Investing in American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I'm amused sometimes when I stand on the floor and I hear my Republican colleagues debate the economy.

Frankly, the Bush administration, of course, did not happen, you understand. That 8 years really wasn't their economic program, and the dire consequences of that economic program are all Mr. Obama's fault. Hoover probably could have blamed it on Coolidge. Maybe Coolidge could have blamed it on Hardy.

Now, we can throw these assumptions back and forth and generalities about this job-stopping Congress and President, but every time I get up and I start talking about the facts, the statistics, I rarely get somebody standing up on your side of the aisle saying, No, that statistic is wrong.

Now, I've been here long enough, unfortunately for some of you, to remember where we've been, where we've come, and where we are. I was here in 1993 when we debated the economic program that was put on this floor by the Democratic Congress and President Clinton. And although I don't know--it was one of you who recently spoke or who has spoken on this floor--your leaders said if we adopted that program, it would destroy the economy, the deficit would explode, and unemployment would explode. And as you are today, you are 180 degrees wrong. Statistically, you cannot deny it.

Statistically, you cannot deny that during the 8 years under which we had the economic program in place, which you could not put aside--and I'll explain that we couldn't put it aside either in 2007 and 2008--that program created more jobs for American workers in the private sector than Mr. Reagan did, than Mr. Bush I did; and under Mr. Bush II, of course, we essentially lost jobs in the private sector.

Almost 21 million jobs were created under the Clinton economic program, which your side indicated would result in high unemployment and deep deficits. And with respect to deficits, Bill Clinton's economic program and the program put in place in 1993 led to the only 4 years of surplus that anybody in this Chamber or in the gallery has lived under. Four years of surplus. Bill Clinton is the only President in the lifetime of anybody in this Chamber who ended his term with a net surplus--$62.9 billion. Now how does that compare with the economic program that was put in place in '01 and '03? Not rhetoric but statistically?

Well, as opposed to those 216,000 jobs per month created under the Clinton economic program put in place by the Democratic Congress of 1993, the economic program that you put in place created, not 216,000 jobs per month but 11,000 jobs per month. Now you need about 125,000 jobs to stay even in America; new people coming into the job market. And if you don't create those 125,000, then there aren't jobs for people coming into the market and you start having unemployment rise.

Clinton: 216,000 jobs per month. Now, ladies and gentlemen of the House, if I'm wrong on that statistic, I'm sure somebody will call my attention to it. They haven't in the past. And 11,000 under the economic program frankly that you put in place and is still in place from a tax standpoint. Tax rates are still where you set them and where you said it would explode the economy.

And you were worried about paying off the deficit too soon. Well, you took care of that. The national debt was about $5.8 trillion when you took over. It was about $10.4 trillion when you left. You almost doubled the national debt. Bill Clinton, of course, didn't borrow any money from foreign governments during his last 4 years. We rolled the debt. It came up a little bit, no doubt about that; 37 percent as opposed to 87 percent under your economic program.

And I say to my friend who was worried about jobs, Your economic program hasn't changed yet. The tax rate is the same as you set it and you said if the tax rate was there, we would explode jobs. And then you say, ``But business is doing really badly.'' $1.8 trillion cash on hand in American business as we speak today; $1.8 trillion, which I tell my friend is more than it's had in four decades. Cash on hand. Cash on hand. So that apparently business is doing pretty well, which is why the stock market has gone up 60 percent. Sixty percent, I tell my friends. Those of us who have a 401(k), since shortly after the passage of the Recovery Act, the Dow went up from 6500 to approximately 10-3 or 10-4 yesterday. I think it's about, close to 10-5 today. That is 4,000 points up.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I rise in support of this bill. This bill has passed here before, I tell my friends, and we're going to have to pass it again. When it passed the first time, people were still not for taxing people who were sending jobs overseas. They still take that same position.

Yesterday saw the publication of a significant report on the Federal Government's response to the greatest economic crisis of our lifetime, totally contrary to the promises made when we adopted your economic program in 2001 and 2003, which I did not vote for. But you were in charge. You had the House, you had the Senate and you had the Presidency; and you put it in place. It led to the worst economy this country has seen in the lifetime of anybody who is not 90 years of age.

There was an article, as I said. It was written by Mark Zandi, a former economic adviser to the McCain Presidential campaign, and Alan Blinder, a former vice chair of the Federal Reserve. The report found, and I quote, that ``the U.S. economy has made enormous progress since the dark days of the early 2009.'' Enormous progress, says Mark Zandi, adviser to John McCain.

It goes on to find in this article that the effects of the government response since the height of the crisis, quote, are huge and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. Without the government's response, GDP in 2010 would be about 6 1/2 percent lower. That's not me saying that. It's Mark Zandi saying that. And payroll employment--I know my friend from Texas wants to hear this figure. According to Mark Zandi, payroll employment if we hadn't passed that bill--which I know my friend did not support--he was opposed to that--Mark Zandi says that payroll employment would be less by some 8 1/2 million jobs.

My friend from Michigan says, Where are the jobs? Let me tell you, it's unfortunate. We misconstrued and made a bad estimate. We didn't think you could put the economy possibly as low as you put it. We didn't think it could possibly be that deep. But it was. Much deeper than even we thought. We knew it wasn't doing well. The American people knew in 2006 it wasn't doing well and they knew it wasn't doing well in 2008, so they changed

horses to ride. But it was so deep that we have been working very hard to get it out and we are trying to get there.

This bill moves us forward. That article went on to say, ``The stimulus has done what it was supposed to do: end the great recession and spur recovery.'' That is progress. But we understand that all Americans know it's not success. And success will not come until we create enough jobs that there is not unemployment in America above a figure, which is usual for the transition from job to job, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 1/2 percent.

This bears repeating. Democrats have fought to rebuild the economy and put middle class Americans back to work, in the face of efforts to grind our economic recovery to a halt.

Let me say something to my friends. They have been opposing Democratic plans to create jobs and grow the economy. Tragically, the Republican obstructionism's collateral damage has been those who remain out of a job. This legislation seeks to respond to that pain, that dislocation, that family fear that they won't be able to pay the next bill, the next mortgage payment, the next grocery bill. That's the case with the legislation we're debating today, which puts our common interests above corporate interests and which can continue our economic recovery.

The Investing in American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act ends tax breaks that encourage companies to outsource American jobs overseas. You ask Americans whether they think that's a good policy and I'd be surprised if you got any less than eight out of 10 who said, ``Yeah, that makes sense to me.'' Those loopholes help ship jobs and investments overseas, and Democrats wants to close it. This bill also extends the Build America bonds program which helps States and localities fund essential, job-creating infrastructure projects. So far, Build America bonds have been one of the most effective contributors to our recovery, supporting nearly 2 million jobs across the country.

This bill also helps States create or extend jobs programs that help low-income families find work. They are the most stressed out. They lost their jobs first. They had the least to rely on when they lost that job.

And I want to point out that this bill supports all of those jobs without raising the deficit. I urge all of my colleagues to support this jobs bill. Will it solve the problem? It will not. But will it move us forward? It will. I congratulate Chairman Levin and the Ways and Means Committee for the work that they have been doing, and I urge my colleagues, take this additional step to help those folks in America who want to work, who have worked, who want to put food on their tables for them and their families.

Pass this bill and send it to the Senate. Let's keep fighting for jobs in America.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would simply say to my friend--and he is my friend and I believe him to be a very positive Member of the Congress of the United States. I would say to him, I don't want to re-litigate. I do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past, and I believe, very frankly, my friend, that the economic policies that you want to pursue have not worked, and I don't want to pursue them again. It's not a question of re-litigation. It's a question of learning from the failures of the past that brought this economy so extraordinarily low. It is time to invest in the creation of jobs. I believe this bill does that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Source