.
Texas Education Organizations
Teachers, Principals, School Boards, and Administrators
Sandi Borden, Executive Director, Texas Elementary
Principals and Supervisors Association;
Linda Bridges, President, Texas AFT;
James B. Crow, Executive Director, Texas Association of
School Boards;
Rita Haecker, President, Texas State Teachers
Association;
Doug Rogers, Executive Director, Association for Texas
Professional Educators;
Johnny L. Veselka, Executive Director, Texas Association
of School Administrators;
Brad Willingham, President, Texas Classroom Classroom
Teachers Association.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of
the committee from the great Hoosier State of Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. I am leaving this body here in the next 6 months. Now, one
side is saying this is all about protecting jobs, about protecting
teachers, firefighters, police officers. That's great spin. I'm going
home. This is about protecting the ignominious conduct and behavior of
legislators that didn't do their job and they're too frightened right
now, 84 days before an election. They don't want to increase taxes,
they don't want to cut spending, and they don't want to monetize the
debt.
So what do they do? They turn to the Federal Government and have us
monetize the debt, issue bonds, have China do it so they don't have to
make tough judgments.
This is the bailout. This is another bailout. Folks, we cannot
continue to do this. We talk about what type of Nation we want to pass
on to our children. Let's not do this. I am distressed about it.
When we passed the SCHIP as a body and came together, we said that we
would do so and make eligibility at 133 percent of poverty. Then what
happened? A lot of these States thought that the good economic times
would never end, and so they mushroomed the eligibility.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
{time} 1420
Mr. BUYER. Two States are the worst offenders: New York and New
Jersey. Instead of 133 percent, they are at 400 and 350 percent
respectively, eligibility to poverty.
Oh, no, no; they don't want to make the tough decisions. Guess what;
not only do the State legislators not want to make tough decisions,
this Congress also doesn't want to make tough decisions. That is why we
are facing almost a $1.5 trillion annual budget deficit.
America, please, please, wake up, and remember in November.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
increasing Medicaid funding for States that is contained in this
legislation. I have been leading the effort on this issue, and I am
determined to see it through.
During this economic crisis, our States have suffered, which means
our citizens have suffered. States are facing severe budget shortfalls,
and without Federal help will have to take extreme action. Who would
this hurt? It would hurt our most vulnerable: our children, our elders,
our sick, and our frail. People who rely on Medicaid benefits would see
them slashed. States would be forced to make cuts where we can least
afford it.
Not only does Medicaid funding protect citizens, it also promotes
them. The Congressional Budget Office found that increased Medicaid
assistance creates jobs and increases demand in the economy.
The recovery is underway, but it is slow. Families in Wisconsin and
across the Nation are struggling to make ends meet and find good jobs.
We in the House have time and again passed legislation to try to
address this through additional Medicaid funding and dedicated dollars
for teachers in our schools. Finally, today we have the opportunity to
send this bill to the President.
In Wisconsin alone, passing this measure will prevent between 2,000
and 3,000 teachers from being laid off, and it will prevent $650
million in Medicaid cuts.
I have heard from students, doctors, and State employees who have
known for months what Congress was too slow in realizing, these cuts
would be catastrophic and we must prevent them.
I want to thank Chairman Waxman for his steadfast commitment to
creating jobs and supporting American families. I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting this legislation.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Republican Conference chairman from the great State of Indiana, Mr.
Mike Pence.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
The American people are hurting. In the city and on the farm,
families are struggling in the midst of the worst recession in 25
years.
Coming home to me especially today, Madam Speaker, because at this
very hour more than a thousand Hoosiers are gathered at a job fair in
my district. Some 65 companies have come together with a few cherished
openings. My duty is here. But to be honest with you, I would rather be
there, standing with those courageous Hoosiers who have come out, put
on their Sunday best, and are reaching for a better future.
Congress ought to be taking action; but not this, not more of the
same. Here we go again. Another jobs bill, another bailout. Washington,
DC now after a year and a half of failed economic policies, a stimulus
and borrowing and spending and bailouts and takeovers, says we need to
do another jobs bill, so let's do another bailout: $26 billion to
States, putting off the hard decisions that States ought to be making,
and paying for it with more than $9 billion in tax increases.
You know, the American people are fed up with more taxes, more
bailouts, more wasteful stimulus; yet here we go again. More spending,
more bailouts and more taxes won't mean more jobs. Millions of
Americans are asking: Where will it all end?
When will this Congress start to come together to make the hard
choices to put our fiscal house in order and to preserve and promote
the kind of tax policies that will release the trapped, inherent power
of the American economy.
It is my hope and my prayer for those families gathered in Muncie at
my job fair today that we will not have to wait until after November.
But if we do, then we will. And the American people will remember
November.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, let the American people know that we are
trying to help kids get educated, and make sure that those who are
vulnerable get health care; while the Republicans are urging that we
continue the tax cuts for people making more than
[[Page H6615]]
$300,000 a year. That to me is a distortion of priorities.
I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I want to take up where the chairman left
off. This is $26 billion that is paid for, and my Republican friends on
the other side of the aisle don't want to do that, even though it is
paid for. It will bring back teachers and it will bring back first
responders. And instead, they want a $700 billion tax break for the
rich that is not paid for. So that doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Madam Speaker, 160,000 education jobs could be lost if we do nothing,
including 8,000 in my home State of New York. Congress can't sit by and
let these jobs disappear and hurt our children. This assistance is
critical to States as they struggle through the recession. This
includes a $10 billion education jobs fund that will save 140,000
teachers. It is not a payoff to the teachers union, it is a payoff to
our children and for the future of this country.
This will prevent deep cuts in education, health care, and social
services. So, Madam Speaker, we should not play politics with American
jobs. I continue to urge support for this bill to ensure that Americans
are working and our economy is well onto the road to recovery.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
starting third baseman on the congressional Republican baseball team,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, those who advocate for this legislation are
forgetting one very, very important thing: we are broke.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished member of the committee from the great Pelican State of
Louisiana, Mr. Steve Scalise.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
for yielding.
As American families, as Louisiana families are asking where are the
jobs, and they are looking to Congress for those answers, all that they
get from this tone-deaf liberal group that is running Congress today is
more spending, more taxes, and just continuing with this bailout
mentality. Americans are saying enough is enough.
In fact, if we want to get the economy back on track, what we need to
do is go back to those principles that have been proven to work every
time, and that is to cut taxes for small businesses so that the
businesses that are creating jobs can go out and do what they need to
do. In fact, businesses today are scared to hire anybody because of the
policies coming out of Washington. So you cut taxes and you cut
spending. Instead, all we see is more spending, more bailouts, and more
tax increases on the backs of businesses that are going to run more
jobs out of this country. It is the wrong answer. We should be here
focusing on creating jobs, not running more off.
Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, what we have here is a failure to
communicate. My friends on the Democratic side are talking about things
to help the economy. My friends and myself on the Republican side are
pointing out that this is money that we don't have. There is no
national emergency. The items that are being funded are items that
historically have been funded at the State level with the exception of
Medicaid, which is a State-Federal expenditure. And in that the
program, the money doesn't absolutely have to be spent for low income
health care assistance. If you look at the way the money is actually
allocated, one State, the great State of New York, the Empire States,
gets over 12.5, 13 percent of the funds. In fact, if you exclude
California, New York gets more money than every State west of the
Mississippi. As has been pointed out by Mr. Buyer of Indiana, New York
has a Medicaid reimbursement rate at 350 percent of poverty, which is
pushing about $80,000 for a family of four.
This is money we don't have being spent on programs that are not in
dire emergency at a time when the unemployment rate is 10 percent.
Please vote no on this bill.
{time} 1430
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, this is assistance to the States for
Medicaid. No State has 300 percent of poverty for Medicaid. That's just
not the way the States run it. We're talking about the poorest of the
poor to get Medicaid assistance. There may be additional people who can
get it for children under the CHIP program but not under Medicaid. The
States can't afford Medicaid, and we're going to help them by directing
Federal dollars so that those very poor people can get health care, and
this legislation assists the States in paying for teachers and first
responders.
What can be more important? It isn't one State versus another. All
throughout this country we've got to make sure that we have an educated
population and a chance for health care for those who need it who
cannot afford it. That's why this bill is important. It will also
provide jobs that will otherwise be lost if the States do not receive
these funds. Put that into perspective of the Republican call for tax
cuts to be continued without paying for them for people that make over
$300,000 a year.
Who deserves our help? Let's help the vulnerable. Let's help the next
generation. Let's provide the funds that are in this legislation for
health care, for first responders, for teachers. I urge support for the
legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is now prepared to recognize
members from the Committee on Ways and Means.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
The minority comes here and talks about wishing to be back at a jobs
fair for those who are unemployed and looking for work, having voted
against continuing unemployment compensation for those out of work and
looking for it. The minority comes here talking about help for small
business, having voted against Democratic bills to help small business.
On this bill this is not an increase in taxes on job creation. What
it is is closing a tax loophole used by some to escape taxes and
thereby encouraging them to ship jobs overseas, purely and simply.
This is a fact: U.S. companies that operate overseas owe taxes when
they return that income to the U.S. They get a foreign tax credit for
the taxes they paid overseas. What some companies are doing is using
those tax credits not against income brought back home but against
income obtained elsewhere. This is a tax loophole purely and simply,
and closing a tax loophole used by a few is fair taxation policy for
everybody else. That's what the people of this country demand: Close
tax loopholes that help shift jobs overseas. We're doing just that in
this bill, as we have done several other times in the House of
Representatives.
Madam Speaker, I and Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Camp
have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make
available to the public a technical explanation of the revenue
provisions included in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to
the Senate amendment to H.R. 1586, the ``Education Jobs and Medicaid
Assistance Act of 2010,'' considered in the House of Representatives
today. This technical explanation provides information on the
Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind the
legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's website at
www.jct.gov and is listed under document number JCX-46-10.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, last Friday we learned the unemployment rate
is still at 9\1/2\ percent, and it would be much higher if the official
calculations also looked at the fast-growing number of Americans who
have become so discouraged that they have given up looking for work. So
while Congress should be here trying to find ways to get
[[Page H6616]]
Americans back to work, we're here instead to complete action on
another extension of stimulus that will also do nothing to reduce the
unemployment rate in this country. In fact, this bill and the tax
increases in it will hurt job creation.
According to the methodology of Dr. Christina Romer, the President's
chief economic adviser, the tax increases in this bill alone will
destroy over 140,000 American jobs. In an open letter to Congress this
week, the National Association of Manufacturers warned that ``imposing
$9.6 billion in tax increases on these companies will jeopardize the
jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our fragile
economy.'' Similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned they would
``impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that
would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American
businesses, and deter economic growth.''
These tax increases are a mistake, and, as I noted during the debate
2 weeks ago, most of these have never been the subject of any committee
hearing or markup. It is possible that, upon review, some of these
provisions might make sense if packaged with other changes to address
the fact that our corporate tax rate is soon to be the highest among
all industrialized nations. Our international tax system is deeply
flawed, and our tax code is increasingly putting our companies and
their employees at a tremendous competitive disadvantage.
But we never got the opportunity to hear from the American employers
or to offer any amendments. That's a truly disappointing breakdown of
the committee system, which is supposed to ensure that policies are
carefully vetted and reviewed before passage.
I also want to mention the phantom tax increases that aren't in this
bill but we will soon see. The Speaker has already indicated that she
opposes two of the spending offsets included in this bill. One relates
to food stamps; the other is a cut in funding for a renewable energy
spending program. Together, those items total $13.4 billion, more than
half the total offsets in the bill. So next month when the House
considers some other legislation, don't be surprised to see another $13
billion in higher taxes to prevent those spending cuts.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who has been a champion on the
issue of tax loopholes, a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Today we close international tax loopholes and open more
educational opportunities.
Last year in Texas, Governor Perry and his cohorts misdirected $3.2
billion in Federal aid to education simply to replace State education
commitments, leaving our schools not one dime better off than if we had
never offered them that Federal aid to education in the first place.
Given this very unfortunate history for our schoolchildren and the many
unique educational challenges that Texas faces, we have good reason to
include in this legislation Texas-specific safeguards to prevent more
such shenanigans with a formula that assures that this year Federal
education aid will get directly to our local schools. Our approach
enjoys the support of school trustees, of superintendents, of
principals, of teachers.
We have been listening across Texas to our parents at this time of
excitement as so many young people are going back to school, some for
the first time, and we are offering those families and those local
schools the important support they need for local education, paying for
every dime of it, and we are supporting those local education decisions
by local school trustees to achieve quality education free of
interference from the State. We are demanding accountability from the
State of Texas.
For some reason accountability seems like a good concept for everyone
except some Republican leaders and some international corporate tax
avoiders. I want to be sure that there's a level playing field for
taxpayers so that the small business down the street that could face a
property tax increase if we don't have adequate support for education,
that that business doesn't continue to have to pay a much higher rate
than some international corporate tax group that has all the fancy CPAs
to avoid paying its fair share.
{time} 1440
Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I think that it is important for us to
realize what is happening here today, and I do oppose the legislation
that the majority is bringing forward today.
Today, we are being asked to raise taxes for 10 years in order to pay
for Medicaid for 6 months. Now, think about that. Only here in
Washington would an action like that seem to make sense or even be
thought to be sustainable: 10 years to pay for 6 months.
Now, this is why the people across this Nation oppose this type
action, and I think if my friends were home listening instead of here
in D.C. spending some more that what they would hear from people is
they are sick and tired. They have really gotten their fill of
continuing to tax, continuing to spend, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and
going through this process of kicking the can down the road but not
addressing the problems.
The spending is out of control, the American people are overtaxed,
this government is overspent, and it is time that we demand
accountability.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my true pleasure to yield 1 minute to our very
distinguished majority leader, the colleague from the great State of
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.
The hour is late and Members have come back, properly so, to address
an issue that we addressed months ago. The Senate sent it to us; we
were gone. We thought it our responsibility to ask Members to come back
because if we hadn't come back, if we didn't pass this bill, what could
happen? 160,000 teachers would be at risk of being laid off and
probably would be laid off. What would that mean? It would mean larger
class sizes for teachers to deal with, children not receiving the kind
of education that they need to be competitive in the global
marketplace. What might have also happened? Some 160,000 police and
fire personnel, emergency response teams, may have had to be laid off.
That's why we came back. That's why we believe this is so important.
And how we paid for this, because we do not add a nickel to the
national debt, notwithstanding the previous speaker, we paid for this
because we believe if we're going to invest in our future, we also are
going to pay for it, not ask our grandchildren to pay for it. Now,
that's a concept that was jettisoned under Republican leadership but
we've reestablished. So we pay for this.
One of the ways we pay for it is to ask people is, look, if you're
going to send jobs overseas we're not going to give you a tax break. I
know there are some that apparently are not for that, and they're going
to vote against this bill, but my view is what we're doing is making
sure that our children have the proper education they need, making sure
that our communities are safe, and yes, making sure that we try to keep
every job in America so that we can continue to make things in America,
so people can make it in America. That's what this bill is all about.
The hour is late. I think everyone knows the issue, and I ask my
colleagues, vote for this critical piece of legislation. Keep our
teachers, our police, our fire personnel on the job. That's why the
Senate passed this bill with over 60 percent majority in a bipartisan
vote. Let's follow suit. Pass this bill. Make America better.
Let's consider what would happen if Republicans had their way and
this bill failed. Some 160,000 teachers' jobs would be eliminated.
Some 160,000 jobs for police officers, firefighters, nurses, and
private-sector employees would go, as well--a total of 320,000 lost
jobs. And the impact would extend far beyond the laid-off employees.
Our children's educations would be shortchanged--bigger class sizes,
programs eliminated, and summer school cancelled in communities across
our country. In our neighborhoods, we'd find fewer cops patrolling the
streets and longer waits before first responders arrive at the scene of
an emergency.
More vulnerable Americans--already struggling through the greatest
economic crisis of our lifetimes--would go without health care.
[[Page H6617]]
And don't think that the economic impact would be limited to the
320,000 laid-off workers alone.
It would mean families struggling to pay the mortgage or their
student loans; it would mean local businesses losing customers; it
would mean businesses forced into new layoffs of their own as a result.
It would mean, in short, a step closer to a double-dip recession.
I understand that States are obligated to cut spending when times are
hard; but the fact that States' revenues are largely tied to sources
that dramatically shrink in bad times, such as property and sales
taxes, creates a vicious cycle that helps prolong recessions.
When States cut spending, the results include layoffs, less consumer
demand, and a struggling private sector--making hard times hard for
longer. And if Republicans had succeeded in blocking the Recovery Act
and other measures to help pull our economy out of recession, State
budgets would be even worse off today.
Preventing another vicious cycle of budget cuts and layoffs is
exactly why it is both right and smart for the Federal Government to
step in and lend a hand today.
This bill will do so--and it will prevent the dangerous chain-
reaction of layoffs and drastically cut services for families that I've
described. And this bill will do so in a fiscally responsible way: it
includes savings for all of the dollars it spends, which means that it
adds nothing to the deficit.
In fact, much of this bill's savings can help keep jobs in America:
by passing this bill, we can end the tax loopholes for corporations
that send American jobs overseas. And that's another way this
legislation strengthens our economy and our recovery.
I don't understand how Republicans can add this bill to their year-
and-a-half record of obstructing our recovery.
I don't understand how anyone, Democrat or Republican, can be against
keeping teachers in the classroom, keeping cops on the beat, and
keeping firefighters protecting our homes.
But some who oppose this bill cynically call teachers, cops,
firefighters, and nurses ``special interests.''
That's how they will justify their vote against this bill--but with
the very same vote, Mr. Speaker, they will vote to protect corporations
that exploit the tax code to outsource American jobs.
How first responders are ``special interests'' and those corporations
are not, is beyond me--but I'm eager to hear my Republican friends
explain it.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this fiscally responsible bill,
which the communities we represent desperately need.
Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, Congress adjourned without doing anything useful over
the last year and a half to get this economy turned around. America
knows it. Sadly, this bill isn't going to change that fact.
My colleagues know that they've bankrupted the States with ObamaCare,
and they know full well this won't be the last time the Federal
Government borrows money to bail out the States.
As for the education jobs funding, the money provided in the
stimulus, the $54 billion as a matter of fact, provided in the stimulus
was supposed to do the trick, but like the stimulus as a whole it just
didn't work, did it?
This $10 billion is a transparent handout to the teachers union, who
not only continue to insist on greater pay but actually got their
Democrat buddies to put it in the bill. If States take the money, their
hands are actually tied on making any tough budget decision choices,
including pay. As a result, the States will be back here again, and
very soon, asking for more Federal bailouts, which the current majority
will probably be very happy to give to them.
My Democrat colleagues are incredibly generous when it comes to
spending OPM--that's other people's money. The only problem is that the
other people, each and every taxpayer in our great country, already owe
$130,000 apiece in Federal debt. That's why the American people are fed
up.
Finally, any claim that the bill is ``paid for'' is utterly nonsense.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that. This bill
before us represents another $14 billion in sham accounting gimmicks
that the majority cannot resist using. Never mind that you've already
used the money, the tax revenues, several times to pay for three
different spending bills.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman from
Michigan.
We all know that the $14 billion in food stamp cuts will never
actually really take place. So it is really a sham isn't it, folks?
Just like the doc fix and everything else, you will kick the can down
the road and far enough, so far, in fact, that it won't have to be
counted in today's budget.
Madam Speaker, the bailouts must end. The borrowing must end. The
gimmicks must end. If we are ever again to have a competitive country,
the relentless tax increases on job creators also must end.
I urge a vote against this.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms.
Kilroy).
Ms. KILROY. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, across America, summer is coming to an end and parents
are thinking about their children's return to school. These parents
have big hopes and dreams for their children, and also worries about
the future. They want their children to succeed in school. They want
them to be able to go to college, to get a good job in a competitive
global economy, and they know they need a dedicated teacher in that
classroom guiding their children's learning.
But school boards have been making cuts and laying off teachers.
Schools in Ohio rely on property tax, and because of Wall Street's
reckless gambles with predatory lending and resulting record
foreclosures, schools have seen their revenues decline. Schools also
rely on State assistance, and Ohio, like many States, have real budget
challenges. This bill is essential to keep teachers in the classroom.
In Ohio, that means over 5,500 teachers.
It will provide the necessary funding to the States for Medicaid
assistance as well, responding to urgent requests from Republican and
Democratic Governors. In order to pay for this bill, we are closing tax
loopholes that have been abused, that have sent jobs overseas. Not only
will this help pay to keep those teachers in the classroom, it will end
a job drain and help us to make things here in America.
So why are my colleagues across the aisle so opposed? They don't seem
to understand that investing in our Nation's future means investing in
our Nation's schools. They call our children special interests. Well,
our children don't have big K Street lobbyists like Wall Street does.
They need us to stand up for them. But those who enjoy those tax
loopholes are the special interests with those lobbyists. Broad
opponents of this bill are listening to them, but that's the wrong way
to go. That's the way of the past.
It's time to end business as usual and politics as usual and stand up
for America's workers and stand up for America, to keep jobs here, and
it's time to stand for America's children and America's teachers and
America's schools. It's time to keep our communities safe, to keep
firefighters and police on the streets.
{time} 1450
Mr. CAMP. I am prepared to reserve or prepared to close if the
gentleman has no further speakers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has
the right to close.
Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have before me letters from the Chamber of Commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, as well as PACE,
Promote America's Competitive Edge.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation, representing more than 3 million business organizations of
every size. They strongly oppose this legislation because they say it
would place ``draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies
that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of
American businesses, and deter economic growth'' and the jobs that come
from that.
Likewise, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Nation's
largest industrial trade association representing small and large
manufacturers in every industrial sector in all 50 States, they
[[Page H6618]]
also oppose this legislation. ``An estimated 22 million workers in the
United States, more than 19 percent of the private sector workforce and
53 percent of all manufacturing employees, are employed by companies
with operations overseas.'' They oppose these tax increases because,
again, it will ``jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing
employees and stifle our fragile economy.''
Likewise, the Business Roundtable, which, again, is an association
that represents more than 12 million employees, has also sent a letter
opposing this legislation because they say that this legislation will,
again, only make matters worse, make it more difficult for U.S.
companies to compete in the world economy and then actually puts U.S.
jobs at stake because of that.
Again, PACE, which represents more than 63 million American jobs that
depend on the competitiveness of American employers worldwide, said,
``At a time when other countries are taking steps to attract business,
this legislation sends exactly the opposite message, with the effect of
discouraging business investment and job creation in the United
States.''
I think it's actually unfortunate that, again, here on the floor I am
having to submit these letters here, when actually the appropriate
place would be in the Committee on Ways and Means. But, unfortunately,
the Committee on Ways and Means has never had a hearing on these
provisions, never had a markup on this legislation. We have not had a
process that has been open to employers to come forward before the
committee and be heard on the record so that we might be able to adjust
this or put this in context.
As I said, we need broad-based international tax reform in the U.S.
This piecemeal approach doesn't work, hurts our competitiveness.
Again, I think if we could have had a system where there was actually
a committee hearing or a markup, that on review you might be able to
improve upon this or find a way to actually address the serious issue
that pretty soon our corporate tax rate will be the highest among all
the industrialized nations, and we could actually put on the record the
deep flaws in our international tax system and the deep flaws in our
Tax Code.
Instead, what we are doing today is rushing to the floor again,
without transparency, without openness, without hearing--certainly no
opportunity for American employers to come forward and be heard on this
issue. We are putting them at a tremendous competitive disadvantage at
a time when they need to be competing around the world for jobs.
With that, I urge opposition to this legislation.
Business Roundtable,
Washington, DC, August 9, 2010.
Dear Member of Congress: We write today to express our
strong opposition to inclusion of international tax revenue
raisers in H.R. 1586, as approved last week by the Senate.
The measure would raise nearly $10 billion in new taxes on
worldwide American companies through fundamental changes in
U.S. tax law, despite the fact that U.S. tax rules already
put American companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Keeping American companies and workers competitive should
be the number one goal of U.S. tax policy, yet changes in the
tax systems of our major trading partners now place the
United States at a decided tax disadvantage--which runs a
high risk of severely undermining U.S. economic growth and
job creation.
The United States already has the second highest tax rate
among developed countries and an international tax structure
that is a relic of an era in which U.S. companies faced
little competition from foreign-headquartered corporations as
they competed around the world. The current U.S. system is
inconsistent with the free flow of trade and investment, and
it inhibits use of foreign earnings to invest in the U.S.
economy. The provisions included in the House legislation to
be considered today will only make matters worse.
We urge the House to remove the counterproductive
international tax provisions now included in H.R. 1586, and
that any future consideration of U.S. tax policy be done only
in the context of comprehensive tax reform designed to
improve the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the world
economy. U.S. jobs are at stake.
Business Roundtable is an association of chief executive
officers of leading U.S. companies with over $6 trillion in
annual revenues and more than 12 million employees. Our
members share your goal of restoring the U.S. economy to
strong economic growth and job creation.
Sincerely,
Larry D. Burton.
____
National Association of
Manufacturers,
Washington, DC, August 9, 2010.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: The National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM), the Nation's largest industrial trade
association representing small and large manufacturers in
every industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to
oppose the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586, the Education Jobs
and Medicaid Assistance Act.
While the NAM has taken no position on the spending
provisions in the legislation, we remain adamantly opposed to
using proposed tax increases on American worldwide companies
to fund unrelated spending initiatives.
An estimated 22 million people in the United States--more
than 19 percent of the private sector workforce and 53
percent of all manufacturing employees--are employed by
companies with operations overseas. Manufacturers feel
strongly that imposing $9.6 billion in tax increases on these
companies as proposed in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586
will jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees
and stifle our fragile economy.
Some of the proposed tax increases, which are
mischaracterized as closing tax loopholes, actually represent
significant changes to pro-growth tax policy supported by
Congress and the Administration.
We are disappointed that many of the legislation's proposed
tax increases have not been adequately scrutinized during
congressional hearings. In many cases, taxpayers have relied
on these longstanding tax provisions in structuring their
businesses. Changing the rules without fair and adequate
hearings will cost in terms of jobs, investment and
manufacturers' ability to compete overseas.
Manufacturers believe strongly that changes to our
international tax laws should be considered in the broader
context of tax reform that makes the United States more
competitive--not as ``pay fors'' for unrelated policy
initiatives. Moreover, targeting some international tax law
changes in advance of the tax reform debate would make the
goal of pro-growth, pro-competitiveness reform that much more
difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that
votes related to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586, including
procedural votes, may be considered for designation as Key
Manufacturing Votes in the 111th Congress.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jay Timmons.
____
Chamber of Commerce,
Government Affairs,
Washington, DC, August 5, 2010.
To The Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business
federation representing the interests of more than three
million businesses and organizations of every size, sector,
and region, strongly opposes H.R. 1586, which would impose
draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that
would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of
American businesses, and deter economic growth.
This legislation would change longstanding U.S.
international tax law, the impact of which has never been
given proper consideration in hearings or other bills. For
example, by denying the foreign tax credit in certain
scenarios involving covered asset acquisitions, this
legislation hampers acquisitions by American worldwide
companies, threatening their ability to create jobs while
simultaneously narrowing the tax base. Stripping away the
benefits of this provision would likely impede the
competitiveness of American worldwide companies in their bids
for foreign targets.
Additionally, limiting the use of Sec. 956 for foreign tax
credit planning (i.e., the ``hopscotch'' rule) harms the
ability of companies to repatriate cash to the United States
in a tax efficient manner. Foreign business acquisitions
generally result in a series of intermediate foreign holding
companies, which block the repatriation of earnings for a
variety of reasons such as local statutory earnings deficits
or other local restrictions on actual dividends. American
worldwide companies have had the ability to overcome such
obstacles through the use of Sec. 956. This provision was
particularly beneficial during the recent economic downturn
and ensuing credit crunch when it was necessary for American
worldwide companies to repatriate significant funds in order
to meet the financial needs of their U.S. businesses. By
limiting the use of Sec. 956, this amendment would
significantly reduce the repatriation of foreign earnings,
hurting economic growth and job creation.
The Chamber strongly opposes H.R. 1586 because of the
significant changes it makes to U.S. international tax law,
which would hurt the competitiveness of American worldwide
companies, hinder their ability to create jobs, and harm the
U.S. economy. The Chamber may consider votes on, or in
relation to, this issue in our annual How They Voted
scorecard.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
[[Page H6619]]
____
Promote America's
Competitive Edge,
August 6, 2010.
Dear Member of Congress: The PACE Coalition--a broad-based
organization dedicated to promoting and increasing the more
than 63 million American jobs that depend on the
international competitiveness of worldwide American
companies--opposes inclusion of the proposed international
tax increases in H.R. 1586, as amended by the Senate.
The members of PACE, including the undersigned trade
associations, advocate that the United States should provide
a level playing field for taxation of international
operations of U.S. businesses. U.S. tax law already
disadvantages worldwide American companies and their
employees. U.S. companies face the second highest corporate
tax rate among developed countries and an international tax
system that impedes the ability of U.S. companies to expand
into new markets and reinvest foreign earnings at home. The
$9.6 billion in proposed international tax increases in this
bill would further disadvantage U.S. companies--harming their
competitiveness and reducing the earnings U.S. companies
bring back from their foreign operations, thereby reducing
reinvestment in U.S. plant and equipment, funding U.S.
research, and expanding U.S. payrolls.
At a time when other countries are taking steps to attract
business, this legislation sends exactly the opposite
message, with the effect of discouraging business investment
and job creation in the United States.
PACE urges policy makers to consider comprehensive tax
reform designed to increase the competitiveness of U.S.
companies both at home and abroad. Changes to our
international tax system that fail to consider the
competitive global marketplace will further disadvantage U.S.
workers. When worldwide American companies become less
competitive in their ability to serve foreign markets, demand
for U.S. produced goods and services will decline.
PACE looks forward to working with Member of Congress to
modernize our international tax system to improve the
competitiveness of the U.S. economy and create jobs at home.
Because H.R. 1586 contains these detrimental international
tax increases, we respectfully request that you vote against
the bill.
Sincerely,
Business Roundtable,
Information Technology Industry Council,
National Association of Manufacturers,
National Foreign Trade Council,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to our
distinguished Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the
distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for bringing
this important legislation to the floor, working closely with the
distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee.
This must be about the third time, Mr. Chairman, that we have brought
this pay-for to the floor, the provision that repeals that provision of
the law which rewards businesses for sending jobs overseas.
This is not a new subject to the Congress. It is not a new subject to
the floor, thanks to your leadership.
Madam Speaker, today, we have an opportunity to create jobs. With the
press of a button, each of us will play a role in creating over 300,000
jobs, saving over 300,000 jobs across the country.
Their jobs, these people are consumers. It's important to our economy
that they are employed, but it goes well beyond that. It's about jobs
for teachers. It's about the education of our children. It's about the
innovation of our Nation. It's bigger than just a job. It's about the
future.
These are jobs of firefighters and police officers, about the safety
of our neighborhoods and our communities where our children can thrive.
It's about nurses and health care providers, to keep our country strong
in terms of the health and well-being of the American people.
It's about the stability of State budgets. Economists have told us
that if this legislation were not passed and these jobs are not saved
and the budgets of the States were not stabilized, we would go into
another deep recession, like the one we inherited from the previous
administration; and it would be a much longer path out of that
recession.
I thank the distinguished chairman for bringing us to the floor with
this legislation. I thank the Members on both sides of the aisle for
responding so quickly to the call to return to Washington to save and
create jobs for the American people.
The pay-for in this legislation, which repeals the opportunity for
businesses to get a tax break for sending jobs overseas, is part of our
make-it-in-America agenda. Make it in America means manufacture it in
America. It also enables people to make it in America.
This is about innovation, innovation that's created here with our
creativity and the benefit of our education system and our
entrepreneurial spirit and the rest; and then it says when we have the
idea and we create the innovation that we create the jobs here to
produce it, to manufacture it, and not to scale up overseas, invent
here and create the jobs overseas. No, invent here, manufacture here,
and market to the world.
This is really important legislation also because of the way it is
paid for. While I don't support all of the provisions, I am not happy
about taking money from our energy sector or from food stamps, but I
hope that we can, Mr. Chairman, make that up in another way.
I am very pleased about the funds that are obtained by repealing the
provision to send jobs offshore.
This legislation is fiscally responsible and fully paid for. It
invests in America's communities, again, by closing that tax loophole
that allows corporations to ship jobs overseas. Have I said that enough
times?
Those who claim that the legislation will add to the deficit are
simply wrong. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office, this bill reduces the deficit by $1.4 billion.
Madam Speaker, it's about time that we got this bill passed. We first
passed it in the House last year, the end of last year. We passed it
again, some features of it, in the spring. Finally, the Senate acted
last week. Finally, they were able to get enough votes to pass it with
a super majority in the Senate.
The minute we anticipated that that would happen, the word went out
and we called to the House to come back to Washington so that not
another day would go by without our, again, pressing that button for
over 300,000 jobs.
My grandchildren, the ones who are in public school, went back to
school yesterday. It's about time, again, that children in other parts
of the country may be preparing to go back to school in another week or
so or at the beginning of September, and they cannot afford to wait for
us to put teachers back into the classroom.
{time} 1500
That's why it was urgent that we act. Communities struggling to keep
policemen on the beat and firefighters on the job that were on the
brink of layoffs, this is good news for them. And tens of thousands of
Americans will not be joining the ranks of the unemployed.
So I thank the gentleman again for his leadership, for making this
part of what we have been doing for a matter of months so that we were
ready when, finally, thank God, the Senate acted so that we can educate
our children, innovate for our country, protect our neighborhoods and
our homes, as well as keep the American people healthy, in a fiscally
sound way. Again, we are doing so in a way that helps people make it in
America.
For that I am grateful to the chairman and to the distinguished
Democratic Leader Mr. Hoyer, who coined the phrase, but for all of our
Members who worked so hard to have America continue to be the shining
star, the lead competitor, the innovator, number one.
President Kennedy, when he launched the campaign to send a man to the
Moon and back safely many, many decades ago, he said he would do so
within 10 years, and he did. But when he did it, he said if we are to
honor the vows of our Founders, we must be first, and therefore we
intend to be first.
This legislation is yet another piece of legislation that enables
America to be first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us that
privilege, and to Mr. Obey as well.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, this is a vitally important
bill. In my state of Wisconsin alone, it will save the jobs of 2000-
3000 teachers. With the school year right around the corner, it is
essential that we keep these teachers in our schools--where our
children need them. This legislation will also ensure that some of the
most vulnerable in our society continue to receive Medicaid while
protecting states from drastic cuts to their budgets. Without this
Medicaid assistance, states
[[Page H6620]]
would be forced to lay off more workers, cut more services, and raise
taxes more than they would otherwise to balance their budgets.
However, I am outraged by a reduction in Supplementary Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits that is used to pay for this
measure. Those who receive the meager SNAP benefits are the most poor
and the most vulnerable in our society. Currently, 6 million Americans
receiving SNAP report that they have no other source of income. In my
district, about 20 percent of all people and 38 percent of children are
SNAP beneficiaries.
Before this bill was considered, I offered an amendment to the Rules
Committee that would have ameliorated the SNAP cut. My amendment would
have rescinded $2.972 billion in unspent Race to the Top funds in order
to provide an additional year of more adequate SNAP benefits. Race to
the Top funds benefit only a few chosen students and schools while on
the other hand saving teacher positions benefits the masses of children
who would face larger class sizes and cuts to vital programs such as
libraries, computers, and gym classes. This is just one example of a
more appropriate offset than cutting SNAP.
While I support the bill on the floor today, I abhor this cut and
will work to restore it.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the
House was called back into session to take up and pass this critical
jobs measure today. This bill will bolster working-class Americans,
ensure that our teachers are protected from layoffs and reduce the
deficit.
However, I am very concerned that the Senate chose to take $1.5
billion out of the Renewable Energy Loan Guarantee Fund to help pay for
this legislation.
Congress already tapped this program once when it took $2 billion out
of this program to extend the very successful ``Cash for Clunkers''
program that did so much to jump-start auto sales last year. While the
House voted last December to restore that funding, the Senate failed to
act. Now, with this bill, Congress will be taking another huge bite out
of the program. That's $3.5 billion cut out of a $6 billion program.
Through discussions with the Department of Energy, I understand that
this fund will still have enough money to finance renewable energy
projects through the first quarter of next year. But the funds that we
are borrowing today must be replenished before then.
The $1.5 billion in loan guarantee funds would pull an additional $15
billion of private investment off the sideline and put it into the
economy at a time when we need that investment the most. It would
continue to build on the 190,000 new jobs that this program and others
from the Recovery Act have created in the clean energy sector.
American consumers currently send half a billion dollars a day
overseas to pay for foreign oil--money that goes to the Middle East,
OPEC and countries that wish us harm. Instead, we should invest that
money here at home, putting people to work building electric vehicles,
wind turbines, solar panels and smart grid technology.
Make no mistake, we are in a global race with China for clean energy
manufacturing jobs and technology. The country that leads the world in
developing clean energy will lead the world in creating jobs.
China just threw down the gauntlet with a $738 billion investment in
renewable energy over the next ten years. We must respond to that
challenge rather cutting our own investment.
This bill is worthy of our support and I encourage my colleagues to
vote ``Aye'' on the underlying bill. But let's make sure we work to
replenish the renewable energy loan guarantee fund so that our young
industry has a shot at winning the clean energy race with China.
Vote ``aye.''
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act and urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of this much needed legislation.
The Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act will provide
necessary, temporary relief for the States at a time when officials
must make tough budget decisions. Governors across the country face
declining revenues at the same time the economic downturn has left more
of their citizens looking for help. My colleagues across the aisle will
use their best political spin to characterize this legislation as
fiscally unsound. They have stated that this is just another bailout
for special interest groups. My friends, this couldn't be further from
the truth. I don't know when our school children became a special
interest group. The reality is many Republicans would rather avoid
making tough decisions, cross their fingers and hope just saying ``no''
helps their election prospects in November.
I am proud that my colleagues and I prefer to provide real leadership
and make the tough, necessary choices to put this country back on a
sound fiscal track and address the pressing needs of our people. So,
while my Republican colleagues spin, let me state the facts. This bill
will:
Help to save or create 319,000 jobs, of which 161,000 are teacher
jobs and 158,000 are for police officers and firefighters as a result
of the Medicaid fund increase;
Provide an estimated $600 million to my home state of Michigan,
saving the jobs of 4,700 teachers in Michigan, and 242 teachers in the
15th District;
Provide $16 billion for State Medicaid programs. This means an
estimated $380 million in additional Medicaid funding to Michigan to
avert drastic cuts in their Medicaid program; and
Further protect jobs here at home, by closing tax loopholes that
encourage corporations to ship jobs overseas.
The bill before us is fiscally sound; it is totally paid for and
decreases the deficit by $1.4 billion over 10 years. These facts cannot
be disputed.
The threat of teacher and public service layoffs, and medical benefit
cuts are not partisan issues. Our dire economic situation facing the
States and our people affect both Democrats and Republicans alike.
Again Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues, including my Republican
colleagues--many of whom have decided to gamble with the lives of our
children and paychecks of public servants by playing politics with this
bill--to support this common sense legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, one of the things I have noticed over the
past year, as our country has faced some of the greatest economic
difficulties imaginable, is that there have been very few easy or
inconsequential votes taken on this floor. Our nation's problems are
vast and deep and they have tested this Congress, as we have again and
again been forced to rise and meet unforeseen challenges while, at the
same time, working to restore the promise inherent in the American
dream to our fellow countrymen and women.
Today is no different. The bill we bring to the floor today is a
necessary measure. The fiscal fate of our states and over 300,000 jobs
weigh in the balance. If we do not act, many of our nation's children
will be left without teachers when they return to school in a few
weeks. Worse, inaction could exacerbate an already unfolding crisis in
our state and local governments, where budget shortfalls have cost
100,000 public servants their jobs in the past three months.
So, we must act. It is unfortunate that in doing so, we must also cut
$11 billion in benefits from the food stamp program to offset the cost
of this necessary state aid. Indeed, this is a bitter pill to swallow.
In real terms, this means that monthly benefits for a family of three
will drop by $47 dollars in April 2014. Now, $47 dollars may not seem
like a lot of money to many in this chamber, but during this recession
this additional funding has served as a lifeline for many of those who
have been hit the hardest by this recession. Our food stamp program is
already chronically underfunded. At current levels, these benefits are
often insufficient to allow a family to purchase enough food to last an
entire month.
Madam Speaker, this is why many of our fellow citizens are frustrated
with Washington. It is why they think we are out of touch. We offer aid
with one hand and take from the neediest with the other. It makes no
sense whatsoever. As my friend, the Chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, noted the other day: those who need help the most had
finally caught a break, only to now have it taken away.
That said, I want to reiterate that this bill, taken as a whole, is a
good bill and I will support it. This is the burden of governing; we
have a duty to make tough decisions and live with them. While I
disagree with the decision to phase out these important benefits in
2014 and pledge to work to ensure that they are reinstated, I respect
the work my colleagues on this side of the aisle have put into crafting
this necessary jobs package. It is certainly much more admirable and
serious than what the other side offers: a resolution calling for
Congress to shut down and take a paid two-month vacation.
I may not agree with the choices some of my Democratic colleagues
make, but never for a moment do I doubt their commitment to facing down
and solving the challenges facing the American people. This debate,
frankly, illustrates the choice offered to our fellow citizens this
fall: serious, difficult, deliberation and governance or silly and
trivial gimmicks aimed at scoring political points. The American,
people will have to decide.
I encourage my colleagues to support this necessary, job-saving bill.
Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Senate
amendment to H.R. 1586, the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act.
Madam Speaker, weeks before students go back to school in Illinois,
20,000 teachers are on the front line of huge layoffs due to deep state
budget cuts.
[[Page H6621]]
For several months, I joined Chairman Miller and Chairman Obey in
leading the call to pass emergency education funding to protect quality
public schools. And with great pride, I will vote for the Education
Jobs Fund before the House today that will keep 350 teachers in my
district in the classroom and off the unemployment line.
Madam Speaker, in keeping with our promise to restore fiscal
responsibility abandoned by Republicans, the bill is fully paid for
primarily by closing tax loopholes for corporations who ship jobs
overseas and reduces the deficit by $1.4 billion over the next decade.
Madam Speaker, teachers out of work threaten our recovery, so I ask
all of my colleagues to support passage of the Education Jobs Fund.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
1586, the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act. It is essential
that we get this legislation to the President's desk as soon as
possible.
In the wake of the Great Recession, state budgets across the country,
faced with historic funding gaps, simply do not have the funds
available to respond to the increased demands placed on Medicaid and
school budgets. Unless we provide help by passing this bill, they will
need to take resources away from other essential services, laying off
firefighters and police officers.
H.R. 1586 extends Medicaid assistance for an additional 6 months, and
provides Illinois with $545 million, to ensure that women and children,
seniors, and people with disabilities do not lose access to their
health care. There has been a bi-partisan call for this funding--
sixteen Republican governors have publically expressed their dire need
for this money. For the past several month I have heard from
physicians, nurses, hospitals, patients, small clinics, all asking that
Congress act to extend Medicaid support. Today their call has been
heard.
Local school districts, teachers, and parents have also been in touch
regarding the need for financial support during these tough economic
times. H.R. 1586 provides $10 billion in educator support that will
save 5,700 teacher, school counselor, and school support service jobs
in my state alone. Because of this legislation, teachers will not be
greeted with class sizes of 50 students, or worse, a pink slip, on
their first day of school. It will help ensure that our children can
continue get the education they need to be productive members of their
community and be able to compete in the 21st century global economy.
This bill will save and create an estimated 319,000 jobs. That
includes teachers, firefighters, police officers, nurses--all critical
employees who get a paycheck from the state. It will also save private
jobs. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that for every 100
layoffs in the public sector, the private sector sheds 30 jobs. This
bill is not a handout provided during tough times--this is smart policy
that will stem job loss and get us out of the Great Recession sooner.
Although this legislation is critically needed, I am greatly
disappointed that the Senate included as a ``pay-for'' a provision
reducing ARRA-enacted increases in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program benefits, or food stamps, beginning in 2014. SNAP provides
vital, short-term support to individuals during their greatest time of
need, ensuring that there is food on the table for themselves and their
children. While we need to pass this bill today, I am committed to
working with my colleagues to find the funding to restore SNAP funding
before 2014.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 1586, the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act. I support
this legislation because it will save and create 319,000 American
jobs--many of them in the education and health sectors.
In less than a month, millions of American students will return to
school eager to begin a new year of academic and personal growth.
However, the quality of the schools they return to is a matter to be
determined. Throughout the country, thousands of teachers have lost, or
risk losing, their jobs. This is something our children and our
educators can ill afford. As we work to regain economic ground, this
legislation provides a total of $10 billion in funding for education
jobs to sustain thousands of schools educating millions of children.
Moreover, this includes $830.2 billion dollars for primary and
secondary schools in the state of Texas.
I am pleased that this legislation includes a provision that requires
Governor Perry to certify that these emergency appropriations for
public education will be used solely to add new funds for public
education and not misused for other purposes. We all recall what
happened last year when Governor Perry misused the Economic Recovery
Act State Stabilization funds. In that instance, Governor Perry used
$3.2 billion in similar aid last year as a substitute for, not an
addition to, state aid to school districts. That was outrageous. It
ignored the intent of our legislation, and it denied our children the
education that they deserved.
I want to stress that the provision will not create a compliance
burden on the state of Texas. Rather, it says only that the state
cannot take the federal aid and then use it as an excuse to make
disproportionate cuts in state education aid to school districts,
relative to other parts of the state budget that might also have to
take a hit in the next budget cycle. This required assurance is no more
onerous than assurances Governor Perry has given previously to receive
billions of dollars in other federal funds. Texas cannot afford to be
left out again, and I join my colleague Lloyd Doggett and groups of
teachers, principals and administrators from across the state of Texas
who strongly support this provision.
Madam Speaker, I applaud you for reconvening this week to pass this
crucial legislation. We have a bold vision for creating and sustaining
an education system that prepares our children to excel. As President
Obama said yesterday in Texas, ``education is the economic issue of our
time.'' I could not agree more. Today we have the opportunity to pass
legislation that will impact education jobs today and our children's
job prospects tomorrow. With schools forced to make difficult personnel
decisions before the start of the school year, this legislation is the
necessary action at the necessary time. According to updated estimates
from the Department of Education, the $10 billion education funding
will save 161,000 teacher jobs.
In addition to education jobs funding, this legislation will also
save and create jobs in the health sector. According to an analysis by
the Economic Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank, the Medicaid
funds will save and create 158,000 jobs, including preventing the
layoff of police officers and firefighters. More than half these jobs
will be in the private sector, including workers who contract for or
supply services to state and local governments.
Under the Recovery Act, enacted in February 2009, the federal
Medicaid matching rate was increased by 6.2 percentage points for all
states and by additional percentage points for states with high
unemployment. These temporary provisions were enacted in response to
the state fiscal crisis--with the increased Medicaid caseloads and
decreasing state revenues resulting from the deep recession. However,
these provisions are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010 with dire
consequences for our economy.
As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found: ``if Congress
does not extend the enhanced Medicaid matching funds in last year's
Recovery Act, most states will cut public services or raise taxes . . .
without more federal aid, state budget-closing actions could cost the
national economy 900,000 public- and private-sector jobs.''
Due to the deep and enduring recession, states have lost tax revenue
for the last two years and revenues are projected to remain at
severely-reduced levels throughout fiscal year 2011. As a result,
states have been forced to scale back spending and implement large
service cuts to balance their budgets. While fiscal austerity is
important, budget cuts impact more than a bottom line--the local health
and emergency personnel need their jobs to make ends meet for
themselves and their families. By extending the Medicare matching
funds, we will help state and local governments save money and allow
them to stay afloat while the economy improves. At least 34 states will
cut jobs and services if this assistance is not enacted. This
legislation will have a direct impact on Texas by providing an
estimated $858,000,000 for Medicaid fiscal relief which will, in turn,
save and create thousands of jobs.
Madam Speaker, I thank you again for calling us back to session to
save America's jobs.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
support of the Motion to Concur to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586,
which provides emergency education and Medicaid funding for the States.
This $10 billion in education funding will save thousands of teacher
jobs across this country. In my congressional district in Dallas,
nearly 700 teacher jobs will be preserved with these emergency dollars.
In particular, I'd like to thank House and Senate Leadership for
including within this bill Texas specific language that would prevent
the State of Texas from misusing federally directed dollars for
educational purposes. When Texas was awarded $3.25 billion for the
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, this money never made it to the local
education agencies. Instead, it was placed in a rainy day fund by the
Texas Governor. This was not the intent of these funds, and it has
forced Congress to prevent this situation from happening again.
Provisions inserted into this bill would prevent Texas from placing
these emergency dollars meant for teachers into any other fund. It
would tie funding to Title I schools, so that this money goes to our
neediest schools. It would also prevent the State of Texas from making
[[Page H6622]]
a severe and disproportionate cut to state education funding next year.
We did this, so that the Texas Governor could not say to Dallas
schools, since you received $39 million extra from the federal
government last year, we're going to cut your funding by the same
amount for 2011. If the State of Texas cannot abide by this and rejects
the funding, then the Department of Education will provide the money
directly to the local education agencies. No matter what this money
will go to our schools and students.
The State of Texas has shown it cannot act in good faith when it
relates to federal funding for our schools. These dollars are
imperative and will save 14,500 teacher jobs across Texas.
I do have some concerns regarding this legislation and offsets that
are made to fund this bill. In particular, I disagree with a funding
cut to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. At a time when
we have record enrollment in the SNAP program, a decrease in funding to
this program is very disconcerting. We must not target the poorest
among us in providing emergency funds for others in need. Despite my
concerns I recognize the importance of this funding and support the
passage of this legislation.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Education Jobs
and Medicaid Assistance Act. This bill will supply much needed fiscal
relief to Rhode Island, providing $33 million in education funding to
prevent hundreds of teacher layoffs, as well as $70 million in Federal
Medicaid funding that will help the state close a significant budgetary
gap.
While Congress has taken unprecedented actions over the past two
years to avert a full economic depression and put our country back on
the path of positive economic growth, the recovery has been slow and
painful. This is particularly true in Rhode Island, which has the
fourth highest unemployment rate in the country at 12 percent. Rhode
Islanders are still struggling to find jobs; and we are finally
beginning to see glimmers of hope in a still fragile economy. We simply
cannot afford to lay off more dedicated workers, create longer
unemployment lines and slash social services at a time when people need
them the most.
This legislation includes $10 billion in emergency support to school
districts and ensures that states use these funds for the preservation
of jobs serving elementary and secondary education. It is anticipated
that the $33 million in funding to Rhode Island will save 500 education
jobs. Investing in our children's education not only has long-term
benefits to our economy, but it also delivers on our nation's promise
to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity to succeed.
Also included in this measure is $16.1 billion in health assistance
to states, $70 million of which will be allocated to Rhode Island. This
funding will prove vital to reducing the state's budgetary shortfalls,
and will help keep many workers on the job, including our police
officers and firefighters. It is expected that more than half these
jobs nationally will occur in the private sector, including workers who
contract with, or supply services to, state and local governments.
Finally, this bill is completely paid for, with no increase to the
federal deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill
reduces the deficit by $1.4 billion over 10 years by closing
international tax loopholes and cutting back on other federal programs.
However, I am disappointed that one of the programs slated for cuts is
the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, particularly given the
increased need for food assistance as our families continue to recover
from the economic downturn.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and protect the jobs of our
teachers, first responders and other employees, in both the public and
private sector.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, the Senate proposes rescissions totaling
nearly $2.2 billion to Department of Defense programs in their
amendment to the 2010 Supplemental Appropriation. These rescissions
will not harm DoD programs and will not affect the conduct of
continuing operations in Afghanistan or Iraq.
The Senate bill proposes rescissions in three categories.
First, in section 303, the Senate amendment proposes $1.6 billion in
rescissions based on the Department of Defense accounting reports.
These rescissions are a reflection of balances that would likely expire
at the end of this fiscal year, or be reprogrammed for other efforts.
Second, in section 304, the Senate amendment proposes $382.5 million.
Of this amount, $260.5 million is from funding appropriated in the
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act for facilities sustainment,
restoration and modernization. This funding is available for rescission
based on contract savings. This section also rescinds $122 million of
funding from Marine Corps procurement because the Marine Corps has not
been able to spend this money.
Third, in section 305, the Senate amendment proposes $203 million. Of
this amount, $116 million is derived from an Army procurement program,
the Non Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS), which the Department of
Defense terminated earlier this year. This section also includes $87
million of funding from Other Procurement, Army due to slower than
planned spending rates in Army truck and communications programs.
The Senate amendment would not affect contingency operations in
Afghanistan or Iraq. Those funds are provided separately to the
Department of Defense, and are given special designation. None of the
funds proposed for rescission are those designated for Overseas
Contingency Operations.
The DoD budget is sufficient to shoulder part of the burden to
provide financial relief recommended in this bill. I urge your support
for this bill.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity
to vote on this important bill that will provide critical aid to states
and local governments. The House of Representatives twice has passed
bills to provide federal assistance for education and health. I am
pleased that we finally are able to deliver this desperately needed
federal support to our constituents.
I support this legislation because it will provide essential
assistance to Chicago, Illinois, and the nation. The Illinois
Association of School Administrators estimates that Illinois will lose
more than 20,000 education-related jobs for the upcoming school year.
The State of Illinois anticipates receiving approximately $415 million
to keep 5,700 teachers in the classroom. My congressional district is
expected to receive approximately $36 million to keep 508 educators
teaching my young constituents. This $415 million will provide a
lifeline to local school districts with straining budgets to preserve
some of these jobs, improving children's learning and the economic
well-being of my state and the nation.
In addition to this vital education funding, this bill will provide
$550 million to help cover 300,000 Illinoisans on Medicaid--preserving
services, allowing timely payments to providers, and creating thousands
of jobs. These are not theoretical numbers; to people in Chicago and
Illinois, they are very real people who benefit. The beneficiaries are
mothers, fathers, young adults, senior citizens, and children in
Illinois. The beneficiaries are the teachers, firefighters, and police
officers who will continue to work as educators and protectors of our
communities. The beneficiaries are small businesses in the private
sector who contract with state and local governments to provide health-
related work.
Given the desperate need for this funding in my district and state, I
cast my vote in support for this federal aid to preserve education jobs
and health services for low-income persons. This said, I wish to voice
my disappointment that one of the offsets for this bill sent to us by
the Senate is a reduction in funding for poor families in need of
federal aid to purchase food. Children and families who receive food
assistance are some of our most vulnerable citizens. In 2009, 1.46
million Illinoisans in 677,000 households received food stamps with an
average per month of about $136 for a total benefit value issued of
$2.3 billion. There are many poor families in Chicago and Illinois who
need the full amount of the food benefits. Even if the impact is a few
years away, I am disappointed that my vote to provide almost $1 billion
of federal assistance to my state occurs by reducing future benefits to
the poor. I vow to work actively with my colleagues to replace this
funding so that no reduction in food assistance comes to fruition.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, due to a previously scheduled
commitment, I was unable to return to Washington, DC, on August 10,
2010, to cast my vote in opposition to rollcall No. 518, the
``Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act,'' incorporated as a
Senate Amendment to H.R. 1589.
This bill is nothing more than another state bailout that prevents
states from making responsible budgetary decisions while increasing
federal deficit spending. It provides $26.1 billion in temporary state
education and Medicaid assistance paid for through a combination of
permanent federal tax increases, spending rescissions from the Stimulus
Act, and questionable accounting methods from the Food Stamp Program.
As a condition of receiving the federal education funds, states are
forbidden from reducing educational expenditures below 2009 levels and
must use the funds to pay for teacher salaries. This assistance is
similar to the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund created in the first
stimulus that has already distributed $53 billion to states' education
budgets and, in many cases, was used for teacher salary raises--not to
meet funding gaps. Providing more federal funding to states' education
budgets will further delay the states from making sensible reforms to
ease their budgetary pressures. Similarly, this bill will extend the
federal Medicaid matching rate--also created in the stimulus--until
June 2011, creating more state dependency on the federal government.
[[Page H6623]]
The American people are witnessing the results of this
administration's extraordinary deficit spending, and it is not yielding
the promised low unemployment and increased job growth. With the
national unemployment rate still at 9.5 percent and existing historic
deficits, it is time for the federal government to rein in its spending
and allow the states to take responsibility for their own budgets.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, today the House of Representatives is
voting on a jobs bill that will keep Americans working. This is a jobs
bill that will keep 161,000 teachers in the classroom rather than in
the unemployment line. This is a bill that prevents thousands of first-
responders who are protecting our communities today from losing their
jobs tomorrow. Passing this jobs bill is not a luxury or an act of
political patronage as some Republicans claim. This bill is about
saving and creating jobs while keeping communities in Minnesota and
across the country safe, strong, and sustainable as this economy
recovers.
The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is to be commended for
calling the House back into session during this August recess. The
Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act (H.R. 1586) needs to be
passed and signed into law as soon as possible. Jobs are at stake.
Families are at stake. The education of millions of students is at
stake. Speaker Pelosi recognizes the crisis that state and local
governments are facing, and she is committed, along with many of us, to
making sure teachers stay in the classroom and states receive essential
Medicaid assistance, FMAP, as soon as possible.
With states facing a $140 billion fiscal year 2011 cumulative budget
gap, there is a critical need for Washington to provide state fiscal
relief that can sustain the economic recovery. The state fiscal crisis
is tearing an already fragile safety net, hurting communities, and
inflicting hardships on our most vulnerable citizens. Dozens of states,
including Minnesota, have been hit hard by a loss of tax revenue as a
result of workers losing their jobs and unemployment remaining high.
State and local governments have been forced to cut 100,000 jobs in the
last 3 months alone as they struggle to balance budgets. We know that
police officers, first responders, teachers, and other vital government
workers who keep our communities safe, strong, and sustainable are
getting laid off when our families need them on the job.
The $26.1 billion in federal support for teachers and Medicaid
provided in this bill is completely paid for by closing foreign tax
loopholes exploited by corporations, rescinding funds from outdated
programs, and cutting funding for other programs. This bill is not
deficit neutral; it actually reduces the deficit by $1.4 billion over
10 years.
While paying for a bill that is projected to save or create nearly
320,000 jobs is not easy, I cannot hide my disappointment that nearly
$12 billion in offsets were achieved by reducing benefits to food stamp
recipients starting in 2014. I hope the reductions in benefits, which
are provided by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, are
restored and hungry families are not forced to bear the burden of
providing fiscal relief to state governments.
As our economy slowly recovers it remains in a fragile state.
Congress has an obligation to act to preserve jobs, sustain the
economic recovery, and overcome the perpetual political game playing of
a minority party that is willing to put 161,000 teachers in the
unemployment line rather than keep them in the classroom. In Minnesota,
this bill will provide $167 million to prevent 2,800 teachers from
being laid off. It will save the State of Minnesota $346 million under
a 6-month extension of the FMAP provision in the Recovery Act,
according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In Minnesota's
Fourth Congressional District, which I represent, nearly $30 million in
funding will keep 411 public school teachers in the classroom to the
benefit of our children and our community.
It would be my hope that this bill will pass the House with
bipartisan support. There is support from Democratic and Republican
governors. Some 42 governors, including 16 Republicans, wrote to
Congress seeking the Medicaid assistance provided in this bill. Their
letter said the most efficient way to help states avoid further layoffs
and service cuts that could otherwise slow the recovery is to provide a
two-quarter extension of Medicaid aid.
Unfortunately in Congress my Republican colleagues are more concerned
about November's election and playing politics than keeping teachers in
the classroom. The $10 billion provided to keep 161,000 teachers
working for our children should be a litmus test for voters. This is a
vote for jobs and for our children's future. This is a vote that will
expose Republicans as either defenders of jobs or as nothing more than
a party that cuts taxes for the rich, protects Wall Street executives,
and is willing to throw 161,000 public school teachers out on the
street while our children suffer.
I am proud to vote for this bill. I am proud to support the men and
women who have chosen a career of service as educators in public
schools. The benefits of this bill will be felt in every state and
every public school in the country and I urge all of my colleagues to
vote for H.R. 1586.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, the bill before us makes critical
investments in education which are fully paid for by closing tax
loopholes that reward corporations who ship jobs overseas and by
finding savings in other programs.
Just this week, the New Jersey School Boards Association released a
survey that found that 80 percent of school districts expect to have
larger class sizes and fewer teachers when school starts this fall.
Our children do not get a second chance to succeed in school, and our
future economic growth depends on a well educated and innovative
workforce. We cannot afford to shortchange our children or risk laying
off our teachers.
The current economic downturn has hit the tax base hard, schools have
suffered and many are being forced to cut services. Previously, the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act made several sound investments
in public education to keep teachers in the classroom and help school
districts avoid painful cuts.
Most, if not all, of this emergency funding has been spent. Further,
at this most critical time, Governor Christie made the wrong call in
cutting state aid to our local schools. Already he has cut $1.2 billion
from education programs statewide.
The $10 billion included for the Education Jobs Fund will help keep
teachers in the classroom and make sure that class sizes do not balloon
next fall. This funding will help keep 161,000 teachers in the
classroom and at work, 3,900 in New Jersey and 160 in Central New
Jersey.
I am deeply concerned that Governor Christie is considering not
applying for the funds our state is slated to receive. If he fails to
do so, the legislation allows the U.S. Secretary of Education to make
awards to other entities in New Jersey so our students do not suffer.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act--and the thousands of
teachers, nurses, firefighters and police whose jobs it will preserve.
Whether you look at this legislation from an economic recovery
perspective, or a public safety perspective, or an educational
opportunity perspective, it's simply the right thing to do.
The $16.1 billion in temporary Medicaid assistance to our states
through June 30, 2011, will protect Medicaid participants and prevent
the massive layoffs of first responders and other key personnel that
would otherwise occur. And the bill's $10 billion education jobs fund
will save at least 161,000 teachers' jobs--including an estimated 2,500
positions in my home state of Maryland--so that our children can
continue to get the high quality education they deserve.
Madam Speaker, like many Americans, I was disappointed to hear the
distinguished Minority Leader Mr. Boehner refer to our teachers,
nurses, firefighters and police as ``special interests.'' They are not.
They are public servants whose efforts we're going to need to educate
our children and keep our communities safe. But as disappointing as
that comment was, it tells you a lot about the differences between the
two parties as we head into a very important election season.
Finally, Madam Speaker, the cost of keeping our teachers in the
classroom instead of the unemployment line is fully paid for by closing
tax loopholes that encourage big corporations to ship jobs overseas.
Most taxpayers would understandably be outraged if they were told that
in addition to paying their own taxes, they should also be required to
pay taxes U.S. multinationals owe to foreign countries for income those
companies earn offshore. But through a process called ``credit
splitting,'' that's precisely what happens: U.S. multinationals are
able to use foreign tax credits to reduce their U.S. tax liability, but
in many cases never pay U.S. tax on the offshore income that generated
those credits in the first place. As a result, U.S. taxpayers are
effectively subsidizing the companies' foreign tax liability. Adding
insult to injury, since this kind of burden-shifting isn't available
for income earned inside the United States, our current rules actually
encourage U.S. multinationals to invest their marginal dollar overseas.
We can and must do better. Vote ``yes'' for jobs at home and ``no''
to shipping jobs overseas.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise in full support of this critical
assistance for our teachers and relief for our state budgets.
Passage of this bill will provide over $1 billion in desperately
needed Medicaid funding for California in order to protect essential
health care services for our most vulnerable.
Without this crucial assistance, California's Medicaid program, Medi-
Cal, would have to
[[Page H6624]]
eliminate programs, reduce reimbursements and otherwise inhibit access
to health care services at a time when more families than ever are
relying on this safety-net program.
In addition, the emergency funding for education will bring $19.1
million dollars to my district just in time to begin the 2010-2011
school year.
There is no doubt in my mind that the preservation of 268 education
jobs in my district alone was worth flying back to Washington to take
this important vote.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation and
hope to see it signed by the President as quickly as possible.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Education
Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act. This bill provides much-needed
assistance to our community, by funding jobs in our schools and helping
states maintain health coverage for low-income families.
Students are returning to school this fall, and states and localities
are facing budget crunches that could lead to layoffs of teachers and
first responders. These budget shortfalls also jeopardize health
coverage for the millions of American families that depend on Medicaid.
The Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act extends a program in
the Recovery Act that support local school districts to prevent teacher
layoffs. This bill provides $10 billion in funding that will create or
save over 160,000 teachers nationwide, including 16,500 in California.
The legislation also extends a Recovery Act program that will provide
$16.1 billion for states' Medicaid programs. Medicaid provides health
care to low-income Americans, including children and pregnant women. In
California, 7.5 million people depend on Medi-Cal, the state Medicaid
program. If we don't provide this funding to states, many will be
forced to balance their budgets by dropping people off their Medicaid
rolls, cutting benefits, or weakening the program by reducing payments
to doctors, hospitals, and other providers.
The Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act will create and save
over 150,000 jobs--including first responders, nurses, and private
sector jobs--because it provides an influx of funds that enables states
to balance their budgets.
This legislation does not add to the deficit. It is paid for by
reducing government spending and closing tax loopholes for companies
that ship American jobs overseas. With today's vote, this bill will go
to the President's desk for his quick signature. I urge my colleagues
to join me in voting yes.
Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before us
today, which takes direct action to secure an ample education workforce
that continues to prepare our children for the future. Teachers are the
core of our educational system, and we must do all we can to ensure
that their jobs do not fall victim to our economy, budget cuts or state
partisan politics.
As Dean of the Texas Democratic delegation, I would like to thank the
Speaker of the House, Committee Chairmen and their staffs for their
support and willingness to work with the Texas delegation to ensure
that Texas teachers and students directly benefit from this bill.
Included in the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act is
explicit language requiring the State of Texas, specifically Governor
Perry, certify that our emergency federal appropriations for public
education will be used solely to add new funds for public education and
not diverted for other purposes as was done last year with the Economic
Recovery Act State Stabilization monies. We want to ensure that any new
emergency funds Congress provides for education goes to enhancing our
Texas schools and not the states' rainy day fund.
These funds will be directly distributed to local schools as long as
the Governor certifies that (1) federal funds will not be used merely
to replace state education support, and (2) education funding will not
be cut proportionally more than any other item in the budgets of
upcoming years. This prevents any further shell games with federal
education dollars at the expense of local schools districts, who
desperately need these dollars.
This approach has been endorsed by Texas statewide education
organizations representing teachers, principals, school boards, school
administrators, and nearly 40 superintendents, including those
representing Brownsville ISD, Corpus Christi ISD, Gregory-Portland ISD,
Kingsville ISD, Port Aransas ISD, and Robstown ISD.
To further address the claims from my friends across the aisle that
this language is unconstitutional, the bill does not mandate any state
or Governor to make a binding contract, but simply a good faith
assurance that state education dollars will remain a priority in the
coming years.
My Texas Democratic delegation colleagues and I have been fighting
for this language to be included in the bill to ensure local school
districts in Texas have the support they need. This is a good and long
awaited bill that will save over 700 jobs in my district.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and
the underlying legislation.
The Education Jobs and Medicaid Act would relieve strained state
budgets, save jobs, protect public health and safety and ensure our
nation's youth receive the educations they deserve.
This critical legislation is fully paid for and would help states and
local communities in two ways:
First, the bill would provide states with funds to preserve the jobs
of teachers, keeping educators in the classroom.
Second, it would extend a temporary increase in the federal Medicaid
matching rate, providing desperately needed assistance to already cash
strapped states.
These problems are known all too well in California and in my home
town of Sacramento where we have been grappling with teacher and police
layoffs to balance the budget.
My district's unemployment rate is 12.6 percent and the cutting of
any jobs for those who teach and protect our children will continue to
have a devastating impact on our future.
And if we cannot deliver money to FMAP the state will be forced to
cut Medi-CAL and other programs, endangering the health of families and
jobs in the health care sector.
These cuts would not only put the safety and well-being of our
constituents at risk, but would also result in additional job losses,
which we clearly cannot afford.
H.R. 1586 would make certain that my constituents and all Americans
get the care and services they need.
The American people are feeling the effects of state budget
constraints every day and they should not be forced to wait any longer
for relief.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in
support of the 13,500 teachers in California who will get to keep their
jobs this fall as result of the education funding we provide today.
I rise in support of the over $1.8 billion that will come back to
California to help pay for Medicaid assistance for low income people.
Without this crucial funding California would be forced into even
more painful budget cuts that would have cascaded down to our local
cities and counties--forcing layoffs for police, fire, EMT's and other
critical personnel.
While I support this aid to the states to keep people at work--I am
disappointed that the other body would choose to pay for this
assistance on the backs of poor people who receive food stamps. I ask
for unanimous consent to insert into the Record an August 6 editorial
in the New York Times--Congress's Serial Hits on Food Stamps.
We spend trillions in support of two wars--funneling hundreds of
billions of dollars into a black hole over at the Pentagon--yet we
can't find another way to fund a good education for our kids or help
States provide healthcare to the poor?
Have we lost our moral compass?
The Congress continues to throw away our children's inheritance in
Afghanistan to pursue the longest war in American history, yet finds it
okay to cut food stamps.
That doesn't make any sense! We should not have to choose between
forcing people to go hungry and our children's education.
Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill because the States are
desperate for this money--but the other body should have done better.
In addition to these funds we should have been approving money to pay
our debt to Black farmers and the Native American community, to fund
youth employment programs, and to extend the TANF emergency contingency
fund.
As Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I can say with certainty
that we will not relent and will fight to get these priorities done. We
should not have to choose between forcing people to go hungry and our
children's education.
[From the New York Times, Aug. 6, 2010]
Congress's Serial Hits on Food Stamps
With some shabby sleight of hand, Congress has begun
tapping into the food stamp program for the hungriest
Americans to help pay for lawmakers' higher election-year
priorities. The Senate approved two important measures this
week--the $26 billion state-aid bill and the $4.5 billion
school nutrition program--in part by shaving food stamp funds
as a target of least resistance.
There is no denying that both of the programs are badly
needed. The state aid package, regrettably compromised as it
was, helps protect jobs for teachers and other workers facing
layoffs. The school nutrition program provides the first
improvements in a generation, including an increase in meal
reimbursements and the power to set federal nutrition
standards for schools.
[[Page H6625]]
But treating food stamps as the fungible means to worthy
ends is a cowardly blight on Congress. After the Bush years
of guilt-free tax cutting and deficit budgeting, lawmakers
are self-righteously embracing pay-as-you-go legislation lest
they be demagogued at the ballot box. So they resort to
fiscal triage.
Originally, school nutrition was slated to be paid for by
cuts in a farm conservation program. But Republicans rated
this a high priority for the livestock industry. A deal was
struck with Democrats to cut back on the scheduled boost in
future food stamp benefits that was part of last year's
economic stimulus. Food stamps took a second hit as lawmakers
turned to it like an all-purpose A.T.M. to help cover the
cost of state aid.
Senator Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat of Arkansas who fought
hard to get the school nutrition improvements, told
Politico.com that the food stamp increase was doomed in any
case: ``You saw the teachers grab for it.'' Her comfort was
those dollars would feed children. But this is a pale
rationalization that downgrades the hunger of entire
families. A companion bill in the House, yet to be paid for,
is an opportunity to right this wrong.
In the crunch of the recession. if Congress lacks the guts
to meet vital needs with deficit financing, it should have
the decency to chisel some less-humane program than food
stamps.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1606, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 247,
nays 161, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 518]
YEAS--247
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--161
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
NOT VOTING--25
Berry
Blunt
Boustany
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
DeGette
Diaz-Balart, L.
Gingrey (GA)
Hinojosa
Jones
LaTourette
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Meek (FL)
Miller, Gary
Neugebauer
Radanovich
Rooney
Roskam
Snyder
Speier
Tanner
Wamp
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1526
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________