[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 23, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H2219-H2228]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4849, SMALL BUSINESS AND 
                  INFRASTRUCTURE JOBS TAX ACT OF 2010

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1205 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1205

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4849) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
     tax incentives for small business job creation, extend the 
     Build America Bonds program, provide other infrastructure job 
     creation tax incentives, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 1205.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1205 provides for the consideration 
of the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010. The rule 
provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on 
Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The 
rule also provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, modified by the amendment 
printed in the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted. 
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Madam Speaker, despite what you may hear, the fact is that the 
Recovery Act has saved or created over 2 million jobs, and we have seen 
signs that our economy is starting to grow once again. In 2009, we saw 
a 2.8 percent GDP growth in the third quarter, which represented the 
biggest 6-month turnaround in our economy since 1980. And the fourth 
quarter's 5.9 percent growth is a dramatic change in direction from 
when President Obama took office and the economy was then shrinking by 
minus 6.4 percent.
  Before President Obama took office and we passed the Recovery Act, we 
were losing an average of 600,000 jobs per month. Since passing the 
Recovery Act, job loss has slowed to an average of 90,000 per month. 
After suffering through the worst economic crisis since the Great 
Depression, job loss has nearly leveled off in the past 2 months. We're 
almost back to par.
  It is clear that the economy is growing again and employers are not 
only not shedding from their payrolls but they are starting to hire 
once again. Those are the economic facts and a clear sign that the 
actions taken by the Obama administration and this Democratic Congress 
are in fact working to turn the economy around.
  However, having said that, this does not mean that we are out of the 
woods by any stretch of the imagination.
  In too many parts of the country, including my district in 
California, the recovery has been slow. Unemployment is still high, and 
we continue to lose jobs by the thousands. Few regions of the Nation 
are suffering more from the recession than my San Joaquin Valley of 
California. The three biggest cities in my district--Merced, Stockton, 
and Modesto--have some of the highest foreclosure and unemployment 
rates in the country.
  As I've said before, my district has been economically ravaged at a 
level equal to the devastation that we have seen oftentimes in the 
aftermath of hurricanes.
  Now is not the time to sit back and relax but to continue to give 
this economy a shot in the arm that it needs in so many areas like 
mine. And we will get the extra stimulus we need to overcome this 
recession once and for all by passing this and other measures that will 
be coming before us.
  This is why Congress just passed, and President Obama just signed, 
the HIRE Act to help create jobs and strengthen our economy, and to 
bring help to our communities, like the one I represent. It funds 
infrastructure projects and provides tax incentives and credits for 
businesses to hire unemployed workers to help small businesses invest 
and expand.
  That is also why we are bringing this bill, H.R. 4849, the Small 
Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010, on the floor today 
with an additional provision, a proven measure to further stimulate the 
economy.
  The small businesses of America form the backbone of economic growth 
in our country. In fact, they are responsible for creating three out of 
every four jobs in the United States. That is why with this bill we are 
continuing to foster their growth and entrepreneurial spirit by 
completely eliminating the capital gains taxation on stock investments 
made in small businesses through 2011. This provision will help 
encourage investments immediately and will help small businesses put 
more people on their payrolls, continuing to drive our economic 
recovery.
  H.R. 4849 also increases the deduction for start-up expenditures for 
small businesses from $5,000 to $20,000, giving our budding 
entrepreneurs a better opportunity to succeed.
  The bill provides substantial relief to small businesses who run 
afoul of certain tax rules. Current law was intended to punish large 
corporate tax cheats but has had the unintended consequences and 
effects of threatening small businesses with bankruptcy. This bill 
removes the stiff penalties for small businesses to ensure that they 
will keep their doors open and continue creating jobs.
  H.R. 4849 makes an additional allocation of Recovery Zone Bonds to 
ensure that each locality receives a minimum allocation, and hardest-
hit areas of the country, such as my district, are not overlooked like 
they were in the initial allocation in previous legislation.
  I'm especially thankful to the Ways and Means Committee for 
addressing the concerns I raised regarding this issue.

[[Page H2220]]

  Finally, this bill extends the Recovery Act's Build America Bonds 
program. To date, State and local governments have financed well over 
$78 billion in infrastructure projects using this tool to create jobs 
and help improve water utilities, sewers, schools, hospitals, transit 
buses, and other public projects.
  Financial experts such as Stephen Gandel have called Build America 
Bonds one of the economic recovery effort's biggest successes.
  Madam Speaker, speaking for my own district, nowhere are this and 
other jobs bills more necessary than the San Joaquin Valley. We needed 
help last week, we needed it a year ago. Economic relief for my 
constituents remains long overdue.
  It is time to stop blaming. It's time to stop playing political 
games. It's time to start providing the relief people so desperately 
need. It's important we keep our foot on the gas pedal and continue to 
give our economy the jolt it needs while it is starting to awake.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank my friend, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), for the time, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Over a year ago, Madam Speaker, the President promised that if 
Congress passed the so-called stimulus bill, unemployment would not 
reach 8 percent. Well, here we are today with unemployment just under 
10 percent. It turns out that the stimulus bill was anything but a job 
creator. Instead, it was a monumental waste of money that created tons 
of debt for the Nation.
  Since then, the people have demanded that the majority stop their 
unbridled spending spree. They want Congress to focus our work on 
commonsense job creation legislation that does not spend away the 
Nation's future.
  Yet 2 days ago the majority ignored the American people and passed 
the so-called health care bill. It costs over a trillion dollars. A 
bill that, just like the so-called stimulus, does nothing to create 
jobs except for new IRS agents in the case of the new legislation. It 
has over $500 billion in new taxes and mandates on businesses that will 
inevitably lead them to lay off workers or forgo hiring new workers.
  Knowing that the people have rejected their signature issues, that 
the majority has ignored the number one issue in this country--the lack 
of new jobs--the majority now puts forth H.R. 4849, which it calls the 
Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act. They desperately want 
to be seen by the people as doing something on jobs--anything on jobs. 
But just calling a bill a stimulus does not mean it will stimulate job 
creation.
  This bill does not create jobs just because the majority has slapped 
``jobs'' on the title of the bill. This bill is nothing more than a 
hodgepodge of narrow, targeted tax provisions that will not create new 
jobs. Although it's sold as a jobs bill, it actually amounts to a net 
tax increase at a time when Congress should be lowering taxes in order 
to encourage job growth.
  In this legislation, the largest tax is a $7.7 billion one on foreign 
companies located in the United States employing American workers. Yes, 
a tax on companies employing American workers. Already the U.S. is the 
only country in the world that taxes the overseas income of its 
businesses. Every other country taxes the income obviously only that is 
earned within its borders. So we tax income anywhere in the world.
  Now, higher taxes, as called for in this legislation, will further 
encourage those businesses to keep their income earned abroad in 
foreign countries and invest it there and create jobs there rather than 
in the United States.

                              {time}  1315

  Jobs will be moved. Jobs that they would have created in the U.S. 
will be moved to other countries, reducing employment opportunities in 
the United States, depressing wages for current American workers. This 
is not a way to get Americans back to work, Madam Speaker. It's an 
example of the dogma of the absurd at work.
  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, ``the effects of the 
bill are so small relative to the size of the economy and the degree of 
uncertainty associated with the estimate as to be incalculable within 
the context of a model of the aggregate economy.'' So, at the very 
least, this jobs bill won't create jobs.
  Now, it sounds like the stimulus that didn't stimulate. It's more of 
the same from this congressional majority.
  What is ironic is that, if the stimulus had worked as sold, we 
wouldn't be here today. We told the majority, Madam Speaker, we told 
them that their stimulus would do little, if anything, to spur job 
growth. What is so unfortunate is the American people are having to pay 
the price for the majority's incompetence.
  One of the central tenets of the Democrats' campaign in 2006 was that 
they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. On 
December 6, 2006, the Speaker reiterated her campaign promise. She 
said, ``We promised the American people that we would have the most 
honest and open government, and we will.''
  The Speaker even laid out how she would carry out her promise in a 
document called, ``A New Direction for America.'' In it she wrote, 
``Bills should be developed following full hearings and open 
subcommittee and committee markups, with appropriate referrals to other 
committees. Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure 
that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment 
process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, 
including a substitute.''
  This bill, Madam Speaker, like so many before it, fails to meet that 
standard. Contrary to the promise, the majority brings forth today a 
rule that forbids Ways and Means Ranking Member Camp from offering the 
minority's substitute amendment. It also blocks every other Member from 
both sides of the aisle from offering amendments.
  What makes this violation of the Speaker's promise so unfortunate is 
that, on Ways and Means bills, Madam Speaker, the House has a long 
history of allowing the ranking member to offer a minority substitute. 
We should defeat this rule and allow the House to proceed through 
regular order and allow Members to participate in the legislative 
process.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, in response to my friend and colleague 
from Florida, I would just remind him that, in this particular 
legislation, we are paying for our tax cuts. We are not going to, like 
they did when they were in charge, by cutting taxes and leaving it for 
their children to pay for, this bill pays for this tax cut by closing 
foreign tax loopholes that were given to special interests. I think 
that that's a trade the American people will accept every single day.
  Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, first I want to thank Chairman Levin and 
Chairman McDermott for including in the manager's amendment the 
extension of the Jobs NOW program. I would also like to thank Chairman 
Larson and the co-Chairs of the Congressional Jobs Working Group, Betty 
Sutton and Alcee Hastings, for their support of this bill and program.
  I rise today to support the manager's amendment to H.R. 4849, the 
Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act, which extends an 
extremely successful employment program I call Jobs NOW. It has created 
over 156,000 jobs in 29 States across the country. It is extraordinary 
for the fact that it has been able to create jobs so quickly.
  The model is Los Angeles County, where Supervisor Don Knabe created 
over 11,000 subsidized jobs in 1 year, jobs like park rangers, 
receptionists, teacher's assistants, and childcare workers. Workers got 
paid $10 an hour for up to 40 hours a week. The employer provided 20 
percent of the wage cost and the Federal Government provided the rest.
  The reason it succeeded is that it was a win/win for both small 
business and workers. Main Street businesses like Armstrong Pies in 
Linden, Tennessee, used this program to add 10 employees, buy new 
equipment, increase production, and expand their distribution. That's a 
big step forward with a little bakery. Workers in this program can 
sleep better at night knowing they can put food on the table.

[[Page H2221]]

  Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record an email from one of the 
participants in Los Angeles, Ms. Avila.

     From: Alyssa Avila
     Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 3:14 PM
     To: john@l_chamber.com
     Subject: S.T.E.P. program
       Hello John--I am so happy that I have been given the 
     opportunity to receive this incredible work experience 
     through the program. It has been a little over 3 months since 
     I began this job, and I have to say it has changed my life so 
     much in this little time. For one it has given my husband and 
     I a chance to experience the feeling of having a steady 
     income that we can actually live off of. With him only 
     working it wasn't enough for our family to survive on. I have 
     been able to get off of cash aid and have also been able to 
     realize the importance of keeping a job for the financial 
     security. Not only the financial aspect but the learning 
     factor and the chance to prove myself to an employer without 
     them being judgmental. Any other employer wouldn't give me a 
     chance just for my lack of experience. Even though I know 
     that I can definitely do the job it really takes a toll on 
     your self-esteem when you're turned down. I also think it's 
     very important for my children to see me actively working. 
     Now since I've been employed they are constantly reminded how 
     important it is for people to work all their lives. The 
     importance of responsibility starts as a child and it is very 
     important to me to be a good role model and show my children 
     that having a good work ethic is key in life. I just can't be 
     thankful enough for this opportunity and hope that we can get 
     it extended for one more year.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Alyssa Avila.

  She says, ``It has been a little over 3 months since I began this 
job, and I have to say it has changed my life so much in this little 
time.'' She also states, ``I have been able to get off of cash aid and 
have also been able to realize the importance of keeping a job for the 
financial security. Not only the financial aspect but the learning 
factor and the chance to prove myself to an employer without them being 
judgmental.'' In addition, she says, ``I also think it's very important 
for my children to see me actively working.'' Further, ``show my 
children that having a good work ethic is key in life. I just can't be 
thankful enough for this opportunity and hope that we can get it 
extended for 1 more year.''
  The manager's amendment and bill will, indeed, extend this program. I 
strongly support the manager's amendment.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it's my privilege 
to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, well, at least today we are talking about incentives 
for small businesses. That's a start. People are still asking: Where 
are the jobs? We are still at close to 10 percent unemployment.
  Small business, I think as everyone knows, is responsible for over 80 
percent of our jobs in this country, and I am standing here today 
because yesterday I submitted two amendments. In fact, this is the 
second time I have submitted these amendments. The first time was in 
the Ways and Means Committee, asking for the current tax laws governing 
small businesses, the capital gains tax and other taxes on small 
businesses, to stay the same, to not go up. But come January capital 
gains tax will increase by 20 percent.
  We are going to ask businesses to try and hire new employees under a 
heavy burden of taxes. We are talking about a bill today that's $15 
billion of incentives, limited incentives, hours after we have slapped 
them with hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases under the 
health overhaul bill.
  There is a 3.8 percent investment tax; other penalties if you don't 
provide mandated health care. This doesn't include the $588 billion in 
other tax hikes coming in December when the current tax rates expire. 
Because of that, one-third of all businesses and their activity would 
be taxed more. Raising taxes is the last thing we should be doing to 
small businesses.
  Where are the jobs? People keep asking.
  I have to say, I am disappointed that my amendments weren't accepted 
in the Ways and Means Committee. They were voted down, and I have to 
say, again, I am disappointed that they were once again voted down last 
night in the Rules Committee.
  The last thing we should be doing to small businesses is raising 
taxes. The last thing that Congress should be doing is raising taxes. 
Small businesses today need certainty about what's going to be 
happening to them in the future. Small businesses today want to hire 
employees, but they can't hire employees because they are being taxed 
too much.
  I think we have one question in this Congress to ask, and that is: Do 
we want to raise taxes on small businesses or do we want to help small 
businesses by keeping their tax burdens low? I am one of those that 
stand up and say, I want to keep the tax burdens on small businesses 
low so they can hire employees, so we can generate jobs, so we can 
generate this economy and get this country moving forward.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of 
Mr. Reichert, the gentleman from Washington. Typical of the other side 
of the aisle and his political party, my colleague, the amendment that 
he offered violated PAYGO.
  Now, as I look back on the recent history of our country, as we have 
lowered taxes and we didn't pay for them, the deficit ballooned out of 
control. That's exactly what people are upset about, the deficit 
ballooning out of control, and it was their economic policies that got 
us into this mess.
  Madam Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this and his leadership guiding the rule for us. This is 
important legislation for us to consider. It's ironic that our 
Republican friends are saying that the solution they want is more tax 
cuts.
  If you look at the jobs trajectory, in the Clinton administration 
where the tax levels were what they are going to be reverting to under 
the law, written by the Republicans, by the way, compared to what 
happened in the Bush administration where spending went up, taxes were 
cut, the economy collapsed, then we had the lowest rate of job creation 
during Bush years even though we took their prescription and cut taxes 
for all sorts of special interests. It is important that we are moving 
forward from this point by paying for the things that we do.
  It's a hard lesson, but it worked in the 8 years of the Clinton 
administration where we had deficits reduced every single year until, 
at the end, we were actually in surplus compared to what happened later 
and had more robust job creation, lower deficits, more jobs by having a 
balanced economy and focusing on what's important. It is important 
being able to rebuild and renew this country.
  I am pleased that we have in here the Build America Bonds, that we 
will be able to extend a favored treatment to local governments, to be 
able to build infrastructure, to be able to fight congestion, fight 
pollution, be able to revitalize communities. These bonds have been 
very successful in the last program we had. This extends it for 3 more 
years.
  I would hope, Madam Speaker, that at some point we will be able to 
return to the era where at least one area was not partisan, and that is 
infrastructure and rebuilding and renewing America. Even Ronald Reagan 
supported user fees for things like transportation.
  I hope we get to the point where the commitment to infrastructure, to 
roads, to transit, clean water, clean air, cleaning up Superfund sites, 
again enjoys the bipartisan support that it has at home here on Capitol 
Hill.
  We have a wide range of groups, from the Chamber of Commerce to AGC 
to truckers who are willing to work with us to be able to provide this 
vital program going forward. I hope we reach that point, but, in the 
meantime, approving this legislation, jump-starting infrastructure for 
the next 3 years and not adding to the deficit, but being deficit 
neutral, and dealing with areas, in fact, in some cases, recognized by 
the Bush Treasury, that there was abuse of the tax system and needed to 
be changed.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  March 23, 2010 on H2221 the following appeared: definite 
neutral, and dealing with
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: deficit neutral, 
and dealing with


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  I hope we approve this rule, I hope we approve this legislation and 
we are able to get on to the business of continuing improving the 
economy.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I remember before 
the era of President Obama and trillion to trillion-and-a-half dollar 
deficits, $200 billion, I remember, used to be a lot of money. 
President Clinton,

[[Page H2222]]

I remember his budgets, since the era of the 1990s was just mentioned, 
called for at least $200 billion budgets ad infinitum. And I remember 
the great struggles between the Republican congressional majority in 
the 1990s and the Clinton White House that finally led to a balanced 
budget, despite President Clinton's submittal of budgets with at least 
$200 billion of deficits indefinitely into the future. So that's 
setting the record straight.

                              {time}  1330

  What is important to note at this point, I think, is that increasing 
taxes in a recession is the worst thing that we could do, and the 
Democratic majority continues to do it time and time again.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking 
member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me first thank my friend from Miami, 
my Rules Committee seatmate, for his very thoughtful remarks. It was 
listening to him that led me to come to the floor.
  He opened his remarks, Madam Speaker, by referring to the commitment 
that President Obama made, that if we were to pass the $1 trillion 
stimulus bill, that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent. 
He very thoughtfully reminded us, Mr. Diaz-Balart that is, in his 
statement that, unfortunately, we have an unemployment rate that is 
hovering around 10 percent. And as my friend from California regularly 
shares with us in the Rules Committee and here on the House floor, the 
unemployment in his congressional district in some areas exceeds 20 
percent.
  It is a very sad and tragic thing that we deal with, in our State of 
California, a statewide unemployment rate of 12.2 percent; the 
unemployment rate in some of the areas that I represent, 14.4 percent. 
And then, as I said, Mr. Cardoza has very tragically an unemployment 
rate that is in excess of 20 percent.
  Of course, anecdotally, we continue to hear horror stories of people 
losing their homes, people losing their businesses. And we know how 
tough this is. We know how horrible the situation is for families when 
young children are forced to move from their homes. And that is the 
reason that I believe that it is absolutely imperative that we focus 
our attention on the best possible prescription for job creation and 
economic growth.
  I think one of the things we have found, Madam Speaker, is the $1 
trillion stimulus bill was not only not the answer, but when we were 
promised that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent and it 
is hovering about 2 points above that, we know that it not only has not 
been the answer to the problem, but I think every shred of empirical 
evidence that we have is that that has exacerbated the problem. Why? 
Well, it gets back to the remarks that Mr. Diaz-Balart just shared with 
us about the level of Federal spending.
  As we look at the problems that are out there, job creation and 
economic growth is critical; but I continue to hear overwhelmingly from 
my constituents and from people with whom I speak across this country 
that the fact that we have seen now in the first 14 months of this 
administration an increase in the Federal debt that is larger than the 
increase in the debt that everyone on both sides of the aisle decry 
during the entire 8 years of the Bush administration is a sad 
commentary.
  Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker. We have seen in the first 14 
months of this administration an increase in the national debt that is 
larger than the entire increase in the debt during the 8 years of the 
Bush administration.
  Now, the byproduct of that is an article that just appeared on March 
22 in Bloomberg, and it points to the fact that there is less 
confidence in the bond market for the Federal Government than there is 
for private sector companies like Berkshire Hathaway, the Lowes 
Company, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Meaning, that as we look at 
what has always been seen not only in the United States, but around the 
world, as the most stable and confident investment that people can look 
to, the most stable investment is now developing yields that are below 
those of private sector companies.
  There is less confidence in the future of the Federal Government. And 
there is a very simple reason for that, and it is that we have seen 
this constant increase, an exacerbation of our deficit and our debt. 
And that is why doing everything we can, Madam Speaker, to rein that in 
needs to continue to be our priority.
  What is it that has happened? Well, 1 hour ago the President of the 
United States signed what will be ultimately a $1.2 trillion bill to 
deal with the issue of health care.
  We all know that having every American have access to quality health 
insurance is an extraordinarily high priority for people on both sides 
of the aisle. But as we look at some of the details of what this 
legislation that will end up because of the doc fix, which everyone 
says will be included in that, totaling $1.2 trillion, we have gotten 
to a point where we will see the hiring of reportedly 18,000 new 
Internal Revenue Service agents who are going to be, through what will 
look like a new 1099 form, the provider of that insurance policy; and 
the American citizen will have to ensure that there is compliance with 
this new mandate, a dictate from the Federal Government that is going 
to be imposed on every American.
  And so as we look at dealing with this problem, and everyone decries 
government spending, we just 1 hour ago saw a humongous new cost burden 
imposed on the American taxpayer.
  Now, my friend from California, Madam Speaker, has just said, and he 
did in the Rules Committee yesterday, he talked about the fact that he 
liked the notion of cutting the capital gains rate and that he was 
supportive of the general thrust of what Mr. Reichert was trying to do. 
And Mr. Sessions offered that amendment up in the Rules Committee, but 
he did mention the fact that it was not paid for. I just listened to 
the remarks: it is not paid for. And, Madam Speaker, I think it is 
really important for us to look at this issue of ``paid for.''

  Now, I have stood in this well for a long period of time, frankly, 
since I first got here, because I came here with Ronald Reagan, to talk 
about the bipartisan approach that needs to be taken towards getting 
our economy back on track. Steve Forbes in his great new book entitled, 
``How Capitalism Will Save Us,'' refers to real-world economics. We 
have to look at reality here.
  Now, it is a pipe dream for people to believe that somehow, if you 
reduce the top rate on capital gains, that it is going to be a huge 
burden to the Federal Government when every shred of evidence that we 
have is that not only will that kind of tax incentive be paid for, it 
will dramatically increase the revenues to the Federal Government. And 
the best example--I don't think I need to appeal to our other side of 
the aisle by pointing to Ronald Reagan. But as I look to the other side 
of the aisle, I would appeal by making the argument that this is 
exactly what President John F. Kennedy, one of our Nation's greatest 
Presidents, a Democrat, did in 1961.
  Madam Speaker, what he did was he brought about broad, across-the-
board marginal tax rate reduction, including a large reduction of the 
capital gains tax rate.
  Now, my friend says this needs to be paid for. Madam Speaker, not 
only was the Kennedy capital gains rate reduction paid for; it led to a 
doubling of the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. Similarly--
and that is why I like to talk about this as a bipartisan proposal--in 
1981, Ronald Reagan did the exact same thing. We saw across-the-board 
marginal rate reduction and at the same time we saw a reduction of the 
capital gains rate. And what happened, Madam Speaker? Not only did that 
marginal rate reduction and capital gains reduction pay for itself, it 
actually doubled the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury during 
the decade of the 1980s.
  Now, we know that there are those who say that the tax reductions 
that we saw in the early part of this decade, the decade that we have 
just gone through, are responsible for the increase in the deficits 
that we had, completely forgetting the fact that we have had to see 
huge increases in spending on national defense, on veterans benefits, 
on homeland security, things that

[[Page H2223]]

came about because of the tragedy of September 11 of 2001. We also have 
seen other increases in spending.
  Madam Speaker, we could have done better when the Republicans were in 
the majority. I am the first to admit that. But if you look at the 
fact, again, as I said just a few moments ago, the $2 trillion increase 
in the national debt that has taken place over the last 14 months is 
larger than the entire increase in the debt that took place during the 
8 years of the Bush Presidency.
  So that is why I think that what we need to do is take this 
bipartisan approach; and since my friend from California, the manager 
of this rule here on the House floor, has argued that we should bring 
about capital gains reduction but he says he wants it to be paid for, 
we need to look at the fact that that kind of reduction not only pays 
for itself but will help us deal with the tremendous debt burden that 
we face today. And, again, the cost of that increased debt burden is 
hurting the United States of America in this country and in 
international markets around the world.
  That is what we need to do, not looking at a hodgepodge of ideas, 
trying to pick out what incentive here for one part of the economy or 
another. We need to let real-world economics actually be applied here; 
and, unfortunately, we haven't been, and this bill does not do that at 
all.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how the 
Republicans use selective memory when they talk about American economic 
policy.
  On the very day that President Obama was inaugurated into office, he 
came in with a $1.3 trillion Bush hangover in debt for that year.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDOZA. I will not yield, Mr. Dreier.
  The prescription that we are offering today reduces the national debt 
by closing foreign tax loopholes. There is plenty of things that we can 
do to start closing the tax cuts and loopholes that shouldn't be in the 
tax law to pay for tax cuts for honorable Americans.
  I do support reducing capital gains fees. I think we can do that, but 
they need to be paid for. We put those PAYGO rules in place in the mid-
1990s, and we left the last time we had the White House with a $5.4 
trillion projected surplus. In 8 short years, we saw that turned around 
to what we have been left with, the mess that we have been left with 
now. That is not Mr. Obama's fault. That is not the Democratic Party's 
fault.
  This bill will reduce the deficit by $2.6 billion. We are paying for 
our tax cuts. We are going to stimulate the economy, we are going to 
rebuild America with investment bonds, and we are going to reduce the 
national debt. That is the way you do American economic policy that 
works, Madam Speaker.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, a tireless 
supporter of Americans and small business, a leading advocate for 
fixing the flawed IRS penalties on listed transactions, Mr. Donnelly 
from Indiana.
  Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of 
the rule for H.R. 4849, the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax 
Act, because it provides crucial tax breaks to America's small 
businesses and will fix an esoteric IRS penalty that is unintentionally 
threatening to bankrupt small business owners at a time when we badly 
need their contributions to economic recovery.
  Madam Speaker, a lot of my colleagues in the House may be unaware of 
the unintended consequences of section 6707A of the Internal Revenue 
Code. Designed to crack down on large corporate tax cheats, this law 
has too frequently had the unintended effect of levying huge mandatory 
penalties on small business owners who make simple mistakes.
  Two years ago, I learned that a small business owner who employs four 
people in my district was assessed $600,000 in mandatory penalties for 
unintentionally failing to notify the IRS that he had purchased a type 
of insurance policy that resulted in a total tax savings of only 
$38,000 over 2 years. This Hoosier business owner was not trying to 
avoid paying taxes, and he has repaid his back taxes; however, the 
flawed law requires the IRS to enforce these massive penalties, even if 
the result would mean instant bankruptcy for a simple filing error.
  So, Madam Speaker, we support the rule for H.R. 4849, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the passage of 
the bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 
additional minute to Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to engage in a discussion, if 
I might, with my friend from California. He did not want to yield to 
me, but I am happy to yield to him and I look forward to that, to say 
that the $1.3 trillion deficit that was inherited by President Obama on 
the day he came into office has actually been dramatically eclipsed by, 
as I said, the $2 trillion increase that we have seen in the debt take 
place.
  And I want to also argue that I am not pointing the finger of blame 
at the Democratic Party. When President Bush came into office, we had 
just seen the bubble burst, and he inherited an economy that was 
actually on a downward slope at that juncture. So there is plenty of 
finger-pointing that can go around. I mean, it is. My friend's from 
California. Did the bubble not burst? I would say he is shaking his 
head, and I am happy to yield to my friend.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. CARDOZA. The bubble burst when Mr. Bush got to office and started 
an economic policy that----
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if I may reclaim my time, I will remind my 
friend that the election was held in 2000. The election was November of 
2000. That bubble burst in 1999. 1999. Fully a year before that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield the 
gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend, if he would like to 
respond. I am always happy to engage in a discussion with my friend.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I am happy to respond on my own time, since I got cut 
off when I tried to answer the question the last time.
  Mr. DREIER. I would be happy to further yield to my friend. I control 
the time, and I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I will answer the gentleman on my own time when I 
control the time and I won't be cut off.
  Mr. DREIER. So, Madam Speaker, the gentleman does not want to engage 
in a discussion on this issue, simply putting forth platitudes about 
finger-pointing and all, when I'm trying to, in a bipartisan way, take 
the vision that was put forth by John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, 
recognizing that we have challenges that we should address together.
  I am happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I will respond to my friend by saying 
this: Every time I've tried to answer him, he's cut me off. I will 
answer on my own time.
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mr. CARDOZA. The gentleman can yield till hell freezes over. I'll 
answer on my own time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  When Mr. Clinton left office, he left the next administration a 
budget surplus for the year that Mr. Bush took office and a projection 
for $5.6 trillion in surpluses. That bounty was squandered by Mr. Bush 
and the Republicans in Congress at that time and we got left with an 
aftermath where we had to bail out the banks, where we had to bail out 
the economy.
  Mr. Obama was left with a $1.6 trillion deficit on the day he took 
office. Those are undisputable facts. And I am proud to stand on the 
Democratic record on economic policy, and I am proud to stand on this 
bill, where we're going to reduce the deficit while rebuilding America 
and cutting taxes for taxpayers that live in the United States and not 
for foreign corporations. I will take that record to the bank every 
single day, Madam Speaker.

[[Page H2224]]

  Madam Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman 
from California, and I thank his good friend from Florida for managing 
this bill and their leadership on these issues, as well as the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Just a few minutes ago, the President of the United States signed a 
health care bill that many thought would not pass that will save us 
$1.3 trillion over the next decade. Today, we come to the floor and 
address the concerns of many Americans, representing to America that 
this majority is both sensitive and able to address issues that are 
hurting the American people and the American economy. This bill does 
just that. And I am very pleased to rise to support legislation that 
addresses the question of providing incentives for small businesses to 
hire people and to give them an incentive to do so.
  I'm very pleased that we will have the opportunity in our local 
jurisdictions to be able to rebuild and to issue bonds dealing with 
water and sewers. The fact that I was a former Houston City Council 
member, I understand sometimes where the rubber hits the road: to 
rebuild those entities; to allow State and local governments to be able 
to save money through the alternative minimum tax; to be able to allow 
low-income housing to take money over low-income tax credits, hopefully 
to use it effectively. And I want to join with the chairwoman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus as I thank this legislation for having the 
extension of the emergency fund on TANF. That means my State of Texas 
can actually have provisions that will allow people to be hired for 1 
year. Even a conservative policy person, Kevin Hassett, said, ``Given 
the state of the labor market, it is hard to imagine how any sensible 
person could oppose extending the emergency fund.''
  Let's see how this Congress votes on this rule. I am supporting this 
rule because not only have we extended and provided health care for 32 
million Americans, we're now addressing the question of jobs, jobs, 
jobs for America. This bill will help our small businesses, our local 
municipalities, and the people who have been chronically unemployed. 
It's time to pass this rule and to pass this bill.
  Madam Speaker I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1205, a rule 
providing for 4849, ``The Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax 
Act of 2010'' a bill that will help to create jobs for Americans.
  Last year, through the American Recovery Act of 2009 (stimulus 
package), Congress threw out a massive lifeline to save Americans who 
were on the verge of losing their jobs and to create jobs for those who 
were unemployed. We are constantly getting updates from our leaders in 
Congress and the Administration, of the positive impact the stimulus 
funding is having on our economy. Yet, we know there is still more work 
to do. This bill will allow us to continue making strides in the right 
direction towards putting jobs in the hands of Americans.
  H.R. 4849 will provide a 100 percent exclusion of small business 
capital gains. Under current law, Section 1202 provides 50 percent 
exclusion for gain from the sale of certain small business stock that 
is held for more that 5 years. The bill would temporarily increase the 
amount of the exclusion to 100 percent for qualifying stock acquired 
after March 15, 2010 and before January 1, 2012. The amount of gain 
eligible for the Section 1202 exclusion is limited to the greater of 10 
times the taxpayer's basis in the stock, or $10 million gain from stock 
in that small business corporation.
  This provision is limited to individual investments and not the 
investments of a corporation. This provision is estimated to cost 
$1.962 billion over the next 10 years. The American Reinvestment and 
Recovery Act (the ``Recovery Act'') temporarily increased the Section 
1202 exclusion to 75 percent for qualifying stock acquired in 2009 and 
2010. Again, this bill would temporarily increase the amount of the 
exclusion to 100 percent. H. Res. 4849 is a great piece of legislation 
because it will increase job opportunities for all Americans and allow 
our citizens to go back to work.
  Madam Speaker, through a manager's amendment introduced yesterday at 
the Rules Committee, TANF Emergency Contingency Fund will be extended 
for one year. This was a key CBC provision throughout our jobs 
advocacy. The provision provides $2.5 billion in TANF-ECF, which the my 
CBC colleagues and I advocated to Ways & Means, House, and Senate 
leadership.
  This amendment would also help those who are most vulnerable and who 
need our hope the most by extending the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund 
for one year. This Fund was established by the Recovery Act and is 
expiring on September 30th and currently assists States in providing 
assistance to needy families and in establishing or expanding 
subsidized jobs programs.
  We need to put jobs in the hands of Americans. As a Representative of 
Houston, I am particularly concerned that the unemployment rates have 
been increasing instead of decreasing; unemployment in the Houston-
Sugar Land-Baytown region climbed to 5.4 percent in October of 2009, 
according to a recent report from the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). 
There were 152,300 people without jobs during the month out of a total 
civilian labor force of about 2.8 million, compared with 144,200 
people, or 5.1 percent, unemployed out of a civilian labor force of 2.8 
million in September of 2009, according to the TWC. The unemployment 
rate in October was up from 4 percent a year ago. I know that the 
people of the 18th Congressional District of Texas will be greatly 
affected by this bill and begin to receive more employment 
opportunities.
  Madam Speaker, getting all Americans back to work is, and should be 
our number one priority. It is essential that the Congress continue to 
create avenues that will provide employers with incentives to hire and 
retain new employees.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 
1205.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. I thank the gentleman from California.
  I rise in support of this rule because it will give the American 
people an opportunity to ease some of the pain that's been caused to 
millions of people because of this recession. Having a job means more 
than just the income and coverage of health insurance. It means the 
dignity and the pride in knowing that you're taking care of your 
family, being able to pay your mortgage, your rent, the kids' tuition 
for school. And this type of legislation that the Ways and Means 
Committee was able to put together provides incentives for people to 
invest in small businesses, where 80 percent, of course, of our jobs 
are created. It allows for recovery bonds and TANF, Build American 
Bonds, to be able to allow mayors and Governors to invest in 
infrastructure and to determine just where the work is needed. This is 
a dignity that really is a quality that caused America to be as great 
as she is.
  Putting America back to work is what the majority is all about. I 
cannot perceive that we cannot have bipartisan support on those issues 
that really build a better America--a healthy America, an educated 
America, and a working America. That is how we will maintain our 
competitive edge throughout the world. And we have to do this not just 
as Democrats, but we have to do this in a bipartisan way. The Governors 
want this, the mayors want this, and our communities demand it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time is 
remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 9\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Florida has 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. For 8 years, our Republican colleagues told us that we 
could borrow our way to greatness. They told us that their tax cuts 
would pay for themselves. And then, after they drove our country into 
an economic ditch, some of their own economic experts indicated that, 
in fact, none of those tax cuts had paid for themselves. They had only 
driven us deeper into debt. And then as the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cardoza) has ably explained, we came forward with a number of 
proposals that were designed to try to get our economy moving again. 
And they have worked.

[[Page H2225]]

  But we also came forward with a commitment to fiscal responsibility 
that we would pay as we go. And that is precisely what we have just 
done this past Sunday with the approval of the health care legislation. 
Not only paid for it, but adopted a proposal that would actually result 
in many billions of dollars--over a trillion dollars in the second 
decade--of deficit reduction as a result of our plan.
  That brings us to today. Recognizing that small business is the 
economic engine of our country, we come forward with some specific 
proposals designed to encourage more economic growth. But we don't do 
it the old-fashioned Republican way of borrowing all the money. We pay 
for every dime in this bill. And therein lies their complaint. They 
always like the benefits that go out; they just don't want to pay for 
any of them. And so they've come forward today and their principal 
complaint is a provision in this bill that I authored that deals with 
tax treaty shopping. Who does that affect? It doesn't affect any 
company that has its principal headquarters in the United States of 
America, an American company. It doesn't affect any foreign corporation 
that has a subsidiary here if they are in one of the many jurisdictions 
around the world that have a tax treaty--a tax treaty designed to 
protect American companies from being double-taxed. It doesn't affect 
them. Even China has a tax treaty. In fact, over 90 percent of the 
foreign investment in this country comes from companies headquartered 
in tax treaty countries.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. The only people that it affects are those who have 
chosen to go to non-tax-treaty countries, mainly tax havens--people 
that have avoided paying their fair share and are foreign-owned 
corporations. And those foreign-owned corporations and tax havens now 
have a voice, in addition to their lobbyists in this Congress, and it's 
the Republican Party. They are defending those foreign companies that 
have not paid their fair share and will not approve using resources 
drawn from them that they have not paid fairly in order to support our 
small American businesses.
  I urge approval of the rule and rejection of the argument that these 
foreign businesses ought not to have to play by the same rules as 
American companies.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, what I attempted to point out 
is that we disagree. When foreign companies hire workers in the United 
States, we disagree with raising their taxes. We think it's a good idea 
for foreign companies to be encouraged to hire workers in the United 
States, and what this bill is doing is exactly the opposite.
  I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would say in response to the gentleman 
from Florida, we welcome investment in this country. We welcome it with 
a treaty. We welcome it when they pay our taxes and don't try and cheat 
American workers.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to at this time yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from California, for yielding and for his tremendous leadership on this 
bill.
  I rise in support of the rule and, of course, the bill, H.R. 4849, 
the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010. I want to 
especially thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Levin, Chairman Rangel, 
Chairman McDermott, and the staff of the Ways and Means Committee, and 
our staff, for working with my colleagues in the Congressional Black 
Caucus to ensure that this legislation targets those hardest hit by the 
recession.
  The members of the Congressional Black Caucus have been laser-focused 
on stimulating our economy and creating jobs, especially for the 
chronically unemployed. As my colleagues know, we are in the midst of a 
5-week campaign launched at the beginning of this month to seek policy 
solutions for the chronically unemployed. We are working together with 
President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and all 
of our leadership and Members of Congress and our coalition partners on 
a strategy to put America back to work.
  One of the key components of our proposed jobs package was to seek an 
extension of TANF emergency contingency funds for 1 year with an 
appropriation of $2.5 billion. This valuable program was originally 
authorized in the American Recovery and Relief Act for a total of $5 
billion to help fund certain targeted categories of TANF-related 
expenditures, including basic assistance, nonrecurrent short-term 
benefits, and subsidized employment. Put simply, the TANF emergency 
contingency fund allows States to leverage Federal dollars to subsidize 
private company wages by providing States with an 80 percent 
reimbursement rate for their increased TANF expenditures in these 
categories.
  Back in December, we communicated with President Obama and our 
Speaker and raised the importance of extending the TANF emergency 
contingency fund, among other priorities. Earlier this month, Chairman 
McDermott also held a hearing on TANF within his subcommittee and 
highlighted the importance of extending the emergency contingency fund. 
This was another important moment that reinforced the Congressional 
Black Caucus' call for an extension and helped generate the momentum we 
needed to move this important provision forward.
  I was also pleased to have had the opportunity to be before the Rules 
Committee yesterday and testify with Chairman Levin in support of the 
manager's amendment and the TANF extension. In addition to the 
extension, the manager's amendment also allows TANF money to be used 
for subsidized jobs for people who have run out of unemployment 
insurance benefits. Ultimately, the TANF emergency contingency fund 
will create jobs by helping businesses hire, manage, and train new 
employees by paying part of wages and costs.

                              {time}  1400

  As the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am pleased that we 
could move this critical bill forward. Taken together, this provision 
and the bill overall is another important step towards spurring 
economic growth and creating jobs, particularly for the chronically 
unemployed. Business tax cuts alone won't work.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you very much. The Congressional Black 
Caucus has a very sustained and focused effort to create jobs and 
economic opportunities, and this is but one step forward in our 
efforts.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I think it's 
important to keep in mind the seriousness of the fiscal situation the 
Nation is facing. For the current fiscal year, President Obama 
submitted a $3.6 trillion budget. Remember, a trillion is a million 
millions. That's a lot of money, a $3.6 trillion budget. But our 
revenues, the revenues of the Federal Government, total $2.4 trillion. 
For the following fiscal year, the President submitted a $3.8 trillion 
budget, but our revenues, the Federal Government's revenues, are $2.6 
trillion. That situation is not sustainable. That's why we are facing a 
situation that was alluded to earlier by Mr. Dreier, that our AAA bond 
rating is at risk already.
  Obviously there are few issues that are more serious than the ones we 
are discussing today. Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote 
on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow a 
vote on Ranking Member Camp's substitute amendment to the bill. The 
Camp substitute would provide a meaningful tax benefit for small 
businesses that would, unlike the majority's bill, create new jobs. 
Small businesses employ about half of all private sector jobs, and they 
have created nearly 80 percent of the new jobs in the Nation in recent 
years. They are the engine of economic growth and job creation in the 
Nation, and they must be the key to our economic recovery.
  It's unfortunate that the majority of the Rules Committee blocked Mr. 
Camp, despite the tradition of allowing on Ways and Means bills a 
substitute amendment. The Rules Committee blocked Mr. Camp from 
offering his amendment. Obviously there are always exceptions to 
tradition, to precedence. In this case, the exception is

[[Page H2226]]

this majority, a majority that continually blocks Members from both 
parties from offering amendments to all legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to return to regular order and allow Mr. Camp to 
offer his substitute amendment, and to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question now so that we can have a full and open debate on the 
minority's substitute.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I am proud today to stand here advocating 
for a stimulative tax cut to small business that is not only going to 
be good for the economy but is paid for and reduces the national debt. 
Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that this commonsense legislation 
will invest in infrastructure. It will invest in our budding 
entrepreneurs. It will help get countless unemployed Americans back on 
the job, back on company payrolls, and continue to give a much-needed 
jolt to the American economy. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this American jobs bill on the floor today. I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1205 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4849) to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives 
     for small business job creation, extend the Build America 
     Bonds program, provide other infrastructure job creation tax 
     incentives, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against the bill and against its consideration are waived 
     except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified 
     by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     (2) the amendment in section 2 of this resolution if offered 
     by Representative Camp of Michigan or his designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as 
     follows:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED SMALL BUSINESS INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 199(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be allowed as a deduction an 
     amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) 9 percent of the lesser of--
       ``(i) the qualified production activities income of the 
     taxpayer for the taxable year, or
       ``(ii) taxable income (determined without regard to this 
     section) for the taxable year, and
       ``(B) in the case of a qualified small business for a 
     taxable year beginning in 2010 or 2011, __ percent of the 
     lesser of--
       ``(i) the qualified small business income of the taxpayer 
     for the taxable year, or
       ``(ii) taxable income (determined without regard to this 
     section) for the taxable year.''.
       (b) Qualified Small Business; Qualified Small Business 
     Income.--Section 199 of such Code is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Qualified Small Business; Qualified Small Business 
     Income.--
       ``(1) Qualified small business.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `qualified small business' means any taxpayer for any taxable 
     year if the annual average number of employees employed by 
     such taxpayer during such taxable year was 500 or fewer.
       ``(B) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     any person treated as a single employer under subsection (a) 
     or (b) of section 52 (applied without regard to section 
     1563(b)) or subsection (m) or (o) of section 414 shall be 
     treated as 1 taxpayer for purposes of this subsection.
       ``(C) Special rule.--If a taxpayer is treated as a 
     qualified small business for any taxable year, the taxpayer 
     shall not fail to be treated as a qualified small business 
     for any subsequent taxable year solely because the number of 
     employees employed by such taxpayer during such subsequent 
     taxable year exceeds 500. The preceding sentence shall cease 
     to apply to such taxpayer in the first taxable year in which 
     there is an ownership change (as defined by section 382(g) in 
     respect of a corporation, or by applying principles analogous 
     to such ownership change in the case of a taxpayer that is a 
     partnership) with respect to the stock (or partnership 
     interests) of the taxpayer.
       ``(2) Qualified small business income.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `qualified small business income' means the excess of--
       ``(i) the income of the qualified small business which--

       ``(I) is attributable to the actual conduct of a trade or 
     business,
       ``(II) is income from sources within the United States 
     (within the meaning of section 861), and
       ``(III) is not passive income (as defined in section 
     904(d)(2)(B)), over

       ``(ii) the sum of--

       ``(I) the cost of goods sold that are allocable to such 
     income, and
       ``(II) other expenses, losses, or deductions (other than 
     the deduction allowed under this section), which are properly 
     allocable to such income.

       ``(B) Exceptions.--The following shall not be treated as 
     income of a qualified small business for purposes of 
     subparagraph (A):
       ``(i) Any income which is attributable to any property 
     described in section 1400N(p)(3).
       ``(ii) Any income which is attributable to the ownership or 
     management of any professional sports team.
       ``(iii) Any income which is attributable to a trade or 
     business described in subparagraph (B) of section 1202(e)(3).
       ``(iv) Any income which is attributable to any property 
     with respect to which records are required to be maintained 
     under section 2257 of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(C) Allocation rules, etc.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     paragraphs (2), (3), (4)(D), and (7) of subsection (c) shall 
     apply for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(3) Special rules.--Except as otherwise provided by the 
     Secretary, rules similar to the rules of subsection (d) shall 
     apply for purposes of this subsection.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 199(a)(2) of such Code 
     is amended by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)(A)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF UNPROCESSED FUELS FROM THE CELLULOSIC 
                   BIOFUEL PRODUCER CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 40(b)(6) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) Exclusion of unprocessed fuels.--The term 
     `cellulosic biofuel' shall not include any fuel if--

       ``(I) more than 4 percent of such fuel (determined by 
     weight) is any combination of water and sediment, or
       ``(II) the ash content of such fuel is more than 1 percent 
     (determined by weight).''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to fuels sold or used on or after January 1, 
     2010.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the revious question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they

[[Page H2227]]

     have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous 
     question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the 
     Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how 
     the Rules Committee described the rule using information from 
     Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional 
     Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control 
     of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually 
     the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of 
     debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending 
     business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand 
the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House 
Resolution 1205 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House 
Resolution 1205 and on suspending the rules and passing House Joint 
Resolution 80, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 179, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 172]

                               YEAS--240

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--179

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Boccieri
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (TN)
     Dicks
     Hoekstra
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Moore (KS)
     Tiahrt
     Wamp

                              {time}  1435

  Messrs. WITTMAN, PLATTS and SIMPSON changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. NADLER of New York changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 172, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would've voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cummings). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 187, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 173]

                               YEAS--233

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt

[[Page H2228]]


     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--187

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bilirakis
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (TN)
     Hoekstra
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Lowey
     Tiahrt
     Wamp


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1443

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________