tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN December 16, 2010 10:00am-1:00pm EST
class tax relief act of 2010. this is the bill that passed the senate and now goes over to the house. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] i do not know what is going to happen with the omnibus bill yet. that will play out on c-span2 but as you can see, the house is about to come into session. the big debate will be about the middle class tax bill. representatives. coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., december 16, 2010. i hereby appoint the honorable ed pastor to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of
representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman -- oh, excuse me. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: o lord, have pity on us. for you do we wait. be our strength every morning, our salvation in time of trouble. as you approach, people flee. when you is recognized in your mag see, whole nations -- majesty, whole nations seem to scatter. they realize that poor decisions have lasting
consequences. in you alone leads to stability both now and forever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the pledge of allegiance will be -- the pledge of allegiance will be offered by the gentleman from ohio, congressman schock. mr. schock: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask members in the gallery to join us in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 10 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. dahlkemper: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize
worldwide marriage encounter. they have strengthened countless marriages through a weekend workshop to improve couples' communication. the worldwide marriage encounter is totally self-supporting and no couple is turned away because they do not have the ability to pay. in 2009, over 10,000 couples attended worldwide marriage encounters in the united states alone. marriage is a vital institution in the life of our society. couples in a good marriage live longer and happier lives. worldwide marriage encounter is undertaking a project to recognize the longest married couple from every state. with special recognitions to the longest married couple in the united states. as nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce, it is truly an inspiration to see how many couples have remained together for so long. mr. speaker, i hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating worldwide marriage encounter and all the volunteers and clergy for its efforts to strengthen marriages throughout our country.
and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: she yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. buchanan: mr. speaker, despite $14 trillion in debt, congress continues to waste taxpayers' money. the senate is now debating the senate bill loaded with 6,000 earmarks including research for maple syrup in vermont. this barrel of pork totals $8.3 billion. american message last month was very clear, stop the reckless spending. this continued borrowing spending is putting our country on the road to bankruptcy. 49 out of 50 states have to balance their budget, but yet in the last 50 years we've only managed to balance the budget five times. this has to change. we need to pass a constitutional balanced budget amendment, and we need to pass it today.
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i make a point every day to look in the times at that black box usually on page 7 or 8 that lists the names of those young men and women who have given their lives in afghanistan. yesterday, it struck me there were seven names as we go into christmas on that list. six of them under the age of 25. two of them, ken and derrick, 21 years old. mr. himes: i wonder if they ever bought a drink in the bar in the country they are serving. on the front page, the dim view of afghan war. i say all this because this time last year i was in afghanistan watching the good work that these young men and women are doing, building roads, building markets, building a nation. and reflecting on the fact that this is a nation for 1,000 years have spit out foreigners
as sport. and as we go into christmas and i think about the kids in my city of bridgeport whose schools have leaking roofs, whose highways are crumbling, whose rails are coming apart, i wonder, mr. speaker, is it not time that we start rebuilding this nation, not one that seems not to want us there? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, american enterprise institute fellows, peter wallison and edward pinto, says that the u.s. will use taxpayers as a checkbook again for down payments and overstretched credit limits. leading into the 2008 financial crisis, these loans will continue contribute to a housing bubble. they go on to state, the goal of congress and regulators
should be to foster the residential mortgage markets return to the standards that used to prevail in 1990 before the affordable housing requirements were imposed by fannie and freddie. we should fix the current problem. for starters, the dodd-frank act needs to be amended so that quality standards are applied by f.h.a. and other government agencies. this should not impair credit availability for the important home building and real estate industries. as a former real estate attorney, i know the governors -- the government should not overwhelm homeowners with mortgages they cannot afford. this destroys neighborhoods and families. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. altmire: mr. speaker, as we work to close out this session of congress, members of this house today will vote on a major piece of legislation to extend tax cuts for every
american, and while this bill was expected to help provide a boost to our economy, perhaps equally important is the way we arrived at this stage in the legislative process, through bipartisan compromise. this bill was the result of negotiation between republicans and democrats, between the president and the congress, between the house and the senate. that's right. this bill, which we're going to pass today and send to the president, is the result of the type of give and take negotiations that's supposed to be part of the legislative process but unfortunately has long been lacking in congress. hopefully passage of this bill today will be but a sign of things to come. i hope the new republican leadership in congress taking office january 5 will incorporate all points of view, republicans and democrats alike, and continue working in a bipartisan way to put the american people ahead of partisan politics. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise?
>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the international preventing child marriage act. i had the opportunity to travel earlier this year in september with the well-respected nonprofit care to the country of ethiopia. mr. schock: during that time, we visited a hospital and saw firsthand the atrocities and the realities of the situation with so many of these young girls who are forced into early marriage beyond their wishes. early marriages that rob their potential to grow both and mature both physically as well as mentally, for them to be able to establish their own life and their own goals and hopes and dreams for them to pursue. as a leader here in our country and around the world in preventing world poverty and spreading good will, there can be nothing better that we can do as a country than to join with our international partners in trying to prevent child marriage both in ethiopia and
other countries around the world and give these young girls the hope and opportunity that we have in our country for themselves. i urge a yes vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: yesterday was one vote the united states senate increased the debt of the united states by $858 billion. is this the best we can do to help those out of work, the best work we can do to sustain economic recovery, to sustain the trickled down tax cuts of the bush years that failed so miserablely over the last decades and some of the worst aspects of the so-called stimulus debt finance of goods made in china with money made in china? worse yet, $120 billion of this will come from social security, the first time congress has ever broken down the firewall between the general fund of the
united states and the sacrosanct social security trust fund. no, we could do much, much better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. flake: thank you, mr. speaker. when the obama administration was faced with a major omnibus in january, 2009, the president stated that he had to sign it because this is simply last year's business, that he had no part of. well, he's going to face another omnibus this year. this was all done under his watch by the congress. now, it's not his fault, but he has a veto pen and he should use it. this omnibus that's going to come to the president is going to be -- it's going to contain more than 6,000 earmarks for things like a couple hundred thousand that was mentioned for maple syrup research or $500,000 for biodiesel research from sewage-based biodiesel, and those and thousands of other earmarks like this.
the president recently said, i agree with those republicans and democrat members of congress who recently said that in these challenging days we simply can't afford what are called earmarks. well, mr. president, please make good on that statement. veto this omnibus bill coming. better yet, convince the house, convince your colleagues in the house and the senate to reject it before it comes to the floor. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i came to congress to fight for new jobs, protect the retirement security of america's seniors and give middle-class families a fair shake in this economy. yet, our efforts, the basic bricks in the foundation of a working economy has been cast aside by my republican colleagues. mr. grayson: the republicans have sweetened the tax deal today by demanding that american taxpayers fork over $26 billion for an estate tax break that will go to about
6,600 families. i offered some perspective. there are more than 6,600 people in century village, kings point and each of the major retirement communities i represent. there are more undergraduates at florida-atlantic university in my district. and my teenage daughter and their high school friends will have more than 6,600 facebook friends. 6.2 million americans who depend on food stamps to eat could eat for a year. 3.5 million american college schools at our public universities could see their tuition paid in full and more striking more than $175,000 to each of the 148,000 families whose sons and daughters -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask permission to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the
gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. today is december 16, 2010. there are only 15 days left until the american people are burdened with one of the largest tax increases in almost three decades. we must act now to extend all of the current tax rates for every american. we must allow americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. stopping the tax increases leaves more dollars and cents in the pockets of those who need them. it will also encourage small businesses and private sector to invest and hire. we need to spur economic growth to pull us out of one of the worst economies in our recent history. the president and his party currently control both chambers of congress and will maintain a majority in the senate and will hold the white house come january. let's not just tell our fellow americans we listen and have heard their concerns about the economy and their money. let's show them by extending all the current tax rates for every american and do that without other items that add to the deficit. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today proud to represent the third fastest growing high-tech job market in the country, that being albany in the capital district of new york. according to a new tech america foundation report, they grew their high-tech positions last year by 1.6%. while this is good news, there is also bad news. nationwide the number of high-tech jobs shrank by 3.2%. albany's success is partially due to the resources available at the university at albany college of nanoscale science and engineering. these jobs were not created by a government handout to millionaires or massive estates. they were created by investing in the local infrastructure and economy to create jobs. while albany added a number of high-tech jobs over the past couple years with an average wage nearing $80,000, we must do more to lay the groundwork for our national economy and job market to grow the high-tech
outcome. those investments yield great returns and produce jobs. thanks, mr. speaker. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. pitts: permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, over -- it's over 1,900 pages long, contains more than 6,000 earmarks, it costs over $1.1 trillion, it's the new senate omnibus bill and it's a legislative travesty. a lame duck congress with members who won't be here just three weeks should not saddle the american people with hundreds of billions of dollars in new debt. this bill increases spending over last year even though we ran up a $1.3 trillion debt this year and will run up a similarly high deficit next year. we don't need to be growing the federal government. we need to be shrinking it. this bill totally ignores what happened in this country on november 2. but seeing as some of the earmarks come from senators who won't be back next year, i guess we shouldn't be surprised. the american people are tired of paying their taxes so that
$165,000 can pay for maple syrup research and $1 million can go to afl-cio training programs. congress approval rating this session is at a record low, 13%. with bills like this we shouldn't be surprised. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i am here this morning to simply say that democrats continue to fight to maintain tax cuts on income up to $250,000 while cupples -- for cupples and $200,000 for individual. my republican colleagues continue to demand tax cuts for all incomes including millionaires and billionaires. i ask my democrats to please continue to extend the unemployment benefits to help out americans that make it through this recession, and i'm
pleased with my republican colleagues to hold the middle class unemployment, not to hold them hostage any longer. i also recommend that we have the 150,000 middle class americans at a cost of $214 billion, and i plead with my colleagues to join us in assisting to help because only 4.8 million of the country's wealthiest at a cost of $133 billion is what we are trying to make a decision on. please join me and look out for the working people of this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor one of america's bravest.
corporal chad stafford white of bentonville, arkansas, who valiantly sacrificed his life in support of combat missions in afghanistan. corporal white was a devoted man and a friend who is known to make those around him laugh. he shared his zest for life through the small things he did that put a smile on faces, for those who loved him. demonstrating his love of music, singing his favorite country songs, and enjoying the outdoors. corporal white taught others the importance of service. joining the marine corps in october of 2007, he was a member of the second battalion, first marine regiment, first marine division, first marine bishry -- expeditionary force and served in combat missions in iraq and afghanistan. my prayers and the prayers of arkansans over corporal white's family, including his wife, katie, his mom, and his dad.
i humbly offer my thanks to corporal white, a true american hero for his selfless service to the security and well-being of all americans and i ask my colleagues to keep his family and our thoughts and prayers during this very difficult time. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland rise? ms. edwards: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. edwards: mr. speaker, where is robin hood when you need him? i rise today to express my profound sadness about the tax bill that was passed by the senate and set to pass in this house that benefits the wealthiest of americans at the expense of putting billions of dollars of debt on to the backs of our children and grandchildren. where is robin hood? it's not just about the estate tax for 6,600 families, or the tax cuts for the two percenters, it's so irresponsible it contradicts everything as democrats we have been fighting
for generations. for those who charge that it's purity or sanctimony, make no mistake this is with our values as democrats. it's about the prospect of creating hope and opportunity for our children and grandchildren. and we are not doing it here. mr. speaker, i rise today to say that it's time for us to do what's in the interest of working families in this country and not to continue to sacrifice for the very few. with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yield back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. the american people are hurting. we all know that. my state of california we have a statewide unemployment rate of 12.5% and part of the area i'm privileged to represent we have a 15.5% unemployment rate. there are steps that we should have taken that we still can take that will help deal with the joblessness problem about
which we are all concerned. i believe that the president has been right on target in talking about the need to open up new markets around the world as we seek to create good manufacturing jobs right here in the united states of america. we can do that if we move as expeditiously as possible to pass not only, not only the korea free trade agreement, which the president has talked about, and he believes is very important which will be the single largest bilateral free trade agreement in the history of the world, but also at the same time within this hemisphere we need to pass the panama and colombia free trade agreements. jobs can be created for caterpillar workers, for john deere workers, whirlpool workers in this country if we can open up the markets within this hemisphere. union and nonunion jobs will be created. we need to move now. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts
rise. mr. lynch: i ask unanimous consent to address the house. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. later on today, mr. speaker, we will address this bill which would award a tax cut for the richest 2% of americans. and it's important that we understand the context in which this bill is being addressed. in this current year we have taken in -- the government has taken in $2.4 trillion in revenue, but we have spent $3.7 trillion. and so we have a deficit of $1.3 trillion. if this bill passes, it will add almost $1 trillion to our national debt. at current rates by the year 2040, the interest on the debt will be double the amount that we spend on defense, education, transportation, agriculture, housing, the space program, science, and research and development. we can't keep kicking the can down the road and not address our national debt.
we are running out of road. we are running out of time. and the american people deserve a better deal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today because despite opposition from the secretary of defense, the president, the navy, the air force, and the marine corps, the senate spending package still includes $450 million for second engine for the f-35. mr. quigley: americans across the country are tightening their belts. 15 million are unemployed. and many of those with jobs have not seen raises in years. but the federal government seemed to think it is exempt from this shared cost cutting. despite the recession and ballooning debt, we continue to fund wasteful projects like the second engine which our own military has said they neither need nor want. sadly the second engine is the tip of the defense spending iceberg. the lowest of the low hanging fruit. according to a recent report by the sustainable defense task
force, hundreds of billions could be cut from our defense budget without harming national security. there can be no sacred cows. cost cutting has to include defense. it should start with what secretary gates has called the costly and unnecessary second f-35 engine. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1766, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 254, house resolution 1766, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to debate in the house the topics addressed by the motion
specified in sections 2 and 3 of this resolution for three hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means or their designee. section 2, after debate pursuant to the first section of this resolution, it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 4853, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund, to amend title 49 united states code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes. with the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment thereto and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21, a motion offered by the chair of the committee on ways and means or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules
accompanying this resolution. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion. section 3, if the motion described in section 2 of this resolution fails on adoption, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on a motion that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment on which the chair shall immediately put the question. section 4, until completion of proceedings enabled by the first three sections of this resolution, a, the chair may decline to entertain any intervening motion, resolution, question, or notice. b, the chair may postpone such proceedings to such time as may be designated by the speaker and c, each amendment and motion considered pursuant to resolution shall be considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i raise a point of order against h.res. 1766
because the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act. the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill which includes a waiver of section 425 of the congressional budget act which cause as violation of 426-a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. the gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rules and the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. following debate, the chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means of disposing of the point of order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: mr. speaker, i raise -- rise today in opposition to this tax package that the house will consider shortly. it may not be unfunded mandates per se in the bill but this will impose a burden on states and
local governments and everyone else here. and particularly it will add a huge burden to our kids and grandkids because we are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars. we'll will directly to the deficit and directly to our $14 trillion national debt. on november 2, i think we got a pretty good message from the taxpayers. they wanted us to stop running deficits and start paying down the debt. yet before we even get to the new year, just weeks away from the election, here we are adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit and to the debt. . this compromise shows that washington just doesn't get it yet. we simply didn't get the message we were supposed to on november 2. i do support the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that were enacted, and we also have to find a remedy for the death
tax, but we got to do it in a different way than this. congress can take swift action to ensure that taxes don't go up, but we shouldn't be adding the other items that we're doing here. it's taken on the seasonal theme again, of course. it's become a christmas tree. i'll explain a few of the items in it. but it just notes more than anything that we haven't got the message, that we are going about things the same way we always have. let me take one thing here, ethanol. we've been subsidizing ethanol now for nearly 30 years. it's about a $6 billion a year subsidy. they have -- the trifecta, the ethanol industry. we mandate its use. we impose tariffs to imports to make sure that we can compete and then we subsidize as well, and we're going to continue to do all those things here for an
industry that should be mature this time but it's continuing to get subsidies. how in the world that belongs as part of this tax package, i'll leave the voters to decide. but it just shows we haven't changed. when are we going to wake up to the fact that we can't continue to do business like this anymore? with regard to ethanol, one of the former backers was former vice president al gore. he said the other day, quote, one of the reasons i made this mistake, this mistake being supporting the subsidized -- the subsidizing of ethanol, is that i paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of tennessee and i had a certain fondest for the farmers in the state of iowa because i was about to run for president. that's a pretty candid admission. and because we have ethanol is because all presidential campaigns begin in iowa.
that's no reason to saddle the country with this burden and also the negative impact on the environment are huge and growing from ethanol, yet, we continue to do it just to buy a couple of votes to get this tax bill over the top. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentlelady from new york rise in opposition? ms. slaughter: i do, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: i must say that i understand the point of the gentleman. i think spending this kind of money, over $700 billion over 10 years with 6,600 families in the united states, is a foolish expenditure. i do agree that what we want to do is get the deficit down. and believe me, that does not do it. technically, though, this point of order is about whether or not to consider the rule. and ultimately the underlying measure. and in reality it's about trying to block the measure. i believe that that's an advocation of our
responsibility. and we have to have the opportunity to debate and without any opportunity for an up or down vote on the resolution we are failing our responsibility. i think that is wrong. i hope my colleagues will vote yes so we can consider the legislation on its merits and vote accordingly and not stop it on a procedural motion. i have the right to close, but in the end i will urge my colleagues to vote yes to consider the rule and, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i appreciate the comments of the gentlelady. she brings up this is a technicality, that we are speaking on a point of order when we should be speaking on a bill and we should debate the bill on its merits. i submitted an amendment to the gentlelady's committee, the rules committee, to debate the ethanol provision. yet, it wasn't included. we weren't allowed to debate that. if we are not allowed to debate
that then, under the rule, then we have to debate it some other time. so i would love to hear an explanation from the rules committee as to why this wasn't included and why only rules -- i'm sorry -- only amendments that make members feel good about voting on but have no possibility of delaying this package were even considered? >> will the gentleman yield? mr. flake: i will yield. mr. dreier: i tell my friend that he's absolutely in pointing to the fact that we had a more than two-hour hearing in the rules committee. the decision had already been made that the only thing that would be made in order was an opportunity to increase the death tax. that burden on the intergenerational transfer that we believe is important to keep our economy growing and the amendment that my friend offered and our -- my california colleague, mr. herger offered a similar amendment to deal with this
notion of ethanol subsidies which are just plain wrong. and i'm troubled of the fact that this rule does not allow us a chance to address those issues. i thank my friend for yielding. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, by of the direction of the committee -- continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the gentlelady. just continuing on the ethanol theme. one of the manhattan institute said recently, quote, between 1999 and 2009 while u.s. ethanol production increased seven-fold to more than 700 barrels a day, u.s. imports actually increased by more than 800 barrels per day. furthermore and perhaps more surprising during the same period, u.s. oil exports -- yes, exports -- more than doubled to more than two million barrels per day, unquote. he continued, data from the energy and information administration shows that oil imports closely tracked u.s.
oil consumption. over the past decade as domestic oil demand grew, exports increased. when consumption fell, imports dropped. ramped up ethanol production have no apparent effect on oil import or consumption. we have every level of the administration, anybody who analyzes this, says that this is a boondoggle, and yet it reappears here a $6 billion item. not insubstantial. not small. but it appears here in this tax package simply to get it over the line. and that simply can't continue if we want to get control of this debt and deficit. i want to tell you about another provision of the tax bill. all of us talk about the burden that the payroll tax has, and it is a bill and it's tough for taxpayers to pay the payroll tax. i would like to lower it. i think everybody would like to lower it. but the payroll tax is dedicated specifically for social security.
it goes into the social security trust fund. under this legislation we'll have a 2% reduction in the payroll tax on the employee side. that will net somebody like me or any member of congress here about $2,000 a year. what does it do for the deficit? it will balloon the deficit by $120 billion a year. one year from now, because it's only a one-year reduction, we'll be faced with this same problem. what do we do as republicans? we always say we're not going to raise taxes on anybody. no matter how temporary the tax. we'll be forced politically with the situation where, do we increase this tax? do we let it go? if we let it continue, that's another $120 billion hole in the deficit and in the social security trust fund. why are we doing that? if we do have payroll tax deductions, we may well want to, but at los let's have
commensurate benefit -- but at least have commensurate benefit s. if we can't lower them we shouldn't lower this. this is simply irresponsible for us to take a bill like this and assume that it's not going to have an impact on the deficit and not going to have an impact on the debt. where are we now? just a few weeks ago every one of us -- i tell you every one of us running for office said to the voters, we are going to get control of the debt and deficit. all of us said that. and one of our first actions here before we even go into the next congress is to put a bill on the floor that's going to balloon the debt and deficit. how can we do that? we can't. we shouldn't. that's why i'm raising this point of order. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: she continues to reserve her time. the gentleman from arizona.
mr. flake: may i inquire as to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has a minute and a halftime remaining. mr. flake: i thank the speaker. i'll simply close. we can't go on as if the deficit and the debt don't matter. not only do they don't matter but we expand them considerably. we can continue the tax cuts for every american. we can do that without these extra things in the bill. let's wait until january. let's wait until we have a new congress and let's do a different deal than this. this is not a deal that's good for the taxpayer. it's not a deal that's good for this institution. we have said that we will change and we got the message. this is evidence that we haven't. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his comments this morning. i urge him to vote no on this bill.
if he plans to do that. and i think he'll find a great deal of company. but i want to urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion to reconsider so we may vote on this measure today. it's not perfect by any means. i rarely see a perfect piece of legislation, but, remember that what we are doing here is concurring in a senate bill which limits the fact of how many changes we make. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house now consider the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one hour. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. all time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized.
ms. slaughter: i also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on house resolution 1766. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, h.res. 1766 provides for consideration of the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 4853, the tax relief, unemployment insurance re-authorization and job creation act. the rule provides three hours of debate and makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on ways and means, that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 4853 with the amendment printed in the rules committee report. if that motion fails, the rule causes to be pending a motion to concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 4853. finally, until completion of all proceedings, the chair may decline to any intervening
motion, resolution, question or notice. the chair may postpone proceedings to a time designated by the speaker. and each amendment and motion shall be considered as read. mr. speaker, this is a bipartisan agreement on a framework for extending middle-class tax cuts and extending unemployment relief is certainly not perfect. in fact, i don't like it much at all. in the leadup to the debate here this morning, a lot of my constituents have encouraged me to oppose it. they know it's an unwarded handout for millionaires and billionaires. at a time when we're fighting two wars with countless pressing needs here at home and a deficit that would push further into the red by this giveaway, typical sentiment was reflected in a call from 10 niagara falls residents who insisted it is wrong-headed that the democrats to agree to extend the bush tax cuts for
the wealthy. his words were, quote, barack obama is still a president of the united states, not mitch mcconnell, and mcconnell should not dictate tax policy, end quote. to that i say i hear you, but nonetheless, today here we are. there are some good things in this bill. certainly extending unemployment relief for the struggling american workers who may have been laid off and simply need assistance to help them buy groceries and necessary its until they find a new job is important. during the last two years this congress has voted to cut taxes for working parents, small businesses at least eight times, and lower tuition costs for college students. we have provided the best opportunities for growth and prosperity. but losing $25 billion in revenue to provide tax shelter to 6,600 families who will qualify for this new estate tax handout is just wrong. it is disgraceful and it is damaging to the entire economic
future of this country. in the aftermath of the negotiation, the president was accused of quiting in the first round given away the store, punting on the first down and other things that i don't want to go into here. while this agreement is flawed, there are parts of it, as i said, that will benefit the american people. failure to send the bill to the president's desk for his signature would result in tax hikes on millions of the middle-class families across our country and loss of unemployment insurance for those who are hardest hit by this recession. . more porning i think it might risk the economic recovery. it is important for me to make this point. we have lived with these tax cuts for 10 years. it is certainly no secret to any american or anybody else in the world that our unemployment condition is perfectly awful. and to try to pretend to the american people that once we pass this great tax cut for the
rich that jobs are suddenly going to rain on us makes us feel like alice in wonderland, able to believe 10 impossible things before breakfast. i am not one of them. it will not make that kind of difference. it simply once again makes the rich richer. but that was the price we had to pay for helping the middle class and the unemployed. i note that many of these tax cuts as we know were created 10 years ago and what have they brought? nothing. steep lasting recession. what i also want to comment on here is the impossibility of this congress to let these tax cuts expire, which would in itself decrease the deficit by 50% in two years says to me that these will never expire and i want to put that into connection with what we have done to the payroll tax.
i consider this one of the greatest threats to social security and its future. if anybody here believes, if anyone can stand up and believe that we are going to be able to reinstate the payroll tax on employers and employees, they only need to look at what's happening here today. that after 10 years with no jobs, we are expanding tax cuts which will again bring us no jobs. this agreement doesn't become law, i know the tax rates on the middle class will go up. they are going to end up paying more money and i hate that because god knows all the benefits in the last 10 years have gone to the wealthy. i dread seeing my america, the one i grew up in and i love, that i don't believe the american dream is available for children anymore. i'm not going to cry about it. but i know now that the rich are richer, the poor are poorer. the children think about trying
to get an education if they can or trying to live another year. so we have to take these -- this bill up today, no question about it, and i feel very sad about it. but i will tell you it has been our experience that these are the prices that we have to pay when we negotiate with our partners on the other side. they believe in trickle down with all their heart. make everybody rich at the top, all those great folks, even those with great inherited wealth, as my colleague said, may not have worked a day in their life, that suddenly jobs were going to be produced. please, america, please don't believe that. that's not what we are doing here today. we are not doing anything to benefit this economy here today. that logic of driving up long-term deficits and putting the government in the red more than it is, to hand out money for a tiny fraction of taxpayers, is that really a sensible thing for america to be doing today? i think not.
but we know that the other side in the coming years will pursue even more tax breaks for the wealthiest. and the wealthiest estate. all of those tangible outcomes are directed to millionaires and billionaires. as long as i'm serving in congress, i will resist this with every fiber of my being because i think it does nothing for our economy while adding to the deficit. in the end, i am here to encourage my colleagues to join me to support this rule so that we may have this three-hour debate which will give people plenty of time on both sides to express their opinion. it's a fair process. all the members will be able to express their views. i would love now to inquire of the gentleman from california if he has any remaining speakers. let me reserve and yield to mr. dreier. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady reserve her time?
does the gentlelady reserve her time? ms. slaughter: yes, i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend from rochester, new york, the distinguished chair of the committee on rules, ms. slaughter, for yielding the customary 30 minutes, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, let me begin in the spirit of the season and say that i'd like to associate myself with some of the remarks that were offered by the distinguished chair of the committee on rules and express appreciation to ms. slaughter for her very, very interesting and thoughtful approach to this issue. i associate myself with the remarks that she made when she said she doesn't like this measure. i associate myself with her in that in saying i don't like this
measure that is before us, mr. speaker. but i like even less the idea of our imposing a tax increase on every single american who pays their income taxes. i believe that that would have a dill tearous effect to the -- dell toreous effect to we democrats and republicans alike share. what is the message we have gotten over and over and over again and the message that was sent this past november 2? it was create jobs. focus on economic growth. make sure that we can do everything that we possibly can to look at those americans who are hurting today and make sure that they have an opportunity to get on to the first rung of the economic ladder. that is the driving message. and obviously a very important part of that is going to be to reduce the size and scope and reach of the federal government
which has undermined the ability for job creation and economic growth to take place. now, when i say i don't like this measure that is before us, i don't like the fact that, and many of my republican colleagues have raised concerns about this, mr. flake just raised concerns about the ethanol subsidies, i don't like the fact that we have unemployment benefits that are extended without being paid for. i don't like a number of the provisions here, but we are in the midst of a very fragile economic recovery at this juncture. and i will tell you, mark my words, mr. speaker, beginning in january we are going to focus on cutting spending. i have just come from a meeting with a number of my colleagues and we are determined to focus on that. that's why it's imperative that dade we wreck -- that today we
recognize that the issue that is before us is going to actually be helpful in our quest to deal with job creation and economic growth. i congratulate president obama for working in a bipartisan way to address this issue. in fact, i said in the last campaign that one of my priorities was to work to make president obama a better president. and i believe the fact that he has moved towards recognizing that a pro-growth economic policy has direct ties to the level of taxation imposed on working americans and job creators is a positive sign. and i believe that moves him in the direction of being a better president. i also have been encouraged by the fact that he wants to create jobs by opening up new markets
around the world. i gave a one-minute speech this morning talking about the importance of the key u.s.-korea free trade agreement the president sports and i hope will send -- supports and i hope will send to us very soon. it will be the largest bilateral free trade agreement in the history of the world when you look at the size of our economies. that's something that the president is supporting and i believe we'll be able to work on in a bipartisan way. so, mr. speaker, the notion of seeing president obama shifting to the john f. kennedy vision and ronald reagan vision on economic growth is a very encouraging indicator to me and many of our colleagues and should be for the american people as well. now, again, i will say that ms. slaughter is absolutely right. we don't like this measure. but the idea of increasing taxes is something that is anathema to
the vision ever economic growth and job creation. and it's not just conservative economists who say that. it's not just the supply siders of which i consider myself to be one. keynesian economists, mr. speaker, keynesian economists, those who subscribe to the view of the economist john mainard kenyes who lived until 1950, recognizing and focusing on the issue of spending, those who subscribe to the keynesian view recognize that increasing taxes on anyone when you are dealing with slow economic growth is a prescription for exacerbating, exacerbating the problems that you are trying to address. now, mr. speaker, i have been in the midst of bipartisan discussions over the past several days with a number of my colleagues on the recognition that we have to say that
democrats should recognize that spending cuts need to take place and republicans need to recognize the tax increases need to take place. and it's an interesting discussion and many argue that's sort of the give and take that we have. but i think it's important as we look at this issue to harken back on history. next month i'll begin my fourth decade here and i will say that there was a study done in my first decade during the 1980's by two professors from ohio university. professors vetter and galloway, and their study looked at the impact of tax increases in the quest to try and reduce spending and the size and scope of government and deal with the problem that democrats and republicans alike regularly decry. that being the expansion of government. well, their study was known as
the dollar 58 study. what it showed, mr. speaker, was that every time there was one dollar in taxes increased, the federal government increased spending by $1.58. i remember one of the first measures that i voted against was known as the tax equity and fiscal responsibility act of 1982. and that measure they said there would be $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes increased. mr. speaker, as we are here today just days before christmas, going back to 1982, we got the 98.5 billion tax increase that was included in that, but we are still waiting for those $3 in spending cuts. the vetter-galloway study made it very clear looking for many, many -- on many occasions, the 1990 increase and other studies that have been done since then
have shown for every $1 for taxes increase, spending has increased from $1.05 to $1.81. this is outlined in a piece that was done by professor vetter and steven moore in the "wall street journal" this week. so this notion of our saying that increasing taxes is going to deal with the deficit problem is, again, a specious argument. many argue that the tax that exists on job creators, those at the upper end, will create a great drain on the federal treasury. but if we are going to focus again on job creation and economic growth, mr. speaker, i am convinced based on the vision put forth by professor arthur laffer and many others that the economic growth that will follow keeping those rates low on job creators will actually increase the flow of revenues to the federal treasury and keeping
those top rates low, capital gains and dividend rates low will spur the growth that will create jobs and many people who today are not working and are in fact receiving unemployment benefits will have opportunity and they will be joining the productive side of the economy and generating that flow of revenues to the federal treasury that we obviously desperately need. so, mr. speaker, the american people have been asking us to do this for a long period of time. my colleagues have had an opportunity to do it for a long period of time. and unfortunately here we are just two weeks, just two weeks before the end of the year and two weeks before the largest income tax rate increase we have seen in many a year is scheduled to take place. so while there is much to criticize about this measure, and i could easily vote against
it, i believe that the right vote for us to cast is a vote which will ensure that we continue down the road towards job creation and economic growth and allowing the american people to keep more of what they earn. so with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a member of the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcgovern: i thank the chairwoman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the rule but in reluctant opposition to the underlying legislation. . let me begin by saying there are a lot of good things in this bill. the bill extends middle class tax relief for families. and it extends unemployment insurance for those out of work in this economy. it extends several important tax relief measures that were
included in last year's recovery package, including the parody for transit, which is something i worked in the house. i understand and appreciate the situation in which president obama found himself. he was faced with the united states senate that demands a supermajority of 60 -- of 60 votes to order pizza, let alone enact significant legislation. over the past two years, our republican colleagues in the senate have blown by the previous records for filibusters. they have made it clear that they are their overriding political strategy is to say no to whatever president obama proposes no matter how worthy or popular. and that's unfortunate, but that's the reality we face. and it's unbelievably cynical. but i believe that the provisions in this bill that give away billions and billions and billions of dollars to the wealthiest americans are unnecessary, unproductive and irresponsible.
unnecessary because over the past few years, while millions of middle-class families struggled to pay their mortgages and put food on the table, the wealthiest few in america have done very well. the fat cats on wall street are riding high once again with multimillion dollar bonuses and golden parachutes. unproductive because study after study after study have shown that one of the least effective ways to help the economy is to put more money in the pockets of the rich. the wealthiest few will unlikely save the money rather than invest it in the economy. tax breaks for the rich people in this country have the worst record of encouraging economic growth. and irresponsible because this bill will add billions and billions of dollars onto our nation's debt. none of these tax cuts are paid for. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: can i ask for an additional 30 seconds? ms. slaughter: yes, i will. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. mcgovern: we just came through a campaign in which people talked about the need for deficit reduction,. a commission made it clear that we are on an unsustainable course. when they presented their report everybody in this todd nodded grateful and said this is important work. yet, here we are less than a month later making the problem worse. mr. speaker, i can't support the underlying legislation written. i know we can support an amendment to pare back sock of the estate tax cuts for some of the wealthiest in america. i support this amendment. mr. speaker, we can do better than this. we must do better than that. this country is depending on us. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'm pleased to yield to a member of the rules committee, the gentlelady from the grandfather community, ms. foxx. ms. foxx: i thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my distinguished colleague from california, mr. dreier, for yielding me time.
mr. speaker, i want to make it clear that i am opposed to allowing tax increases to go into effect on january 1. however, i am also opposed to this rule and the underlying bill. it's very interesting to hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle arguing against the tax bill before us today because of their concerns that we're adding to the deficit. we didn't hear those arguments when they were voting for the trillion dollar stimulus and all the other trillions they have voted for in the past four years. in fact, their stories and those of the president have changed dramatically over the past few days, and, mr. speaker, i would like to put into the record an article in "american thinker," december 14, tax cuts clearly explained. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the article does a really good job of explaining the flip-flop on the side of the democrats, and i want to quote a couple of
sentences from it. it says, the republican position was to keep tax rates where they are now and where they've been since 2003. democrats fought to keep the bush tax rates only for those making less than $250,000 a year. that's curious since they've been saying for about 10 years that the, quote, bush tax cuts, end quote, went only to the wealthiest americans. democrats are arguing to keep something they said never existed. so we find our friends again on the other side of the aisle flip-flopping on this issue. i'd also like to add a couple more comments from this article. as a matter of record, the final bush tax rates passed congress in mid 2003 shortly after republicans retook the senate from august, 2003, to december, 2007, over eight million net new jobs were created and real g.d.p. grew
almost 12% a year. federal revenue increased to $785 billion, putting revenues above the average level of 1960 to 2000, the 40 years before bush. unemployment fell to 4.4% and the deficit fell to 1.2% of g.d.p. such was the catastrophe of four years of bush's tax rates and republican written federal budgets. you will hear this or that group, the top 2% of those inherit, etc., does not deserve to have its taxes kept at the current rate. there are only two alternatives for where that money goes, the family that earned it or the government. if the family doesn't, quote, deserve it, end quote, does the government? it appears from all the comments that our colleagues have made is that they believe that the money that the hardworking americans earn belongs to the government. as a member of the rules committee, i've seen up close how the ruling democrats have violated every promise they
made to run an open congress but have shut out the opportunity to offer amendments. we should vote down this rule and allow any amendments be offered. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: senate 1405, an act to redesignate the longfellow national historic site in massachusetts as the longfellow house washington head quarters national historic site. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm delighted to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. miller. -- california, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? ms. slaughter: three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. miller: i thank the gentlelady for yielding me this time to speak on this legislation. it's very clear because of the fragile state of this economy that there are many important
provisions in this tax bill before us. for middle-income families it means our tax rates will not go up. for people in need of unplutonium insurance, it extends those benefits another 13 -- unemployment insurance, it extends those benefits another 13 months. and it extends the tax credit so they can pay for their children's education and they can take care of their children and these are lifelines for hardworking families that are struggling in this economy. i have fought my entire public career for these tax rates for middle-income families to support middle-income families to make college more affordable. and these provisions help some 155 million americans in this economy. but that's not all that's in this tax bill. tragically, these 155 million americans were held hostage to a ransom that the republicans would only help these families, help these individuals, help these students struggling in school if we gave tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this
country. it's as if the wealthy don't have enough money and struggling middle-class families have too much. but that was the price that was extracted for this legislation to help these 155 million americans struggle through this economic downturn. so we see that some $25 billion will be lavished on 6,600 of the wealthiest estates in this country. these are estates in excess of $10 million for a husband and wife. these are estates that have used all of the tax laws to minimize the size of that estate to their advantage before they pay the estate tax. but we were not prepared to give -- the republicans were not prepared to give unemployment insurance to millions of americans who are struggling to find work unless they could provide this money to the wealthiest people in the country. this is not fair, it's unnecessary deficit reduction and it has no stimulative
value. economist after economist has told us what happens with this money when you give it to the wealthiest people in the country. they put it in the bank and someday they may use it or they won't use it. it's not like families, middle-income families that have to pay the rent, pay the light, send their kids to school. it's a completely different operation. so no stimulative value to giving billions and billions of dollars to the richest 2% of the people in the country. it's not fair in terms of the resources of this country being used for those individuals while other families struggle and it creates deficits unnecessarily. it at least ought to be stimulative and grow the economy. it should be rejected for this reason because this deficit, beginning the first of the year, will start immediately coming out of the hide of programs to support these very same middle-income families and the education of their children. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, at this time i'm happy to yield three minutes to my very good friend and california colleague, the gentleman from elk grove. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i commend the senate for passing the tax measure yesterday and i hope the house will pass it today. according to the c.b.o., this bill comprises $146 billion of additional spending. that's true. that's for $721 billion of tax relief. that means that 15% of this bill is spending. the other 85% of it is tax relief. that means no across the board tax relief next year. no a.m.t. biting deeper into middle-income families. a death tax is a third less than otherwise would have been, threatening far fewer family farms and family businesses with extinction. if this relief fails, when the
ball drops at times square on new year's eve, americans will have just being walloped by a tax tsunami, the likes of which we haven't seen since the smooth holly tariff. families and small businesses will be spending the new year struggling to pay thousands of dollars of new taxes. a family making $50,000 will see at least $3,000 more taken from its paycheck. a small business person whose shop makes $300,000 will have to cut another $8,400. perhaps the difference between a part-time and a full-time job for an employee. from the left we're told we should raise taxes on the very rich who make over $200,000 because they don't pay their fair share. well, according to the i.r.s., those folks earn 36% of all income. they pay 49% of all income taxes. but a lot of them aren't people at all. half of the income earned by
small businesses will be hit by these tax increases. these are the job generators that we're depending upon to end the nightmare of unemployment for millions of american families. to confiscate billions of dollars more from them and then expect more jobs to come of it is simply insane. some of my fellow conservatives object to the 15% of this bill that spends money we don't have, and i agree, but that damage can be corrected through offsetting spending reductions next year. the new republican house majority can do that without the senate or the president simply by refusing to appropriate funds and it's committed to doing so. but it cannot rescind the taxes next year without the senate and the president, who have made their opposition to just -- such a clean bill. and if it cannot be passed by spring, they won't get their tax overpayments refunded to
them until they file their returns a year later. mr. speaker, massive tax increases under hoover turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930's. let that not be the legacy of this congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: three minutes? ms. slaughter: three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentlelady for yielding the time. it's fairly extraordinary to listen to the debate coming from the republican side of the aisle. we're headed toward a $1.-- well, before this vote, $1.3 trillion deficit next year. with this single vote we will increase the deficit, the debt
of the united states by $430 billion this year and $430 billion next year. republicans want to pretend that somehow if you cut your income you can still balance your budget. that would surprise most americans. most americans don't cut back hours at work when they can't make ends meet at home unless they're forced to by their employer. these tax cuts, the bush tax cuts, were put into effect at a time of surplus. the rational was give people back their money, we have a surplus, as far as the eye can see. now we're teetering on the edge of having the united states' debt rating downgraded. . if you increase the debt next year by $12.7 -- $1.7 trillion. don't worry, we'll take care of it with cuts, cut $450 billion in one year? i don't think so unless
basically you eliminate virtually the entire government, close the prisons, turn the prisoners out, open the borders, no coast guard. go on down the list. $450 billion. no, you're not going to do that and you know you're not going to do that. you are just pretending. even worse, $111 billion of this is going to come from social security. social security trust fund has been invie lat since -- invie lat since it was set up 75 years ago. he says this will be an earned benefit. congress can't touch the money and can't cut the benefits. no, but what we are going to do in this deal constructed by the republicans, no democrat has ever proposed this, no hearings have been held on it, we are going to give a tax holiday. don't worry, we'll make the social security trust fund whole. we'll go out and bore roy $111 billion from china and we'll inject it back into the social security trust fund.
what an absurdity and what a threat to the future of social security, because next year we can't afford to subsidize social security. we can't afford to borrow $111 billion from china. but don't let that tax go back up. that will be the largest tax increase on working people in the history of the united states. just like we are hearing now. we go back to the clinton era tax, the largest tax increase in the history of the united states. we created 23 million jobs during the clinton administration. we balanced the budget of the united states of america, and we did that under the tax rates that would come back into effect on the first. now you are going to tax social security, hold the unemployed hostage, and reduce the income of the united states and increase our debt. what a pathetic position to take. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: at this time i'm happy to yield two minutes to my very thoughtful and hardworking colleague from michigan, mr. mccotter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.
mr. mccotter: i rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. amidst our tumultuous age of globalization, wherein big governments restructuring is not desirable but inevitable. the sovereign people's congressional servants plus facilitate conditions for economic growth so peak can work and preserve and promote america's economic prepreeminence in the world. to accomplish these vital tasks, government must adopt deep and enduring tax relief and spending deficit and debt reduction. these policies are neither novel nor fashionable, they are necessary. therefore because i oppose raising taxes, increasing deficits and debt, and worsening the entitlement crisis, i fundamentally object to this compromised bill's following provisions. one, a permanent tax increase in exchange for a temporary tax
reprieve is mistaken. since any and all tax increases in a recession retard a recovery. and two, a raid on social security requiring increased federal debt to fund a temporary tax gimmick that will not increase sustainable employment is also mistaken. despite its proponents' best intentions, this bill will not end the suffering of the unemployed and economically anxious americans. it will prolong it. for we cannot delay the day of big government's restructuring and endeavoring to do so would make the inevitable more painful, prolonged, and because it was unnecessary, more deplorable. finally, to those republicans who claim no choice but to vote for a flawed bill now rather than wait three weeks for a better one, i disagree and offer an analogy. imagine prior to the battle of the little big horn general custer looking at his troops and saying, we must strike now
before there are more of us. i disagree with that and urge my colleagues to reject the bill. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady from new york. i'm in a lonely place today. i rise in strong support of the tax cut compromise. although our economy's in recovery, it remains fragile. if we don't pass the extension of the tax cuts now, every american will see smaller paychecks and higher taxes in january. this compromise provides needed assistance to every american. and extension of unemployment insurance that the c.b.o. says will add 600,000 jobs. extension of earned income tax credit and child tax credits for lower income families, an a.m.t. patch for middle income 235e78s, and 2% cut in payroll tax for workers that provide up to $2,000 in tax relief.
a two-year extension of the income tax rate for all americans and business tax cuts that could spur up to $50 billion in private investment in the economy desperately needed. according to economist mark zahndy, this compromise will add a full percentage point to the gross domestic product this year. it's not a robust recovery, we need all the stimulus we can get. this is the perfect bill but i support -- this isn't a perfect bill but i support the bipartisan compromise. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, may i inquire -- looks like we passed the torch over here from the chair to the vice chair of the committee on rules. i'd like to inquire of my good friend from worcester how many speakers he has remaining and what we can anticipate. i'm happy to see our rules committee colleague, mr. polis here, i'm sure will offer great words ever wisdom. mr. mcgovern: we have several speakers left on the roster. mr. dreier: in light of that i
reserve. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. doggett: thank you. in this deal making, it became more important to get a deal, any deal, than to secure an agreement that reflects our american values and accomplishes our goal of renewed economic growth. this bill is largely a mishmash of rejected republican ideas that cost too much to accomplish too little. under this misbegotten deal, we will borrow money from the chinese and others to provide the wealthiest 1% of americans with a tax cut that is greater than the median income of a central texas family for an entire year. and this is the same fortunate 1% for the most part that took
2/3 of all the income gains in the country during the heart of the bush years. that is not fair and it will not encourage significant economic growth. the republicans will rule this house for the next two years, let's not give them an early start today. i'd vote for a bill that creates more jobs and reduces the debt. this is not it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. -- reserves his time of the the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of the rule and the underlying bill. i'm very excited that president obama has demonstrated that he believes in keeping taxes low for all americans. mr. speaker, you know, as i talk to people in my district and across the country, people like
the fact that the democrats are the party of staying out of their personal business. we are not doing them moralizing about how they should live their lives. live your own life. personal accountability. we are the party of personal responsibility. they are always concerned in the back of the minds the democrats are going to raise their taxes. that's something i hear. i like the democrats because of the liberty issues, but you know, i always worry they are going to raise my taxes. i'm proud to say, mr. speaker, that we are conclusively proving here today that the democratic party is the party of low taxes. the president obama has a strong pro-growth agenda to keep taxes low for all americans. let me add by the way that this tax cut that we are supporting today most benefits middle class americans. they receive the true benefit from this tax cut. families making $40,000 a year receive about a 7% rate reduction through this act. families making $60,000 a year, 6.1%. all the way up to families
making $10 million, 4.6%. this is a progressive, progressive tax cut for america. one that puts money into the hands of middle class families. those who need it the most. families making $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year. to tell a family making $50,000 a year they somehow need to come up with $800 or $1,000 a more a year in taxes when they are not getting a raise will put them out of their home they are struggling to make mortgage payments as it is. mr. speaker, in my district there are a few people making over $1 million. many of them say, you can raise my taxes, it won't affect my quality of life, but the people who need it the most, people making $40,000, 60,000, 90,000 a year, struggling to get by. a kid in college, this bill and president obama have delivered tax relief to them, mr. speaker. in addition, mr. speaker, in the midst of a recession we cannot allow unemployment insurance to run out. over 2,500 people a week in my home state of colorado if we don't act today and renew unemployment insurance will lose their benefits.
again, worsening the housing crisis, reducing the ability of them to continue to make their mortgage or rent payment. forcing them to become a liability rather than an asset. we will get them back to work, mr. speaker, especially with this pro-growth set of tax cuts that will encourage investment in our economy, mr. speaker. we will get these americans back to work and ensure that everybody someday has the honor of paying the higher tax bracket. mr. dreier: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds and ask him to yield to me if he would. polis: i yield. mr. dreier: i would like to congrat my friend on his very thoughtful statement and to say that at the end of his remarks, mr. speaker, he talked about the notion of job creation, economic growth as a policy. obviously ensuring that we don't increase taxes for any american paying income taxes is key to that. i appreciate to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. mr. polis: 30 seconds to answer? mr. dreier: absolutely. mr. polis: this tax cut that president obama and the republicans and democrats are delivering here today will encourage solid growth in our
economy by keeping taxes low, giving some predictibility over a two-year period where people can make investments and know that the government is not coming in to take their money but will let them keep they are money to reinvest in the economy. mr. dreier: i thank my colleague for his remarks. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> i'd like to ask unanimous consent to speak out of order with the designee of the chair of the rules committee. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? the gentleman is recognized. mr. taylor: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the rule before us on a nearly trillion dollar bill between spending and tax cuts apparently does not allow for any time for the opponent of this measure. if you look at page 2, line 4, says this resolution for three hours equally divided and controlled between the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. now, it is my understanding that
both of those gentlemen are for the bill. what guarantee do those of us who oppose increasing the deficit by $1 trillion have of being able to voice our objections if this rule passes? if mr. mcgovern would like to answer that question, i would welcome in it, -- welcome it. otherwise -- mr. mcgovern: there is an informal agreement there will be time designated for those in opposition. at least an hour. mr. taylor: mr. speaker, with that in mind, since there is no guarantee for those of us who are opposed to raising the national debt by $1 trillion, i move this house do adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. in opposition, no. the motion -- mr. taylor: i request a recorded vote.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for the yeas and nays? mr. taylor: yes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. there is a correction, this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas were 14. the nays are 385. one present. motion not agreed to. the gentleman from massachusetts has 11 minutes. the gentleman from new york has 9 1/2. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, my colleague, mr. lynch. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: how much time is the gentleman from massachusetts yielding?
mr. mcgovern: 1 1/2 minutes to mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. to return to this debate -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: members, let's carry our conversations off the floor. members. members, let's carry our conversations off the floor, please. the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. just to remind members where we are in this debate, we are about to debate and take up a measure that would, number one, preserve
the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans while we have a $1.3 trillion deficit in the current year. we would also, if this bill were to pass, create a tax exemption for estates of up to $10 million . that's for 6,600 individuals which brings to mind i'll paraphrase winston churchill who has said, it has been some time since so many have been asked to do so much for so few. with no legitimate reason, i might add. we are also talking about raiding the social security trust fund for the next two years. a total of $111 billion. and increasing the deficit by about $1 trillion. which will require us to exceed the national credit -- debt limit. in april or may of next year with this bill passing we will definitely exceed the current
$14 trillion debt limit that the country has. i had a fair opportunity to negotiate contracts when i was an ironworker. one thing i learned, and it applies to this agreement with the republican senate, there's a big difference between compromise and surrender. and what this bill represents is a complete surrender of democratic principles and standing up to working people and makeling them -- making them carry an undue burden under this tax law. i yield back, mr. speaker. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has 11 minutes remaining. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, at this time i'm happy to yield three minutes to my very hardworking colleague from columbus, indiana, who offered some very thoughtful remarks and endured the committee on rules last night. three minutes for mr. pence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is
recognized. mr. pence: thank the ranking member for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. since last summer i have been among those voices in this congress calling for action to prevent a tax increase that would affect every american. just a few short weeks from now. so i rise with a heavy heart today to say that as i look at this short-term tax deal negotiated by the white house with congressional leaders, that i have concluded after much study that it's a bad deal for taxpayers. it will do little to create jobs. and i cannot support it. let me say, though, that i have the deepest respect for my colleagues on the republican side of the aisle who may differ with me on this issue in the final analysis. this is a tough call.
no republican in this congress wants to see taxes raised on any american. we all know what we should be doing today is voting to extend all the current tax rates permanently. the reality is that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity. and simply by extending some of the tax rates that are on the books today for a few short years, we will not create the certainty necessary to encourage businesses to take out loans, to expend resources in ways that will put people back to work. we just know that. i was back in muncie, indiana, a couple days ago, hi a bappinger walk up to me and said what are you going to do on this? sounds like a tough deal? i said i hadn't decided at that point. he said, well, he said nobody's going to come walking into my office to sign a five-year note on a two-year tax cut.
so why are we doing two years? there's an election in two years. i get that. there are people that for whatever reasons want to redebate this in two years. i get that. i just don't get how it actually gets people back to work. and with regard to the spending in this bill, we can help families that are hurting in this economy, particularly during this cherished holiday season, but we can also figure out how to pay for it. and lastly, let me say, the american people have spoken. on november 2, mr. speaker. they -- the american people did not vote for more deficits or more stimulus or more uncertainty in the tax code, but that's just what this lame duck congress is about to give them. i think we can do better. every republican in this congress would like the opportunity to do better.
and sadly, this rule does not permit us to even have a fair up or down vote on extending all the current tax rates. and i'm profoundly disappointed by that. and so i rise in opposition to this rule, but i also rise in opposition to the underlying bill. we can do better. we must do better on behalf of hurting families and americans who want to go back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. sherman: i'll be voting yes on the amendment and if it fails as i expect it will, i will be voting yes on the bill. i'll vote yes on the amendment because we ought to have a fair estate tax in this country.
but instead republicans insist that we increase the deficit $28 billion over the next two years in order to provide the lowest tax rates in 80 years on the richest few dozen families in each of our states. we should care about the deficit. and to say that the tax rate included in the amendment is unfair is to say that every republican voted for an unfair tax when they voted for the bush tax law that was applicable to 2009. furthermore, another problem with the estate tax in the bill is that it provides a rate of tax for those debts that occur in 2010 that is less than zero. because the richest families can choose between a zero tax rate or huge write-offs on their income tax which might be even lower and they'll get the best
possible tax advice. finally, under this bill, you're going to have some people who realize that if the patriarch of the family dies this year, they save tens of millions of dollars over next year. i hope that no plugs are pulled. i'm going to vote for the bill overwhelm because of one question, compared to what? if we do not send this bill to the president's desk this year, he will certainly sign a worse bill next year. it is not clear that house democrats were at the table in the december negotiations, but it is clear that house republicans will be at the table for the negotiations in january. on this bill. the president, democrats in the senate, have already agreed to this deal and i fear that they would agree to something a little bit worse. so it is with great reluctance
that i will vote for this bill should the amendment fail. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, may i inquire of my friend how many speakers he has remaining? mr. mcgovern: we still have a few more speakers, mr. dreier. mr. dreier: is that three? mr. mcgovern: i would say three. more than a couple. mr. dreier: fewer than several? ok. in light of that let me reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. i thank the gentleman very much. i'd like to make sure we classify this not as a class
warfare, if you will, but a good samaritan waiving the flag. frank -- waving the flag. if we take the best of america and recognize that working people need help so the unemployment insurance that is part of this bill is a valid part of it, the child tax credit, the payroll holiday, all of those speak to the vision of this nation. that we have the willingness to share, we understand what men and women on the frontlines of iraq and afghanistan, they fight not for any one class or any one community. they fight for america. so when we provide an estate tax that blurs the understanding of america, that we need an estate tax that is $5 million and $10 million, we are not telling the truth. the present law provides for most americans. $3.5 million for an individual, $7 million for those who are couples. provides for family businesses. it provides for farmers. it works and it has worked.
not necessarily the best, but to give $25 billion to $28 billion unnecessarily that would go and take away from education and social security and medicare, domestic spending that is necessary, is a crime. so this is not about fighting against someone who has a few more dollars than the next person. it is to do what we are sent here to do to make sure that the capitalistic system works for everybody, including those who are now unemployed. let's get our senses together. let's get the senate to understand what the real deal is. fight for everybody. not just a small special interest group. it's time to stand up and be counted. i'd like to see this rule go forward simply because i want to put it to them that you can't spend $28 billion and waste it on those who don't need it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. at this time i'm happy to yield a minute and a half to our very, very, very diligent and hardworking ranking member of
the committee on energy and commerce, the gentleman from texas, mr. barton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for a minute and a half to address the house. mr. barton: i thank the distinguished chairman to be of the rules committee, mr. dreier of california, my good friend. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. barton: mr. speaker, this is not a bad compromise that's before us. but it is also not the best compromise. it's not a bad deal but it's not the best deal. . the gentleman from california who spoke on the democratic side just a few minutes ago i think said it the best when he said, in january our republican friends will be at the table. we are making a compromise today on the republican side, in my opinion, that we don't have to make. i think the tax cuts should be permanent, not temporary.
i think the additional spending should be paid for now, not just added to the deficit. a funny thing happened in november, we elected over 80 new republicans. the majority is going from about 255 democrats to 242 republicans. you cannot tell me that the week before christmas americans in the business community are deciding what their capital investments are going to be for 2011. those decisions have already been made. so i am going to vote against the rule and with he will -- reluctance vote against the bill. not because it's a bad compromise but because we can do better and i fully expect in january, when the republicans become the majority party in the house, that we will do better. so again this is not the worst bill that's ever been before us, but it could be better and it
should be better and so i would ask my colleagues to vote no on the rule and no on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed h.r. 6516, an act to make technical corrections to provisions of laws enacted by the coast guard authorization act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from the great state of new york, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. rangel: for the first time approaching this rule, it's my understanding that if i want to
stop $23 billion from increasing the deficit by knocking out a senate provision and substituting a pomeroy, in order to do that i would have to accept the remainder of the senate bill. and i don't think that members of this house should have to make that choice. it seems to me that if you believe that it's inequitable for a handful of people to receive such a large amount of money at the expense of the deficit, at the expense of discretionary spending, that we should have an opportunity, one, to vote against the senate bill in its present form, this does that, and, two, to vote for pomeroy which would allow us to at least control the amount of tax relief that we give to estate taxes. so i yield back the balance of my time but i do hope that we get a rule that would allow us to express exactly how i feel,
republican or democrat, because if you're not a part of the deal it's hard to be supporting it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. reserves. the gentleman -- >> i inquire of my friend how many speakers he has remaining. mr. mcgovern: mr. capuano and myself. how much time is remaining, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has 3 1/2, california, 6 1/2. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield to my colleague from the commonwealth of massachusetts, mr. capuano. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? mr. mcgovern: 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. capuano: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, like all major bills that we do here, there is good and bad in this bill. there are things i like and things i don't like. thanks a normal circumstance here. but in the final analysis, i think people have to ask
themselves one simple question. are we ever going to get to the place where we pay our bills? this bill doesn't do it. in 2002, the last time this house had the opportunity to be fiscally responsible, and that's not the same thing as fiscally conservative or liberal, it's responsible, we voted to let the pay-go rules go and the results are where we are today. this bill will kill our children with very little input or benefit at the moment. it is not an emergency. i want a tax cut just like everyone else. but i also consider myself -- i am a social liberal. i do believe in social security and medicare and senior housing and all the other things that we do here. i do believe in them. i know that others don't and i respect those who want to cut
those programs. let's have that debate. but let's not do it through the back door. if you believe in those programs it is incumbent upon us to pay for them. voting for this bill simply empowers those who want to cut those programs anyway and i cannot in good conscience support that. this bill must go down even if the deal we get next year is worse. i understand that but it's not the right thing to do for those of white house believe in the programs that we have. thank you -- for those of us who believe in the programs we have. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. dreier: is my friend prepared to close? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'd ask my -- mr. dreier: i'd ask my friend if he's prepared to close. mr. mcgovern: i am. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, with that i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, democrats and republicans alike
share the goal of job creation and deficit reduction. we regularly hear that argued from both sides of the aisle. the best way for us to do that is to encourage economic growth. economic growth is the key to dealing with job creation and deficit reduction. now, mr. speaker, i don't like this bill that's before us but i like even less the idea, i like even less the idea of increasing the tax burden on working americans. in fact, putting into place what would be tantamount to the largest tax increase that we have ever seen. i am very pleased that president obama is beginning to embrace the john f. kennedy vision for economic growth. the vision that has recognized that reducing marginal rates does in fact create jobs and create more opportunities and the famous john f. kennedy like,
the rising tide lifts all boats. the fact that president obama is now moving into that direction is a very positive thing. he's also on another issue that's going to create jobs done so on the issue of trade. i'm pleased that he wants us to move ahead with what will be the largest bilateral free trade agreement in the history of the world, that being the u.s.-korea free trade agreement. i think it's imperative for us to do this in columbia and panama as well. so that we can create union and nonunion jobs, good manufacturing jobs right here in the united states of america. that's an issue that i hope we'll be able to address early next year. so, mr. speaker, i believe that it is the right thing for us to do, for us to make sure that we don't increase taxes on working americans and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields
back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to close simply by saying that i agree with many of my colleagues who have come to the floor today to express their concern about how these tax cuts, mostly for the rich, will add ancredible debt burden on the backs of our -- an incredible debt burden on the backs of our children. we can do better than this. i'm also worried because i think what my friends on the republican side want to do is take tax cuts for the rich off the table next year when they use a budget axe to go after domestic spending and i will say to my colleagues, that as we have this debate on tax cuts, there are a lot of people in this country who this debate is meaningless to because they're falling through the cracks and we have an obligation to help strengthen the safety net in this country and i worry about the agenda that my republican colleagues are going to pursue next year. i worry that it's going to be on the backs of the most vulnerable in this country and that is wrong. we have an obligation, a moral obligation, to be able to make
sure that everybody in this country not only has opportunity but is also not allowed to fall through the cracks. we have a hunger problem in this country. we have people, we have children who go to sleep at night hungry in the richest country in the world. we should be ashamed of ourselves. we can do better than add to the deficit by giving more tax cuts to the wealthy. mr. speaker, with that with -- i withdraw the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the resolution is withdrawn.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 6198. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6198, an act to amend title 11 of the united states code to make technical corrections and for related purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california, ms. chu, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. chu: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. chu: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. chu: on september -- november 19, the senate passed an amended version of h.r. 6198, the bankruptcy technical corrections act of 2010. h.r. 6198 makes a series of
purely technical corrections in response to certain drafting errors resulting from the enactment of the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act of 2005. the senate amended simply removes from the bill a provision that corrected a misnumbered paragraph. it is our understanding that some believe that this provision which corrects a clear error in bankruptcy law may possibly cause confusion with respect to other laws that currently contain cross-references to the incorrectly numbered paragraph. while some might question the need for the senate amendment, we are willing to accommodate the concern. accordingly, i urge my colleagues to concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 6198 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mchenry: i rise in support of the bankruptcy technical corrections act of 2010 as
amended by the senate. the house passed the original version of the bill in late september by -- to make purely technical changes to the bankruptcy code. then as now these changes do not make and are not intended to make any change to substantive bankruptcy law. instead, these changes clean up the text of the bankruptcy code to make it easier to use by lawyers and judges. the senate amendment strikes one provision of the house bill which would have renumbered the section of the bankruptcy code that defines the term time share plan. rather than define time share plan in their own state codes, many state legislatures have chosen to incorporate the federal definition by reference into their state law. the senate amendment reflects a concern that changing the section number of the bankruptcy code definition would have resulted in inaccurate cross-references and numerous -- in numerous state codes. the necessaryity of the senate
amendment highlights the perils that result -- necessaryity of the senate amendment highlights the perils of the result when states regulate provisions to federal law. the states are sovereign from our system of constitutional federalism and they should exercise an independent duty to legislate without respect to mutable federal laws. the house bill as amended will clear up some existing confusion in the bankruptcy community regarding provisions of the bankruptcy code. it's important that federal law be technically sound so the intent of congress is clear and judges do not use technical loopholes to practice judicial activism. in particular, it's important that the bankruptcy code be technically sound because the volume of bankruptcy filings during this recession. as america continues to struggle with high unemployment, bearish capital markets, and massive deficits, the bankruptcy code is playing an increasingly important role in our nation's financial health. unfortunately that is the case.
as a -- my colleagues on the judiciary committee have stated when the house first considered this bill, it's important that the congressional record reflect the bipartisan acknowledgement that this bill does not and it is not intended to enact any substantive change to the bankruptcy code. lawyers and judges who practice bankruptcy law should not understand any provision of this bill to confer, modify, or delete any substantive bankrupt cy alike. no inference should be drawn from the absence in this bill of a technical amendment to any other part of the bankruptcy code. with this understanding, i support the bankruptcy technical amendments bill as amended by the senate and i share that with my republican colleagues on the judiciary committee. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california.
ms. chu: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back the balance of her time. members, the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in senate amendment to h.r. 6198. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, senate amendment is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. chu: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 1107. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1107, an act to enact certain laws relating to public contracts as title 41, united states code, public contracts. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the the gentlewoman from california, ms. chu, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, each will control 20 minutes.
the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. chu: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. chu: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. chu: h.r. 1107 codifies into positive law as title 41, united states code certain general and permanent laws related to public contracts. this is a noncontroversial bill that is not intended to make any substantive changes in the law. the office of law revision council periodically suggests to the committee of jurisdiction appropriate revisions to the united states code in light of the enactment of codified laws. these changes are purely technical in nature. as is typical with the process, a number of nonsubstantive revisions are made, including the reorganization of sections into a more could he harnte overall structure.
-- coherent overall structure. similar legislation has been introduced and favorably reported in each of the past two congresses. it passed the house in may of last year. while it has been awaiting action in the senate, a few additional technical corrections were identified and they have been incorporated in the version that passed the senate and that we are considering today. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mchenry: mr. speaker, i support h.r. 1107, a bill proposed by the office of law revision council to update and improve the codification of title 41 of the u.s. code. the judiciary committee has jurisdiction over law revision bills and this particular bill deals with the little -- with the title addressing public contracts. the judiciary committee
considered and approved a similar bill last congress but ultimately not taken up by the house before the enof that congress. h.r. 110 , similar law revision bills are important because they ensure that u.s. code is updated, accurate, and usable. i'm glad to support this legislation today. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. ms. chu: i have no further speakers. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: in closing, certainly the floor has been in chaos this afternoon, but we'd like to take care of these judiciary committee suspension bills so we can get them done before the end of the year. i appreciate my colleague taking the floor as well. so with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. ms. chu: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from yields back her
time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in senate amendment to h.r. 1107. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. -- ms. chu: i object to the vote on the grounds a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. chu: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 628. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 628, an act to establish a pilot program in certain united states district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california, ms.
chu, and the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. chu: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. chu: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. chu: mr. speaker, this bill seeks to create a pilot program that will enhance district court expertise in patent cases. patent litigation is complex and highly technical. this makes litigation expensive, time consuming, and unpredictable. moreover, the reversal rate of district court decisions is high, hovering around 50%. the bill before us today, h.r. 628, seeks to increase efficiency and consistency in patent protection litigation and reduce the reversal rate. the pilot program created by
this bill would enable interested judges in certain district courts to develop expertise in adjudicating patent protection cases. this will create a qadry of judges who have -- a cadre of judges who have a variety of protections due to intensifying experience in handling cases along with special education and career development opportunities. by providing judges with more training and experience in patent law, this country will have fair and more predictable decisions resulting in a positive effect on the economy as a whole as businesses will be able to allocate more time to inventing and less time litigating. the program would involve six of the nation's 94 judicial districts on a strictly voluntary basis. note this is just a pilot program and unless congress chooses to renew it, it will automatically expire after 10 years. the bill mandates reporting requirements to congress that
will help guide our future efforts to further improve the patent system. we will monitor the effects of this program closely. h.r. 628 has bipartisan support and the judiciary committee and broad support from the patent bar and affected industry and trade groups. in 2006 a nearly identical bill, h.r. 5418, was reported by the judiciary committee and passed the house under suspension. the legislation passed the house again under suspension in the last congress. this congress back in march of 2009, this house passed h.r. 628, this amended version before us today expands the number of districts who are eligible to be chosen for this program. . i want to particularly note the efforts of my friends from both sides of the aisle, representative issa and schiff, whose tireless and substantial personal efforts sheparded