[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14594-14604]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5893, INVESTING IN AMERICAN JOBS 
                 AND CLOSING TAX LOOPHOLES ACT OF 2010

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1568 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1568

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     5893) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create 
     jobs through increased investment in infrastructure, to 
     eliminate loopholes which encourage companies to move 
     operations offshore, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the calendar 
     day of August 1, 2010.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the distinguished 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during 
consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this resolution provides a closed rule for the 
consideration of H.R. 5893, the Investing in American Jobs and Closing 
Tax Loopholes Act of 2010.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI and against the 
bill, itself.

[[Page 14595]]

The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as 
ordered, without intervening motion, except 1 hour of debate for the 
Ways and Means Committee and one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions. The rule also provides same-day authority for a 
resolution reported from the Rules Committee through Sunday, August 1, 
2010.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 5893, the Investing in American Jobs and Closing 
Tax Loopholes Act of 2010, creates and protects American jobs through 
increased investment in infrastructure and by closing tax loopholes 
that enable companies to move their operations offshore. This is 
another piece of legislation to add to the long list of bills that 
Democrats have passed this Congress to spur opportunities to support 
American jobs, American manufacturing, and American families. Democrats 
are helping Americans dig out of the worst recession in decades. We are 
making steady, albeit slow--too slow for me--gains in our economy. The 
struggle is not over, but we are on the right path.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation funds the highly successful Build 
America Bonds program, the Recovery Zone Bonds, the Emergency State 
Jobs Assistance program, and it closes unfair tax loopholes that allow 
corporations to send American jobs overseas. This bill provides 
critical funding for infrastructure investment that will create jobs 
here in the United States and will put money in the pockets of people 
who badly need it.

                              {time}  1150

  And yet, still, the Republicans are against it.
  Madam Speaker, it seems every other day around here we have to drag 
our Republican colleagues kicking and screaming to the House floor to 
try to help hardworking Americans, and they continue to say ``no.''
  Every other day we have to try to persuade our friends on the other 
side of the aisle that it's not crazy for the American Government to 
invest in the American economy to benefit the American people.
  Every other day we have to remonstrate the same old arguments from 
the Republicans about spending and deficits and taxes and the bad old 
government stifling our economic recovery.
  I'll remind this body that the Republicans were against the largest 
stimulus in history, which was not large enough for me and some of us 
in this body. But they were against this stimulus, an effort that 
demonstrably has saved American jobs.
  And I'll remind this body that 95 percent of the Republicans in this 
House have signed a pledge to protect tax breaks for companies that 
ship American jobs overseas.
  And I'll remind this body that Republicans have consistently voted 
against job creation and economic development measures that directly 
benefit, directly benefit hardworking Americans trying to secure enough 
income to feed their families and keep their homes.
  Every single time Democrats try to pass essential legislation in this 
body, and the other body, Republicans complain about the numbers. If 
it's spending on investments in our economy, Republicans complain the 
numbers are too high. But if it's spending on tax cuts for the 
extremely 1 percent wealthiest of Americans, the Republicans complain 
the numbers are too low.
  Well, here's a number and a letter we should be mindful of: $2.2 
trillion, and the letter D: D is the grade given to America's 
infrastructure by the American Society of Engineers in 2009.
  And $2.2 trillion is the amount the American Society of Engineers 
estimates the United States needs to spend over the next 5 years to 
repair our crumbling infrastructure.
  Madam Speaker, in recent years we've seen levees fail, bridges 
collapse. As a matter of fact, we saw a levee fail last week in Iowa. 
Bridges collapsed. I asked one of our colleagues yesterday that 
appeared before the Rules Committee, how did he feel when the bridge 
collapsed in Minnesota. He referenced it as a national tragedy, as all 
of us do and did.
  But when I came to this Congress in 1992, there were 14,000 bridges 
that were in disrepair in the United States of America. And I dare say 
that we have not even come close and, likely, there are many more. And 
what I said to him was, I wanted his daughter, who I know, to travel on 
a safe bridge, and I wanted my children and all the children of all 
Americans, when they cross a bridge, to know that that bridge is safe.
  Millions of tons of hazardous waste have wrecked fragile ecosystems, 
and billions of gallons of wastewater have poured from burst pipes into 
our rivers and streams, and we saw that happen this week in America.
  Beyond the disasters is the steadily rising gridlock on our highways, 
roads, airports and rails, the constant erosion of our water systems. 
Right here in the metropolitan Washington area people are on boil water 
advisories and limited uses, including for showers.
  Declining park land in urban areas and maintenance backlogs in our 
schools amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars.
  Budget cuts are not going to repair bridges, replace water treatment 
facilities or maintain classrooms. State and local governments 
desperately need Federal funding to engage American small businesses 
and put people to work.
  This legislation provides billions of dollars in infrastructure bonds 
and other supports so communities can hire the necessary workers to 
make sure that, while we are arguing about process here, whether or not 
it's a closed rule or an open rule, arguing process in the Rules 
Committee, more dams don't fail. That's what we want to make sure that 
does not happen.
  Dollars that go to infrastructure projects get returned to the 
economy at higher rates. Infrastructure spending is impactful, 
essential, and worthwhile, pumping in cash that goes right to the 
American worker.
  The funding in this legislation is paid for. It does not add to the 
deficit. It is revenue neutral, and there is no wasteful spending in 
here.
  What Republicans argue is wasteful, I say, is essential to preventing 
millions of Americans from falling into destitution. For every one job 
opening in our great country, there are five applicants. Unemployment 
remains unbearably high, and all economists indicate that it is going 
to remain that way for some time to come.
  I dare say that what America needs to understand, and what my 
colleagues here on both sides of the aisle continue to say, is that it 
happened on this President's watch, or it happened on that President's 
watch. The real truth is the economy in this country transitioned, as 
well as globally, over about a 45-year period of time. I'll get to that 
one day, so as how there's a better understanding than all of this 
finger-pointing about who caused this deficit.
  And I certainly hope we have a debate about how much the war in Iraq 
and Afghanistan cost. I can tell you now it's about $1 trillion. And 
guess what our deficit is? Just a little more than $1 trillion.
  Madam Speaker, it's far past time to pass this legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to vote favorably on this rule and on the final passage of 
this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding time, 
and I appreciate very much and accept his comments, in particular about 
how we are concerned personally for each other's children and each 
other's family. I believe that is absolutely true. And I appreciate the 
comments that the gentleman made yesterday in Rules in that respect, 
and also here.
  Madam Speaker, Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines outrageous as 
``going beyond all standards of what is right or decent,'' ``deficient 
in propriety or good taste.''
  The outrageous rule before us today represents a sickening 
embarrassment for this institution that the American people have 
charged with the responsibility to provide effective solutions to their 
real problems.

[[Page 14596]]

  Unfortunately, the ruling liberal Democrat majority has taken this 
opportunity to devise a cynical plot to ram through this misguided, 
partisan legislation which has had no committee consideration, no CBO 
cost estimate, and was sprung on the minority party only 90 minutes 
before its consideration in the Rules Committee yesterday. Despite 
these atrocities, the ruling liberal Democrats couldn't bring 
themselves to allow for any amendments, choosing instead to present us 
with this closed rule containing same-day ``martial-law'' authority 
through Sunday.
  Although we've grown accustomed to this type of process under the 
reign of the current liberal Democrat majority, their arrogance and 
contempt for institutional integrity never ceases to shock and amaze 
us.
  This is a far cry from 2006 when then-minority leader Nancy Pelosi 
promised regular order for legislation in her ``New Direction for 
America.''
  At that time she pledged that bills should be developed following 
full hearings and open subcommittee and committee mark ups with 
appropriate referrals to other committees.
  Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to 
consideration at the subcommittee level. Bills should generally come to 
the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate 
consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the 
right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.

                              {time}  1200

  The third point she made, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to 
examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration. 
Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill 
to be considered the following day.''
  ``Should,'' I guess, is the operative word here, Madam Speaker. 
Speaker Pelosi could say she didn't promise, she just said ``should.'' 
How times have changed. With hypocrisy like this, it's no wonder the 
American people are shaking their heads watching the shenanigans of 
this most leftist, liberal, elitist, arrogant, and out of touch 
Democrat regime in the history of our great Nation.
  The liberals will undoubtedly excuse their shameful actions today by 
blaming George Bush, as they always do, and relate their actions to 
certain instances under Republican congressional leadership, but it 
makes no sense to criticize in one breath and emulate in another what 
they identify as the sins of the past.
  My friend across the aisle talked about tax cuts and how Republicans 
love tax cuts but don't want investments. I want to point out to my 
colleague that in the 2001 tax cuts which were passed, there were many 
Democrats who voted for those tax cuts, both on the House and Senate 
side. The same thing with the 2003 tax cuts. Democrats supported those. 
And we were very grateful for that. In the final consideration of the 
Iraq war authorization, many Democrats supported that also. So we do 
have revisionist history, Mr. Speaker. And I would like to insert into 
the Record the record of the votes on those various items.
  Let's be clear about what this bill does, Mr. Speaker. We are 
spending more of taxpayers' money on plans that will kill private-
sector jobs. We know we have the largest deficit in history, and we 
need to stop this spending. Let me say to you again, there are four 
parts to this bill. Let me mention what they are in terms the American 
people can understand.
  Number one, it provides for up to $5 billion for the Welfare 
Emergency Fund, doubling a new welfare program that Democrats created 
in the 2009 stimulus. The bill has $31.8 billion in revenue increases 
that will hurt an already weakened economy and could threaten our 
international competitiveness. The bill spends $25.6 billion on State 
infrastructure programs while abandoning small businesses, and will not 
create the private-sector jobs that we need. Also, we know that this 
bill wouldn't be needed at all if the stimulus that our friends tout so 
much had not been the huge failure that it has been and had actually 
worked.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject this 
bill so we can begin to restore a semblance of sanity in this noble 
institution.

    Initial Consideration of 2001 Tax Cuts H.R. 1836, 107th Congress


 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA)--P.L. 107-
                           16, (16 May 2001)

       Question: On Passage: Yea-and-Nay.
       Bill title: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 
     Act.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Yeas     Nays     Pres      NV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republican..........................      216  .......  .......        4
Democratic..........................       13      196  .......        1
Independent.........................        1  .......  .......  .......
                                     -----------------------------------
    Totals..........................      230      197  .......        5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       13 House Democratic Representatives voting aye: 
     Abercrombie, Bishop, Clement, Condit, Cramer, Gordon, Hall 
     (TX), John, Lucas (KY), Maloney (CT), McIntyre, Shows, and 
     Traficante.
     Senate Vote Counts: Yeas 62, Nays 38
       12 Senators voting yea: Baucus (D-MT), Breaux (D-LA), 
     Carnahan (D-MO), Cleland (D-GA), Feinstein (D-CA), Johnson 
     (D-SD), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lincoln (D-AR), Miller 
     (D-GA), Nelson (D-NE), Torricelli (D-NJ).

     Final Consideration of 2001 Tax Cuts--H.R. 1836 (26 May 2001)

       Question: On Agreeing to the Conference Report.
       Bill Title: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 
     Act.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Yeas     Nays     Pres      NV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republican..........................      211  .......  .......       10
Democratic..........................       28      153  .......       29
Independent.........................        1        1  .......  .......
                                     -----------------------------------
    Totals..........................      240      154  .......       39
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       28 House Democratic Representatives voting aye: 
     Abercrombie, Barcia, Berkley, Capps, Carson (OK), Clement, 
     Condit, Cramer, Dooley, Gordon, Hall (TX), Hooley, Israel, 
     John, Larsen (WA), Lucas (KY), Matheson, McCarthy (NY), 
     Moore, Peterson (MN), Roemer, Ross, Sandlin, Schiff, Shows, 
     Tauscher, Traficant, and Turner.
     Senate Vote Counts: Yeas 58, Nays 33, Present 2, Not Voting 7
       11 Democratic Senators voting aye: Breaux (D-LA), Carnahan 
     (D-MO), Cleland (D-GA), Feinstein (D-CA), Johnson (D-SD), 
     Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lincoln (D-AR), Miller (D-GA), 
     Nelson (D-NE), and Torricelli (D-NJ).

     Initial Consideration of 2003 Tax Cuts--H.R. 2, 108th Congress


 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA)--P.L. 
                          108-27 (9 May 2003)

       Question: On Passage: Recorded vote.
       Bill Title: Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Ayes     Noes     Pres      NV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republican..........................      218        3  .......        8
Democratic..........................        4      199  .......        2
Independent.........................  .......        1  .......  .......
                                     -----------------------------------
    Totals..........................      222      203  .......       10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       4 House Democrats voting aye: Alexander, Cramer, Hall, and 
     Lucas (KY).
     Senate Vote Counts: Yeas 51, Nays 49
       3 Democratic Senators voting yea: Bayh (D-IN), Miller (D-
     GA), and Nelson (D-NE).

      Final Consideration of 2003 Tax Cuts--H.R. 2, (23 May 2003)

       Question: On Agreeing to the Conference Report: Yea-and-
     Nay.
       Bill title: Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Yeas     Nays     Pres      NV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republican..........................      224        1  .......        4
Democratic..........................        7      198  .......  .......
Independent.........................  .......        1  .......  .......
                                     -----------------------------------
    Totals..........................      231      200  .......        4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       7 House Democrats voting aye: Alexander, Cramer, Hall, 
     Lucas (KY), Marshall, Matheson, and Scott (GA).
     Senate Vote Counts: Yeas 50, Nays 50
       Vice President Voted Yea.
       2 Senate Democrats voting yea: Miller (D-GA), Nelson (D-
     NE).

  Final Consideration of Iraq War Authorization--H.J. Res. 114, 107th 
                                Congress


  Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 
                    2002--P.L. 107-243 (10 Oct 2002)

       According to CRS report RL31715: ``In October 2002, 
     Congress authorized the President to use the armed forces of 
     the United States to defend U.S. national security against 
     the threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant U.N. 
     resolutions regarding Iraq.''
       Question: On Passage: Yea-and-Nay.
       Bill title: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed 
     Forces Against Iraq.

[[Page 14597]]



 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Yeas     Nays     Pres      NV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republican..........................      215        6  .......        2
Democratic..........................       81      126  .......        1
Independent.........................  .......        1  .......  .......
                                     -----------------------------------
    Totals..........................      296      133  .......        3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       81 House Democrats voting aye: Ackerman, Andrews, Barcia, 
     Bentsen, Berkley, Berman, Berry, Bishop, Blagojevich, Borski, 
     Boswell, Boucher, Boyd, Carson (OK), Clement, Cramer, 
     Crowley, Davis (FL), Deutsch, Dicks, Dooley, Edwards, Engel, 
     Etheridge, Ford, Frost, Gephardt, Gordon, Green (TX), Hall 
     (TX), Harman, Hill, Hoeffel, Holden, Hoyer, Israel, 
     Jefferson, John, Kanjorski, Kennedy (RI), Kind (WI), Lampson, 
     Lantos, Lowey, Lucas (KY), Luther, Lynch, Maloney (NY), 
     Markey, Mascara, Matheson, McCarthy (NY), McIntyre, McNulty, 
     Meehan, Moore, Murtha, Pascrell, Peterson (MN), Phelps, 
     Pomeroy, Roemer, Ross, Rothman, Sandlin, Schiff, Sherman, 
     Shows, Skelton, Smith (WA), Spratt, Stenholm, Tanner, 
     Tauscher, Taylor (MS), Thurman, Turner, Waxman, Weiner, 
     Wexler, and Wynn.
     Senate Vote Counts: YEAs 77, NAYs 23
       Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Breaux (D-LA), 
     Cantwell (D-WA), Carnahan (D-MO), Carper (D-DE), Cleland (D-
     GA), Clinton (D-NY), Daschle (D-SD), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-
     ND), Edwards (D-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), 
     Hollings (D-SC), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), 
     Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Miller (D-
     GA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller 
     (D-WV), Schumer (D-NY), and Torricelli (D-NJ).

Final Consideration of Afghanistan, et al. War--Authorization S.J. Res. 
                           23, 107th Congress


          Authorization for Use of Military Force--P.L. 107-40

       CRS Summary: Authorization for Use of Military Force--
     Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate 
     force against those nations, organizations, or persons he 
     determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 
     terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or 
     harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent 
     any future acts of international terrorism against the United 
     States by such nations, organizations, or persons.
       States that this Act is intended to constitute specific 
     statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers 
     Resolution.
       Passed House without Objection 9/14/2001.
       Senate Vote Counts: Yeas 98, Nays 0, Not voting 2 (Craig-
     ID; Helms-NC).

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 
minutes to my good friend from Houston, Texas, the distinguished 
gentlelady Sheila Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I was listening to the gentleman from 
Florida, and I want to thank him for framing the discussion as he has 
done, and really speaking to our colleagues and the American people. I 
was trying to discern what my colleague was saying, good friend from 
the other side of the aisle. And I would only say that the only people 
that are shaking their heads are those who are trying to pay their 
mortgages, who are trying to make sure that their incoming freshman or 
upper classman has the tuition that they need to finish school.
  Americans are asking us to stop the chatter about procedures and 
begin to do the work that they need to rebuild this Nation. That's the 
business of this Democratic leadership, of which I am proud to 
associate with.
  My friends talk about the story of the Recovery Act, and they are 
absolutely right. We've been so busy with our elbow to the grindstone 
that we haven't been able to tell the story of the many, many jobs 
created by the Recovery Act. But watch us in the month of August, when 
we go home and shine the light on the many, many jobs. In the 18th 
Congressional District, over $800 million, 97 projects, job-creating, 
bridge-making programs to help those in that district.
  So today we take another leap of faith. And I hope that we can get an 
understanding about what this bill does. The bill closes the loopholes, 
something Americans are very clear about, that are given to 
corporations to take jobs overseas. If they can do their business here, 
they need to do it. But in the meantime, what do we give you? First of 
all, we all know that the government cannot use all the dollars that 
are issued. When you give money to State and local governments, what do 
they do? They contract with small businesses in that community who then 
either keep the employees they have or they expand and need to hire.
  And let me give you an example. Build America Bonds is part of this 
legislation, an exciting way to invest in America. More than $106 
billion of infrastructure investments nationwide will come about 
because of this. It will not be government workers that will be nailing 
and cementing and designing, it will be local businesses that will be 
part of this exciting opportunity. Recovery Zone Bonds that will 
provide $10 billion in Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds and $15 
billion in Recovery Zone Facility Bonds, all having to bring in small 
businesses.
  In my own community of Houston, we are looking at ways to improve our 
water and sewer. Most communities have aging water systems and sewer 
systems. There has usually been a cap on how much money a State can 
spend on water and sewage. We are lifting those caps so that bonds can 
be issued so that the burden does not fall right away on the taxpayer. 
These are what we are trying to do to infuse capital not in the pockets 
of the government, but in the pockets of our businesses that will in 
turn reinvest in the community and in the government by way of the 
general churning of the economy. Building, expanding, improving the 
quality of life that is necessary.
  Those who are in need of TANF would be helped. Those who are in need 
of the expansion of business will be helped. And then what I think is 
enormously important, we will be investing in real American jobs 
because we will extend the Emergency Fund for Job Creation and 
Assistance. These programs provide for short-term, one-time aid for 
needy families, and subsidized employment programs help these families 
put money back into the economy.
  So I would argue that we can chatter about procedure, and that's a 
good talk for inside this august body.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor of Arizona). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. But I can tell you that if anybody is 
scratching their head at the kitchen table as to how I am going to make 
next month's payment or tomorrow's payment, if anyone is confused, 
they're not confused about a procedure that is going to allow this bill 
to move forward to give them help and not a hand out. They are going to 
be ready to take advantage of these constructive, financial, and 
fiscally sound, paid-for vehicles which they can utilize to rebuild 
their local communities, both rural and urban. That's what America is 
all about. That's what this debate will be about today.
  And in conclusion, I would say adding to a grand and great 
Transportation-HUD bill, one of the greatest ones that will provide for 
massive mobility and housing in this Nation, that's what Americans are 
looking for, for us to stand up and be counted and move this Nation 
forward. I thank the gentleman for the time. I ask that you vote for 
the rule and this bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking 
member of the Rules Committee.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. DREIER. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very 
good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Grandfather Community, North Carolina, for doing her typical 
spectacular job and appropriately describing this as an outrageous 
rule. She's right on target. I'd really say ``pathetic'' when I look at 
both process and substance, because it is absolutely pathetic. Somebody 
said to me, well, you can say ``outrageous,'' I can say ``pathetic,'' 
and we can call the whole thing off.
  We'd be a lot better off, Mr. Speaker, if we did, in fact, not 
consider this rule the way we're doing it. Because while my friend from 
Houston just said the American people understand the need to get 
assistance--not a handout but assistance--so that we can get the 
economy moving, we can get that. But they also want us to do it with 
the

[[Page 14598]]

kind of openness and fairness and transparency that we were promised in 
this great document, A New Direction for America. We've gotten anything 
but that.
  The reason that the substance is pathetic, along with the process 
itself, is that is not going to do anything to create jobs. This is 
designed--and while it wasn't directly said, I certainly inferred it 
from the testimony that we had in the Rules Committee last night. Well, 
everybody should have a chance to vote on job creation before we 
adjourn in August. So that's why this rush.
  Well, it's done clearly in the most inappropriate way when it comes 
to the deliberative nature. There was basically no consultation 
whatever with the ranking member on the committee. When I asked the 
chairman on the Ways and Means Committee whether or not there had been 
any consultation seeking a bipartisan approach, he said that he hoped 
this would have bipartisan support at the end of the day. When I asked, 
the only response that I was given was that he had a discussion with 
the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, our friend Mr. Baucus, 
but no consultation whatsoever.
  The bill was introduced at 3:30 yesterday afternoon, and the Rules 
Committee met 90 minutes later to bring up this measure. Gosh. As I 
recall, looking at the rules, we should have at least had a 24-hour 
layover. I would say to my friend from Ft. Lauderdale, what is the rush 
here? We now know that we're going to be in session on Friday. We know 
that the Senate is scheduled to meet next week. Is there any reason for 
us not to have had this bill introduced, allow it to lay over for 24 
hours, allow Democrats and Republicans alike to look at it so that we 
could decide what it consists of, and then have a Rules Committee 
meeting? I don't know why we didn't do that.
  I'm happy to yield to my friend if he would like to respond as to why 
it wasn't introduced with a 24-hour period to allow us to have it lay 
over.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I believe that the distinguished chair of 
the Ways and Means Committee answered my good friend from California 
yesterday with regard to the immediacy.
  Among the things that he said to you was we had waited for the United 
States Senate, which, if you recall, much of what is in this provision, 
and he said to you there is nothing new in here that we haven't voted 
on before.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I might reclaim my time, and I do so to 
simply say we've heard that tired old argument, that we've voted on 
these items before. We've never had it as a package like this.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Pointedly, did we not vote on the measures 
in this particular provision?
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say the answer 
is no, we have not voted on this package of items. And let me address 
this by saying that I don't believe that the litany of items included 
in this bill which we're just starting to look at have, in fact, had an 
opportunity for consideration.
  There was somebody who took a glance at it yesterday afternoon who 
said to me, This is not what we need to be doing to create jobs. What 
we need to be doing is focusing on reducing the capital gains rate and 
the dividend tax right now, tax rate. That would do more to stimulate 
job creation and economic growth than anything that we've got in this 
piecemeal package that has been put together.
  And the transparency, as far as I'm concerned, is based on the 
following: It's simply a desire to say we've tried to do something to 
create jobs.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I can understand why my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have wanted to do that. We've come forward repeatedly 
with proposals to do just that. And we have tried the policy of 
dramatically increasing spending in the size and scope and reach of 
government, and guess what? We were promised that the unemployment rate 
wouldn't exceed 8 percent if we passed the stimulus bill. We all know 
that it's at 9\1/2\ percent nationwide.
  I see my friend Ms. Chu here from California. We have a 12.3 percent 
unemployment rate. In Los Angeles County, it's higher than that. And in 
the area that I represent to the east, it's 14.4 percent in parts of 
San Bernardino County. We have an unemployment rate that is far in 
excess of what we were promised if we passed the stimulus bill. We have 
tried that, Mr. Speaker.
  Let's now focus on job creation and economic growth with a 
responsible package, not this pathetic piecemeal approach which is 
outrageous. And to do it without any kind of consultation whatsoever 
with the minority is beyond the pale.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure. Let's do what 
the American people want. Let's have an open debate and let's put into 
place pro-growth economic policies which have been proven to be 
successful under President John F. Kennedy, a great Democrat, and under 
President Ronald Reagan, a great Republican President.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased at this time 
to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the importance of passing 
the Investing in American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, the 
importance of passing this bill now.
  This bill creates jobs, rebuilds infrastructure, and promotes 
investments that gets our economy going again.
  And I want to take a moment to talk about one specific aspect of this 
bill, the extension of the Emergency Fund for Job Creation and 
Assistance.
  In Los Angeles County, the area I represent, one out of every eight 
residents is unemployed. In one area of my district, East L.A., the 
unemployment rate is 16.75 percent. This is unacceptable.
  A while back, L.A. County instituted an innovative program to get 
people back to work. It uses TANF funds from the stimulus to place 
unemployed workers in positions for up to a year. And it created over 
11,000 jobs in L.A. County and almost 250,000 across the country.
  In Palmdale, California, this program helped Jody, a single mother of 
two, find work at a local coffeehouse. There, Jody so impressed her new 
boss that he plans to permanently hire her and three others from the 
program.
  But this proven job creation program expires in September. The clock 
is ticking. If we don't act, those 250,000 tales of success become 
horror stories. Today's bill will keep those Americans working.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Investing in American Jobs 
and Closing Tax Loopholes Act.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, every time our colleagues come here and talk 
about the horrible unemployment in their districts, they condemn 
themselves. They condemn their own policies and the policies of their 
President because they promised, when President Obama came to office 
and pushed through the stimulus package, that unemployment would never 
go above 8 percent. It's been a failure. Everything they've done has 
been a failure, Mr. Speaker. But they keep trying.
  Again, I want to say Einstein said the definition of insanity is 
doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a 
different result. That's what our colleagues across the aisle keep 
doing, the same thing over and over again and expecting different 
results.
  This bill is not going to create private sector jobs. It is only 
going to put us deeper in debt and cause us to lose more jobs.
  My colleague from Texas also mentioned the loopholes, that this bill 
is going to close loopholes. Well, that is convenient language for our 
colleagues across the aisle. It's doublespeak. And language means 
something.
  When our colleagues across the aisle talk about a loophole, they're 
saying this is something that gives us an excuse to raise taxes. The 
loopholes that

[[Page 14599]]

they talk about are legal entities in our tax structure that probably 
most of them voted for.

                              {time}  1220

  But when it's convenient for them, they call it a loophole, and let 
me say also that my colleague from California was absolutely right. The 
staff from the Ways and Means Committee says this bill is definitely 
not the same as bills we've seen before. There are items in here that 
have not been in any other legislation in this session.
  Mr. Speaker, if we look at the rule before us, we might wonder what 
mystical legislation would prompt the ruling liberal Democrat regime to 
resort to such authoritarian tactics being proposed by this rule. 
Unfortunately, the answer isn't anything American job seekers want to 
hear but, rather, a rehash of the tired, old, failed destructive 
policies of this regime who are apparently scared to death that the 
American people are seeing through their partisan schemes.
  While this bill does contain some Federal taxpayer funds to bailout 
States for infrastructure, they are coupled with tax increases that 
will be added to the unconscionable liberal tax policy that will bleed 
the American economy of desperately needed private sector jobs.
  Not only does the bill write a blank check by authorizing such sums 
as necessary--and let me point out to the American people, ``such 
sums'' means a blank check. It means they can spend as much as they 
want to. Here we have the largest deficit in our history, and yet, 
they're writing another blank check to bureaucrats. But one of the most 
telling provisions in the bill simply assigns a more politically 
palatable title to an expensive Federal welfare fund. Indeed, title II, 
section 201(a)(1) of the bill changes the name of the Emergency 
Contingency Fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Family 
Programs to the Emergency Fund for Job Creation and Assistance. And 
again, for those not versed in Washington double-speak, State Temporary 
Assistance For Needy Families Programs is Washington double-speak for 
welfare money. This was a welfare bill, part of it was, and it 
continues to be one, no matter the title.
  Apparently our liberal friends on the other side of the aisle are so 
motivated to create another permanent Federal welfare benefit they 
simply cannot tolerate the word ``temporary'' being in the title of 
their beloved welfare fund. The new title also highlights the misnomer 
of suggesting that increasing unemployment benefits will increase 
employment or, as Speaker Pelosi recently put it, growing unemployment 
benefits ``creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can 
name.''
  Renowned economist Arthur Laffer wrote in the July 8, 2010, Wall 
Street Journal that: ``The Democratic argument also ignores the impact 
of unemployment benefits on employer costs. Employers don't usually 
hire people to assuage their consciences. They hire people to make 
after-tax profits. And if workers require more pay because of higher 
unemployment benefits, employers will hire fewer employees.''
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to redistribute wealth. That is what 
our colleagues across the aisle are so good at doing. And again, as Mr. 
Laffer pointed out, ``The government doesn't create resources.'' 
There's always a zero sum game. There's no stimulus given from 
unemployment benefits.
  ``To see these effects clearly, imagine a two person economy in which 
one of the two people is paid for being unemployed. From whom do you 
think the unemployment benefits are taken? The other person obviously. 
While the one person who is unemployed may `buy' more as a result of 
unemployment benefits, the other person from whom the unemployment 
benefits are taken will `buy' less. There is no stimulus for the 
economy.''
  If unending expansion of Federal welfare benefits is the liberal plan 
for creating private sector jobs, I'm frightened to imagine what 
success looks like to them. It's my hope that this Election Day, or 
ideally before, that the ruling liberal Democrats learn the lesson 
that, ``When you're in a hole, stop digging.''
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to say The Washington Times had it 
right on March 3, 2010. Every bill that comes before the House these 
days is called a jobs bill. The title was, ``Lawmakers cry `jobs' to 
push through bills.'' That's what we see happening over and over and 
over and over again by our colleagues. Again, they can't stand to say 
that they're increasing welfare in this country. They're trying to say 
this is creating jobs. It's not going to create jobs, Mr. Speaker.
  We can start today, though, by rejecting this rule, rejecting the 
underlying bill and doing something about real jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert The Washington Times article into 
the Record.

               [From The Washington Times, Mar. 3, 2010]

              Lawmakers Cry ``Jobs'' to Push Through Bills

                           (By Stephen Dinan)

       It was a modest measure to designate several thousand 
     beachfront acres of St. Croix as a National Historic Site, 
     but in the hands of a skilled congressman such as Rep. Nick 
     J. Rahall II, it became yet another jobs bill.
       Likewise the Travel Promotion Act, which would create a 
     nonprofit group to push U.S. tourism, has been billed as a 
     job-producing machine by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, 
     Nevada Democrat.
       It doesn't stop there--backers last week unveiled a 
     bipartisan bill to create a visa category for entrepreneurs, 
     predicting it ``will create jobs in America.''
       From immigration to clean energy to expanding the social 
     safety net, there's no better way to grease the skids for new 
     government programs in Washington nowadays than to declare 
     them job-producing bills, then watch supporters line up and 
     potential opposition crumble.
       When Mr. Reid dubbed as a jobs bill a simple $15 billion 
     measure to offer payroll tax breaks and continued highway 
     construction funding, it helped head off a potential 
     Republican filibuster. Likewise, the Trade Promotion Act, 
     which would tout the U.S. as an international tourist 
     destination, sailed through the Senate after it was tagged 
     with the almighty jobs-bill moniker.
       Given an unemployment rate hovering near 10 percent, the 
     focus on jobs is not surprising.
       House and Senate lawmakers raised the jobs issue on the 
     chamber floors at least 154 times over the past week, and the 
     jobs issue is more popular in Congress now than it has been 
     in nearly two decades--since the 1991-92 recession.
       President Obama joined the jobs chorus Tuesday, touting a 
     $6 billion plan to offer up to $3,000 rebates for energy-
     efficiency home upgrades as ``a common-sense approach that 
     will help jump-start job creation.''
       Mr. Obama, who used the word ``jobs'' 11 times in his 17-
     minute speech in Savannah, Ga., said the issue is dominating 
     his time right now.
       ``When it comes to domestic policy, I have no more 
     important a job as president than seeing to it that every 
     American who wants to work and is able to work can find a 
     job--and a job that pays a living wage,'' he said.
       On Monday, Republicans fought back the ever-broadening 
     definition of what creates jobs. They told Democrats to quit 
     trumpeting a $104 billion bill on the Senate floor as a job 
     creator and argued that it merely continues existing tax 
     breaks and spending that are extended every year.
       ``The bill before us creates no new jobs, and I challenge 
     my Democratic friends to show us how doing what we always do 
     and what was done last year--extending the R&D tax credit, 
     extending COBRA insurance, extending unemployment benefits--
     creates jobs,'' said Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican.
       Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, said saving jobs is just 
     as important as creating them. If Congress allows tax cuts to 
     expire, he said, jobs definitely would be lost.
       ``If the provisions we are seeking merely to extend were 
     not passed, it would be a job destroyer,'' Mr. Baucus said.
       Members of both sides of the aisle are joining the chorus.
       Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican, offered an 
     amendment to the $104 billion extenders bill that would 
     redirect unspent money from last year's $862 billion stimulus 
     bill to let small businesses write off more investments and 
     give them a capital-gains tax cut.
       ``True job creation doesn't happen when the government adds 
     jobs; it grows when small businesses are given the incentives 
     to thrive,'' he said.
       Meanwhile, the top Democrat and top Republican on the 
     Senate Foreign Relations Committee are sponsoring the 
     immigration bill to increase visas for entrepreneurs.
       It's sometimes tough to see how the jobs math adds up.
       The administration has estimated that the $862 billion 
     stimulus act would create up to 3.5 million jobs, which would 
     seem like a bad deal if a $15 billion highway funding 
     extension could create 1 million jobs alone, as Mr. Reid has 
     said on the Senate floor.

[[Page 14600]]

       Mr. Reid also has said a health care overhaul ``would 
     create 400,000 jobs a year,'' and that his travel promotion 
     bill ``will create tens of thousands of jobs in the service 
     industry.''
       ``It is a jobs bill, and that is an understatement,'' he 
     said.
       Among the other job creators being touted, the beachfront 
     historic site in the U.S. Virgin Islands stands out.
       Democrats, arguing for the bill in January, said 
     designating the site and spending the $40 million or more to 
     acquire the land will transform it into a popular tourist 
     destination.
       ``It will create jobs and help ease unemployment on the 
     island,'' said Mr. Rahall, the West Virginia Democrat who 
     shepherded the bill through the House.
       Dubious Republicans pointed out that the cost of a ticket 
     from the U.S. to the island and the travel time make it 
     unlikely that the new historic site would be a major economic 
     draw.
       ``Let's quit spending like crazy. Let's sell off some of 
     our assets, pay down our debt and let America find jobs 
     again,'' said Rep. Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican.

  Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my comment about welfare because I 
think the American people thought that welfare was done away with many 
years ago in this country, but that simply isn't the case.
  A document that was prepared by the Heritage Foundation and released 
September 16, 2009, provides a valuable perspective on the current 
state of welfare spending, and I'm going to be quoting from that 
document for several moments.
  ``Welfare spending has grown enormously since President Lyndon B. 
Johnson launched the War on Poverty. Welfare spending was 13 times 
greater in FY 2008, after adjusting for inflation, than it was when the 
War on Poverty started in 1964. Means-tested welfare spending was 1.2 
percent of the gross domestic product, the GDP, when President Johnson 
began the War on Poverty. In 2008, it reached 5 percent of GDP . . .
  ``Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, taxpayers have given 
$15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) to means-tested 
welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was 
$6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).''
  My colleague across the aisle wants to blame our deficit on the war, 
and yet, we're spending much, much more on welfare than we are spending 
on war, and we have done that since the sixties.
  ``In his first two years in office, President Barack Obama will 
increase annual Federal welfare spending by one-third, from $522 
billion to $697 billion. The combined 2-year increase will equal almost 
$263 billion . . . After adjusting for inflation, this increase is two-
and-a-half times greater than any previous increase in Federal welfare 
spending in U.S. history. As a share of the economy, annual Federal 
welfare spending will rise by roughly 1.2 percent of GDP.''
  Americans are already frightened to death of our deficit. Now they're 
going to see why a large part of that deficit is here.
  ``While campaigning for the Presidency, Obama lamented that `the war 
in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per month.''' Let me say 
that again. ``The war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per 
month,'' President Obama said.

                              {time}  1230

  Applying the same standard to means-tested welfare spending means 
that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 
per month in 2010.''
  Go on and make all your comparisons you want to about how much is 
being spent on the war. Keeping this Nation safe is the role of the 
Federal Government.
  ``Most of Obama's increases in welfare spending are permanent 
expansions of the welfare state, not temporary increases in response to 
the current recession. According to the long-term spending plans set 
forth in Obama's FY 2010 budget, combined Federal and State spending 
will not drop significantly after the recession ends. In fact, by 2014, 
welfare spending is likely to equal $1 trillion per year.''
  According to President Obama's budget projections, Federal and State 
welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years, FY 
2009 to FY 2018. This spending will equal $250,000 for each person 
currently living in poverty in the U.S., or $1 million for a family of 
four.
  ``Over the next decade, Federal spending will equal $7.5 trillion, 
while State spending will reach $2.8 trillion. These figures do not 
include any of the increases in health care expenditure currently being 
debated in Congress.'' This was written in 2009 before the health care 
bill was passed.
  ``In the years ahead, average annual welfare spending will be roughly 
twice the spending levels under President Bill Clinton after adjusting 
for total inflation. Total means-tested spending is likely to average 6 
percent of GDP for the next decade.''
  I am ending my quote of the Heritage article.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are frightened to death. That's what 
I hear every weekend when I go home, frightened to death about the 
direction of this country. They can identify the fact that we are 
spending too much. It's helpful to show them where some of that money 
is going and to balance out the misinformation our colleagues are 
giving out across the aisle about this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill need to be rejected. I could go 
on and on about the jobs situation. We know full well that our 
colleagues like to brag about how many jobs that they have created.
  I am only going to show a couple of posters because we talk about 
this a lot, but I think it's very, very important to do it. I would 
like to show the job increases and jobs lost across the Presidencies of 
President Bush and President Obama.
  If we look at this, we will see that from the time President Bush 
came in, there was a drop in job growth right after 9/11, but then 
there was a 46-month steady increase of jobs up to 8.1 million. If you 
look at President Obama's administration, there has been a loss of over 
3 million jobs.
  Now, I know our friends can count this lots of different ways. 
Another way that Scott Hennessey has said we should do it is to look at 
the average unemployment rate during a President's time in office. This 
clearly shows that under President Obama our average unemployment rate 
has been 9.5 percent, under President Bush, 5.3 percent. I think that 
tells the tale. So they can talk about creating jobs; they can talk 
about all their wonderful policies.
  All their wonderful policies have created this hole that we are in. 
They should stop digging, Mr. Speaker, instead of continuing to dig.
  The evidence is here, Mr. Speaker. The liberal Democrat agenda has 
failed. They need to go back to the drawing board and come back to the 
American people with real solutions to the real problems of the 
American people.
  This isn't time to dither and blame the Republican minority for the 
disappointing collapse of governance we have seen since the liberal 
regime seized control of Congress in 2007, or blame President Bush for 
everything bad that they have done.
  Mr. Speaker, I will point out again that this bill is a welfare 
emergency fund expansion. H.R. 5893 will add $5 billion to the welfare 
emergency fund, doubling this fund the Democrats created in their 2009 
stimulus bill, again, an example of the fact that the stimulus has 
failed miserably.
  The Democrats' welfare emergency fund expansion would especially 
benefit States that have increased welfare case loads and spending on 
welfare most. The new welfare money will be paid to States in FY 2011, 
a third fiscal year since this welfare emergency fund started.
  Democrats are trying to re-brand this welfare emergency fund to seem 
to be all about jobs. It's not.
  After calling it the emergency contingency fund for State Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Family Programs for the last 2 years, Democrats 
now propose to rename this program the Emergency Fund for Job Creation 
and Assistance, but only 25 percent of the $4 billion in welfare 
emergency funds has been spent on jobs.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill, Mr. Speaker, and on the rule.

[[Page 14601]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to 
tell me how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, Paul Krugman wrote an article in The New York 
Times sometime back, and he is the Nobel Prize winning economist. On 
July 20 he talked about ``Tax Cut Truthiness.''
  Without reading the entire article, he cites to Erick Erickson and 
says, ``But I think we have part of the key to how Republicans can 
believe that returning to the Bush agenda is exactly what we need: 
they've invented themselves an alternate history in which wonderful 
things happened under Bush, and earlier booms have been sent down the 
memory hole.''
  Now, I have had the good fortune of being here in the minority and in 
the majority. I served 8 years under President Bush in the minority. I 
also served 8 years during the Clinton administration.
  My late mom had a statement about all of us as politicians. She used 
to say, if you are going to say that George H.W. Bush did it, then you 
have to say that Jimmy Carter did it and then somebody else will say 
that Reagan did it. She said why don't you all just admit it that 
George Washington did it and get it over with so as how you don't have 
to keep pointing fingers at each other.
  My distinguished colleague from North Carolina just certainly 
misspoke and didn't mean to when she said that this particular measure 
isn't scored.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the Preliminary CBO Estimate of 
Changes in Revenue and Direct Spending of the Investing in America Jobs 
and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010. I might add that it points out 
that it is revenue neutral, as I said previously. 

[[Page 14602]]





[[Page 14603]]

  I am so glad that my colleague and I come from virtually all the same 
kinds of backgrounds, if you read her biography and you read my own. We 
also have been advantaged in this society by taking advantage of the 
opportunities that were presented to us.
  But where we parted company somewhere along the line, well she didn't 
want, evidently, to give opportunity to those who have no opportunity. 
I have been taught all of my life to do everything I can for the least 
of these in society. Now, I heard her, and I agree that the role of 
government identified in the United States Constitution clearly points 
out that national security is the role, and a primary role, of the 
Congress.
  But promoting the general welfare is also a role of Congress. When I 
see, as I do, at the pantry in Fort Lauderdale, them not having the 
funds to carry forward, when I see the food bank on Oakland Park, 
that's less than nine blocks from the office where I am privileged to 
serve the people of the State of Florida, when I see it robbed by 
thieves so that they can't help the needy, I know that out there 
somewhere are people that are hurting, and they are hurting that people 
need our help.

                              {time}  1240

  And they need our help whether it's from the Federal Government or 
the State government or the local government, they need our help. And 
to suggest by any stretch of the imagination that it is wrong for us to 
help those who are in need is anathema to my background. And that isn't 
because I am a liberal Democrat; that is because I am an American 
citizen who believes in America and who believes in all of its people, 
whether they are rich or whether they are poor.
  Now, I don't believe at all that this YouCut project that my friends 
have created allows that States do anything less than be incentivized 
by using the temporary assistance for needy families. No less an 
authority than the former chairman of the National Republican Party, 
Haley Barbour, who is now a member of the National Governors 
Association--and I might add, support for this temporary assistance 
program is expected to and sought to be brought onboard by the National 
Governors Association; they support it, the National Conference of 
State Legislatures, they support it, and the National Association of 
Counties have all urged Congress to continue the TANF as a way to 
create jobs and assist families. Listen to what Haley--who I happen to 
know and I happen to think is a distinguished American and an 
outstanding Governor of Mississippi--listen to what Haley said on 
February 17. He said, I hope the program will be extended so more jobs 
could be created. Now that's a conservative for you.
  Now my colleague on the other side, I have been very anxious and very 
concerned that evidently people in this body do not understand how much 
Iraq cost this country. I did not vote for us to go to Iraq, and I am 
glad I didn't. I did not vote for the supplemental that we passed 2 
days ago, and I am glad I didn't because it didn't include things that 
should have been included. I might add that I can't make Afghanistan 
make sense when I see the number of young Americans that are being 
killed in that particular theater. But I do know this: Joseph Stiglitz, 
who is a economics Nobel Laureate, claimed the Iraq war will cost the 
United States more than $3 trillion, and he said the final tally is 
likely to climb much higher than that. There are others who believe 
that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Americans a 
staggering $1 trillion to date, second only, in inflation-adjusted 
dollars, to the $4 trillion price tag for World War II. It cost us $1.1 
million per man and woman in uniform in Afghanistan. Now somebody make 
it make sense to me that it's all right for us to continue down that 
path while it's not all right for us to have temporary assistance for 
needy families.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is another tool that 
State and local governments can use to invest in infrastructure 
development and put much-needed cash and jobs into the economy. I am 
well aware that Republicans object to the expeditious nature of this 
legislation. However, the provisions in this legislation have already 
been debated and considered on numerous other occasions, and we do need 
to act quickly.
  When we sent it, Mr. Speaker, to the United States Senate, these are 
the things that were included. My colleague began her remarks today by 
saying that it's outrageous. I find it interesting that she cited as 
one of the definitions of outrageous, ``exceeding the limits of what is 
normal or tolerable.'' It also describes outrageous as ``whatever is so 
flagrantly bad that one's sense of decency or one's power to suffer or 
tolerate is violated.''
  Now, I fall into that second category and believe that small business 
lending is not outrageous. That was what was sent to the Senate that 
Republicans said no about. I believe that infrastructure investments 
are not outrageous. Much of that that was sent to the Senate was what 
Republicans said no about.
  Business tax relief; I certainly don't believe that that is 
outrageous, and that's what was stripped out in the United States 
Senate by Republicans and was not voted on by Republicans in this 
particular body.
  Individual tax cuts. TANF jobs and emergency funding that we now have 
some of. Veterans concurrent receipt, I don't think that's outrageous. 
The National Housing Trust Fund, I don't think in a time of downturn in 
this economy, with one out of every five Americans facing foreclosure 
or in foreclosure, I certainly don't think that that is outrageous. I 
don't think it's outrageous to hold harmless the provisions for low-
income families in this country. They stripped out, by saying no, oil 
disaster response.
  National Flood Insurance, something that has been around that has 
helped a lot of us all over America, they stripped that out. I don't 
think that it's outrageous that it was in there.
  Mine safety--and we've seen what happened in West Virginia--I don't 
think taking that out was the right thing to do; I certainly don't 
think it was outrageous to leave it in there.
  Federally declared disaster areas, where floods and drought and other 
matters have gone on. Agriculture disaster relief was taken out of this 
measure, and I'm here to believe that it was outrageous? Other expiring 
disaster relief programs were as well.
  Now some of the things that are in there, some of the things that are 
in it that I don't think are outrageous: It extends the Build America 
Bonds program that everybody in this institution knows has been 
successful for State and local government. It makes additional 
allocation of recovery zone bonds to ensure that each local 
municipality receives the minimum allocation or equal to at least its 
share of national employment in December of 2009. I certainly don't 
think that's outrageous.
  And I might add my colleague Mr. Dreier also referred, as did Dr. 
Foxx, to the outrageousness. I don't think it is outrageous to exclude 
bonds financing facilities that furnish water and sewage from State 
volume caps estimated to cost $371 million over 10 years.
  Is it outrageous to eliminate the cost imposed on State and local 
governments by the alternative minimum tax, estimated to cost $224 
million over 10 years? Is it outrageous to have new market tax credits? 
Is it outrageous to have emergency job fund creation and assistance, 
scheduled to expire on September 30, to extend that through 2011?
  I don't think it's outrageous to suspend the recognition of foreign 
tax credits. And even though it is a legal entity in our law, as my 
colleague has said, I don't think it's outrageous that we close tax 
loopholes that allow American corporations to take American jobs abroad 
and cause this economy to continue to be exacerbated.
  I don't think it's outrageous for us to offset the cost of this bill. 
However, the provisions in this legislation, as I indicated, have 
already been debated and considered on numerous other occasions. In 
fact, we have already pared down this legislation from the larger 
measure that I just talked about that the House already passed because 
the Senate could not get enough votes

[[Page 14604]]

from the Republicans for passage in their body.
  Now, America can continue to put up with these people that drove us 
in the ditch and give them the keys if they want to and expect that if 
we return to that era, that we are going to have prosperity. I don't 
think so. I saw what happened. I believe Americans saw what happened.
  The programs that we are considering are designed especially to 
assist the American people in times of economic hardship, just like the 
one our Nation is currently facing. We need to act to help Americans, 
not find evermore excuses not to help. Republicans have been 
consistently saying ``no'' on every jobs package and economic 
development legislation that we have put forward in this House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans in this Chamber are against everything 
coming their way from the Democratic side of the aisle. They want to 
block any job creation legislation in order to make Democrats look bad 
for the upcoming election, but they are doing so at the expense of the 
American people.

                              {time}  1250

  This legislation will help. This legislation does not add one nickel 
to the deficit and does not contain wasteful spending. Democrats are 
hard at work on an agenda to improve our economy, to create jobs, and 
to ensure that all Americans--all Americans--will be able to take 
advantage of opportunities and to have an opportunity to have 
opportunity as our economy recovers.
  I hope that my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle will 
unite with us to help Americans in these most difficult economic times.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________