[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 156 (Thursday, December 2, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H7859-H7864]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4853, MIDDLE
CLASS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2010, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1745 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1745
Resolved, That upon adoption 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 thereto,
and to consider in the House, without intervention of any
point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule
XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways
and Means or his designee that the House concur in the Senate
amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate
amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The
motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without
intervening motion.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time through the
legislative day of December 3, 2010, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The
Speaker or her designee shall consult with the Minority
Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for
consideration pursuant to this section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The gentlewoman from Maine is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of this
rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Maine?
There was no objection.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1745 provides a closed rule for
consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853. The rule 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 H.R. 4853 with the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
the resolution. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule
provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered
as read. Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to
suspend the rules through the legislative day of December 3, 2010. The
Speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his
designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to
this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to do the right thing and
put
[[Page H7860]]
American workers ahead of millionaires and billionaires. This should be
our priority and shouldn't be a tough choice to make. Today we can
focus on economic growth to help those who are suffering from this
recession and to provide permanent, equitable tax relief for the middle
class.
These should not be controversial positions. They aren't and they
shouldn't be. The economic growth that all Americans can share in ought
to be a top priority for every elected official, and lowering the tax
burden for working families shouldn't be any kind of a partisan fight.
After the last administration and the previous Congress spent
billions of dollars starting two foreign wars and bailing out the big
banks that ran roughshod over our economy, isn't it only fair that we
do more to help out those who are struggling to find work and to make
ends meet? Today we are simply voting on whether or not to protect the
middle class and to make sure working families do not suffer needlessly
as winter approaches. Nothing more, nothing less.
This is not political showmanship or a partisan game. We are doing
the work the American people asked us to do. We are not voting on
whether or not to extend tax cuts for the wealthy. We are only voting
on extending tax cuts for the middle class, and this is something I
sincerely believe we should all agree on.
One of the biggest pieces of misinformation about ending tax cuts for
the wealthy is that it would hurt small businesses, which is simply not
true. The bill we are talking about today extends tax cuts for incomes
up to $250,000. That covers 97 percent of all small businesses in the
United States. And let's be clear about another thing: For all small
businesses, the cuts continue for their first $250,000 of profit.
If we really want to help small businesses, let's offer real direct
benefits. Let's help them access funding to grow, offer larger tax
deductions for purchasing equipment or create incentives to hire more
workers.
I am glad many business owners in my State, the State of Maine, have
been able to see through this misinformation. Jim Wellehan, who owns
one of the largest shoe store chains in the State, has recently come
out against tax cuts for the wealthy because they offer no benefit to
his business or his employees. He recently said it makes no sense from
any perspective to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in
this country. It will just increase the wealth gap and create more of a
social and economic problem.
Jim hits on a critical point. Over the last 30 years, the wealthiest
have gotten richer and richer compared to everyone else. In 1980 the
average income of the country's top .01 percent of earners was 180
times that of the bottom 90 percent. Today that number is 1,000 times.
Meanwhile taxes for the rich have gone down dramatically. So as the
wealthiest take a larger and larger piece of the pie, they have given
less and less back to the public infrastructure, to our communities,
and to the people who helped create that prosperity.
The truth about tax breaks for the ultra rich is that they are very,
very expensive. Cutting taxes for those making over $250,000 will add
$700 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years alone. That's about
the cost of the entire stimulus bill, and most economists agree it
would do very little to stimulate the economy.
In January of this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
analyzed 11 policy proposals and ranked them by how effective they
would be in fueling economic recovery.
Number one on that list was extending benefits for the unemployed
because those dollars go immediately into local economies and spur more
spending. If only that was the bill we were voting on today.
What was number 11? Number 11 on that list was extending tax cuts for
the wealthy. The benefit of those dollars going to the rich was
marginal, because that money would be mostly saved, not spent. That's
just not right.
I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me
today in supporting this commonsense bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1040
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I first want to express my appreciation to
my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from
North Haven, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the very thoughtful statement
of my friend and Rules Committee colleague, I'm reminded of--and as I
looked at news reports this morning, I guess I should say--as I listen
to her statement and then look at the reports that we have this
morning, I'm reminded of the 1992 Presidential campaign. And I would
like to point to two very famous quotes from that 1992 Presidential
campaign.
First, in the general election you will recall that Bill Clinton,
George Herbert Walker Bush and Ross Perot all ran against each other. I
know the Speaker pro tempore understands very well, coming from Texas,
that that was a fascinating campaign 18 years ago. And there was a very
famous Vice-Presidential debate. And in that debate, the great, highly
decorated Admiral James Stockdale, who I was happy before his passing
to have as a good friend, famously began the debate by saying, Who am
I, and why am I here?
Now, Mr. Speaker, we already have reports this morning that the
negotiators have come together and decided there will be probably a 2-
year extension of the effort to ensure that we don't increase taxes on
any Americans over the next 2 years. And in light of that, we are now
resorting to a little more than a political ploy saying, well, we've
all come together and agreed that we don't want increased taxes on
middle income Americans, and so what we should do is let's vote for
this and agree on it when, in fact, we're arguing that we should not
increase taxes on any Americans.
Now to my second quote from the 1992 Presidential campaign. Senator
Paul Tsongas, whose widow, Niki, serves very well here in the House,
the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, said very famously, and I quoted
him, and she corrected the quote when I told her that I quoted him
widely, I quoted him as follows: Senator Tsongas in the 1992
Presidential campaign when he was challenging Bill Clinton in the
primary said, The problem with my Democratic Party is that they love
employees but they hate employers. And Mrs. Tsongas reminded me that he
apparently said, You can't love employees without loving employers.
Well, either way, it's very clear that when you look at where we are,
it gets back to that famous Lincoln line: you can't lift up the wage
earner by pulling down the wage payer. And so all we're saying is that
as we look at the challenges that we're facing today, focusing on job
creation and economic growth is something that we should do.
And I believe that every Democrat and every Republican in this
institution clearly wants to see our economy get back on track. They
want to see us grow. They want to see us emerge. No one wants to see
the United States of America diminished to the level that was predicted
by Dave Cote, a member of the debt commission, the head of Honeywell,
who in his statement yesterday said that at the rate we are going, the
United States of America will become, in fact, a second-rate Nation. No
one, no Democrat or Republican, wants that to happen. And so why don't
we use empirical evidence that will prove that we can take a course
that will get this economy back on track.
Now, my friend says that we have a cost of $700 billion. If we fail
to increase taxes on those small businesses and those who are upper
income wage earners, a $700 billion cost is what is claimed. In fact,
if you talk to economist after economist, as I have, that is, in fact,
not the case. Just yesterday a very prominent economist met with a
number of Members of this body pointing to the fact that if you do, if
you do, Mr. Speaker, actually keep those taxes low, we will actually
see an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.
And I point to that again, as I have time and again here. I believe
we should be utilizing the bipartisan--the bipartisan model, put
forward first by a great Democratic President. We will
[[Page H7861]]
mark the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's inaugural address. He
was elected 50 years ago. On January 20, there is going to be a great
celebration here in this Capitol marking the 50th anniversary of the
great inaugural speech, which many of us have been quoting since we
were children, of John F. Kennedy.
And we should be utilizing the model put forward by Ronald Reagan,
who on February 6 of next year will mark his 100th birthday. And that
economic model is one which says that making sure that we reduce
marginal tax rates will actually grow the economy and create an
increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.
So, Mr. Speaker, as we look at where we are today, you have
economists from even on the left who will say--even Keynesian
economists--that the notion in a down economy--and we all know we have
a 9\1/2\ percent unemployment rate and we heard the sad news about
housing sales that came out this morning--we all know that in a down
economy, even the Keynesian economists will say that increasing taxes
is a prescription for failure. It actually undermines the potential for
economic growth.
Now, we had quite a meeting in the Rules Committee last night, Mr.
Speaker, when we brought this measure up, and the distinguished ranking
member soon-to-be chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman
from Houston, Mr. Brady, referred to what was going on here as
political theater. I said that I believe that to be very generous. This
is sleight of hand, a political ploy. There are all kinds of
pejoratives that can be used to describe the process that we have here.
We have a closed rule, as my friend said, and I argued that I'm for
an open rule, which is what I'm often arguing for, and we hope to be
able to have that in the 112th Congress as often as possible, but I
argued for a modified closed rule, a modified closed rule for
consideration of this measure.
Now, what would that mean, Mr. Speaker? If we were to have a modified
closed rule, it would mean that we would simply allow this House to
have a vote, which is under the present structure before us going to be
denied, a vote that has been requested by 31 Democrats and all
Republicans. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we could, in fact, have a
strong bipartisan vote in this House to extend, to ensure that we don't
increase taxes on any Americans at this time. And this rule would allow
that.
I offered an amendment that would simply say, okay, let's just
provide the ranking member, Mr. Camp, of the Ways and Means Committee,
a chance to offer one substitute which would basically mean we are not
going to increase taxes on small businesses, and we are not going to
increase taxes on any Americans. I offered that amendment, and on a
party-line vote it was rejected.
It was fascinating, Mr. Speaker, to hear the chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee, my very good friend, Sandy Levin, say that making sure
we don't increase taxes on middle income Americans is something we can
all agree on. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, we can agree on that. But I think
it is very evident that this House could, with a majority vote, ensure
that we don't increase taxes on any Americans during these very
troubling, difficult economic times.
So I would argue that I think it's very important for us, as an
institution, to realize that it's really a joke that has been put
before us, tragically, during a time when the American people are
hurting. I have an unemployment rate in part of the area I'm privileged
to represent in Southern California, Mr. Speaker, that is in excess of
15 percent. We have a statewide unemployment rate in the largest State
of the Union, the largest, most important State of the Union, the State
of California, we have a 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate. People are
hurting. And so to do anything other than ensure that we don't increase
taxes on the people who are struggling to create jobs for our fellow
Americans is something that we have a responsibility to do.
So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
this rule and allow us to let the House work its will and have what I
am totally convinced would be a strong, strong vote in favor of
ensuring that we don't increase taxes on any Americans.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1050
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to one of my
colleagues, I want to answer a couple of things that my good colleague
from California mentioned. Soon his party will be in power, and I am
confident he will be the chair of the Rules Committee and the Rules
Committee will be very open perhaps at that time to have more open
rules and to change the process. So I look forward to, as a sophomore
Member, learning how a different process will be conducted by the other
side of the aisle.
I do want to remind him that during 12 years when his party was in
control, there was never a tax bill that came to the floor which
allowed for amendments. I don't know if that process will change in the
future. It certainly wasn't that way in the past.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlelady yield on that point?
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I will tell you about the 12 years we were in the
majority, we did often provide substitutes. So all we are asking for,
as I said, all I asked for on this measure is not an open rule, a
modified closed rule, which would have provided simply one bite at the
apple, one alternative, which is out of respect to the Democrats in
this House who would very much like to have a chance to vote to ensure
that we don't increase taxes on any American.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you for making that point. I think it is
slightly different from the other point of saying that tax bills never
were allowed to be amended in the last 12 years. But I look forward to
modified open rules or open rules or whatever process we will be
working with in the future. That isn't what we have before us today.
I do want to comment that while you were kind of referring to this as
political theater, I also recall that you asked for 3 hours of debate
on this; and if it is truly political theater, that would be tying up a
lot of the people's time to have us conduct this debate for 3 hours if,
in fact, you do not consider it serious debate. I mean, in my opinion,
you and I just have a strong disagreement. Our two parties and many of
our Members disagree on where the appropriate place to have tax cuts
is.
We are putting this bill on the floor today because we believe it is
important to extend tax cuts for the middle class, that that has the
greatest benefit to our economy. And as the OMB and other studies have
shown us, tax cuts for the wealthiest to the country just do not
stimulate the economy. The money does not go where we think it needs to
go to create more jobs, and it is not a good expenditure of $700
billion, which is what this will cost us over the next decade in a time
when we are clamoring to find ways to reduce the deficit.
So I find it unfathomable that there would be any objection to taking
a vote on what is clearly the most agreed upon part of our tax cuts
here and then allowing for other debate on the rest of the package. So
for me, this is a logical way to bring this to the floor. I am pleased
that we have this opportunity here.
I am a little frustrated every time I hear this tried to be portrayed
as the real argument is only about small businesses. You know, 2
percent of the small businesses in our country are the ones that will
be affected by this.
I disagree with your statement that Democrats love employees and
dislike employers. Many of us on this side of the aisle are employers.
I am an employer. I have a small business, and I actually feel pretty
good about myself.
Mr. DREIER. If the gentlelady will yield, I was simply quoting the
late Senator Paul Tsongas. It wasn't my quote. I was simply quoting
Senator Tsongas.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I do appreciate that, and I am glad to know
that dear Senator Tsongas' wife has corrected you on the appropriate
way to use that quote. But either way, it was something that you
brought to the floor to make the point that somehow you think this bill
is put forward so that Democrats can show their disapproval of
employers. And I can speak
[[Page H7862]]
personally that I work closely with employers in my district. I am an
employer and think there are employers who will benefit under this as
well. That is why I quoted, in my own remarks, Jim Wellehan who owns a
chain of shoe stores in our State who said: I am not in favor of a bill
that would give tax cuts to the wealthy because it doesn't do anything
to help my employees or my business. And that, in fact, is what he is
concerned about. You know, employers need customers, which are those
employees, and that is why we consider it so critical to make sure that
we do something to benefit those people who will be purchasing.
Just one other comment that I had in my notes here today from a small
business owner in Lincoln, Nebraska. People talk about the $250,000
without talking about that as net profit. Here is how he described it:
A lot of people don't understand how small business works. We reinvest
in our business. We try to minimize the amount of taxable income we
have. I went out and bought an $80,000 piece of equipment. I did it so
I could reduce my taxes. The only people I can think of who could
honestly call themselves small businesses that this would affect would
be stock brokers and lawyers.
That is what Rick Poore, owner of a Lincoln, Nebraska, clothing firm
who employs 30 people thinks about this.
Well, if in fact the 2 percent we are trying to help today are stock
brokers and lawyers, I don't think the American public is clamoring for
them to have another tax break, and I think people aren't explaining
and displaying an understanding of how business works. This is about
net profit for small businesses, which even reduces further the number
of businesses who will be affected by this.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).
Ms. HIRONO. I thank the gentlewoman from Maine for yielding me this
time.
I rise in strong support of the rule and the bill we are voting on
today, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act. This bill will help millions of
Americans who are trying to make ends meet by providing them with
sorely needed tax relief. The Middle Class Tax Relief Act permanently
extends the tax cuts for middle class taxpayers so that individuals who
make less than $200,000 a year, under $250,000 for joint filers, will
get the tax relief they need. This legislation would help about 323,000
lower-and middle-income families in my congressional district alone.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made it clear that
they won't vote for this bill because it doesn't meet their highest
priority--continuing the status quo of providing tax breaks for the
wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. On the one hand, they claim to be
concerned about reducing the $13.8 trillion national debt, opposing an
extension of unemployment benefits for the nearly 2 million Americans
who desperately need the assistance, including more than 4,000 in
Hawaii. Not only is this reprehensible, it is bad math. A recent Labor
Department report shows for every dollar spent on unemployment
insurance, $2 are reinvested into the economy.
On the other hand, continuing tax breaks for millionaires and
billionaires, the richest 2 percent of Americans, would add a whooping
$700 billion to our deficit over 10 years. These tax breaks would not
trickle-down to create more jobs or help our economic recovery. In
fact, they would add to our deficit. And, by the way, these richest
taxpayers will also get the benefit of this tax relief in this bill for
their first $200,000 of income. Why should this group of taxpayers then
get an additional benefit that 98 percent of Americans will not.
Mr. Speaker, this is about fairness. We need to fight for working
families and let the tax breaks for the wealthy expire so that they can
start to pay their fair share of taxes. Today's vote on this bill will
let the American people, the 98 percent who don't make $200,000 a year,
including 323,000 families in Hawaii, know who is on their side
fighting for them.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to both of my colleagues who are both good
friends of mine that as I listen to the arguments that have been put
forward, the standard old class warfare, us versus them, rich versus
poor, is an argument that has failed for years and years and years. I
think all we need to do is look at the November 2 election. There was a
rejection of this divisive tone which we regularly hear around here:
the haves and the have-nots.
The fact of the matter is any Member of this House who votes in favor
of the measure that is going to be before us is voting for a tax
increase. They are voting in favor of increasing taxes on American
investors and small businesses in this country. There is all kinds of
dispute about this: how many are small businesses, 2 percent. We have
evidence that it is substantially higher than that. But if there are
any small businesses that are out there trying to create jobs and this
policy of increasing taxes undermines them and inhibits their ability
to say to a person in this country who is seeking a job opportunity
that they can't have it because of this burden that is being inflicted,
this is clearly wrong.
Now, again, on the notion of this $700 billion, this $700 billion,
the cost, and we are exacerbating the deficit, that is preposterous. If
we can get people with a 9.4 percent unemployment rate, 9.6 percent, as
I said, in my State, 12.5 percent unemployment rate, if we can get
people from the unemployment rolls onto the working rolls, that in and
of itself is evidence that we will increase the flow of revenue to the
Federal treasury.
{time} 1100
Why? We'll diminish the cost of unemployment benefits, and we will
have people who are working as productive members of society who are
paying taxes. So this $700 billion figure is a ridiculous one.
Mr. Speaker, I will say again: Any Member of this House who votes in
favor of the measure that is before us is going to be voting to
increase taxes on working Americans, and it is just plain wrong.
Let me just close again by saying that, when I used the term
``political theater,'' I was quoting the very thoughtful ranking member
of the Trade Subcommittee of Ways and Means, Mr. Brady, who came before
us in the Rules Committee and said, This is political theater.
Why? There are reports today that the negotiators from the White
House and both Houses of Congress have come to an agreement that we are
going to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans for at
least 2 years. Those are the reports that we have that have come out.
So we are here on the House floor, denying this institution an
opportunity to vote on a proposal like that.
We in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, simply said, Gosh, since 31
Democrats have signed a letter saying they believe it would be a
mistake to increase taxes on any Americans, the House should have a
chance to vote on that.
I offered that proposal upstairs last night in the Rules Committee. A
party-line vote.
The Democrats said, Oh, no. We're not going to allow what would
clearly be a majority of this House, I believe, if we were to actually
have a vote, to work its will. We are going to resort to legerdemain
and not allow a motion to recommit.
This bill before us, Mr. Speaker, happens to be the airport and
airway bill. It's basically the FAA bill. They did that to deny even an
opportunity for a motion to recommit. Now, I know that's all inside
baseball stuff, but it's inside baseball stuff that led the American
people to cast the votes that they did on November 2, because it was a
year ago last June when this ``read the bill'' measure came forward,
when we had the 300-page amendment dropped in our laps at 3 o'clock in
the morning in the Rules Committee, and we didn't have a chance to read
it. So the American people started looking at what takes place in this
institution, and on November 2, they rejected it.
Well, with what we are doing here today, it is obviously an
indication that this majority that is now in charge is tone deaf. They
don't understand the message that the American people sent, because
they have spent time looking here at what is going on, and that is why
we have focused on increasing transparency, disclosure, and
accountability.
[[Page H7863]]
So, as they have done that, they've said, Don't do the kinds of
things that you are contemplating doing right now.
The bottom line is, by resorting to legerdemain, we are going to end
up increasing taxes on working Americans.
I say, in closing, Mr. Speaker, that any Member of this House who
votes in favor of this measure is voting to increase taxes on the men
and women in this country who are out there saving, investing, and
working to create jobs for our fellow Americans, and it is just plain
wrong. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no''
vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank the gentleman from California for his
remarks.
Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would just say again that I think we
have a difference of opinion on the semantics here.
You want to argue that, if we don't continue tax cuts/tax breaks for
the wealthiest people in this country that we are increasing taxes. I
would say it is time we let those tax breaks end, those tax breaks that
went on for too long and that did nothing, in my opinion, to stimulate
the economy.
I also just want to add my own comment.
You know, there is a lot of interpretation about November 2. The
voters cast their votes. Things changed dramatically. Many of us who
have been in politics over time know that sometimes you're in the
majority, sometimes you're in the minority; sometimes your ideas come
out on top, and sometimes they don't.
But I have to say personally, in interpreting my own district, voters
heard me say every day that I pledge to continue the tax breaks for the
middle class but that I will not vote to extend them for the wealthiest
in this country. I debated my opponent, and it was written about in the
newspaper. There were endless interviews when I made it very clear as
to what my point of view was and why I thought it was important. I come
from a State where small business rules, where I am a small business
owner, and where I said to people, You know, this isn't a small
business issue; this is about helping the wealthiest people in this
country.
I just have to say, when I go back and look at the November 2
election, oddly enough, I'm still here, and I intend to be here on
January 5 and to be sworn in again. Somehow, the voters in my district
said, Go for it. We don't want to see any more tax breaks for the
wealthy. We, in fact, only want to see tax cuts for the middle class.
So I am interpreting November 2 to mean we are doing the right thing
on the floor today. We are putting forward the one measure that allows
us to make sure we can separate the tax cuts for the wealthiest from
the tax cuts for the middle class. That is what we are doing here
today.
Let me just close, Mr. Speaker.
Ten years ago, Congress passed a package of tax cuts with the lion's
share of the benefits going to the wealthiest of the wealthy. The
stated intent was to grow and secure our economy. Today, millions of
families across this country are struggling. They are worried about
finding work. They are barely covering their monthly expenses.
I have to ask my colleagues: Do your constituents feel more
economically secure than they did 10 years ago?
Since these cuts took place, we have gone from a balanced Federal
budget to troubling deficits. We have seen the middle class weaken, and
we have experienced the worst economic downturn since the Great
Depression. The billions we have given in handouts to the super rich
have been major contributors to all of those realities.
Today, we have a historic opportunity to support the middle class, to
show real Americans that we as Members of Congress are hearing their
frustrations and their anger. We can stand up today and say that we are
going to help the vast majority of Americans, that we care deeply about
the economic security of the middle class and that, for once, Congress
is going to act in the best interest of the middle class.
I strongly stand behind H.R. 4853, extending the tax cuts for middle
class families and businesses who make up to $250,000. They need a
break, and we should be doing even more for them. It is simply
outrageous to suggest that we should hold these tax cuts hostage in
order to continue a failed policy that has weakened our economy, has
placed a bigger burden on working families and has only been effective
in making the rich richer. I urge all of my colleagues to support
middle class Americans and to vote for the underlying bill.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. 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 will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 1745, if
ordered, and suspending the rules with regard to House Resolution 1638,
House Resolution 1598, and House Resolution 1576, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 186, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 596]
YEAS--224
Ackerman
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
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)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
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
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--186
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Altmire
Austria
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
[[Page H7864]]
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Alexander
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Berman
Boucher
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buyer
Cardoza
DeFazio
Delahunt
Fallin
Grayson
Hastings (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Marchant
McMorris Rodgers
Meek (FL)
Oberstar
Putnam
Schrader
Shadegg
Taylor
Waxman
{time} 1144
Messrs. TERRY, GRAVES of Missouri, SCALISE and GOODLATTE changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 596 on Motion on
Ordering the Previous Question--H.R. 1745, I was unavoidably detained
because of a transportation delay. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor of Arizona). The question is on
the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. 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 213,
nays 203, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 597]
YEAS--213
Ackerman
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
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)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
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--203
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachus
Baird
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crenshaw
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Himes
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Space
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Boucher
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buyer
Cardoza
DeFazio
Delahunt
Fallin
Hastings (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Marchant
McMorris Rodgers
Owens
Putnam
Schrader
Shadegg
Taylor
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1155
Messrs. BOYD, POSEY, and COSTELLO changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
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.
____________________