[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 156 (Thursday, December 2, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H7874-H7887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1310
                  MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2010

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1745, I call up 
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 a Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the 
desk.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate 
amendment.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause, and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Airport and Airway Extension 
     Act of 2010, Part III''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TAXES FUNDING AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST 
                   FUND.

       (a) Fuel Taxes.--Subparagraph (B) of section 4081(d)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 2010'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
       (b) Ticket Taxes.--
       (1) Persons.--Clause (ii) of section 4261(j)(1)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 2010'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
       (2) Property.--Clause (ii) of section 4271(d)(1)(A) of such 
     Code is amended by striking ``September 30, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2010.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND 
                   EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``October 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 
     1, 2011''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or the Airport and Airway Extension Act 
     of 2010, Part III'' before the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (A).
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 9502(e) 
     of such Code is amended by striking ``October 1, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2010.

     SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 48103 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) $925,000,000 for the 3-month period beginning on 
     October 1, 2010.''.
       (2) Obligation of amounts.--Subject to limitations 
     specified in advance in appropriation Acts, sums made 
     available pursuant to the amendment made by paragraph (1) may 
     be obligated at any time through September 30, 2011, and 
     shall remain available until expended.
       (b) Project Grant Authority.--Section 47104(c) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``September 30, 
     2010,'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010,''.
       (c) Apportionment Amounts.--The Secretary shall apportion 
     in fiscal year 2011 to the sponsor of an airport that 
     received scheduled or unscheduled air service from a large 
     certified air carrier (as defined in part 241 of title 14 
     Code of Federal Regulations, or such other regulations as may 
     be issued by the Secretary under the authority of section 
     41709) an amount equal to the minimum apportionment specified 
     in 49 U.S.C. 47114(c), if the Secretary determines that 
     airport had more than 10,000 passenger boardings in the 
     preceding calendar year, based on data submitted to the 
     Secretary under part 241 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.

     SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF EXPIRING AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Section 40117(l)(7) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``October 1, 2010.'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2011.''.
       (b) Section 41743(e)(2) of such title is amended by 
     striking ``2010'' and inserting ``2011''.
       (c) Section 44302(f)(1) of such title is amended--
       (1) by striking ``September 30, 2010,'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2010,''; and
       (2) by striking ``December 31, 2010,'' and inserting 
     ``March 31, 2011,''.
       (d) Section 44303(b) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 2010,'' and inserting ``March 31, 2011,''.
       (e) Section 47107(s)(3) of such title is amended by 
     striking ``October 1, 2010.'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2011.''.
       (f) Section 47115(j) of such title is amended by inserting 
     ``and for the portion of fiscal year 2011 ending before 
     January 1, 2011,'' after ``2010,''.
       (g) Section 47141(f) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 2010.'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010.''.
       (h) Section 49108 of such title is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 2010'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010,''.
       (i) Section 161 of the Vision 100--Century of Aviation 
     Reauthorization Act (49 U.S.C. 47109 note) is amended by 
     inserting ``, or in the portion of fiscal year 2011 ending 
     before January 1, 2011,'' after ``fiscal year 2009 or 2010''.
       (j) Section 186(d) of such Act (117 Stat. 2518) is amended 
     by inserting ``and for the portion of fiscal year 2011 ending 
     before January 1, 2011,'' after ``October 1, 2010,''.
       (k) Section 409(d) of such Act (49 U.S.C. 41731 note) is 
     amended by striking ``September 30, 2010.'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2011.''.
       (l) The amendments made by this section shall take effect 
     on October 1, 2010.

     SEC. 6. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS.

       Section 106(k)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
       ``(G) $2,451,375,000 for the 3-month period beginning on 
     October 1, 2010.''.

     SEC. 7. AIR NAVIGATION FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT.

       Section 48101(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) $746,250,000 for the 3-month period beginning on 
     October 1, 2010.''.

     SEC. 8. RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 48102(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (13);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (14) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) $49,593,750 for the 3-month period beginning on 
     October 1, 2010.''.

     SEC. 9. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

        Effective as of August 1, 2010, and as if included therein 
     as enacted, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation 
     Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-216) is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) In section 202(a) (124 Stat. 2351) by inserting ``of 
     title 49, United States Code,'' before ``is amended''.
       (2) In section 202(b) (124 Stat. 2351) by inserting ``of 
     such title'' before ``is amended''.
       (3) In section 203(c)(1) (124 Stat. 2356) by inserting ``of 
     such title'' before ``(as redesignated''.
       (4) In section 203(c)(2) (124 Stat. 2357) by inserting ``of 
     such title'' before ``(as redesignated''.


                            Motion to Concur

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

       Mr. Levin moves that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment to H.R. 4853 with an amendment.

  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
     amendment to the text of the bill, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Middle 
     Class Tax Relief Act of 2010''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:


[[Page H7875]]


       Sec. 1. Short title; etc.

            TITLE I--MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF MADE PERMANENT

       Sec. 101. Middle class tax relief made permanent.
       Sec. 102. Certain provisions not applicable to high income 
           individuals.
       Sec. 103. Related amendments.

 TITLE II--EXPENSING BY SMALL BUSINESSES OF CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE ASSETS

       Sec. 201. Increased limitations on expensing by small 
           businesses of certain depreciable assets.

         TITLE III--EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF

       Sec. 301. Extension of alternative minimum tax relief for 
           nonrefundable personal credits.
       Sec. 302. Extension of increased alternative minimum tax 
           exemption amount.

                     TITLE IV--BUDGETARY PROVISION

       Sec. 401. Paygo compliance.

            TITLE I--MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF MADE PERMANENT

     SEC. 101. MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF MADE PERMANENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to the 
     following provisions of such Act (and to the amendments made 
     by such provisions):
       (1) Title I (relating to individual income tax rate 
     reductions).
       (2) Title II (relating to tax benefits related to 
     children).
       (3) Title III (relating to marriage penalty relief).
       (4) Title IV (relating to affordable education provisions).
       (b) Reduced Rates on Capital Gains and Dividends.--The Jobs 
     and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 is amended 
     by striking section 303.

     SEC. 102. CERTAIN PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO HIGH INCOME 
                   INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Individual Income Tax Rates.--Subsection (i) of section 
     1 is amended by striking paragraph (2), by redesignating 
     paragraph (3) as paragraph (4), and by inserting after 
     paragraph (1) the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) 25- and 28-percent rate brackets.--The tables under 
     subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) shall be applied--
       ``(A) by substituting `25%' for `28%' each place it appears 
     (before the application of subparagraph (B)), and
       ``(B) by substituting `28%' for `31%' each place it 
     appears.
       ``(3) 33-percent rate bracket.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2010--
       ``(i) the rate of tax under subsections (a), (b), (c), and 
     (d) on a taxpayer's taxable income in the fourth rate bracket 
     shall be 33 percent to the extent such income does not exceed 
     an amount equal to the excess of--

       ``(I) the applicable amount, over
       ``(II) the dollar amount at which such bracket begins, and

       ``(ii) the 36 percent rate of tax under such subsections 
     shall apply only to the taxpayer's taxable income in such 
     bracket in excess of the amount to which clause (i) applies.
       ``(B) Applicable amount.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `applicable amount' means the excess of--
       ``(i) the applicable threshold, over
       ``(ii) the sum of the following amounts in effect for the 
     taxable year:

       ``(I) the basic standard deduction (within the meaning of 
     section 63(c)(2)), and
       ``(II) the exemption amount (within the meaning of section 
     151(d)(1)) (or, in the case of subsection (a), 2 such 
     exemption amounts).

       ``(C) Applicable threshold.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `applicable threshold' means--
       ``(i) $250,000 in the case of subsection (a),
       ``(ii) $200,000 in the case of subsections (b) and (c), and
       ``(iii) \1/2\ the amount applicable under clause (i) (after 
     adjustment, if any, under subparagraph (E)) in the case of 
     subsection (d).
       ``(D) Fourth rate bracket.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `fourth rate bracket' means the bracket which would 
     (determined without regard to this paragraph) be the 36-
     percent rate bracket.
       ``(E) Inflation adjustment.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, a rule similar to the rule of paragraph (1)(C) 
     shall apply with respect to taxable years beginning in 
     calendar years after 2010, applied by substituting `2008' for 
     `1992' in subsection (f)(3)(B).''.
       (b) Phaseout of Personal Exemptions and Itemized 
     Deductions.--
       (1) Overall limitation on itemized deductions.--Section 68 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the applicable amount'' the first place 
     it appears in subsection (a) and inserting ``the applicable 
     threshold in effect under section 1(i)(3)'',
       (B) by striking ``the applicable amount'' in subsection 
     (a)(1) and inserting ``such applicable threshold'',
       (C) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (b), (c), and 
     (d), respectively, and
       (D) by striking subsections (f) and (g).
       (2) Phaseout of deductions for personal exemptions.--
       (A) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 151(d) is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``the threshold amount'' in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B) and inserting ``the applicable threshold in 
     effect under section 1(i)(3)'',
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating 
     subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C), and
       (iii) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F).
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (4) of section 151(d) 
     is amended--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (B),
       (ii) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph 
     (A) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and by 
     indenting such subparagraphs (as so redesignated) 
     accordingly, and
       (iii) by striking all that precedes ``in a calendar year 
     after 1989,'' and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning''.
       (c) Reduced Rate on Capital Gains and Dividends.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section (1)(h) is amended 
     by striking subparagraph (C), by redesignating subparagraphs 
     (D) and (E) as subparagraphs (E) and (F) and by inserting 
     after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(C) 15 percent of the lesser of--
       ``(i) so much of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if 
     less, taxable income) as exceeds the amount on which a tax is 
     determined under subparagraph (B), or
       ``(ii) the excess (if any) of--

       ``(I) the amount of taxable income which would (without 
     regard to this subsection) be taxed at a rate below 36 
     percent, over
       ``(II) the sum of the amounts on which tax is determined 
     under subparagraphs (A) and (B),

       ``(D) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if 
     less, taxable income) in excess of the sum of the amounts on 
     which tax is determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C),''.
       (2) Dividends.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1(h)(11) is 
     amended by striking ``qualified dividend income'' and 
     inserting ``so much of the qualified dividend income as does 
     not exceed the excess (if any) of--
       ``(i) the amount of taxable income which would (without 
     regard to this subsection) be taxed at a rate below 36 
     percent, over
       ``(ii) taxable income reduced by qualified dividend 
     income.''.
       (3) Minimum tax.--Section 55 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Application of Maximum Rate of Tax on Net Capital 
     Gain of Noncorporate Taxpayers.--In the case of taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2010, the amount determined 
     under subparagraph (C) of subsection (b)(3) shall be the sum 
     of--
       ``(1) 15 percent of the lesser of--
       ``(A) so much of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if 
     less, taxable excess) as exceeds the amount on which tax is 
     determined under subparagraph (B) of subsection (b)(3), or
       ``(B) the excess described in section 1(h)(1)(C)(ii), plus
       ``(2) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if 
     less, taxable excess) in excess of the sum of the amounts on 
     which tax is determined under subsection (b)(3)(B) and 
     paragraph (1).''.
       (4) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The following provisions are amended by striking ``15 
     percent'' and inserting ``20 percent'':
       (i) Section 1445(e)(1).
       (ii) The second sentence of section 7518(g)(6)(A).
       (iii) Section 53511(f)(2) of title 46, United States Code.
       (B) Sections 531 and 541 are each amended by striking ``15 
     percent of'' and inserting ``the product of the highest rate 
     of tax under section 1(c) and''.
       (C) Section 1445(e)(6) is amended by striking ``15 percent 
     (20 percent in the case of taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2010)'' and inserting ``20 percent''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2010.
       (2) Withholding.--The amendments made by subparagraphs 
     (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(4) shall apply to amounts 
     paid on or after January 1, 2011.

     SEC. 103. RELATED AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Application of Increase in Refundable Portion of Child 
     Tax Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (d) of section 24 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``$10,000'' in paragraph (1)(B)(i) and 
     inserting ``$3,000'', and
       (B) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2010.
       (b) Application of Increase in Earned Income Tax Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 32(b)(2) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Joint returns.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a joint return filed by 
     an eligible individual and such individual's spouse, the 
     phaseout amount determined under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     increased by $5,000.
       ``(ii) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning after 2010, the $5,000 amount in clause (i) 
     shall be increased by an amount equal to--

       ``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(II) the cost of living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins determined by substituting `calendar year 2008' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

     Subparagraph (A) of subsection (j)(2) shall apply after 
     taking into account any increase under the preceding 
     sentence.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (b) of section 32 is 
     amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2010.

[[Page H7876]]

       (c) Application to Adoption Credit and Adoption Assistance 
     Programs.--Subsection (c) of section 10909 of the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) The amendments made by this section shall not apply 
     to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011.''.

 TITLE II--EXPENSING BY SMALL BUSINESSES OF CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE ASSETS

     SEC. 201. INCREASED LIMITATIONS ON EXPENSING BY SMALL 
                   BUSINESSES OF CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE ASSETS.

       (a) Dollar Limitation.--Subparagraph (C) of section 
     179(b)(1) is amended by striking ``$25,000'' and inserting 
     ``$125,000''.
       (b) Threshold at Which Phaseout Begins.--Subparagraph (C) 
     of section 179(b)(2) is amended by striking ``$200,000'' and 
     inserting ``$500,000''.
       (c) Inflation Adjustment.--Subsection (b) of section 179 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Inflation adjustments.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable beginning in 
     a calendar year after 2011, the $125,000 and $500,000 amounts 
     in paragraphs (1)(C) and (2)(C) shall each be increased by an 
     amount equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins determined by substituting `calendar year 2006' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(B) Rounding.--
       ``(i) Dollar limitation.--If the amount in paragraph (1) as 
     increased under subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $1,000, 
     such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of 
     $1,000.
       ``(ii) Phaseout amount.--If the amount in paragraph (2) as 
     increased under subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of 
     $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple 
     of $10,000.''.
       (d) Authority to Revoke Election Made Permanent.--Paragraph 
     (2) of section 179(c) is amended by striking ``and before 
     2012''.
       (e) Treatment of Certain Computer Software as Section 179 
     Property Made Permanent.--Clause (ii) of section 179(d)(1)(A) 
     is amended by striking ``and before 2012''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2011.

         TITLE III--EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF

     SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR 
                   NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 
     2007, 2008, or 2009'' and inserting ``the period beginning 
     with calendar year 2000 and ending with calendar year 2011'', 
     and
       (2) by striking ``2009'' in the heading thereof and 
     inserting ``2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 302. EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX 
                   EXEMPTION AMOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``($70,950 in the case of taxable years 
     beginning in 2009)'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
     ``($72,450 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2010 or 
     2011)'', and
       (2) by striking ``($46,700 in the case of taxable years 
     beginning in 2009)'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
     ``($47,450 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2010 or 
     2011)''.
       (b) Nonapplication of EGTRRA Sunset.--Section 901 of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 
     shall not apply to the amendments made by section 701 of such 
     Act.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

                     TITLE IV--BUDGETARY PROVISION

     SEC. 401. PAYGO COMPLIANCE.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1745, the 
motion shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.
  Colleagues, the time has come. This is the moment to stand up and be 
counted on middle-income tax cuts. The Republicans want to continue to 
keep middle-income tax cuts hostage, hostage until it's combined with 
upper-income tax cuts. It's, in part, because they don't want to have 
to vote separately on tax cuts for the very wealthy.
  But, as I have said, the time has come. We must not let middle-income 
taxpayers remain hostage to a partisan agenda. Indeed, I was going back 
over comments that have been made these last months, and I refer to one 
from my colleague from Michigan, the ranking member. He is here.
  He said, just a few months ago, in talking to AP, that it would be 
difficult to block extension of middle-income tax cuts, even if it 
doesn't stop tax rates from increasing for high earners saying, ``I 
will probably vote for it myself.''
  Today is the test whether the hostage-taking ends. Every single 
provision here, every single one, is about tax cuts, tax cuts that are 
so important for this country.
  And let me, if I might, refer to some of them. For families making 
less than $250,000 a year, this bill permanently extends the following, 
the 2001-2003 tax cuts, including the current income tax rates. That 
means a lot for middle-income families throughout this country, the 
marriage penalty relief that means so much for tens of thousands, for 
millions of families, lower rates on capital gains and dividends and 
the $1,000 child tax credit.
  For 2 years, very importantly, this bill will protect more than 25 
million taxpayers from the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, by 
extending it, as I said, for 2 years through 2011. And, importantly, it 
permanently extends the small business expensing. So added all up, 
these tax cuts, we are talking tax cuts for middle-American families 
and small businesses of tax cuts over 10 years of $1.5 trillion.
  And I want say something and be very clear because often it's raised 
about small businesses, America's small businesses receive a tax cut 
under this bill. It's only 3 percent of the very wealthy which will not 
receive a larger tax cut.
  So, in a word, the time has come. The smoke screen is now being 
lifted by this bill. You have a chance to stand up or back down on tax 
cuts for the middle-income families of our country.
  I hope that we can rise above partisan politics. I hope that we can 
keep in mind the millions of families who are counting on action by us 
and no longer holding them hostage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The unemployment rate in October, the latest data available, was 9.6 
percent. That marked 15 consecutive months we are at or above 9.5 
percent unemployment in this country, the longest period since the 
Great Depression. All told, 48 out of 50 States have lost jobs since 
the so-called $1 trillion stimulus bill and nearly 15 million Americans 
remain unemployed.
  What's a Democrat's answer to the Great Recession? Increased taxes, 
but not just any taxes. Democrats in the bill before us today are 
targeting half of all small business income in the country. Democrats 
are targeting the very employers we need, hiring more workers, and 
buying more equipment, not paying more taxes.
  Let's face it, this bill is as misguided as it is futile. This is the 
wrong policy at the wrong time and the majority is wrong to bring it to 
the floor today.
  In fact, many of their own Members agree with me. I have here in my 
hand a letter signed by over 30 Democrat Members of the House and let 
me read what they wrote:
  ``In recent weeks we have heard from a diverse spectrum of 
economists, small business owners and families who have voiced their 
concerns that raising any taxes right now could negatively impact 
economic growth. Given the continued fragility of our economy and slow 
pace of our recovery, we share their concerns.''
  I want to repeat that: raising any taxes right now could negatively 
impact economic growth.
  Set aside for a minute the economists and the political rhetoric, and 
let's look at what small businesses say the impact of this tax-hiking 
legislation will be.
  According to the National Federation of Independent Small Businesses, 
the businesses most likely to face a tax increase by raising the top 
two rates are businesses employing between 20 and 250 employees.

                              {time}  1320

  According to the U.S. Census data, businesses with between 20 and 299

[[Page H7877]]

workers employ more than 25 percent of the total workforce. Those who 
are most likely to be hit by these tax increases employ one out of 
every four workers in this Nation. This Democrat tax hike is putting a 
target on the back of every worker in every small business in America.
  As for the futility of this exercise, it would be comical if it 
weren't so irresponsible. Democrats can barely muster the votes for 
this bill in the House. I'm told they had to whip the bill and hold a 
special caucus this morning just to move forward. Their position is so 
precarious, they won't even allow Republicans to offer amendments or 
any alternative. Why? Because Democrats know the Republican bill to 
extend the current rates for all taxpayers would pass with broad 
bipartisan support.
  So, once again, House Democrats have closed down the amendment 
process in order to pass a bill that will never see the light of day in 
the Senate. Just yesterday, 42 Senators sent a letter to Majority 
Leader Reid and stated in no uncertain terms that they ``will not agree 
to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item 
until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented 
the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers.''
  Clearly, this bill is going nowhere. Democrats are wasting time while 
Americans are looking for work. Democrats are playing games while 
Americans struggle to make ends meet. The American people did not send 
us here to posture. They sent us here to provide solutions. I had hoped 
that after the election, we would get down to working together to solve 
the serious problems Americans are facing. That's why I was encouraged 
the President agreed to have Republicans and Democrats, House and 
Senate Members, sit down with his administration to hammer out a deal 
on these expiring tax rates. I thought maybe we had turned a corner.
  Instead of letting that process work itself out, instead of working 
with Republicans to prevent job-killing tax increases, House Democrats 
are back at it again, putting politics ahead of everything else. This 
is a time for serious negotiations and solutions, not political stunts. 
Far too much is at stake. Far too many families are out of work, and 
far too many families will soon see real and sizeable amounts of money 
taken out of their paychecks if the Democrats continue with these 
games.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this Democratic tax hike, this job-
killing tax hike.


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, November 29, 2010.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader Reid: The Nation's unemployment level, stuck 
     near 10 percent, is unacceptable to Americans. Senate 
     Republicans have been urging Congress to make private-sector 
     job creation a priority all year. President Obama in his 
     first speech after the November election said ``we owe'' it 
     to the American people to ``focus on those issues that affect 
     their jobs.'' He went on to say that Americans ``want jobs to 
     come back faster.'' Our constituents have repeatedly asked us 
     to focus on creating an environment for private-sector job 
     growth; it is time that our constituents' priorities become 
     the Senate's priorities.
       For that reason, we write to inform you that we will not 
     agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any 
     legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the 
     government and we have prevented the tax increase that is 
     currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time 
     left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling 
     should be focused on these critical priorities. While there 
     are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the 
     Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters 
     above the critical issues of funding the government and 
     preventing a job-killing tax hike.
       Given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase 
     and providing economic certainty should be our top priority. 
     Without Congressional action by December 31, all American 
     taxpayers will be hit by an increase in their individual 
     income tax rates and investment income through the capital 
     gains and dividend rates. If Congress were to adopt the 
     President's tax proposal to prevent the tax increase for only 
     some Americans, small businesses would be targeted with a 
     job-killing tax increase at the worst possible time. 
     Specifically, more than 750,000 small businesses will see a 
     tax increase, which will affect 50 percent of small business 
     income and nearly 25 percent of the entire workforce. The 
     death tax rate will also climb from zero percent to 55 
     percent, which makes it the top concern for America's small 
     businesses. Republicans and Democrats agree that small 
     businesses create most new jobs, so we ought to be able to 
     agree that raising taxes on small businesses is the wrong 
     remedy in this economy. Finally, Congress still needs to act 
     on the ``tax extenders'' and the alternative minimum tax 
     ``patch,'' all of which expired on December 31, 2009.
       We look forward to continuing to work with you in a 
     constructive manner to keep the government operating and 
     provide the nation's small businesses with economic certainty 
     that the job-killing tax hike will be prevented.
           Sincerely,
     Mitch McConnell,
Mitch McConnell,

       Republican Leader.
     Jon Kyl,
       Republican Whip.
       [40 additional signatures omitted]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 15 seconds to myself.
  This is the fact from the Tax Policy Center: Only 3 percent of small 
businesses would be affected, and of that, only a small amount get most 
of their income from small businesses. This isn't about politics, Mr. 
Camp; this is about people.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation as the best way to move 
our economy forward. The Middle Class Tax Relief Act extends 
significant tax relief to every American. Let me say that again: Every 
American. Under this legislation, no matter how much you make, the 
first $250,000 will continue to benefit from today's lower rates. And 
given the softness in our economy and the number of households that are 
still struggling, that's the right thing to do.
  But what this legislation does not do is put an additional $700 
billion on our national credit card, as our Republican colleagues would 
like to do, by extending an extra bonus tax cut to the folks at the 
very, very top. Instead, for the top 2 percent, those reporting income 
over $250,000, we have the Clinton-era tax rates on just that 
additional portion of that income.
  And with our annual deficits now topping $1 trillion, and our 
national debt approaching $13 trillion, it's the right thing to do to 
make sure our economy is on a sustainable footing for the future. We 
have the bipartisan commission debating that question right now, and 
yet our colleagues want to put $700 billion on our credit card.
  Now our colleagues that we've just heard have said this is necessary 
to create jobs. Really? These are the tax rates that are in effect 
today, and during the Bush years and during the 8 years of the Bush 
administration, 600,000 private-sector workers lost their jobs with 
these rates compared to the Clinton administration, with 23 million 
jobs created in the Clinton administration with the old rates at that 
particular time. Moreover, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
recently looked at 11 different options for strengthening the economy. 
This one came in dead last.
  Now we also heard from our colleagues that they tried to use small 
businesses as a smokescreen for their plan to protect this bonus break 
for the folks at the top. First of all, as my colleague said, only 3 
percent of small businesses are affected, 3 percent, 97 percent, not. 
But what's interesting is when you look at those 3 percent, what you 
find out is in the definition of the tax code, one that apparently has 
been used by our colleagues, people will be surprised to find a lot of 
mom and pop operations like PricewaterhouseCoopers, asset manager 
Fidelity Investments and the private equity firm KKR fall under the 
pass-through income definition. I don't know if people realized it, 
just the other day KKR, that small business, purchased Del Monte Foods 
for $4 billion. Now those are all good businesses. But they're not 
small businesses, and they would benefit from the proposal that we and 
the President have made to provide 100 percent depreciation for their 
investments this year. That will help jobs and the economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, why are we playing these political 
games? We have 15 million people out of work, we have families, small 
businesses, seniors and job creators facing

[[Page H7878]]

a nearly $4 trillion tax bomb that will go off on January 1, and here 
we are playing political games.
  This bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. Everyone knows it. We are 
wasting time today. And worse than that, it undercuts the President's 
own sincere efforts to work with Dave Camp, the ranking member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, Senate Republicans and Senate and House 
Democrats to actually come up with a real solution to solve this 
problem. Instead, this body is rushing forward with more political 
theater. And my question is, wasn't September the time to play 
political games? Right now with the clock ticking, shouldn't we be all 
about solutions?
  Let's talk about two myths. Democrats say, let's pass this, it will 
help jump-start the economy. It will do just the opposite. One, the 
people they hit, these consumers, hold one of every $3 in consumption 
today. So Democrats say, instead of going into that Main Street shop 
this Christmas season spending money, send your dollars to Washington, 
that will help the economy.
  Secondly, it damages the small businesses that are the backbone of 
job creation. You will hear this claim that it only hits 3 percent of 
small businesses. You know how they figured that? They counted the tax 
ID numbers so people who have small businesses that have been vacant 
for years are still counted. But if you count the actual income from 
small businesses, that's what gets taxed, half of all small business 
income, half of all the income that creates jobs in America will be 
hammered by the Democrats' tax bill.
  And don't take my word for it. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the 
Congressional Budget Office, and the President's own head of the 
Council of Economic Advisers say passing all tax relief for all people 
in America will boost the U.S. economy more than this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Final point: These dollars won't be used for 
deficit reduction. Democrats and the President have signed seven bills, 
$625 billion of tax increases, in the last 2 years. Guess how much went 
to deficit reduction? Not a dime. It all went to expand the government 
and double that to a bigger government.
  Let's stop playing games. Let's get real solutions. Let's have an up-
or-down vote that extends tax relief for all Americans, that helps move 
us into the next 2 years, and let's stop that ticking tax bomb.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of our committee.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to disagree sharply with the point that 
our colleague, Mr. Brady, just made; America needs to have this 
conversation. We need to have a conversation as to how we got ourselves 
into the mess that we find ourselves in today, and part of that 
conversation is the discussion and debate over whether to extend tax 
cuts for the wealthiest among us. That is the difference of opinion 
that we are debating right now.
  Now, our friends on the other side are going to tell us that this has 
a big impact on small business, despite what the IRS says. And I have 
even offered a proposal that would address the 3 percent issue, moving 
down the road. But let's listen to one small business owner, Beri Fox, 
the president of Marble King, the last remaining American manufacturer 
of marbles. She thinks we have lost our marbles. When asked whether the 
way to economic recovery was tax cuts for the wealthy, Ms. Fox simply 
replied, ``Absolutely not.''
  America has paid the price for theology, the theology that tax cuts 
pay for themselves. They inherited a near perfect economy 10 years ago: 
record job growth; deficits eliminated; the debt being paid down, and 
Alan Greenspan warned us we were paying down the debt too quickly. This 
argument today is about fairness--fairness and what type of tax system 
we want to create.
  The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center analyzed the Bush proposal at 
different income levels. They found that next year, for someone earning 
more than $1 million, he or she can look forward to an average tax cut 
of $128,832 if we extend these tax cuts for the wealthy. They found 
next year someone making $7 million can look forward to a $400,000 tax 
cut if we leave the Bush proposals in place.
  This is a question of how we treat the working families of America. 
This is a question of not cementing into law a tax system with skewed 
benefits. I urge support for this middle class tax cut.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas 
will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, what would the job creators do? 
During this time of great economic uncertainty, this is the number one 
question that we must ask ourselves when bills are brought to the House 
floor. There is always lots of talk about fairness. Well, their idea of 
fairness towards job creators means a lot of people will not have jobs.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that under the current tax 
policy, before the subprime mortgage meltdown that resulted largely 
with not dealing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we had 54 months of 
consecutive economic growth. What would the job creators do if this 
were enacted? I wonder if perhaps my colleagues shouldn't get a 
bracelet with the initials WWJCD, ``What would the job creators do?'' 
before plunging off the cliff with some of these policies.
  It is not a question that we have to ponder about for long. The 
answer is simple for anyone who has owned a business and is faced with 
increasing costs imposed upon them by an intrusive Federal Government.
  As a former small business owner, let me walk you through the tough 
decisions this bill would force on millions of job creators with 
ObamaCare and all of the other burdens on top of this current tax 
increase. They would have to cut back or eliminate on benefits. They 
would be switching employees to part-time; at the end of the year, 
raises and bonuses would be replaced, in all likelihood, by pay cuts; 
layoffs or moving more companies to places that have friendlier tax and 
regulatory burdens.
  These are serious and real decisions that will face our job creators 
on January 1 as a direct result of this bill raising taxes on millions 
of job creators. If there was one resounding message in the election, 
it was that the American people were putting a restraining order on the 
increasing burdens this Congress and this administration have placed on 
the American people. At a time when our economy is trying to recover, 
why would we raise taxes on anyone? Why would even partially want to 
impede our Nation's path to economic recovery?
  Under the current tax policy, we had growth. If we move into this 
direction, we will see a repeat of the failures of the Roosevelt 
administration in 1937 causing a gross double-dip in our economy, and 
it will hurt every American.
  This past Tuesday, President Obama hosted a summit at the White House 
where appointed Members of Congress were asked to work in a bipartisan 
fashion to devise a solution to the pending tax hikes. And what does 
the majority do here? Simply try to once again force something down our 
throats without real discourse. House Democrats chose to ignore the 
call for bipartisanship, just as they have ignored the will of the 
American people on issue after issue after issue and are forcing a vote 
that will produce significant job-killing results for small business 
owners faced with the uncertainty over looming tax hikes.
  Uncertainty over an ominous $3.8 trillion tax increase is one of the 
most severe plagues we could put on economic recovery. As a result, 
private sector money that would be invested will continue to sit on the 
sidelines.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Kentucky.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, small businesses are playing 
defense against an overreaching Federal Government. It is impeding the 
economic recovery and not fostering the predictability needed to create 
jobs. This vote

[[Page H7879]]

today comes down to job creation versus worsening our troubles. Before 
you cast your vote today on H.R. 4853, ask yourself, all of my 
colleagues, WWJCD: What would the job creators do?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of our committee.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, working Americans believe that the Tax Code 
favors the rich and the influential. And guess what? They're right. 
Last year, the average millionaire in America got about $100,000 back 
from the Bush tax cuts, while the average middle class family in this 
country received one-half of 1 percent of that. Not half of that, one-
half of 1 percent of that. It is time that this country began to tax 
fairly and invest wisely.
  Republicans are holding these tax cuts for the middle class hostage, 
demanding an extra tax cut of $700 billion worth of bailout for 
millionaires and billionaires, all of which Republicans would not pay 
for, which means that once again we would have to go to China and a lot 
of other countries to borrow since right now the country is running a 
deficit. These are the same tax cuts that my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle say will create jobs, and we need to rev up the 
economy for that reason and keep these wealthy tax cuts.
  Well, guess what? These are the same tax cuts we have had in place 
for the last 10 years. And what have these tax cuts of $100,000 a year 
given to wealthy folks? What have they given us? Fifteen million 
Americans are unemployed. The worst recession--it's not a depression--
that we have faced since the 1930s.
  So we have seen what the results are of these tax cuts for the 
wealthy for the last 10 years, and now they say we need to do it again 
to improve the economy.
  It is time that this country acted sanely. It is time we focused our 
attention on the middle class. Give folks who have worked very hard, 
those who every week, every month come home with a paycheck. They see 
the FICA deduction. They know they have paid some taxes. We need to 
make sure we are telling them we are doing everything to invest in them 
so that, guess what, maybe one of these days when we turn over that 
product we buy at the store and look at where it was made, it will once 
again say ``Made in America'' because an American got a job.
  These tax cuts that are geared toward the wealthy would not do that. 
And that 3 percent of small businesses that might be impacted--because 
97 percent of small businesses in America would get the tax cut, those 
3 percent are populated by very wealthy folks.
  Vote for this legislation. Vote for middle America.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself 15 seconds to point out the 
Chamber of Commerce says 2,600 businesses, small businesses, and 
business associations have signed a letter pushing and making the case 
for extending all tax relief for all small businesses and all 
taxpayers, including a number from California, the Orange County 
Business Council, the North Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, and a number 
of other small businesses.
  I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling) who has fought against higher taxes and for more small 
business job creation.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan negotiations are fleeting and ephemeral 
around here. The White House photographers hadn't even left, the ink 
wasn't even dry on appointing the negotiators, and all of a sudden 
House Democrats bring to the floor their tax increase bill on small 
businesses and American families.
  You know what? I have heard the rhetoric of my friends on the other 
side of the aisle, and as I have studied this bill, I am still trying 
to find: Where is the tax cut they are talking about? I don't see any 
tax cut. All I see are tax increases.
  Half of small business income is going to be taxed under their bill. 
Fifteen million of our fellow citizens are unemployed. How many more 
have to become unemployed? How much more human misery? How much more 
rejection at the ballot box before my friends on the other side of the 
aisle come to their senses?
  They have tried to spend their way into economic prosperity; it has 
failed. They have tried to borrow their way into national economic 
prosperity; it has failed. They have tried to bailout their way into 
national economic prosperity; it has failed.

                              {time}  1340

  Here today, again, another opportunity to tax our way into economic 
prosperity. It does not work. The American people have rejected this 
tired, old class warfare rhetoric. You cannot help the job seeker by 
punishing the job creator. The American people know this, and their 
voices were heard on election day.
  You know, what I find interesting is how many Democrats have come to 
the floor to quote the economist Dr. Mark Zandi. He is probably the 
most quoted economist by the Democrats. Yet he, himself, has rejected 
the idea of raising taxes in this economy. Now that he is out of the 
administration, Dr. Peter Orszag, one of the architects of Obamanomics, 
has written in an editorial that we should not be raising taxes.
  I mean, this is a group that can't even get Keynesian economics 
right. Keynesian economics says you do not raise taxes in a time of 
recession. Look at the period of almost perpetual near-10 percent 
unemployment that we have had.
  Again, how many more people have to suffer? How many more jobs have 
to be lost?
  It is simple, Mr. Speaker. No tax increases on nobody. It may be poor 
grammar, but it is great economics, and it will relieve the human 
misery in this American economy. We should reject this bill and reject 
this cynical ploy.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I suggest the gentleman reread the bill: $1.5 trillion in tax cuts 
over 10 years; 97 percent of small businesses receive a tax cut.
  Those are the facts, period.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin once said: ``Nothing in 
this world is certain but death and taxes.'' Ha, Mr. Franklin had never 
met the modern Republican Party.
  The only thing certain about taxes these days is that the Republicans 
are going to use them to take from the poor and give to the rich again 
and again and again; and now the Senate Republicans have brought all 
legislation to a halt--a halt--in this building until the super-rich 
get their tax cuts.
  They are determined to take care of the rich. This political 
maneuvering by the Republicans brings uncertainty to the middle class 
at a time when they really need certainty so that they know what they 
are going to have in the next year.
  Food banks are panicking all over this country because the 
Republicans in the Senate say the tax cuts for the rich go before any 
money for those unemployed people who are looking for their 
unemployment insurance. The food banks know what is going to happen: 
hungry people are going to be coming in, but it doesn't make any 
difference to the Republicans.
  In fact, it's time to hang your Christmas stocking. Can you imagine 
the rich in this country hanging their Christmas stockings and putting 
in the gold of the tax cuts? Can you imagine the unemployed hanging 
their Christmas stockings?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. To pay for food or to pay the mortgage, they're going 
to look in their Christmas stockings and see what? Coal.
  We know how this movie is going to turn out. This bill will pass over 
to the Senate. It will come back with the big tax cuts for the rich. 
Some of us are going to vote ``no.'' We will vote ``yes'' today, but 
``no'' when it comes back because it isn't fair to the unemployed 
people of this country that the rich get their money for sure when we 
dole it out to the unemployed one bite at a time.

[[Page H7880]]

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
who is a leader in cutting taxes and in restraining the level of 
government spending, the leader of the House Republicans, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, Republicans had a productive meeting at the 
White House that we hoped promised a fresh start after a historic 
election. There was recognition on both sides that it was time to put 
aside the political gamesmanship and the partisan rhetoric and begin 
working for the public to produce results.
  Clearly, Mr. Speaker, that message has not been sent to some in the 
majority today. Today, we have a bill on the floor that would raise 
taxes on many small business people and working families.
  We know the facts. Although some could say otherwise, 50 percent of 
the people who are impacted by this tax hike get at least 25 percent of 
their income from pass-through entities. These are the small businesses 
that we are relying on to create jobs in this economy. But sadly, it 
appears that the outgoing majority is more interested in staging 
meaningless votes that amount to political chicanery than it is in 
pursuing policies that get the economy back on track and Americans back 
to work.
  Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this bill is a job killer that runs 
completely contrary to the discussions that we had with President Obama 
at the White House a few days ago. A bipartisan majority in the House 
supports a clean bill to ensure that no American faces a tax increase 
in this difficult economic environment.
  Mr. Speaker, we call on Speaker Pelosi to stop the gimmicks and allow 
all Members of the House--Republicans and Democrats--to vote on 
legislation that would prevent tax increases for all.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a member of 
the committee, a hardworking member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have heard in the last few moments about 
trickle-down economics--you know, here we go again--and I heard the 
quote of what works and what doesn't work.
  Let me tell you what doesn't work. If you look back just a few years 
ago, in 2000, we had a 4.2 percent unemployment rate. By the end of 
2008, we had doubled it. Not one word about that. Those 8 years have 
disappeared from your memory. By the beginning of 2009, the 
concentration of wealth amongst the top 1 percent was only matched by 
the period immediately before the Great Depression. So let's get it 
straight.
  In this piece of legislation, everyone gets a tax cut, even Sammy 
Sosa--I don't know if he's playing anymore--and even Derrick Jeter. 
They all get a tax cut up to $200,000. Of course, if they're couples, 
it's $250,000. Even billionaires will get a tax cut up to $250,000. You 
have never communicated it because you have never told the total truth.
  This legislation is very specific about how we are going to help the 
middle class. I believe a 5-year extension would be better. I don't 
believe we should extend any tax cut indefinitely, but I am going to 
vote for this bill because I refuse to allow the middle class to be the 
victims of partisan gridlock.
  America's middle class is the one for which I have come to the floor 
multiple times over the last 6 months to declare the necessity of 
taking a vote on these taxes. I went to my own district. There are 
334,000 households in the district, and less than 1 percent--1,092--are 
making $1 million or more.
  Their argument is dead in the water with heavy sand that buries it 
deeper and deeper because they don't want to talk about the middle 
class.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp) will control the remaining time on the minority 
side.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say and comment on my friend's remarks that 
this is not about giving anybody a tax cut. This is about preventing a 
tax increase in a time of great unemployment that has gone on, as I 
said in my remarks, for more than 15 months at 9\1/2\ percent.
  I now yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  A couple of months ago I'm walking through a manufacturing facility 
in the western suburbs of Chicago with the entrepreneur that started 
it. This is a guy who about 45 years ago is living on the northwest 
side of Chicago with his wife. He's a tinkerer, the type of person that 
goes in the garage and comes up with some idea, kind of a blue-collar 
guy, a tool and die guy. He comes up with an idea. Over a period of 
time he borrows a couple of thousand bucks from his mother-in-law and 
he builds up a little business.
  This is a very typical story. This isn't unique to Chicago or Detroit 
or New York. This happens all the time. He then builds that business 
up, and I'm sitting down with him and his son who's now running it. The 
old man is now 70 years old. I'm walking the plant floor with him and I 
ask him: How's business? And he tells me about the travails since 
September of '08, which we're all familiar with, but it's now a lean 
operation.
  He further says, ``Congressman, the smart move for me is to put 
three-quarters of a million bucks into this production line.'' And he 
points to a production line on the floor.
  I ask him, ``Are you going to do the smart thing?''
  And he says, ``No, I'm not.''
  And of course I ask him why not.
  He says, ``Because Washington, D.C. tells me I'm rich. See, I'm a sub 
S and I file as an individual and Washington D.C. tells me I'm rich. So 
that means I've got to hold on to capital because I don't know what's 
going on. I think my taxes might be going up at the first of the 
year.'' And then further he mentioned health care, he mentioned cap and 
trade, he mentioned ambiguity in the capital market.
  But for the life of me I don't understand why we as a body have not 
figured out that we need people like him--my constituent, the 
entrepreneur--to go out and hire folks. And he's not going to do it if 
his taxes are going to go up.
  And this is not a uniquely Republican revelation, Mr. Speaker. Peter 
Orszag recently said that now is no time to raise taxes on anybody. Dr. 
Christina Roemer also argued, now is not the time to raise taxes on 
anybody. And for a majority with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that has 
had the calendar now well in place and been able to control this 
process for years and now we find ourselves 30 days out from the 
largest tax increase in American history and we're having this junior 
varsity argument about whether we should nickel and dime the very 
people that we're trying to create an incentive for, I just think that 
we can do better. I think the American public, Mr. Speaker, has an 
expectation that we're going to do better. I think frankly the White 
House has an expectation that we can do better. So I urge us to defeat 
this today and to really get about this very serious idea of how it is 
that we create not just certainty and predictability but an environment 
where the entrepreneurs that I described and I represent--and we all 
represent--say to themselves, yes, I want to invest and I want to hire 
more.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to direct 
their comments to the Chair.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Ninety-seven percent of small businesses will not pay any more taxes. 
They'll get a tax cut.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Republicans are united in blocking all America's business until they 
get their tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. That's 
trouble for America. The Republican plan will not keep our troops at 
war safe. The Republican plan will not extend benefits to people who 
have lost their jobs because their company relocated overseas. The 
Republican plan will not pay

[[Page H7881]]

down the Federal debt. And the Republican plan will not create one new 
job.
  Aren't these the very same priorities Americans want us to be 
focusing on? Yes. But that is not who the Republican plan will benefit.
  This Democratic bill will cut taxes for every American who earns up 
to $250,000. This bill will eliminate the marriage penalty permanently, 
for the first time in Congress' history. This bill will cut the cost of 
college for young people in America. This bill will cut taxes for small 
businesses.
  Instead, the Republican plan will increase taxes on every American 
family who makes less than $250,000 a year because unless we do it 
their way, there will be no bill.
  So exactly who will the Republicans try to help in this legislation? 
This little dog--Trouble, that's who. Trouble is Leona Helmsley's dog 
who inherited $12 million. Under the Republican plan, if Trouble 
doesn't get a tax break, nobody else should. And that's very troubling.
  Under the Republican plan, America will go to the dogs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional half minute. You must 
go on.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Under the Republican plan, America will go to the dogs.
  This dog received $12 million. How many Americans who work in New 
York or Michigan or California or Florida or Georgia earn $12 million 
in a lifetime? They'll protect this little dog, but they won't protect 
the middle class of this country, and that, I think, is wrong.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the 
Ways and Means committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, we are now in some of the worst economic times since the 
Great Depression. We have 9\1/2\ percent unemployment nationally. I 
have areas in my district that have double that amount. This is 
certainly the wrong time to be raising taxes. We need to stop this tax 
increase for all Americans--for the hardworking families who are 
struggling to make ends meet, and also for the small businesses that we 
are relying upon to create jobs and grow our economy. The bill before 
us today would result in a massive tax increase on small business 
owners, entrepreneurs, and job creators at the very time our country 
most desperately needs them to succeed and to hire more employees.
  Mr. Speaker, this is no time for half measures. I urge the House to 
reject this flawed bill, and instead pass legislation to ensure that no 
American sees a tax increase on January 1.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Once again, 97 percent of small businesses will get tax cuts, not tax 
increases. Those are the facts. Period.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
4853, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010. During these times of 
economic difficulty, middle class and working families need all of the 
help that they can get. Extension of the alternative minimum tax for 2 
years and extending the 2001-2003 tax cuts for marginal individual 
income will protect more than 25 million families from the alternative 
minimum tax.
  This legislation will make permanent the temporarily reduced taxes on 
capital gains and dividend income for taxpayers with adjusted gross 
incomes of $200,000 for single filers and $250,000 for married couples. 
The bill will maintain the current 15 percent rate for middle class 
taxpayers. Paying for higher education is becoming increasingly 
difficult. This bill makes permanent certain modifications to the suite 
of education tax incentives included in the Economic Growth and Tax 
Relief Reconciliation Act. Student loans are in serious need of 
retention. This bill will provide the opportunity for individuals to 
deduct. There has been never a time greater when the middle class 
needed a tax break. That time is now. Let's do it today.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Heller).
  Mr. HELLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4853. Of course I 
strongly support tax relief for the middle class and others, but 
today's bill is misguided. Nevada is struggling. It has one of the 
highest unemployment rates in the Nation; more than 14 percent. Some 
counties in my congressional district are as high as 16, 17 percent 
unemployment. Real unemployment is probably closer north of 20 percent. 
At home in Nevada I constantly talk to families, small business owners 
and workers struggling to make ends meet. That's why I have supported 
extending unemployment insurance. But Nevadans, like most Americans, 
want jobs.

                              {time}  1400

  So today, ``Washington knows what's best, class warfare, pick-and-
choose method of so-called tax relief'' is a dangerous way to go.
  The outgoing majority party does not understand that tax hikes do not 
create jobs. The outgoing majority party doesn't understand that bigger 
government doesn't create jobs. The outgoing majority party still 
doesn't understand that more regulation doesn't create jobs. And 
doubling down on failed stimulus spending--which this bill does also--
is, too, the wrong way to go.
  It bears repeating simply because the current outgoing majority so 
often fails to listen: The income levels in the bill today exclude many 
small businesses, and it's those small business owners who are the job 
creators in the economy. Three-quarters of all new jobs are created by 
small businesses, which employ half of all private-sector employees. 
These are the entrepreneurs, the patent filers, the exporters, the 
startups and the innovators. They, not Washington politicians, are the 
ones who will lead our Nation out of its economic struggles, yet today 
we are asked to support a tax increase on them.
  I have a letter here signed by a number of national and local 
organizations who strongly support extending the current tax relief. In 
the letter they say, ``strongly urge Congress to end the tax 
uncertainty plaguing the business community by extending the expiring 
2001/2003 tax rates.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman from Nevada an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HELLER. Nowhere in this letter--signed by 28 pages of 
organizations and businesses nationwide--do they waffle or endorse 
these income limitations. Several chambers of commerce and local 
businesses from around the State of Nevada who understand the 
importance of certainty in our tax policy have signed onto this letter. 
Businesses like Silver State Barricade and Sign, Starsound Audio, 
Hartmann and Associates, and Air Systems, Inc. are all in this letter. 
Today's exercise in political theater is simply bad policy.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my real pleasure to yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You know, this is kind of a comical debate in a way. We hear time 
after time after time, why would we want to pass job-killing tax hikes? 
Well, I would ask my colleagues from the other side of the aisle why 
did they write them into the law? Because these are Republican tax 
hikes that we are dealing with, trying to decide what makes sense from 
a fiscal standpoint and from a fairness standpoint.
  I love the fact that people talk about job-killing tax hikes as if 
every small business is going to make a decision based on what their 
personal tax rate is. I come from a family of small business people. My 
father was a small businessperson who built a very large company. I 
have two brothers who are small businessmen. I have a sister who is a 
small businessperson. I ran a small business. Not one of us ever made a 
decision about what we would do in our business based on whether a few 
more percentage points would come out of our net income, particularly 
when we're dealing with people who are mostly making millions of 
dollars a year.
  I have one brother who is in the barbecue restaurant business. I 
talked to him about what impact taxes have on his decisions in 
business. He said, you

[[Page H7882]]

know, if nobody can afford barbecue, it doesn't matter what my tax rate 
is. That's where we are as a country. We have a major portion of our 
population whose standard of living has stagnated over the last 10 or 
20 years, and we have a very small percentage who have done very, very 
well thanks in part to the tax breaks that they were given back in 2001 
and 2003.
  We can afford to give everybody tax cuts if we want to raise the 
national debt another $700 billion. No, I think we have to draw a line 
somewhere. We have to say the people who have done extremely well over 
the last 10 years thanks to the Bush tax cuts need to pay a little 
more. This won't kill jobs. We won't be crying crocodile tears for 
them. It's more important that we make sure that the vast majority of 
Americans have the income they need to drive this economy. That's where 
the business people, small and large, will prosper.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I hear all these grand arguments 
today about the majority party's tax cut bill when in fact not one 
American taxpayer's taxes will be reduced as a result of passage of 
this bill.
  Let's be clear on what's at stake today: A vote for this bill is a 
vote to raise taxes on millions of American families and small business 
owners. The Democrat leaders argue that we have to raise taxes to 
reduce the deficit, but this is absolutely false. The burden to reduce 
the deficit should be on Congress and not on the backs of hardworking 
Americans. It is our job to make the tough spending cuts and restore 
fiscal discipline, not to make millions of businesses and families a 
scapegoat for our debt.
  Keep this in mind: No tax increase has ever created one job. If 
America's private sector is going to create the jobs that we 
desperately need, Congress must stop the threat of new taxes, get out 
of the way, and let employers have some certainty for once.
  So Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to respect the message of the 
American people from Election Day and let's reject this tax hike 
scheme.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Nevada, a member of the committee, Ms. Berkley.
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in support of this legislation. Today's vote is an affirmation 
of this Congress' commitment to middle class Americans and a crucial 
step in getting our economy back on track.
  This tax cut extension does not exclude anyone. What it does is 
permanently extend middle-income tax relief, which will provide much-
needed certainty to our small businesses and our entrepreneurs and 
create conditions for long-term growth while still dealing responsibly 
with the Federal deficit--and let us not forget that it is a burgeoning 
deficit.
  This legislation ensures that on January 1 every American will be 
paying lower taxes than under current law. It will extend relief from 
the alternative minimum tax for 2 years and provide permanent relief 
from the marriage penalty. It also permanently extends tax credits like 
the improved child tax credit, simplified earned income tax credit, and 
numerous benefits for education. For our small business owners, we are 
also permanently increasing the amount they can expense so they can 
quickly realize the benefits of their capital investments. These 
provisions are critical to Nevada's economic recovery. It is good for 
my congressional district, the city I represent of Las Vegas that is 
really hurting, and the people of the great State of Nevada.
  We owe it to our fellow citizens to pass this bill and ensure that we 
are creating conditions for renewed economic growth. The certainty of 
this legislation creates and will bolster consumer confidence, provide 
businesses with tax certainty, and foster long-term investment. Nobody 
can argue or quibble with its benefits.
  These economic conditions are essential to the health of consumer-led 
economies like Las Vegas. We still have a whole lot more work to do, 
both in terms of promoting jobs and removing uncertainties in the Tax 
Code.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you very much.
  We also have to work on our estate tax to pre-2001 levels. I look 
forward to that discussion with the bill I introduced with Congressman 
Brady as a basis for the debate.
  Let's get moving. This is the easy stuff. This we should pass without 
any uncertainty or concern that we're not doing the right thing for the 
American people.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time I reserve.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me 
this time.
  There is an economic theory, and then there are facts. There were a 
set of Democratic tax rates in which we saw 22 million new jobs 
created, and we saw the balancing of the budget, and hundreds of 
billions of dollars of national debt paid off.

                              {time}  1410

  And then there's the Republican tax rates that are called the Bush 
tax cuts in which we saw a net loss of 600,000 jobs, and we saw 
trillions of dollars added to the national debt. These are facts. You 
compare the 8 years of Clinton to the 8 years of Bush, you compare the 
two rates, and you look at the jobs and the effect on the debt and the 
deficit, and we know what the reality is.
  So our friends on the other side say, Well, we don't want to hurt the 
economy. The best way not to hurt this economy is to do away with the 
set of policies that created the situation we're in now with 15 million 
people without jobs, our national debt doubled.
  Now, as an economic theory, I think we should get rid of the income 
tax and move to a consumption tax. But theory is something you can 
debate and you can wonder about. Facts are facts, and we can't hide 
from them. And the fact here is that under the Bush rates, this country 
is seeing unemployment spike by millions, our debt rise by trillions.
  So we come today to say that maybe the Republicans were right when 
they put an expiration date on this because they didn't really know 
what would be the result. We see the economic calamity that has 
resulted from doing these types of uneven tax breaks weighted to the 
top 2 percent.
  So we come today saying for 98 percent of the people of our country, 
people at $250,000 and under, they should continue to have and make 
permanent a break on their taxes. And for the wealthiest, for their 
first $250,000, they should get an identical break. We should return to 
the Clinton rates or the Democratic rates thereafter.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. First of all, I wanted to associate myself with the 
previous speaker, my friend from Pennsylvania. I, too, support a 
consumption tax, a fair tax, tax simplification in whatever form. And I 
hope we can come together and work on tax reform and tax simplification 
in the year ahead.
  Now today, though, we're doing a show in politics. We're voting on a 
bill which the Speaker knows there aren't the votes to pass. She 
furthermore knows that if it did pass, the Senate is not going to pass 
it. Today is all about political show. It's about more class warfare. 
It's interesting that the Speaker would choose this route because on 
November 2 I believe that brand of politics was squarely rejected by 
the voters all across America.
  We also know that the economic policies of the Speaker and the 
President have failed. When the stimulus bill was passed, unemployment 
was about 7.6 percent. We were told this would keep it from going to 8 
percent. But here we are now with unemployment at nearly 10 percent--15 
million people out of work--and we're hearing again from the Democrats 
that this is what we need to do to turn the economy around.
  I believe the American people spoke on that squarely. And I think the 
statistics show, with a 10 percent unemployment rate, it's not going to 
work.
  About 75 percent of small businesses--and I think there's something 
like 27 million in the country--75 percent of them file their taxes as 
individuals; 750,000 of them actually would

[[Page H7883]]

come under this category of getting a tax increase. And these are 
people who are the first to turn around and hire folks when the economy 
improves. These are Sheetrock contractors. These are restaurant owners. 
These are other tradesmen who have two, three, four, five, fifteen 
employees, and they're going to be the first ones to turn around and 
hire folks. So right now, we do not want to hit them with a high tax 
increase.
  We need to reject this and continue to work with the White House and 
come up with a compromise.
  Mr. LEVIN. It's now my privilege to yield 1 minute to our very 
distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support 
of this legislation.
  First, let me say that there were two messages that came from this 
election, in my opinion--maybe others as well, but certainly these two. 
One, we need to grow jobs. We need to have more jobs for our people. We 
need to grow our economy. The second was we're very concerned about the 
deficit.
  I agree with both of those conclusions in this election, and I think 
we need to do both of those. To some degree, they're contradictory 
because, in the short term, in order to grow the economy we've got to 
invest in the economy and we need not take money out of the pockets of 
consumers.
  Now, as a result of the tax bills that were adopted in 2001 and 2003, 
because we wanted not to have the scoring for a longer period of time 
and the deficit displayed exploding, they were made to sunset. That is 
to say, the tax cuts were put in place and then they were sunsetted. It 
so happens they sunset at the end of this month. That would mean, 
normally, if we allowed that Republican policy--which I did not vote 
for--to go into effect, that the taxes would increase on everybody.
  What this bill does is it says no, we want to cap, and we want to 
make sure that no American has any tax increase on the first $250,000 
of their income. No American. One hundred percent of American taxpayers 
would be exempt under this bill from any increase in their taxes on 
January 1 of this year.
  One of the other messages that the American public said to us: When 
you can reach common ground, when you can reach agreement, why don't 
you guys take it? Why don't you move forward where you can agree and 
then spend time on that which you cannot agree upon? But at least do 
that on which you can reach common ground.
  Now, I haven't heard all of the debate--I have been in other 
meetings--but my suspicion is that almost everybody, if not everybody, 
on the floor wants to make sure that the first $250,000 of income of 
any American is not subjected to a tax increase on January 1. That's my 
conclusion. Now, maybe somebody will come up and say, ``No, you're 
wrong on that,'' but if so, I stand to be corrected. But we have 
reached common ground, I believe, on that proposition. That's what this 
bill carries forward.
  Now, we have disagreements.
  As I said, the second message was they're very concerned about the 
deficit. I'm very concerned about the deficit which I think, as I was 
quoted in the paper yesterday or the day before as saying, it is the 
most critical challenge that confronts this country, that impacts on 
every other challenge we have in this country, including our ability to 
bring taxes down and create tax reform.
  Now, we don't have agreement on other elements of the Republican tax 
program of 2001 and 2003 which will sunset pursuant to that policy on 
December 31. And the issue, therefore, before this House right now is 
whether we're going to hold hostage the first $250,000 of income of 
every American or we're going to say no, we have agreement, we'll 
resolve that, and we will then contend on the other issues. Whether we 
argue about the necessity to cut taxes on those over $250,000, on 
impacting small business, on growth of the economy, all of that is 
legitimate argument.
  But I really do not believe we have disagreement on what this bill 
intends to do. It's just that some people think it doesn't do enough. I 
understand that.
  But very frankly, my friends, in the House and in the other body, we 
have been holding hostage American policy to agreement on 100 percent--
or in the case of the Senate, on 60 percent. The American public are 
frustrated by that. I'm frustrated by that. I think that's not the way 
a legislative body works. A legislative body works by when you can 
create consensus, move forward.
  Now, maybe somebody will get up and say no, we should increase the 
first $250,000 of income and let that sunset. I doubt that anybody said 
that. I doubt that anybody believes it.

                              {time}  1420

  But if you don't believe it, any Member of this House, then vote for 
this bill. Not only does it say income, but it takes earned income tax 
credits, it takes capital gains, it takes child care tax credits and 
says that the first $250,000 of income will not be subjected to an 
increase. I can't believe we don't agree on that. And I am hopeful that 
every Member will vote for this.
  Now, I frankly want to say I don't think this is the final package. 
We know that the Senate has disagreement. We know that the White House 
has its own view. But this vehicle is going to be critically important 
if we are going to move this issue forward. And some people on the 
other side say let's act and let's act now. Fine. Then let's give them 
a vehicle on which to act.
  Revenue issues, as we know, have to initiate in the House. Now, this 
vehicle is a vehicle that I think will be used and can be used by the 
other body to effect consensus policy. But let us not hold hostage that 
on which we agree to that on which we do not agree.
  So I would urge my colleagues, vote for this legislation. Let's move 
this forward. Let's give the confidence to American working people that 
we are united in the conviction that in this tough economy at this time 
they ought not to see an increase in their taxes on January 1. That's 
what this vote is about. And I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the committee, 
and, yes, Mr. Camp, the ranking member, who will soon be chairman of 
this committee, for their efforts on this bill, notwithstanding their 
disagreement on its substance. And I thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) for yielding.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  And I would just say I listened very carefully to the majority 
leader's well-reasoned arguments. And if, in fact, this bill were going 
somewhere, they would have made a great deal of sense. But we know now 
that the Senate will not take up this bill. Forty-two Senators have 
signed a letter that they will not take up any legislation unless it is 
dealing with the potential tax increases on all Americans.
  I also have a letter that was sent to the House of Representatives 
dated today from the National Association of Manufacturers. And there 
has probably been no State hit harder than Michigan, no sector hit 
harder in Michigan than manufacturing. And I want to quote from this 
letter that says, ``Manufacturers strongly support extending the 2001 
and 2003 tax relief for all taxpayers. Over 70 percent of American 
manufacturers file as S corporations or some other pass-through entity 
and will be significantly impacted by these higher rates. According to 
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, fully extending the 2001 
and 2003 tax cuts would add between 600,000 and 1.4 million jobs 
between now and 2011 and between 900,000 and 2.7 million jobs in 
2012.''

                                           National Association of


                                                Manufacturers,

                                                 December 2, 2010.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives: The National Association of 
     Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in 
     the United States, urges you to oppose H.R. 4853, the Middle 
     Class Tax Relief Act of 2010.
       Tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003, which repealed the 
     estate tax and lowered both individual tax rates and tax 
     rates on investment income, helped spur economic growth. Now, 
     however, absent immediate congressional action, these lower 
     rates will expire, resulting in a top income tax rate of 
     nearly 40 percent, a 164 percent increase in the dividend tax 
     and the return of a 55 percent estate tax on family-held 
     companies.
       Manufacturers strongly support extending the 2001 and 2003 
     tax relief for all taxpayers. Over 70 percent of American 
     manufacturers file as S-corporations or some other pass-

[[Page H7884]]

     thru entity and will be significantly impacted by these 
     higher rates. According to the non-partisan Congressional 
     Budget Office, fully extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts 
     would add between 600,000 and 1.4 million jobs in 2011 and 
     between 900,000 and 2.7 million jobs in 2012.
       We urge Congress to reject this legislation and move toward 
     extending all of the current tax rates.
       The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that 
     votes on H.R. 4853, including potential procedural motions, 
     merit consideration for designation as Key Manufacturing 
     Votes in the 111th Congress.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jay Timmons,
                                         Executive Vice President.

  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.
  Let me say to my friend, if he heard what I had said--I know he was 
listening, and I thank him for that--he and I both know revenue bills 
must initiate in this House. So if the Senate is to effect what those 
42 Members suggested they wanted to see, then it must have a vehicle 
from this House on which to act. What I suggested and what I believe is 
that when you say this bill is dead, I think I am not sure I agree with 
you, because in my view it will be this bill on which they will 
ultimately reach whatever compromise is available in the United States 
Senate.
  So, in fact, I think this is an important vehicle to reach perhaps 
the compromise that we all know is ultimately going to be necessary, 
while at the same time expressing the views of I think the overwhelming 
numbers of us that certainly the first 250--we may not agree on 
further, or another level or something, but certainly would the 
gentleman disagree with me that we all agree on the first 250 ought not 
to receive an increase?
  Mr. CAMP. I thank the majority leader. And reclaiming my time, I 
think we would have a much better chance if the vehicle that was sent 
over to the Senate was actually one that dealt with the potential tax 
increases on all Americans.
  But I know my time is very short, and I just wanted to say I also 
have a petition, a coalition letter sent to us by over 1,300 
businesses, trades, and local Chambers of Commerce urging that we 
extend the current tax policy for all Americans and prevent a tax 
increase from going into effect.
  Let me just say I think much of what has happened today is a charade, 
and I am glad it's coming to a close. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this bill.

                                                 December 1, 2010.
       To The Members of The United States Congress: We, the 
     undersigned companies, chambers, and trade associations 
     strongly urge Congress to end the tax uncertainty plaguing 
     the business community by extending the expiring 2001 and 
     2003 marginal tax rates, as well as dividend and capital 
     gains tax rates, and the business tax provisions that expired 
     at the end of 2009.
       A permanent extension of all current tax rates would, in 
     one bold stroke, boost investor, business, and consumer 
     confidence by taking the uncertainty of tax policy off the 
     table. It would leave hard-earned income in the hands of the 
     individuals and businesses that earned it and allow them to 
     spur investment, boost consumption, promote economic growth, 
     and create jobs. Further, without expeditious Congressional 
     action to extend current marginal tax rates, millions of 
     Americans will face greater withholding for taxes from their 
     hard-earned paychecks in six weeks.
       Another major obstacle to recovery lurks. Thousands of U.S. 
     businesses and individual taxpayers currently face major tax 
     increases because tax provisions--such as the R&D credit, 
     active financing exception, and CFC look-thru rule--have 
     expired. An extension of these vital provisions would bring 
     more certainty in U.S. tax law, foster more effective 
     business decisions, and encourage investment. Moreover, the 
     Administration asked Congress to extend the tax provisions as 
     part of the President's 2010 budget request.
       While we support the extension of all these provisions, we 
     believe that the extensions of current tax policy should not 
     be offset with permanent tax increases. No one should have 
     their taxes raised during a time of economic weakness--not 
     individuals, not small businesses, not large businesses. Job 
     creators are especially sensitive to tax rates and any tax 
     increase right now would only hinder the already too weak 
     recovery.
       We urge Congress to act expeditiously to remove uncertainty 
     and address these looming tax increases with a long term 
     extension of all the expired and expiring tax provisions by 
     year end, and look forward to working with Congress to keep 
     the economy on the road to recovery.
           Sincerely,
                                      [1318 Organizations Omitted]

  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, first, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include any extraneous material in the Congressional Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Secondly, before I yield the balance of the time to the 
Speaker, our very distinguished Speaker, I want to take just a minute 
or less to make a couple of key points.
  Number one, everybody would receive a tax cut under this bill. 
Everybody. Secondly, only 3 percent--these are the facts--of small 
business owners would get the additional tax for income over $250,000. 
Only 3 percent. And the third and last point is this. For those with 
income a million and over, under the Republican plan they would get a 
tax cut of over $100,000, while average Americans would get a fraction 
of that.
  It's now my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to our 
distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentlelady from California, 
Nancy Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. I 
commend him for his great leadership in terms of working and being a 
champion for America's working families, for America's middle-income 
families who need so much help at this time of this down economy.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting week. Yesterday in the 
Capitol, hundreds of people looking for work came to the Capitol of the 
United States. They came because they knew that the day before 
unemployment insurance benefits had expired for people looking for 
work. They knew that by the end of December, unless this Congress acts, 
2 million Americans will lose their unemployment insurance, 2 million 
Americans. This is the first time in American history when unemployment 
benefits would have been allowed to expire at this rate of 
unemployment.
  They came looking for jobs. They came in the spirit of fairness to 
say until we can find jobs, we need to continue unemployment insurance. 
And what they heard was that the Republicans in the Senate had said, if 
you want unemployment insurance, it has to be paid for. Well, they have 
paid into unemployment insurance. But we want to give tax cuts to the 
wealthiest people in America to the tune of $700 billion, and that 
doesn't have to be paid for.
  Now, I think we should use as a measure for everything that we do: 
What does it do to create jobs? What does it do to reduce the deficit?
  Unemployment insurance, the economists tell us, returns $2 for every 
dollar that is put out there for unemployment insurance. People need 
the money. They spend it immediately for necessities. It injects demand 
into the economy. It creates jobs to help reduce the deficit.
  Giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in America does add $700 
billion to the deficit, and the record and history shows it does not 
create jobs. It does not create jobs. I mention this because this is 
the context in which we bring up this tax cut for middle-income 
families in America today. And while some on the other side say this is 
not going to make a difference, it indeed makes a difference.

                              {time}  1430

  Let me say, unequivocally, there will be no tax bill for any 
situation unless there is a tax cut for middle-income people in our 
country. That is what this vote is about today. That is our 
declaration. That is what we send to the table for the discussion that 
the President has so rightfully called for.
  Now what our Republican colleagues are saying is we know they must 
support tax relief for the middle class, right? And this is tax relief 
for every income filer in our country; everyone gets a tax break. But 
what they are saying is unless you give an additional tax break to the 
wealthiest people in our country, adding to the deficit and not 
creating jobs, we are not going to vote for middle-income tax cuts.
  As Mr. Hoyer said, holding the middle-income families of America 
hostage

[[Page H7885]]

to a tax cut for the wealthiest, and who are they? Well, some of them 
create wealth, create jobs. We want to reward success in America, and 
they do get a tax cut in this bill.
  Some of them are getting bonuses on Wall Street. Did you see the 
announcement? Almost $90 billion in bonuses on Wall Street after all 
that they have put us through, not all of them, but some of them, $90 
billion, billion with a ``B,'' dollars in tax bonuses, and under what 
the Republicans want to do, they are not going to pay. They want a tax 
break for that, a bonus and a tax break on top of it. But, no, we can't 
give middle-income tax cuts unless you do that; and, no, if we do 
unemployment insurance, it has to be paid for but not a tax break for 
these billionaires with these bonuses on Wall Street.
  This is so grossly unfair. It is so grossly unfair. I can't imagine 
that my colleagues on the Republican side don't want to give a tax cut 
to the middle class. Why don't they just vote for that? They can try to 
add whatever else they want and have that debate. But to say that this 
is not the right thing to do, I think, is not the right thing to say.
  So we have a situation where we come out of an election: jobs, jobs, 
jobs, jobs. That's what those hundreds of people looking for work came 
to Capitol Hill looking for. They were looking for jobs. They were 
looking for security for their families.
  One young man, 35 years old stood up and said, I am 35, I am married, 
I have a 4-year-old child. I have been out of work for 2 years. I am a 
college graduate; I am a trained professional. Don't tell me to dip 
into my savings. My savings are all gone.
  Don't tell me to go ask help from my family. I have already done 
that. They have done what they can, but they are strapped as well.
  Don't tell me to cut back on what we do as a family. That was 
something we did a long time ago.
  So we have tried to live as we look for work on unemployment 
insurance, and you are now telling us that Congress cannot pass that 
unless it is paid for while it is giving, I am saying, a tax cut to the 
wealthiest people in America, $700 billion unpaid for, $700 billion 
added to the deficit. Something is very wrong with this picture.
  But we come to this floor, we Democrats today, with great clarity. 
The tax cut for middle-income families will create jobs because people 
will spend that money again, inject demand into the economy, and create 
jobs. That is something that will help. That growth will help to reduce 
the deficit while the record shows, and history, recent history, 
acknowledges that the tax cuts at the high end did not create jobs.
  Those tax cuts were in place during the Bush years and more private 
sector jobs have been created this year than the entire 8 years of the 
Bush administration. They simply did not create jobs.
  If you want to create jobs, if you want to reduce the deficit, if you 
want to stabilize the economy, if you want to support the value of what 
the middle class, middle-income families mean to our country, these 
workers who came were veterans, they were the backbone of our country. 
They came from the heartland of America. They came from a place where 
we in this Congress and with this President saved the auto industry, 
saved the auto industry.
  Without the measures taken by the Obama administration and this 
Congress, we would have unemployment that's even higher. But that's not 
good enough. We want unemployment that is lower. This tax cut takes us 
to that place. This tax cut, not what the Republicans are proposing, 
will help create jobs, instead of what they want to do, which is not 
create jobs and increase the deficit.
  The choice is clear. It's not about who signed 44 signatures, that I 
am not going to do this unless you do that. We are very clear. There 
will be no tax bill unless there is a tax legislation that gives 
middle-income families in America the fairness they deserve, the 
respect that they have earned and the economic opportunity for creation 
of jobs, reducing the deficit, and stabilizing our economy. I think 
this choice is clear.
  I urge our colleagues, and I hope we could have some bipartisan 
support for middle-income families in America, to vote ``aye'' on this 
important legislation.
  I again salute Mr. Levin for his leadership.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Middle Class Tax 
Relief Act of 2010 to ensure that working and middle class families 
receive tax relief as we emerge from the worst recession in three-
quarters of a century.
  Some history about this issue is needed as some on the other side of 
this debate seem to have a short memory. In 2001 and 2003, President 
Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress enacted sweeping tax cuts 
that largely benefited the wealthiest in America without corresponding 
cuts in federal spending. I opposed these tax cuts. These tax rates 
were passed on the erroneous argument that they would stimulate the 
economy and that they would generate more revenue than they cost. The 
evidence is clear that cutting tax rates resulted in a net loss of 
revenue to the government, and there is scant evidence that they 
provided much economic stimulus.
  I support extending tax policies that help working families in New 
Jersey and across the nation. Two years ago, I was proud to support 
President Obama's Making Work Pay tax cuts, which cut taxes by $400 for 
individuals making $75,000 or less and $800 for households making less 
than $150,000. As we debate whether or not to continue Bush-era tax 
rates that shift the tax burden from wealthier Americans to the middle 
class, I should remind my colleagues that extending the Obama tax cut 
for working Americans would cost less and stimulate the economy more.
  With the current income tax rates expiring at the end of this month, 
I am pleased to support the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010. This 
measure would extend permanently current tax rates for all Americans on 
taxable income under $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for joint-
filers. For households that earn more, the marginal tax rate on that 
additional income would return to its level during the 1990s.
  According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, maintaining the Bush-
era tax cuts for income over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for 
joint-filers would provide the top one percent of wage earners with an 
average tax break of $53,674. Furthermore, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the 
top wage earners would add nearly $700 billion to the national debt 
over the next ten years.
  While much of the debate has focused on marginal income tax rates, 
this measure extends other forms of tax relief that are of critical 
importance to my constituents in central New Jersey.
  This legislation contains a two-year patch for the Alternative 
Minimum Tax. Because this tax, which was intended for a few hundred of 
the wealthiest Americans, has never been adjusted to account for 
inflation it threatens middle-class families. The 12th congressional 
district of New Jersey in particular is hard hit by the AMT. This bill 
would prevent an additional 88,000 of my constituents from being 
subject to this unfair part of the tax code.
  The bill before us today would make permanent the maximum Child Tax 
Credit of $1,000 while expanding eligibility for the credit and making 
it refundable. This bill would provide permanent relief for the so 
called marriage penalty that unfairly penalizes couples who jointly 
file their taxes. The legislation also would continue Earned Income Tax 
Credit rules that simplify and expand its eligibility requirements.
  Additionally, today's bill would extend a host of family friendly tax 
breaks that allow taxpayers to deduct student loan interest, save for 
their children's college education, and defray the costs of adoption.
  With the country facing growing long-term deficits and with the 
expiration of current tax rates looming, my constituents and all 
Americans are demanding that policymakers act quickly and prudently. 
The tax policies in the bill before us today are the ones my 
constituents and the American people support. These cuts balance the 
needs of working families with the nation's need to get its fiscal 
house in order. I am pleased to support this bill today, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me today in voting for the Middle Class Tax Relief 
Act.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the major 
decision we face on taxation this Congress boils down to this vote.
  This situation represents a failure of imagination, a failure of 
political will, and, sadly, a failure to invest in our future.
  It represents the inability of Congress to seize an opportunity for 
real reform.
  If the message of the election was that we should not add to our 
nation's debt, then we should not extend tax cuts that will add 
trillions of dollars to that debt.
  If voters this election were concerned about jobs, then we can have a 
much greater effect on employment by using a small portion of the money 
in question to fund a substantial transportation bill and addressing 
our nation's infrastructure deficit.
  If the election was about tax fairness, then we can do more for 
fairness by permanently

[[Page H7886]]

eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, which no billionaire pays but 
which now threatens 29 million middle-income families. While we are at 
it, we could permanently fix the physician payment issue.
  These are perennial challenges. Addressing them now will require far 
less debt, save money in the long run, and will avoid needless 
heartburn for millions of people right now.
  Instead, the political process is failing the American people as we 
face a choice between a sub-optimal bill and a bad bill.
  We can and should do better.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I voted for H.R. 4853, legislation which 
ensures file continuation of many of the Bush tax cuts. If no action 
had been taken by this Congress, all Americans would have had to pay 
higher income, dividend, and capital gains taxes beginning on January 
1, 2011. While I would have preferred that the current lower tax rates 
remain in place for all Americans, the fact is that a tax cut for most 
people is better than a tax increase on everyone. I will always vote to 
lower taxes at all levels, and I will never vote for tax increases. The 
passage of this bill will result in the overwhelming majority of 
Americans paying lower taxes next year than they otherwise would have.
  It is unfortunate that this bill was so highly politicized and that 
so much debate focused on whether or not those making over $250,000 per 
year would receive tax cuts. Arguments that tax cuts for the rich are 
unfair, or that those making more money should pay higher taxes, are 
based largely on envy. Whether one group or another thinks it is 
``fair'' or not does not change the fact that the money should stay 
with the person who earned it. This is true for people at all levels of 
income.
  But rather than getting bogged down in the minutiae of what the ideal 
tax rate should be, I believe we should abolish the income tax and 
eliminate the IRS altogether. Congress funded the government using 
excise taxes for more than 120 years without an income tax, and the 
federal government not surprisingly adhered much more closely to the 
constitutionally-defined limits of its powers during that time. Real 
tax reform can only happen when we insist on reducing the size of the 
federal government and reducing the pork in its bloated budget.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4853, the Middle 
Class Tax Relief Act of 2010. The middle class in America is struggling 
to make ends meet as they face a weak economy and bleak job market. 
Unless Congress acts sometime during the next month, Americans will see 
their income tax rates return to Clinton-era levels next year. Today's 
legislation would ensure that 98 percent of Americans will not see a 
tax increase next year.
  President Obama and Democrats have advocated to extend tax cuts on 
income below $250,000 (which will benefit Americans of all income 
levels) while allowing the tax cuts on income above $250,000 to expire. 
Specifically, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act will permanently extend 
relief for the 10 percent, 25 percent and 28 percent rate brackets. 
Ninety-eight percent of Americans will benefit from this proposal while 
allowing the richest 2 percent, the millionaires and billionaires, to 
pay their fair share in taxes.
  The Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 also provides working 
families with permanent extensions of popular tax cuts. The bill will 
extend the $1,000 child tax which is set to expire on December 31st. It 
will also help families by providing permanent extension of the 
adoption tax credit, the employee tax credit for employee child care, 
and the increased dependent care tax credit. Lastly, the Act will 
permanently extend the capital gains and dividend tax at a 15 percent 
rate for middle-class taxpayers.
  Furthermore, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 will provide 
Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, relief for the middle class. The Congress 
created the AMT in 1969 to ensure that the wealthy did not abuse 
loopholes in the tax code and thus avoid paying any taxes at all. 
However, because the AMT was not adjusted for inflation, it now will 
affect a large percentage of the middle class. Today's bill will 
provide a two year extension of AMT relief for joint filers who make up 
to $72,450 and for individuals who make up to $47,450 in 2010 and 2011.
  Today's debate is larger than the future of tax policy. This moment 
offers this body a critical opportunity to draw a line in the sand and 
make a definitive and powerful statement about their commitment to 
working class and middle class families. It is an opportunity to show 
average Americans who are fed up with their government that we hear 
them, believe in them, and will fight for them. It is an opportunity to 
show that government has the ability to improve people's lives in a 
tangible way and that the rich and well connected don't always win. It 
is time for Congress to stand up for the middle class and extend tax 
relief. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4853, the 
``Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010.'' Put very simply, our vote on 
this bill today is a statement of values. Do we stand with middle-class 
American families, whose lives and livelihoods have been devastated by 
the recession, or do we stand with the wealthy scions of finance and 
industry who drove this country off an economic precipice of gargantuan 
proportions? There can be no justification for holding tax relief for 
middle-class families hostage by supporting those who did nearly 
irreparable harm to our great Nation, and those members of the House 
who vote against this bill should forever be ashamed of putting the 
interests of Wall Street fat-cats before those of the vast majority of 
American families.
  My Republican colleagues seem to be blind to this reality and will no 
doubt work this very day to make a public statement of their 
unflinching support for the wealthy at the cost of providing tax relief 
to the middle-class Americans who need it most. This, sadly, should 
come as no surprise, given Republican opposition to extending 
unemployment insurance. As if denying 800,000 Americans--and over 
180,000 people in my home state of Michigan--extended unemployment 
benefits at the time they need it most is not enough, Republicans now 
seek to bar tax relief to middle-class Americans in a cynically 
transparent attempt to allow the wealthy to continue lining their 
pockets.
  In closing, I would remind my friend, the erstwhile Minority Leader, 
that he stated some months ago on ``Meet the Press'' that he would 
support a middle-class tax cuts-only bill if it were his only choice. 
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minority Leader now has the opportunity to make 
good on that statement. If he does, his conscience will thank him.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this 
important bill, which includes a wide mix of policies recently sent to 
us by the Senate.
  Portions of this bill make sense, including extending welfare 
programs and reducing erroneous unemployment insurance (UI) 
overpayments. Enacting policies to better prevent and recover 
unemployment benefit overpayments is good government, and save about $3 
billion over 10 years. However, instead of using this money to 
strengthen UI programs or even paying for an extension of unemployment 
benefits, the majority instead uses this funding to offset unrelated 
spending.
  Similarly, I am disappointed that the bill uses $2 billion of the 
funds in the Customs user fee account (about half of available funds) 
to offset some of the spending provisions in the bill. As a result, 
such funding would no longer be available for key job-creating trade 
initiatives, such as the pending free trade agreements or extending 
existing preference programs. I strongly believe that this offset 
should be reserved for trade priorities and should not be raided for 
non-trade provisions.
  And that's really at the heart of the debate: instead of using the 
savings in this bill to reduce our Nation's staggering deficit or pay 
for extending UI benefits or promoting job-creating trade, the authors 
of this bill would use those savings for new, unrelated spending. This 
spending does nothing to help the unemployed, promote job creation, and 
only makes balancing the budget next year even harder.
  The bottom line is that, while this legislation includes some good 
provisions, it also includes new spending we simply can't afford. To 
divert savings from UI and trade programs, especially while too many 
Americans are unemployed and more trade-related jobs are needed, is not 
the right answer.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I agree that the extension of 
middle class tax cuts is vital to the economic health of our nation, 
and I proudly support providing this much needed relief. Over 75 
percent of American workers are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and they 
simply cannot afford the burden of new taxes. Furthermore, many of our 
nation's seniors are on fixed incomes consisting of Social Security 
payments, supplemented by dividend and capital gains income. This 
measure will help ensure that seniors can make ends meet in this 
challenging economic environment.
  Unfortunately, this measure does not go far enough. Given the current 
state of our fragile economic recovery, now is not the time to raise 
taxes on any American. Businesses large and small are still having 
difficulty creating new jobs, training their workers, and growing for 
the future. I remain deeply concerned that raising taxes on those 
businesses would further impede job creation and punish success at a 
time when we should be encouraging the entrepreneurial spirit.
  Furthermore, I am troubled that this measure does not address estate 
tax relief. The most oppressive estate tax we have seen in a decade is 
scheduled to go into effect at the beginning of the New Year. Our 
farmers and small business owners face dire consequences from inaction 
on this issue.

[[Page H7887]]

  Higher estate tax rates would have an especially severe impact on 
farmers and small business owners in Georgia's Second Congressional 
District. According to a June 2009 report by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, if Congress does not take action on estate tax relief 
before the end of this year, the resulting higher estate tax could 
affect 10 percent of American farms, 98 percent of which are family-
owned and operated. Many Georgians could lose farms that have been 
passed down from generation to generation, or be forced to sell much-
needed land, buildings, and equipment. In addition, small business 
owners could lose the companies they worked so hard to build and hoped 
to hand down to their children.
  We cannot ignore these issues, and it is my hope that a bipartisan 
agreement can be reached before the New Year. We must extend the 2001 
and 2003 tax cuts, at least temporarily, for all Americans, as well as 
provide substantial estate tax relief for the benefit of our family-
owned farms and businesses.
  Now is not the time for political games and maneuvering. The nation 
needs us to come together and address this issue in a bipartisan 
manner. We truly cannot afford to wait any longer.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation 
has prepared a technical explanation of the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment to H.R. 4853. This document expresses the Committee's 
understanding and intent of the provisions included in this 
legislation. This document can be found on the Joint Committee on 
Taxation website, www.jct.gov, under document number JCX-52-10.
  Mr. STARK, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4853 the 
Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010. This bill puts the interests of 
working families and our nation's fiscal health ahead of millionaires. 
The legislation allows the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, and 
protects struggling middle class families from a tax increase they 
cannot afford during these difficult economic times.
  A vote against this bill is a vote against middle class families in 
order to protect millionaires and billionaires. Our colleagues across 
the aisle want to hold middle class tax relief hostage so that they can 
give yet another massive tax break to the wealthy. The Congressional 
Budget Office reported what we already know: tax cuts for the rich 
provide virtually no economic stimulus. Extending the rates for the 
highest income tax brackets is not a break needed by our small 
businesses. Individuals with small business income make up fewer than 
three percent of taxpayers in the top two tax brackets. There is no 
reason for us to use $700 billion that could be used to create jobs or 
reduce the deficit so that millionaires can get a tax cut.
  Earlier this week Congress allowed unemployment insurance to expire 
for millions of Americans. Two million people will lose their 
unemployment benefits in December alone, including over 400,000 in my 
state of California. Last week, nearly every Republican voted against a 
three month extension of unemployment benefits to help families keep a 
roof over their heads and food on their dinner table over the holidays. 
This week, they will gladly justify using $700 billion in borrowed 
money to make a few thousand millionaires happy. The priorities of the 
Republicans are dangerous and out of touch with what our economy needs.
  I support the Middle Class Tax Relief Act because it will protect 
middle and lower income families. In addition to making the tax cuts 
permanent for the first $250,000 of income for all married couples, the 
legislation will extend the $1,000 child tax credit; provide permanent 
dividend income tax relief; allow more workers to benefit from the 
EITC; permanently eliminate the ``marriage penalty''; and patch the AMT 
through 2011. I urge my colleagues to not turn their backs on middle 
class families and to support this legislation.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, long before a man finds a 
political party, he finds his principles. This debate about the ``Bush 
Tax Cuts'' is an opportunity to show the American people our 
principles--to show them that we stand for and believe in a strong 
middle class; to show them we believe in fiscal responsibility.
  Forty-seven years ago, on the steps of The Lincoln Memorial, I 
criticized both the Republican and the Democratic party for doing too 
little for the working man and the disenfranchised. And now, as I stand 
here on the floor of the House of Representatives, I hope this is 
criticism I will not have to repeat today.
  To my colleagues who fret or seek the cover of Republican votes I 
say, ``be not afraid.'' Be not afraid as history will judge us right. 
Be not afraid as the numbers are on our side. Be not afraid as an 
elected official is judged not by the number of years he has served, 
but by the cause he has served.
  Stand up and show America the cause you serve. Stand up and show 
America your principles. If you value and believe in the strength of 
America's working families, then vote ``yes.'' If you truly believe in 
fiscal responsibility, then vote ``yes.'' But if partisanship and 
political games come first, then vote no and allow America to see you 
for who you are.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of this 
motion is postponed.

                          ____________________