[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9840-9849]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4213, TAX 
                         EXTENDERS ACT OF 2009

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1403 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1403

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
     certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes, with the 
     Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, 
     without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered 
     by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his 
     designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment with 
     the amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution as modified 
     by the amendment printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules. The Senate amendment and the motion shall 
     be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2.  House Resolution 1392 is laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1403 provides for consideration of the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 4213. Mr. Speaker, the legislation is like many of 
the bills that we do. It's the product of many hours of hard work. It's 
also an effort to strike a balance between extending important life-
saving assistance to laid-off workers and investing in smart spending 
that will help our economy.
  A significant portion of the bill would go directly to helping our 
citizens. We extend unemployment insurance, we invest in summer jobs, 
fund loans for small businesses, and make bonds available to States. 
But I am pleased that the bill also cracks down on corporations, 
closing tax loopholes that have encouraged companies to ship jobs 
overseas, a thing I have devoutly desired for a number of years.
  Unlike the previous administration, we use PAYGO rules here to make 
sure that new spending, other than emergency spending, is fully paid 
for. In fact, it's worthy to remind my colleagues that the deficit 
facing the country was created by the last administration, which 
financed two wars, a prescription drug plan, and a huge tax cut, all of 
which was unpaid for, and consequently is responsible for two-thirds of 
the deficit.
  In the recent frenzied back and forth over this bill, it is easy to 
lose sight of the important steps that Congress has taken up to this 
point to help right the economy. We passed small business tax relief, 
expanded the first-time home buyer tax credit, changed the way students 
apply for loans, funded a Cash for Clunkers program, injected money 
into the economy, and helped to protect domestic jobs at a critical 
juncture.
  With this vote, we can help families across the country continue the 
path we set out on last year to help dig the country out of a terrible 
recession. For small businesses, the backbone of the Nation's economy, 
and the place where most American workers are employed, we use this 
bill to ensure them an easier time getting loans. The bill also 
continues the very successful research and development tax credit, a 
powerful incentive to creating well-paying jobs.
  The measure extends the ongoing recovery by investing in Build 
America Bonds and Recovery Zone Bonds, making it less expensive for 
cash-strapped State and local governments to finance the rebuilding of 
schools and sewers and hospitals and transit projects.
  The legislation helps American families with sales tax relief, 
property tax relief, disaster area tax relief, and college tuition 
deductions. The bill wisely invests in important energy provisions such 
as the biodiesel tax credit, while making good on our obligations to 
black and Native American farmers. Finally, the measure also 
strengthens the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund by increasing the amount 
the oil industry must pay to clean up its disasters.
  I also want to pause for a moment to talk about two pieces of 
legislation that I personally am happy to see in the bill, because I 
think they'll pay enormous benefits. This bill closes a loophole in the 
Tax Code that has been used by huge corporations, including publicly 
regulated utilities. Companies use this loophole to avoid paying 
millions of dollars in taxes when they spin off a subsidiary. These 
deals cost taxpayers and they hurt consumers, especially when the 
company using the loophole is a phone company that wants to get rid of 
the older telephone lines in small towns and rural areas. With this 
bill we close that loophole, and we will save taxpayers $260 million 
over the next 10 years.
  On another front, the bill also extends funding for the wool trust 
fund, which helps to keep thousands of textile and apparel workers 
around the country employed. I was proud to work on this issue because 
of the relevance it has to Hickey Freeman, a 100-year- old company and 
maker of fine men's suits located in Rochester, New York.
  The fund provides funds to makers of wool fabric and yarn producers, 
as well as sheep growers, to help maintain the domestic production of 
wool fabric. Too many of our industries in the United States have 
closed up and moved overseas. I frequently say that we can't be a great 
power if our entire manufacturing sector moves to other countries and 
we are obligated to buy from other countries for our very livelihood.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress can rightly take great pride in some very 
historic work on behalf of our constituents this year; but we must 
remind ourselves that many people are still struggling, and we must do 
everything in our power to fund the necessary programs that protect the 
unemployed Americans, help small business, enhance job creation 
efforts, and keep America on the road to economic recovery.
  I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting ``yes'' on the rule 
and ``yes'' on this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 9841]]

  It seems like every time I come to the House floor, I point out that 
my Democratic colleagues are using an unprecedented, restrictive, and 
closed process on the House floor, and here I go again to tell the 
exact same story. In fact, I am not even sure anyone on the House floor 
knows what we are debating or getting ready to vote on right now. It's 
amazing. Bill after bill, day after day. We were provided with a copy 
of the final bill at 9:06. I guess that beats 3:15 in the morning.
  Mr. Speaker, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority promised the 
American people that they would run the most open, honest, and ethical 
Congress. To date, this Congress and I think the last one has seen more 
backroom deals, arm twisting, and more partisan negotiations than ever 
before. I think the American people are fed up with it. They want 
transparency, they want accountability, and I think what they are 
looking for is solutions. Standing up and touting this bill when nobody 
even knows what's in it and how great it is, I think, a sham.
  Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the Democrats, and I repeat 
that, it is my understanding that the Democrats are planning to amend 
the rule to change the text of the underlying legislation that we are 
discussing here right now. Are they planning changes to the $100 
billion in spending? I don't know. What are they going to do? I don't 
know. What's in the amendment? More spending? I betcha. More taxes? I'm 
sure. Are they gutting the State Medicare funding portion? Are they 
eliminating the COBRA extension? Will doctors see a 21 percent cut in 
reimbursement next week? I don't know, nor does anybody who is going to 
vote on this bill.

                              {time}  0930

  Unfortunately, the answers to all of those questions, regardless to 
what's in their amendment, is yes. The Senate has already made it clear 
to this House and my Democratic colleagues, the press, and the American 
people that they will be going home--as a matter of fact, they've 
already done that--before acting on the extenders package that we are 
doing right now.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what is the point? Why is the Speaker having this 
bill today on the floor? This isn't about jobs. It's not about the 
unemployed. It's not about those without insurance or it's not even 
about physicians. It's about a political agenda. It's about taxing and 
spending and a message on this floor that tries to make it seem like 
it's the reverse.
  I would submit to you that if this Democratic majority were trying to 
help small business, they'd start with any one of the top five issues 
that small business has and that they present through the National 
Association of Manufacturers, and they've done this for years. That 
list is ignored.
  Yesterday in CQ Today, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee was 
asked whether the Democrats' backroom deals were going to hold up on 
the House floor, and her response, and I quote, Are you kidding me? 
We're Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, what's in the deal? Does it provide any real solutions? 
Are we voting on this to accomplish anything? I would say in the next 2 
hours we will be voting on legislation that this body will have no clue 
what is in the bill. Once again, par for the course.
  It's also my understanding that the Democratic priorities of 
implementing new and permanent taxes, increasing debt spending, deficit 
spending, and fixing errors and oversight in the Democrats' trillion 
dollar health care bill is exactly what it will also be in the bill 
today. But I don't know. Yet the majority continues to patch the 
Nation's problems together with expensive short-term fixes that create 
even greater budget shortfalls in the future rather than dealing 
honestly with them.
  Monday night in the Rules Committee, I asked Chairman Levin to 
quantify, please, how many jobs this bill would create since the 
majority insists on calling it a jobs bill. The fact is he couldn't. 
This legislation throws billions of dollars at a bunch of short-term 
solutions while creating permanent, new taxes on business. I know the 
Democrats like to call them corporations, but I call them employers.
  This legislation will increase the tax treatment of carried interest 
for real estate, energy, and investment partnerships, in some cases 
more than doubling the tax rate from 15 to 35 percent. That's it. The 
Democratic agenda: Tax and spend. Tax and spend employers, and then 
blame it on them when something bad goes wrong. Maybe better, blame it 
on George Bush.
  Also, this bill increases payroll taxes on S corporation shareholders 
as well as changes the longstanding U.S. International Tax Code law. 
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, these changes could saddle 
small business, American worldwide companies, and investment 
partnerships with draconian tax increases that will hinder job creation 
and decrease the competitiveness of American business. And that I 
quote. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle are still calling 
this a jobs bill. I know what it is, and so do you. Taxing and 
spending--the hallmark of the Democratic majority. Job killing measures 
once again present on the floor of the House of Representatives today.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the extenders bill that is before us today 
has billions in additional health care spending, spending the Democrats 
couldn't find to offset for their $1.2 trillion health care bill. So 
they didn't include it because they wanted to mask the true costs of 
the bill that we passed on or around March 22.
  One key example, this legislation prevents a 21 percent cut to 
physician reimbursement for Medicare payments, but by preventing this 
cut for the next year and a half, they leave physicians with a 33 
percent cut in 2012 that will cost over $300 billion to fix. That's not 
open; that's not honest, and I don't believe that's ethical.
  Mr. Speaker, today I talked about how Republicans over and over 
continue to be shut out of the process on the House side, even right 
now, where I suspect my colleagues would offer an amendment to change 
the text to something not one of my Republican colleagues have seen and 
no one on the House floor has read.
  This legislation provides us, for a couple of months, an extension 
for noncontroversial extenders by levying new permanent tax increases 
on small business--the engine of our economy--and, of course, 
investment partnerships.
  And lastly, this legislation uses budget gimmicks to push our 
Medicare programs further in debt, putting the care of our Nation's 
seniors at risk. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle continue 
to move forward with this tax-and-spend agenda and then blame their 
inability to receive the results they want on somebody else.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question to bring some fiscal 
restraint back to this House and ``no'' on the rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I've heard the phrase all my life, as you have, of ``taken out of 
context.'' Let me assure anybody who wants to know about that, no 
reporter has ever said to me, Do you think your backroom deals are 
going to hold up? And if anyone were to ever say that to me--and I hope 
to keep that record intact--believe you me, I would not laugh and say, 
We're Democrats. I do recall saying to somebody yesterday with pride 
that we are Democrats, and I am proud that we are Democrats. We are the 
people who are trying to take care of the people without jobs in this 
country and to make the climate right to create more.
  Now, before I yield to my next speaker, I want to let Members know 
that I will be offering an amendment to the rule at the end of the 
debate. The amendment makes three changes to the text that has been 
posted on the Rules Committee Web site since Thursday, May 20. It 
strikes two sections from the House amendment--section 511, section 
516--and it changes the effective date and the carried interest 
provision making it effective on December 31, 2010, instead of the date 
of enactment.

[[Page 9842]]

  The amendment provides for a separate vote on section 523, which is 
the SGR, the so-called doc fix, and a vote on the remainder of the 
modified House amendment. This does not add money, Mr. Speaker. It 
subtracts it.
  I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairwoman of the Rules 
Committee for yielding, and I urge support for the rule, as amended.
  For far too long, Members on both sides of the aisle have talked 
about the need to reform the way we pay physicians under Medicare and 
provide them with a fair and reliable reimbursement. Today, unless we 
act, physicians are facing a 21 percent cut in their reimbursement, and 
such a drastic cut will drive physicians out of the Medicare program 
and make it harder for seniors to see a doctor.
  Mr. Speaker, if we fail to act, people will be harmed. I've already 
seen it take place back in my district. I've had patients call me to 
say that their doctors will no longer take Medicare because of the cuts 
they are faced with. House Democrats have tried to prevent this from 
happening. Last year, we passed a bill that would have permanently 
repealed the flawed formula that results in these annual cuts and 
replaced it with a more stable payment system. But that bill passed the 
House with only the support of one Republican, and, unfortunately, the 
Senate was not able to find the support for a permanent fix.
  So we've been forced back to legislating by patchwork, a 6-month 
extension here, a 60-day extension there. But if our Senate colleagues 
cannot find the votes for a permanent repeal, then we need to provide 
the longest relief that we can. This bill will provide doctors with a 
positive update for the rest of this year and next year that will help 
doctors cover their growing costs and continue to serve Medicare 
patients, and it will give those of us in Congress more time to work 
with the physician community to find a workable solution that can pass 
both the House and the Senate, hopefully with Republican support.
  The policy in this bill is not everything I hoped for. I know the 
physician community wanted more, but it's important to pass this to 
make sure we do no harm, by preventing those drastic cuts from taking 
effect.
  So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes.'' 
This is a very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good 
friend from Texas for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that Democrat leaders have decided not 
to allow the House to vote on my amendment to improve the proposed 
Cobell Indian settlement, a settlement that benefits individual Indians 
across the country.
  The amendment I offered was simple and addressed improvements 
requested of Congress by individual Indians, tribal leaders, and an 
association of more than 50 federally recognized tribes in the 
Northwest.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear, a settlement on this issue 
is long overdue, but the agreement negotiated by the Obama 
administration and the plaintiffs' lawyers can be improved by Congress 
to benefit individual Indians. And let me explain why.
  While most of the Indians will get between a $500 and a $1,000 check, 
the lead plaintiff could receive $15 million or more as an incentive 
award. A handful of lawyers could be paid over $100 million, which is 
almost one-third of the value of the claims that they litigated.
  Two months ago, the plaintiffs' attorneys were asked to provide 
Congress with documents to justify their large fees and expenses. After 
repeated inquiries, Mr. Speaker, the attorneys have provided no 
information to this date. Instead of responding with documents to 
justify how much they should be paid, the attorneys have instead 
threatened to kill the entire deal if they are denied the ability to 
get the $100 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize this. Every dollar paid to the 
lawyers is a dollar taken out of the pockets of individual Indians. My 
amendment caps attorneys' fees at $50 million, and by doing so, it 
reduces the payments to lawyers to increase payments to individual 
Indians. My amendment would also benefit individual Indians by 
correcting several other flaws that were identified by Indian country. 
The committee has the ability to fix these flaws on a bipartisan basis.
  The settlement has been changed by the administration and the 
plaintiffs four times already. While the House won't be allowed to vote 
on this amendment to improve the settlement to better benefit 
individual Indians, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the Senate will act 
to make the improvements that Indians, tribal leaders, and respected 
tribal organizations are asking Congress to make.
  Congress should be afforded the opportunity to fix the settlement in 
response to requests from our Indian constituents. By refusing to make 
my amendment in order, Democrat leaders have turned their back on these 
requests.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  So here's one of the issues before the House today. Say you have an 
American company that owners live here and they decide that they can 
make more money by sending their jobs to Asia or south of the border, 
out of the country, and they do. And they bring the money home and 
enjoy it here, but the jobs go overseas. And they figure out a way to 
game the tax laws so they don't pay taxes for that business to the 
United States Treasury. So the profits come home, the jobs go overseas, 
and the tax revenue doesn't flow into the Treasury. This bill closes 
that loophole. It says, if you outsource our jobs from this country, 
you don't get off the hook when it comes to the IRS.
  Now, what does it use the money for? Well, if an American business 
goes into a bank today and the bank says, you know, we would make this 
loan to you to expand your business but we just need a little more 
collateral, a little more guarantee, this bill says the Small Business 
Administration can step in and make that loan happen and create those 
jobs. Or a woman running a software company or a biosciences company 
says, I've got a real opportunity here to hire more scientists and 
researchers, but I just can't quite find the capital.

                              {time}  0945

  This bill says she can hire five scientists for the price of four 
because of the research and development tax credit, or the mayor and 
council of a town is saying we could fix our antiquated clean water 
system. We could build a new water treatment system and have cleaner 
water and more jobs for people in our town, but the interest rates are 
just a little bit too high for us. If we could borrow the money just a 
little bit less expensively, we could create more jobs.
  This bill says that they can do that. This bill creates jobs, and it 
pays for the creation of those jobs by saying that those who outsource 
our jobs can't get off the hook and have to pay their fair share of 
taxes. Now I know this discomforts some on the minority side. I know it 
goes against their philosophy that whatever corporate America does, it 
is okay. We think if you outsource your job you shouldn't get off the 
hook for your tax obligations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I know that it was a longstanding tradition under the 
prior administration and the erstwhile majority to let people outsource 
American jobs and not pay their fair share of taxes. Those days are 
ending, and the days of jobs hemorrhaging from this economy are ending 
because we are reinvesting in small businesses, local governments, and 
entrepreneurs around this country to put our people back to work.

[[Page 9843]]

  That's the legislation before the House today. I would urge a ``yes'' 
vote.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, you know there is no way to get around this. This is a 
monster tax increase and permanent tax increase on taxpayers and 
business.
  I want to quote from the National Association of Manufacturers, which 
are all about American manufacturers: American companies who do 
business overseas will find a monster tax increase on them for doing 
business, penalizing them.
  It says many of the tax-increase proposals, which are 
mischaracterized as a tax loophole--you know, they are actually tax 
law--actually represent significant changes to a tax policy that has 
been supported by Congress and this administration.
  Now, they are going to come back and change that. You have got to 
blame somebody.
  It's obvious to me that what we will end up doing is pinning the tail 
on the donkey, because we know who is about trying to kill jobs. It 
comes through heavy taxation, and it comes through rules and 
regulation. I have got letter after letter after letter from businesses 
across this country who say this will harm American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, 
California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we were all promised, this institution and 
the American people were promised, back in 2006, a new direction for 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, that was, in fact, the title of a publication that then-
minority leader, my California colleague, Nancy Pelosi, put forward. 
What did it promise? It promised a new era of transparency, disclosure 
and accountability. A new era of transparency, disclosure and 
accountability.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I will inform you that exactly 47 minutes ago, at 
9 a.m. Eastern time, we were handed this amendment to the rule.
  Now, as I look at this morning's CQ Today, I did read the quote to 
which my friend, the distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules 
referred. When asked if this was a precooked measure, she responded by 
saying, Are you kidding? Are you kidding me? We're Democrats. That's 
the quote. That's the quote that appears in this publication.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, as I read this quote, I am reminded of the statue 
that we always encourage our constituents to look at and rub the feet 
of as we go into Statuary Hall, and it's the statue of Will Rogers. 
Will Rogers, that great comedian, famously said, ``I am not a member of 
any organized political party. I am a Democrat.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we have observed over the last 3 days the 
Democratic leadership running around this institution like chickens 
with their heads cut off, attempting to put together some deal which, 
when asked if it was precooked, the Chair of the Committee on Rules 
said, Are you kidding me? We are Democrats.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, the American people get it. They are not getting 
the kind of transparency they were promised, and we are seeing a 
measure here that is being put into place which I am convinced will 
continue to have the deleterious effect that the other measures that 
have been put into place over the last several months have created.
  We all know that when we dealt with the serious economic downturn--
and we can point fingers at ourselves--we can point fingers all over. 
But we do know that as we dealt with the economic downturn, that this 
Congress made a decision, I think an unfortunate one, to dramatically 
increase spending.
  What is it that happened? Well, during that debate, we were all 
promised by the President and other leaders that if we were to pass 
that stimulus bill, we would ensure that the unemployment rate would 
not exceed 8 percent. In fact, we were told that by this time, with the 
implementation of the so-called economic stimulus bill, the 
unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the unemployment rate has surged, 
and it is just under 10 percent. Unfortunately, we continue to have 
people suffering.
  I happen to represent the Los Angeles area in California. In my 
district, the unemployment rate is as high as 14.5 percent. There are 
parts of my State of California, the Central Valley of California, 
where the unemployment rate has exceeded 40 percent.
  Now that's after we have been promised that the implementation of all 
the spending bills that we have had would ensure that we would not have 
an unemployment rate that would exceed 8 percent, and look at what has 
happened.
  What is it that we are doing now? Well, we are looking at a 
multibillion dollar spending bill that will exacerbate, not ameliorate, 
the economic downturn, which we all want to emerge from.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, my good friend Dennis Prager likes to say he has 
now put out bumper stickers. The great writer says, The bigger the 
government, the smaller the individual.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that the bigger the government grows, the 
smaller the individual becomes.
  We have learned that because as we look at the European model and, 
tragically, we seem to be seeing our friends on the other side of the 
aisle attempting to implement a European-style entitlement society--it 
has failed in Europe, Mr. Speaker, and we should do everything that we 
can to ensure that we don't pursue that same kind of policy here.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, create 
transparency, and let's go back to exactly what was promised.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of this rule and 
the underlying bill for one reason, and that is jobs, jobs, jobs. 
That's what this bill is about. It's about creating jobs across the 
country from Massachusetts to Florida to my home State of California.
  This bill extends an important program I call Jobs NOW. While it may 
be little known, it's funded through TANF emergency funds, and it has a 
huge impact on the unemployed in 39 States, creating over 160,000 jobs, 
which will disappear in an instant if we don't pass this bill.
  In L.A. County, it's paying 10,000 jobless workers $10 an hour and 
placing them in temporary jobs for up to a year. In exchange, the 
businesses provide training, build job skills, and get extra workers at 
little or no cost. It's truly a win-win.
  For small companies hard-hit by the economic downturn, the chance for 
extra workers to grow and expand their businesses is a welcome boost, 
even if it means providing training and workspace for the temps, and 
it's great for workers too.
  Anoush and Karen lost their jobs when the recession hit. Forced to go 
on welfare, they struggled to provide for their 2-year-old daughter. 
But Jobs NOW hired them to work at Abex Display systems, which 
manufactures trade show displays. The company used them to help handle 
a slow but growing recovery in sales, allowing it to move forward and 
stabilize after taking massive cuts in business. After the temporary 
jobs ended, both Karen and Anoush were hired permanently.
  This family and this business are making a comeback because of Jobs 
NOW. Let's pass this rule and H.R. 4213 to help working families and 
our Nation do the same.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have our colleagues on 
the Democratic side come and talk about jobs.
  It's not going to happen. These are massive tax increases. Business 
is trying to say, through the letters which I will more fully get into 
in a minute, that's how to kill jobs in this country, permanent tax 
increases. Oh, no, those are corporations, those are evil corporations.
  My friends, they are called employers. You are putting permanent tax 
increases on employers, which means you will have fewer jobs in this 
country.
  Don't blame it on somebody else; blame it on yourself. Pin the tail 
on

[[Page 9844]]

the donkey. That's the reason why we don't have jobs. We don't have 
jobs because 4 years ago, when the Democratic majority took over, all 
they talked about is taxes and spending, rules, regulation, more on 
business. And Members come to the floor and say, this is just about 
jobs.
  Read the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather 
community, North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding time and for 
handling this rule on the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, there are so many things to refute from our friends on 
the other side that there is simply not enough time to do it.
  But what we need to say over and over and over again, that instead of 
addressing the staggering deficits and debt that the Democrats, who 
were totally in control of the Congress--and that needs to be repeated 
over and over and over again--what they are running up in Washington, 
$714 billion in deficit spending in the first half of fiscal year 2010 
alone.
  Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer are trying to shield their Members 
from taking any more ``tough votes'' during an election year. Or, as 
one Washington newspaper put it, without much else on the House agenda, 
they simply don't have any excuses not to do a budget beyond cowardice.
  Economists say that Washington needs to cut spending now to create 
jobs, but Democrats aren't listening. Out of touch Washington Democrats 
may think that by skipping the budget process this year, they can avoid 
the tough choices that come from governing. But they can't hide from 
our Nation's problems, especially when their job-killing agenda is 
making things worse. They could come to the floor and will say they are 
creating jobs, but the numbers prove otherwise.
  The simple truth is while the liberals have repeatedly claimed their 
trillion-dollar 2009 stimulus plan was ``the right thing to do,'' it's 
hard to tell that from looking at the job situation across the U.S. 
According to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Labor, by 
April 2010 a total of 48 out of 50 States had seen net job losses since 
the President signed the Democrat stimulus plan into law in February 
2009.
  The data show that only Alaska, North Dakota, and the District of 
Colombia have seen net job creation since then. Other than perhaps the 
predictable exception in D.C., even those States that have seen some 
increases in jobs are still well short of the growth the White House 
originally forecast.

                              {time}  1000

  What is clear is that 2.7 million more jobs have been eliminated--
eliminated, Mr. Speaker--since the Democrat stimulus was passed. 
Unemployment rose to 9.9 percent instead of falling to 7.4 percent, as 
Democrats predicted, and 15 million Americans--an all-time record for 
the month of April--are currently unemployed.
  It's baffling that grown people charged with leading Congress cannot 
learn from their failed attempts at addressing the problems facing 
everyday Americans. And as my colleague from Texas has said, they like 
to bash corporations, but what they're bashing are employers.
  They love to brag about how effective they've been in providing jobs, 
but I want to tell you, government jobs don't provide the viable 
solution to help get the economy back on its feet. According to a May 
25, 2010 article in USA Today, ``Paychecks from private business shrank 
to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the 
first quarter of this year. At the same time, government-provided 
benefits--Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and 
other programs--rose to a record high during the first 3 months of 
2010.
  ``Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the 
recession and the Federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. 
The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from 
private wages to government programs.''
  The American people know we don't need more government programs and 
more government spending. We need to spur on the private economy; and 
this rule, this bill will not do that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to quote from 
the Dallas Morning News for my colleague, Mr. Sessions:
  ``Texas employers expanded nonfarm payrolls by 32,500 jobs in April, 
the Texas Workforce Commission said Friday. That's the State's fourth 
straight month of job gains.
  ``The State has now gained 91,600 jobs in the first 4 months of the 
year.''
  Houston Business Journal this morning: ``As the U.S. economy expanded 
for a third consecutive quarter, Texas posted some of the strongest 
numbers in the country.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another 10 seconds.
  ``Unemployment remained at 8.2 percent, giving Texas the lowest rate 
amongst large States, while existing home sales in the State grew in 
the first quarter by 16 percent compared to the same time a year ago.''
  And I would like to put these into the Record.

                  [From the Houston Business Journal, 
                             May 28, 2010]

             SigmaBleyzer: Texas Leading Economic Recovery

                           (By Casey Wooten)

       As the U.S. economy expanded for a third consecutive 
     quarter, Texas posted some of the strongest numbers in the 
     country, according to Houston-based private equity firm 
     SigmaBleyzer LLC.
       The Texas Business Cycle Index, which tracks movements in 
     employment and GDP, increased for the third straight month.
       Texas non-durable manufacturing also grew by 2.1 percent 
     and 1.7 percent in 2008 and 2009, versus negative 3 percent 
     and negative 5.6 percent nationwide.
       ``Strong foreign demand for U.S. goods is also driving 
     improvements in industrial production,'' the report said.
       Moreover, higher oil prices supported a nearly 10 percent 
     growth in the Texas mining industry in March 2010 compared to 
     the same month a year before.
       Unemployment remained at 8.2 percent, giving Texas the 
     lowest rate among large states, while existing home sales in 
     the state grew in the first quarter by 16 percent compared to 
     the same time a year ago.
       U.S. GDP grew at an annualized rate of 3.2 percent for the 
     quarter while Texas GDP grew at about 2 percent, but didn't 
     drop as much compared to the rest of the nation during the 
     lows of the recession.
                                  ____


                  Texas Gains More Jobs Again in April

                           (By Brendan Case)

       Worries about the global economy have intensified in recent 
     weeks, but for now the recovery in Texas is barreling ahead.
       Texas employers expanded nonfarm payrolls by 32,500 jobs in 
     April, the Texas Workforce Commission said Friday. That's the 
     state's fourth straight month of job gains.
       The commission also released revised data showing that 
     Texas employers added 42,200 jobs in March--up dramatically 
     from the 8,500 jobs announced last month.
       The state has now gained 91,600 jobs in the first four 
     months of the year after losing more than 350,000 in 2009.
       ``It's very good,'' said Mine Yucel, an economist at the 
     Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, referring to the latest jobs 
     report. ``It's doing better than we thought it was doing.''
       Despite the gains, Texas' unemployment rate edged up to 8.3 
     percent in April from 8.2 percent the month before. The 
     overall U.S. jobless rate stood at 9.9 percent last month, up 
     from 9.7 percent in March.
       The slight increase in the unemployment rate might actually 
     be a sign of a reviving economy, analysts said.
       When the job market is weak, some people give up seeking 
     work. People not actively looking for a job are not counted 
     as unemployed.
       Looking again
       By contrast, a strengthening job market typically draws 
     people back into the job market, leading to an increase in 
     the unemployment rate. The Texas labor force grew by about 
     51,000 in April, nearly twice the monthly average during the 
     previous 12 months.
       ``The general expectation is that with rising employment 
     opportunities, you had some folks who were basically 
     discouraged from looking for jobs and now they've gone back 
     to looking for work,'' said Terry Clower, a University of 
     North Texas economist.
       There are plenty of reasons for caution, however.

[[Page 9845]]

       Initial U.S. jobless claims rose unexpectedly during the 
     week that ended May 15, the U.S. Labor Department said 
     Thursday. Building permits, an important housing indicator, 
     fell last month. So did an index of leading U.S. indicators 
     compiled by the New York-based Conference Board.
       Moreover, global markets have swooned in recent weeks amid 
     concerns about many European countries' debt levels and 
     growth prospects.
       ``If Europe goes into the tank, that's going to affect 
     us,'' said Bernard Weinstein, an economist at Southern 
     Methodist University's Cox School of Business.
       ``We could have, if not another recession in the U.S., 
     clearly another slowdown just at the point where the economy 
     is finally picking up steam.''
       Patience needed
       Certainly, the U.S. recovery will take time to dent 
     widespread unemployment even if job creation continues.
       One broad-based measure of unemployment and 
     underemployment, known as the U-6 rate, includes not just the 
     jobless but also people who have given up looking for work 
     and part-timers who want to work full time.
       Last month, the national U-6 rate stood at 17.1 percent, up 
     from 16.9 percent in March.
       No comparable April number is available for Texas. During 
     the 12 months ending in March, however, the state's U-6 rate 
     was 14.2 percent. The conventional unemployment rate over 
     that time was 7.9 percent in Texas.
       `Right direction'
       Still, the recovery appears to have started. In April, 
     Texas employers added jobs in eight of 11 employment 
     categories, with education and health services and the 
     construction industry leading the way.
       ``Overall, these numbers are certainly moving in the right 
     direction,'' Clower said.
       In the Dallas-Fort Worth area, employment rose by a scant 
     800 jobs after adjusting for typical seasonal variations.
       Nationally, payroll employment increased in 38 states and 
     Washington, D.C., in April. Three states added more jobs than 
     Texas: Ohio picked up 37,300, Pennsylvania added 34,000, and 
     New York gained 32,700.
       Michigan continued to have the highest unemployment rate 
     among states, at 14 percent. Nevada's jobless rate was 13.7 
     percent, followed by California at 12.6 percent and Rhode 
     Island at 12.5 percent.
       North Dakota had the lowest unemployment rate at 3.8 
     percent, followed by South Dakota at 4.7 percent and Nebraska 
     at 5 percent.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond back that, in fact, we are doing 
well in Texas.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Ms. Jackson Lee, who 
is also from Texas and I hope will give us good news.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has been 
recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'll reserve my time while they figure it 
out.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 
2 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentlelady and acknowledge 
that I am from Texas. And in addition to the good news, and we are 
still working to improve the conditions of Texans, this bill will be a 
cause celebre in the State of Texas.
  We know, overall, 290,000 jobs have been created in the month of 
April over the United States because this Democratic leadership had the 
courage to vote for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the 
stimulus package that has generated the opportunities for job creation. 
My good friend and colleague indicated in an inquiry on the floor, What 
is the point? Well, I'll tell you what the point is. The point is that 
this bill saves taxpayer dollars, and it helps one of the basic 
infrastructures of job creation, small businesses.
  And through the program that we are now extending--we are eliminating 
fees for loan packages--we will see increased opportunities for our 
small businesses to get what they need, the capital to hire people and 
to keep their businesses and their doors open. $26 billion in loans has 
already gone out to our small businesses across America, impacting the 
numbers, Madam Chair, that you read in the Houston Business Journal, 
where the small businesses are one of the basic infrastructures of our 
community. Their doors are open, they are securing loans, and they're 
hiring people.
  What is the point? The point is that we have provisions dealing with 
community college and career training, an idea that I had that 
individuals could be getting their unemployment insurance but be 
trained for new jobs. This is in this provision based upon utilizing 
trade provision dollars.
  What is the point? Summer jobs, 375,000 summer jobs, only costing $1 
billion over a 10-year period, paid for. The highest unemployment is 
among our youth, 16 to 19, and among minority youth it is even higher. 
The Congressional Black Caucus worked extensively to ensure that we 
would have summer jobs money.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I lived through the era of the Bush 
administration that had no summer jobs, no concern about our young 
people, and I tell you it was a crying shame.
  The doctor fix: my doctors in Houston, the Texas Medical Center, 
those who work very hard to provide patient services to our seniors, we 
are providing them with a 2.2 increase, 1 percent in 2011, and then it 
goes up to current levels.
  Closing foreign loopholes is saving taxpayer money. That is the 
point. And of course recognizing that we're creating jobs, jobs, jobs.
  You know what the point is? We have the courage to make a difference 
for America.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 4213, The American Jobs, Closing Tax 
Loopholes and Preventing Outsourcing Act. I would like to thank my 
colleague, the Honorable Sandy Levin, Chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, for introducing this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, getting all Americans back to work is, and should be, 
our number one priority. It is essential that the Congress continue to 
create avenues that will provide employers with incentives to hire and 
to retain new employees. Therefore, I have been a major supporter of 
comprehensive efforts to create jobs for the unemployed constituents of 
the 18th Congressional District of Texas, as well as throughout the 
State of Texas and the nation.
  Indeed, as a Member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I have been 
working tirelessly to ensure that the number of jobs available in the 
economy drastically increases. This includes an increase in the amount 
of summer jobs, jobs for the long-term unemployed, and jobs for the 
permanently laid off. Also, I continue to support efforts to relieve 
the plight of many Americans, in vulnerable communities, who have been 
hit hardest by unemployment.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4213, ``The American Jobs, Closing Tax 
Loopholes and Preventing Outsourcing Act'' is the right bill at the 
right time in our economic recovery. The bill is yet another important 
measure, which I strongly believe is essential to addressing the 
nation's alarmingly persistent high rate of unemployment, particularly 
among African- Americans, Hispanic Americans and others vulnerable 
populations.
  A January 2010 Washington Post article reported that unemployment for 
African-Americans is projected to reach a 25-year high this year. Some 
believe the national rate of unemployment for African-Americans will 
soar to 17.2 percent, and the rates in five states will exceed 20 
percent. Of course, we know during the course of the recession, the 
unemployment rate has grown much faster for African Americans and 
Latinos than for whites.
  Through the American Recovery Act of 2009, Congress was able to 
provide much needed assistance to many Americans who were struggling 
from the effects of the economic downturn and the collapse of our 
financial markets. Unfortunately, of the $787 billion provided through 
the economic stimulus package, the unemployment rate in the U.S. has 
not been substantially reduced; currently, the unemployment rate in the 
U.S. stands at 9.9 percent.
  Again, any comprehensive initiative to create jobs is welcomed, 
because I remain concerned about high unemployment anywhere it is being 
experienced in the U.S. According to the Texas Workforce Commission, 
the current unemployment rate for Houston is 8.4 percent, while a May 
6, 2010 Los Angeles Times article noted that the national unemployment 
rate for Hispanic Americans exceeded 13.0 percent.
  Because unemployment remains acute and needs persist that in 
communities all across the country, I support the major provisions of 
the bill, including:
  (1) Small business lending--The bill will extend the small business 
lending program created under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act. This program will eliminate the fees normally charged for loans 
through the

[[Page 9846]]

Small Business Administration, providing access to capital not 
available in the private market.
  (2) Infrastructure investments--Under the bill, comprehensive relief 
is provided for our Nation's aging infrastructure and transportation 
needs. A wide range of measures including addressing housing, schools 
and hospitals. Funds are provided to continue remediating the nation's 
``Brownfields'' sites, opening up new opportunities for redevelopment 
of distressed communities.
  (3) Summer jobs--The bill funds a summer jobs program for the 
Nation's youth. Our Nation's youth ages 16-19 have a 25% unemployment 
rate--some of the highest unemployment numbers in the country. Reducing 
unemployment among the Nation' youth will be widely beneficial to 
working poor families and the youth themselves.
  (4) National Housing Trust Fund--The bill capitalizes the much need 
National Housing Trust Fund, providing expanded assistance to 
communities with major shortages of affordable housing.
  (5) Oil Spill, Flood Insurance and Mine Safety--The oil spill in the 
Gulf of Mexico highlights the need to increase the liability cap for 
oil companies for cleanup purposes from $1 billion to $5 billion. The 
bill also extends the expiration date of the National Flood Insurance 
program to December 31, 2010. Mine safety issues are also funded in 
this bill, providing incentives for mining companies to have up-to-date 
safety equipment.
  (6) Closing Tax Loopholes--the American Jobs and Closing Tax 
Loopholes Act of 2010 includes a series of measures designed to close 
tax loopholes exploited by individuals and corporate entities, as well 
as a means of closing tax loopholes for foreign subsidiaries of U.S 
companies, another means of keeping jobs at home.
  (7) Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR)--Another major provision 
of the bill related to affordable health care cancels the scheduled pay 
cut for Medicare physicians. This will enable the Nation's physicians 
to continue serving the Nation's growing elderly population and to stay 
in practice.
  In addition, the legislation will help companies and State and local 
governments generate jobs, while providing tax relief and economic 
assistance to many American families in need of assistance. I agree 
with Chairman Levin when he indicates, ``By promoting jobs here in the 
U.S. and cracking down on loopholes that encourage companies to move 
overseas, we strengthen opportunities for American workers and 
businesses so that we can continue building on recent economic growth 
toward a robust recovery.'' The extension of unemployment and health 
benefits through the end of the year is also critical to many workers 
and their families to make ends meet while they continue to search for 
jobs.
  Given the fact that the U.S. economy has shown signs of improvement, 
the use of fiscal stimulus is the most prudent policy to sustain 
economic growth and to create jobs as the major restructuring of the 
U.S. economy continues. We are now part of the global economy, with 
implications for the future of the U.S. economy. However, we must first 
look within to determine our priorities--the number one priority has to 
be the American worker. We must get jobs in the hands of the most 
vulnerable individuals in the country.
  In addition, I will work with my colleagues to restore the COBRA 
extension and the State Medicaid assistance (FMAP) provisions of the 
original bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand with Chairman Levin in support of this bill and 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the chair of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be speaking at greater length, though only for a 
few minutes, when the rule passes.
  I want to say just a few things about what this bill is all about. 
The basic bill has been here for more than a week, and so anyone who 
says they don't know what's in it has failed to read it. It says, and 
it means, jobs and jobs and jobs.
  There are provisions for business, there are provisions for local 
communities in terms of infrastructure. We're talking about supporting 
millions of jobs in this country, and so we will get to that.
  I think your discomfort is that this indeed is a jobs bill and it 
will create more jobs, and the path has been started some months ago. 
Contrary to the path under the Bush administration, when jobs were 
lost, now they are being gained, and this bill will help gain them 
further.
  Secondly, the gentleman from California talked about the unemployment 
rate in California. This bill extends unemployment compensation through 
the end of November of this year. So when he has a chance to help the 
hundreds of thousands of unemployed people who are looking for work in 
California--and those of you on the minority side who also face 
unemployment and who have tens, if not thousands, of people who are 
unemployed--how are you going to vote? Are you going to turn your backs 
on the unemployed who are looking for work? We'll have to see.
  And then there is some reference to the tax provisions. As I will 
explain, there are numerous tax provisions to help small business in 
this bill, numerous provisions: the R&D tax credit; the biodiesel tax 
credit, which many want; the provision for real estate improvements to 
maintain the 15-year depreciation, which helps to stimulate jobs; jobs 
for service industries overseas, which they want; and allowing 
manufacturers to be able to use their AMT.
  This is paid for, unlike the years I sat on the Ways and Means 
Committee under the Republicans when there was never anything paid for.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. So the complaint is now we are closing loopholes. We're 
closing provisions worked out with the administration, that asked for a 
much larger package, that will make sure that the foreign tax credit is 
not abused so that jobs are shipped overseas. So instead, jobs are 
created in the United States of America. So this is about a jobs bill, 
a jobs bill to create jobs in the United States of America and to help 
those who can't find them get some help.
  We will talk about the physician fix, or the effort to treat it--it's 
not really a fix. It's to provide reimbursement to physicians so that 
they can provide care for their patients. And so you say it's only 19 
months. When you were in power, that was the most you did, and usually 
there was much less out. You're going to vote against that? Well, we'll 
see.
  And there is a provision here relating to veterans, and I close with 
reference to this: The Military Officers Association of America has 
sent a letter saying they ``have strong support for H.R. 4213. The 
Military Officers Association of America is also grateful that H.R. 
4213 includes authority to implement the administration's proposal to 
phase out the disability offset to military retired pay for 
servicemembers forced into premature medical retirement as a result of 
service-caused disabilities.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman from Michigan an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. ``It is patently inequitable that current law forces these 
members to fund their own VA disability compensation by forfeiting most 
or all of their military retired pay. H.R. 4213 properly acknowledges 
that such members should be vested for retired pay earned by service, 
independent of any service-caused disability.''
  The test will come in a few hours where you stand on jobs and where 
you stand for the veterans of this country.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Let the Chair simply remind Members that 
they should address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding again.
  I had to come back after I heard our colleague just speaking because 
I think that it is time that we create a new dictionary that explains 
the language being used in Washington.
  As my colleague from Texas pointed out earlier, our colleagues across 
the aisle, Mr. Speaker, constantly bash corporations, but we prefer to 
call them ``employers.'' Our colleagues across the aisle talk about 
revenue all the time, but revenue in Washington means taxes on American 
workers.

[[Page 9847]]



                              {time}  1015

  Yet the word, the phrase, that really got my attention this morning 
was the comment that my colleague said: We pay for these.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the Congress has no money other than what it 
confiscates from the American taxpayers. I am really getting tired of 
our colleagues across the aisle pretending that we in Congress somehow 
or another use largess that comes like manna from Heaven to do things 
for the American people. They're doing their best to get the American 
people to think of dependency on the Federal Government. That is the 
wrong way to go. They aren't paying for anything. You, the American 
people, are paying for every one of their ridiculous, wasteful 
products. It is time we stop it.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair, not to other Members and not to the television 
audience.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I would say to my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, 
through the Chair, that maybe, instead of a dictionary, we should have 
a math book or a history book brought out, because there is some 
historical context, recent historical context, to this discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, we were told in January of 2009, with respect to the 
Recovery Act that was on the House floor, that it is clear that it 
doesn't create the jobs or preserve the jobs that need to happen. That 
was said by our friend, the minority leader of the Republicans, Mr. 
Boehner, that it is clear that the recovery bill doesn't create the 
jobs or preserve the jobs that need to happen.
  Now, in the 3 months that were in the context of that remark, for 
example, in March of 2009, the economy lost 753,000 jobs. In April of 
2009, it lost 528,000 jobs. We brought to this floor a bill that put 
construction workers back to work by building transportation projects. 
If they bought homes, we gave people tax credits for their 
downpayments. We sent more people to colleges and to universities on 
Pell Grants. We cut taxes for small businesses and families across the 
country.
  Then what happened? Well, in March of this year, the economy added 
230,000 jobs. In April of this year, the economy added another 290,000 
jobs.
  So the other side said in good faith, in January of 2009, these 
things would not work. They were wrong. They haven't worked as quickly 
as we want. They haven't worked as much as we want, but the tired 
philosophy that says that inaction and inattention will fix the problem 
has failed. A philosophy that says that giving American entrepreneurs, 
American taxpayers, American construction workers the chance to succeed 
will and does.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in fact, the gentleman is correct. There 
were jobs that were added. They were government jobs. They were 
government jobs because of the census, and that is why we saw an 
uptick.
  Let's go back to Texas. I know there has been a lot said about Texas. 
In Texas, unemployment jumped from 6.8 percent in April 2009 to 8.1 
percent in April 2010. That's an additional 188,600 people unemployed.
  I appreciate you all in trying to take credit for this great, robust 
economic boom that's going on in this country. The fact of the matter 
is it's not working that way.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter dated May 24, 2010, 
from IBM. I'm going to read just the last paragraph because it shows, 
really, the misnomer of my Democrat friend's argument about how great 
this bill is, the jobs bill.
  It reads, ``Despite the 1-year renewal of the R&D tax credit, which 
we and other technology firms have long supported, the late insertion 
of large, new, permanent tax increases, together with hundreds of 
billions in new deficit spending that has not been offset, leads IBM to 
strongly oppose this legislation.''
  Hundreds of billions of dollars in new deficit spending.
  This reminds me a lot of the firefighter who goes out and sets a fire 
and then shows up to put it out, trying to get credit when, in fact, 
that firefighter is an arsonist. IBM gets it. IBM gets it and they 
understand: hundreds of billions of dollars of new deficit spending 
that has not been offset.

                                                              IBM,


                                        Governmental Programs,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 2010.
     Hon. Sander M. Levin,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington. DC.
       Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Camp: IBM strongly 
     opposes the ``tax extenders'' legislation pending before 
     Congress this week. Although our company has been a long-time 
     supporter of the R&D tax credit that has enjoyed bipartisan 
     support in Congress over many years, the pending legislation 
     would impose significant new tax increases that will 
     completely overwhelm any positive economic effect of the R&D 
     tax credit, harming the U.S. economy just as recovery has 
     begun.
       The legislation released on May 20 includes new, 
     permanent--and sometimes retroactive tax increases inserted 
     into legislation under the pretext of ``paying for'' a 
     temporary tax credit for R&D and other expiring provisions. 
     These new tax increases have never been the subject of 
     Congressional hearings and were developed behind closed doors 
     without input from taxpayers.
       The U.S. international tax system has evolved over time to 
     help American companies compete in the global marketplace 
     against foreign competitors who operate under more favorable 
     global tax systems. IBM's foreign earnings help fund domestic 
     investment and research and result in meaningful US jobs. As 
     such, increasing taxes on IBMs foreign earnings will have a 
     negative effect on these investment decisions. Rather than 
     adopting changes on a piecemeal basis, any changes to the 
     international tax rules should be considered in the broader 
     context of comprehensive tax reform.
       Despite the one-year renewal or the R&D tax credit, which 
     we and other technology firms have long supported, the late 
     insertion of large new permanent tax increases, together with 
     hundreds of billions in new deficit spending that has not 
     been offset, leads IBM to strongly oppose this legislation. 
     We do, however, support an open discussion about 
     comprehensive reform of the U.S. tax system.
           Sincerely,
                                              Christopher Padilla,
                                   Vice President, Govt. Programs.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) to refute the notion that all 
new hires in the United States are census takers.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas made a statement, I believe, that 
most of the jobs created were census jobs. Did the gentleman tell us 
how many jobs were census agency jobs created in the last 2 months?
  I yield to the gentleman to answer the question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for asking.
  You know, I had seen a report, and we received information up in the 
Rules Committee that there would be an expectation of 500,000 census 
jobs across the country.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman said that most of the 
jobs created in the last 2 months were census jobs. How many were 
created in the last 2 months that are census jobs?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman.
  I think the overwhelming context I had was that the jobs that are 
being created are in government.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's statement is wrong. 
A small minority of the jobs created in the last 2 months have been 
census jobs. The gentleman is wrong.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a colleague on the floor just 
used the terminology ``confiscated,'' and I certainly want to respect 
her use of a word in the dictionary.
  Yet I would say to men and women of the United States military, to 
whom

[[Page 9848]]

we are providing funding from the revenue that we collect, that that 
money is not being confiscated. To those disabled veterans who are 
getting a tax benefit, we are not confiscating money; we are giving 
them dollars. To those who are on the Louisiana coast, who are going to 
get a benefit from the increase in the oil trust fund to help them 
clean up the disaster in Louisiana, we are not confiscating money but 
using the Federal resources to help the American people.
  We are helping America. That is what this vote is about. The 
Republican opposition do not want to help America. We do.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. 
Today we began this rule by talking about Republicans' having received 
a copy of the rule and the bill at 9:06. We talked about how the Senate 
has left town and that we are doing this bill today to no avail, 
because it expires when we will all be gone, which is next week.
  We've got doctors who will not be properly reimbursed. Oh, I'm sorry. 
That big cut occurred from this Democrat majority, and now we're trying 
to show up and show how we've got to help physicians. Once again, it 
reminds me of that firefighter who sets his own fire. This Democrat 
majority cut the doctors. Now we're hearing that doctors won't see 
Medicare patients, and now we show up to save the doctors.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line to this whole thing is that massive, new 
tax increases are in this bill, while at the same time, somebody is 
trying to take credit for all of these millions of new jobs that will 
be created. Yet, when asked, the chairman of the committee had no 
evidence to support that. It was just an opinion.
  That is exactly the same kind of opinion that we saw from the prior 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who, when asked about the 
health care bill--and even though he knew it would diminish jobs 
because of the guesstimate of CBO of some 5 million jobs--wanted to 
push this as a jobs bill, wanted to push health care as a jobs bill, 
and now we are doing it again.
  The U.S. Chamber says changes to the tax treatment of real estate, 
energy, and investment partnerships will result in negative 
consequences for capital formation, innovation in real estate, energy, 
investment, and jobs in America.
  The bottom line is that this Democrat majority has three big 
political items, not just taxes and spending, but the three largest 
political items will net lose 10 million American jobs, as decided by 
the Congressional Budget Office.
  This Democrat majority is insistent on killing jobs in America. They 
are insistent on taxing and spending. They are for the diminishment of 
the investor, and they are going to kill the goose that lays the golden 
egg. I think it is a big mistake to try and show up and say, Those 
darned Republicans won't go along with us. They won't vote for an 
extension of unemployment.
  I will tell you what the Republican Party stands for: It is jobs, 
investment and the opportunity to have more jobs in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, we end our debate today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The gentlewoman from New York has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be offering an 
amendment to this rule. I want to briefly explain the amendment. It is 
very simple. It strikes two sections from the House amendment printed 
in the Rules Committee report.
  No. 1: It strikes section 511, the COBRA extension.
  No. 2: It strikes section 516, the State Medicaid Assistance, or 
FMAP.
  It also makes a change in the carried interest provision, making it 
effective on December 31, 2010, instead of the date of enactment.
  Finally, the amendment divides the question of adoption of the House 
amendment into two votes:
  One vote will be on section 523, which is the SGR--the doc fix. The 
other vote will be on the remaining portions of the House amendment.
  That package contains provisions to extend American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act job programs. It provides tax relief to working 
families; extends business tax credits; provides pension relief; 
extends unemployment insurance, TANF, and flood insurance; provides 
relief for disaster areas, including relief for agriculture disaster 
areas; provides domestic energy tax provisions, closes tax loopholes, 
and hopefully prevents outsourcing.
  I hope Members will vote in favor of this amendment as well as in 
favor of the rule and the previous question.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 1403 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
       ``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4213) 
     to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain 
     expiring provisions, and for other purposes, with the Senate 
     amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without 
     intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the 
     chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that 
     the House concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution as modified by the amendment 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules and 
     the further amendment printed in section 2. The Senate 
     amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 
     intervening motion. The question of adoption of the motion 
     shall be divided for a separate vote on the matter proposed 
     to be inserted as section 523.
       Sec. 2. The further amendment referred to in the first 
     section is as follows:
       (1) Strike section 511 of the matter proposed to be 
     inserted by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules as modified by the amendment printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules.
       (2) Strike section 516 of the matter proposed to be 
     inserted by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules as modified by the amendment printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules.
       (3) In section 412(f)(1) of the matter proposed to be 
     inserted by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules, strike ``the date of the enactment of 
     this Act'' and insert ``December 31, 2010''.
       (4) In section 412(f)(2) of the matter proposed to be 
     inserted by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules, strike ``the date of the enactment of 
     this Act'' and insert ``December 31, 2010''.
       (5) In section 412(f)(3) of the matter proposed to be 
     inserted by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules, strike ``the date of the enactment of 
     this Act'' and insert ``December 31, 2010''.
       (6) In section 412(f)(4) of the matter proposed to be 
     inserted by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules, strike ``the date of the enactment of 
     this Act'' and insert ``December 31, 2010''.
       (7) In section 412(f) of the matter proposed to be inserted 
     by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules, strike paragraph (5).
       (8) Section 523 of the matter proposed to be inserted by 
     the amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules as modified by the amendment printed in 
     part B of the report of the Committee on Rules is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Statutory Paygo. 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.''.
       Sec. 3. House Resolution 1392 is laid on the table.''.

                              {time}  1030

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

[[Page 9849]]

  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on 
this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________