[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 167 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8524-H8532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO
SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4853, TAX RELIEF, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
REAUTHORIZATION, AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2010
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1766 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res 1766
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to debate in the House the topics addressed
by the motions specified in sections 2 and 3 of this
resolution for three hours equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means or their designees.
Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this
resolution, it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's
table the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United
[[Page H8525]]
States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport
improvement program, and for other purposes, with the Senate
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment
thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention
of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of
rule XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in the
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to
final adoption without intervening motion.
Sec. 3. If the motion described in section 2 of this
resolution fails of adoption, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on a motion that the House concur in
the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment, on which the Chair shall immediately put the
question.
Sec. 4. Until completion of proceedings enabled by the
first three sections of this resolution--
(a) the Chair may decline to entertain any intervening
motion, resolution, question, or notice;
(b) the Chair may postpone such proceedings to such time as
may be designated by the Speaker; and
(c) each amendment and motion considered pursuant to this
resolution shall be considered as read.
Point of Order
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1766
because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order
against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section
425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes the violation of
426(a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the
gentleman from Arizona and the gentlewoman from New York each will
control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
Following debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration as
the statutory means of disposing of the point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
{time} 1030
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this tax
package that the House will consider shortly. While there may not be
unfunded mandates per se in the bill, this will impose a burden on
States and local governments and everyone else here. And particularly
it will add a huge burden to our kids and our grandkids, because we are
borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars that will go directly to the
deficit and directly to our $14 trillion national debt.
On November 2, I think we got a pretty good message from the
taxpayers. They wanted us to stop running deficits and to start paying
down the debt. Yet before we even get to the new year, just weeks away
from the election, here we are, adding hundreds of billions of dollars
to the deficit and to the debt. This compromise shows that Washington
just doesn't get it yet. We simply didn't get the message we were
supposed to on November 2.
I do support the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that were
enacted, and we also have to find a remedy for the death tax. But we've
got to do it in a different way than this. Congress can take swift
action to ensure that taxes don't go up, but we shouldn't be adding the
other items that we're doing here. It's taken on the seasonal theme
again, of course. It's become a Christmas tree. I'll explain a few of
the items in it. But it just notes, more than anything, that we haven't
gotten the message, that we're just going about things the same way we
always have.
Let me just take one provision here, ethanol. We've been subsidizing
ethanol now for nearly 30 years. It's about a $6 billion a year
subsidy. They have the trifecta, the ethanol industry. We mandate its
use. We impose tariffs to imports to make sure we can compete, and then
we subsidize as well. And we're going to continue to do all those
things here for an industry that should be mature at this time, but
it's continuing to get subsidies. How in the world that belongs as part
of this tax package I'll leave for the voters to decide. But it just
shows that we haven't changed. When are we going to wake up to the fact
that we can't continue to do business like this anymore?
With regard to ethanol, one of the former backers was former Vice
President Al Gore. He said the other day: One of the reasons I made
this mistake--this mistake being supporting the subsidizing of
ethanol--is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home
State of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the
State of Iowa because I was about to run for President.
Now, that's a pretty candid admission. And the reason we have ethanol
subsidies is that all Presidential campaigns begin in Iowa. But that's
no reason to saddle the rest of the country with this kind of burden.
And also the negative impacts on the environment are huge and growing
from ethanol, yet we continue to do it just to buy a couple of votes to
get this tax bill over the top.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I must say that I understand the point of the gentleman. I think
spending this kind of money, over $700 billion over 10 years for 6,600
families in the United States, is a foolish expenditure. I do agree
that what we want to do is get the deficit down, and believe me, that
does not do it.
Technically, though, this point of order is about whether or not to
consider the rule and, ultimately, the underlying measure. And, in
reality, it's about trying to block the measure. I believe that that's
an abdication of our responsibility. We have to have the opportunity to
debate, and without an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the
legislation, we are failing our responsibility. I think that is wrong.
I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can consider the
legislation on its merits and vote accordingly and not stop it on a
procedural motion.
I have the right to close, but in the end, I will urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. I appreciate the comments of the gentlelady. She brings up
that this is a technicality, that we're just speaking here on a point
of order when we should be speaking on the bill and that we should
debate this bill on the merits. I would like to. That's why I actually
submitted an amendment to the gentlelady's committee, to the Rules
Committee, to debate the ethanol provision; yet it wasn't included. We
weren't allowed to debate that. And so if we're not allowed to debate
that then under the rule, then we have to debate it some other time.
I would love to hear an explanation from the Rules Committee as to
why this wasn't included and why only amendments that may make Members
feel good about voting on but have no possibility of delaying this
package were even considered.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
I would say to my friend that he is absolutely right in pointing to
the fact that we had a more than 2-hour hearing in the Rules Committee.
The die was already cast. The decision had already been made that the
only thing that would be made in order was an opportunity to increase
the death tax, that burden on the intergenerational transfer that we
believe is important to keep our economy growing. And the amendment
that my friend offered, and my California colleague, Mr. Herger,
offered a similar amendment to deal with this notion of ethanol
subsidies, which are just plain wrong, and I'm troubled at the fact
that this rule does not allow us a chance to address those issues.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
Just continuing on the ethanol theme, Robert Bryce of the Manhattan
Institute said recently: ``Between 1999 and 2009, while U.S. ethanol
production increased sevenfold to more than 700,000 barrels a day, U.S.
oil imports actually increased by more than 800,000 barrels per day.
Furthermore, and perhaps more surprising, during the same period, U.S.
oil exports--yes, exports--more than doubled to more than 2 million
barrels per day.
[[Page H8526]]
``Data from the Energy Information Administration show that oil
imports closely track U.S. oil consumption. Over the past decade, as
domestic oil demand grew, imports increased. When consumption fell,
imports dropped. Ramped-up ethanol production levels simply had no
apparent effect on oil imports or consumption.''
We have every level of the administration, anybody who analyzes this
says that this is a boondoggle; and yet it reappears here, a $6 billion
item, not insubstantial, not small. But it appears here in this tax
package simply to get it over the line. That simply can't happen
anymore if we're going to get control on this debt and deficit.
Let me talk about one other provision of the tax bill. All of us talk
about the burden that the payroll tax has, and it is big. And it's
tough for taxpayers to pay the payroll tax. I would like to lower it. I
think everybody would like to lower it. But the payroll tax is
dedicated specifically for Social Security. It goes into the Social
Security trust fund.
Under this legislation, we'll have a 2 percent reduction in the
payroll tax on the employee side. That will net somebody like me or any
Member of Congress here about $2,000 a year. What does it do for the
deficit? It will balloon the deficit by $120 billion a year. One year
from now, because it's only a 1-year reduction, we'll be faced with
this same problem.
What do we do as Republicans? We always say we're not going to raise
taxes on anybody, no matter how temporary the tax. We'll be forced
politically, with the situation, where do we increase this tax? Do we
let it go? If we let it continue, that's another $120 billion hole in
the deficit and in the Social Security trust fund. Why are we doing
that?
If we do have payroll tax deductions, we may well want to, but at
least let's have commensurate benefit cuts on the other side. Let's
address benefits on the other side. If we're not going to lower them,
then we shouldn't lower this.
This is simply irresponsible for us to take a bill like this and
assume that it's not going to have an impact on the deficit and not
going to have an impact on the debt.
Where are we now? Just a few weeks ago, every one of us, I tell you,
every one of us running for office said to the voters, we're going to
get control of the debt and the deficit. All of us said that. And yet
our first actions here, before we even go into the next Congress, is to
put a bill on the floor that's going to balloon the debt and deficit.
How can we do that? We can't. We shouldn't. That's why I am raising
this point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1040
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FLAKE. Again, this is a package that we simply cannot afford. We
cannot go on as if the deficit and the debt don't matter. Not only that
they don't matter, but we expand them considerably. We can continue the
tax cuts for every American. We can do that without these extra things
in the bill. Let's wait until January. Let's wait until we have a new
Congress, and let's do a different deal than this. This is not a deal
that is good for the taxpayer; it is not a deal that is good for this
institution.
We have said that we will change and that we got the message. This is
evidence that we haven't.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments
this morning. I urge him to vote ``no'' on this bill if he plans to do
that, and I think he will find a great deal of company. But I want to
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so we may
debate and vote on this piece of legislation today.
It is not perfect by any means. I rarely see a piece of perfect
legislation. But remember that what we are doing here is concurring in
a Senate bill, which limited the fact of how many changes that we would
be able to make.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given
5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on House Resolution
1766.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1766 provides for consideration
of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment
to H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization,
and Job Creation Act.
The rule provides 3 hours of debate and makes in order a motion
offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means that the House
concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment to H.R. 4853 with the amendment printed in the Rules
Committee report. If that motion fails, the rule causes to be pending a
motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the
Senate amendment to H.R. 4853.
Finally, until completion of all proceedings, the Chair may decline
to entertain any intervening motion, resolution, question, or notice;
the Chair may postpone proceedings to a time designated by the Speaker;
and each amendment and motion shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan agreement on a framework for extending
middle class tax cuts and extending unemployment relief is certainly
not perfect. In fact, I don't like it much at all.
In the lead-up to the debate here this morning, a lot of my
constituents have encouraged me to oppose it. They know it is an
unwarranted handout for millionaires and billionaires at a time when we
are still fighting two wars with countless pressing needs here at home
and a deficit that would push us further into the red by this giveaway.
A typical sentiment was reflected in a call from Ken, a Niagara Falls
resident, who phoned my office to insist it was wrong-headed for
Democrats, who control the House, the Senate, and White House, to agree
to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. His words were: ``Barack
Obama is still the President of the United States, not Mitch McConnell,
and McConnell should not get to dictate tax policy.'' To that, I say, I
hear you. But, nonetheless, today here we are.
There are some good things in this bill. Certainly extending
unemployment relief for struggling American workers who may have been
laid off and simply need assistance to help them buy groceries and
necessities until they find a new job is important.
During the last 2 years, this Congress has voted to cut taxes for
working parents and small businesses at least eight times, and lower
tuition costs for college students. We have provided the best
opportunities for growth and prosperity.
But losing $25 billion in revenue to provide a tax shelter to 6,600
families who will qualify for this new estate tax handout is just
wrong, it is disgraceful, and it is damaging to the entire economic
future of this country.
In the aftermath of this negotiation, the President was accused of
quitting in the first round, giving away the store, punting on first
down, and other things that I don't want to go into here. But while
this agreement is flawed, there are parts of it, as I said, that will
benefit the American people.
Failure to send the bill to the President's desk for his signature
would result in tax hikes on millions of middle class families across
our country and loss of unemployment insurance for those who are
hardest hit by this recession.
More importantly, I think it might risk slowing the economic
recovery. However, I think it is very important
[[Page H8527]]
for me to make this point: we have lived with these tax cuts for 10
years. It is certainly no secret to any American or anybody else in the
world that our unemployment condition is perfectly awful. And to try to
pretend to the American people that once we pass this great tax cut for
the rich that jobs are suddenly going to rain on us makes us feel like
Alice in Wonderland, able to believe 10 impossible things before
breakfast. I am just not one of them. It will not make that kind of
difference. It simply, once again, makes the rich richer. But that was
the price we had to pay for helping the middle class and the
unemployed.
I note that many of these tax cuts, as we know, were created 10 years
ago. And what have they brought? Nothing but a deep-lasting recession.
But what I also want to comment on here is the impossibility of this
Congress to let these tax cuts expire, which would in itself decrease
the deficit by 50 percent in 2 years, says to me that these will never
expire. And I want to put that in connection with what we have done to
the payroll tax.
I consider this one of the greatest threats to Social Security and
its future. If anybody here believes, if anyone can stand up and
believe that we are going to be able to reinstate that payroll tax on
employers and employees, they only need to look at what is happening
here today, that after 10 years of experience, which brought us no
jobs, we are expanding tax cuts which will, again, bring us no jobs.
If this agreement doesn't become law, I know that the tax rates on
the middle class will go up. They are going to end up paying more
money, and I hate that, because God knows all the benefits in the last
10 years have gone to the wealthy.
I dread seeing my America, the one I grew up in and I love, where I
don't believe that the American Dream is available for children
anymore. I am not going to cry about it, but I know that now that the
rich are richer and the poor are poorer, the poor children don't think
about that much anymore. They think about trying to get an education,
if they can, or trying to live another year.
So we have to take this bill up today. No question about it. And I
feel very sad about it. But I will tell you that it has been our
experience that these are the prices that we have to pay when we
negotiate with our partners on the other side. They believe in trickle-
down with all their heart: make everybody richer at the top, all those
great folks, even those with great inherited wealth, as my colleague
Mr. McGovern said, who may never have worked a day in their life, and
suddenly jobs are going to be produced. Please, America, please don't
believe that. That is not what we are doing here today. We are not
doing anything to benefit this economy here today.
That logic of driving up long-term deficits and putting the
government in the red more than it is, to hand out money for a tiny
fraction of taxpayers, is that really a sensible thing for America to
be doing today? I think not. But we know that the other side in the
coming years will pursue even more tax breaks for the wealthiest and
the wealthiest estates. All of those tangible outcomes are directed
toward millionaires and billionaires. As long as I am serving in
Congress, I will resist this with every fiber of my being because I
don't think it does anything for our economy while adding to the
deficit.
In the end, I am here to encourage my colleagues to support this rule
so that we may have this 3-hour debate, which will give people plenty
of time on both sides to express their opinion. It is a fair process.
All the Members will be able to express their views.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1050
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation
to my very good friend from Rochester, New York, the distinguished
chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin in the spirit of the season and
say that I would like to associate myself with some of the remarks that
were offered by the distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules, and
express appreciation to Ms. Slaughter for her very, very interesting
and thoughtful approach to this issue.
I associate myself with the remarks she made when she said she
doesn't like this measure. I associate myself with her in that in
saying I don't like this measure that is before us, Mr. Speaker. But I
like even less the idea of our imposing a tax increase on every single
American who pays their income taxes. I believe that that would have a
deleterious effect to the goal that we as Democrats and Republicans
alike share.
What is the message that we have gotten over and over and over again
and the message that was sent this past November 2? It was create jobs,
focus on economic growth, make sure that we can do everything that we
possibly can to look at those Americans who are hurting today, and make
sure that they have an opportunity to get onto the first rung of the
economic ladder. That is the driving message. Obviously, a very
important part of that is going to be to reduce the size and scope and
reach of the Federal Government, which has undermined the ability for
job creation and economic growth to take place.
Now, when I say I don't like this measure that is before us, I don't
like the fact, and many of my Republican colleagues have raised this--
Mr. Flake just raised concerns about the ethanol subsidies. I don't
like the fact that we have unemployment benefits that are extended
without being paid for. I don't like a number of the provisions here.
But we are in the midst of a very fragile economic recovery at this
juncture, and I will tell you, mark my words, Mr. Speaker, beginning in
January we are going to focus on cutting spending. I have just come
from a meeting with a number of my colleagues, and we are determined to
focus on that. That is why it is imperative that today we recognize
that the issue that is before us is going to actually be helpful in our
quest to deal with job creation and economic growth.
I congratulate President Obama for working in a bipartisan way to
address this issue. In fact, I said in the last campaign that one of my
priorities was to work to make President Obama a better President. I
believe the fact that he has moved towards recognizing that a pro-
growth economic policy has direct ties to the level of taxation imposed
on working Americans and job creators is a positive sign, and I believe
that moves him in the direction of being a better President.
I also have been encouraged by the fact that he wants to create jobs
by opening up new markets around the world. I gave a 1-minute speech
this morning talking about the importance of the key U.S.-Korea free
trade agreement the President supports and I hope will send to us very
soon. It will be the largest bilateral free trade agreement in the
history of the world, when you look at the size of our economies. That
is something that the President is supporting and I believe we will be
able to work on in a bipartisan way.
So, Mr. Speaker, the notion of seeing President Obama shifting to the
John F. Kennedy vision and the Ronald Reagan vision on economic growth
is a very encouraging indicator to me and many of our colleagues, and
should be for the American people as well.
Now, again I will say that Ms. Slaughter is absolutely right; we
don't like this measure. But the idea of increasing taxes is something
that is anathema to the vision of economic growth and job creation. And
it is not just conservative economists who say that, it is not just the
supply-siders, of which I consider myself to be one.
Keynesian economists, Mr. Speaker, Keynesian economists, those who
subscribe to the view of John Maynard Keynes, who lived until 1950,
recognizing and focusing on the issue of spending, those who subscribe
to the Keynesian view recognize that increasing taxes on anyone when
you are dealing with slow economic growth is a prescription for
exacerbating, exacerbating, the problems that you are trying to
address.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in the midst of bipartisan discussions over
the past several days with a number of my colleagues on the recognition
that we have to say that Democrats should recognize that spending cuts
need to take
[[Page H8528]]
place and Republicans need to recognize that tax increases need to take
place. It is an interesting discussion, and many argue that that is
sort of the give-and-take we have.
But I think it is important as we look at this issue to harken back
on history. Next month I will begin my fourth decade here, and I will
say that there was a study done in my first decade, during the 1980s,
by two professors from Ohio University, Professors Vedder and Gallaway.
Their study looked at the impact of tax increases in the quest to try
to reduce spending and the size and scope of government and deal with
the problem that Democrats and Republicans alike regularly decry, that
being the expansion of government.
Well, their study was known as the $1.58 Study. What it showed, Mr.
Speaker, was that every time there was $1 in taxes increased, the
Federal Government increased spending by $1.58. Now, I remember one of
the first measures that I voted against was known as the Tax Equity and
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, and in that measure they said there
would be $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes increased.
Mr. Speaker, as we are here today just days before Christmas, going
back to 1982 we got the $98.5 billion tax increase included in that,
but we are still waiting for those $3 in spending cuts. The Vedder-
Gallaway study made it very, very clear, looking on many occasions, the
1990 increase and other studies done since then have shown for every $1
in taxes increased, spending has increased from $1.05 to $1.81, and
this is outlined in a piece that was done by Professor Vedder and
Stephen Moore in The Wall Street Journal this week.
So our notion of saying that increasing taxes is going to deal with
the deficit problem is again a specious argument.
Now, many argue that the tax that exists on job creators, those at
the upper end, will create a great drain on the Federal Treasury. But
if we are going to focus again on job creation and economic growth, Mr.
Speaker, I am convinced, based on the vision put forth by Professor
Arthur Laffer and many others, that the economic growth that will
follow keeping those rates low on job creators will actually increase
the flow of revenues to the Federal treasury, and keeping those top
rates low, capital gains and dividend rates low, will spur the growth
that will create jobs, and many people who today are not working and
are in fact receiving unemployment benefits will have opportunity, and
they will be joining the productive side of the economy and generating
that flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury that we obviously
desperately need.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have been asking us to do this for a
long period of time. My colleagues have had an opportunity to do it for
a long period of time. Unfortunately, here we are just 2 weeks, just 2
weeks before the end of the year, and 2 weeks before the largest income
tax rate increase that we have seen in many a year is scheduled to take
place.
So while there is much to criticize about this measure, and I could
easily vote against it, I believe that the right vote for us to cast is
a vote which will ensure that we continue down the road towards job
creation and economic growth and allowing the American people to keep
more of what they've earned.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1100
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr.
McGovern.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the chairwoman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in reluctant
opposition to the underlying legislation.
Let me begin by saying that I know there are a lot of goods things in
this bill. The bill extends tax relief for middle class families. It
extends unemployment insurance for Americans who, through no fault of
their own, find themselves out of work in this difficult economy. The
bill also extends several important tax relief measures that were
included in last year's recovery package, including the parity for
transit benefits, which is a measure that I have worked on here in the
House.
I understand and appreciate the situation in which President Obama
found himself. He was faced with the United States Senate that demands
a supermajority of 60 votes to order pizza, let alone enact significant
legislation. Over the past 2 years, our Republican colleagues in the
Senate have blown by the previous records for filibusters. They have
made it clear that their overriding political strategy is to say ``no''
to whatever President Obama proposes, no matter how worthy or popular.
And that's unfortunate, but that's the reality we face. And it is
unbelievably cynical.
But I believe that the provisions in this bill that give away
billions and billions and billions of dollars to the wealthiest
Americans are unnecessary, unproductive, and irresponsible.
Unnecessary, because over the past few years, while millions of middle
class families struggled to pay their mortgages and put food on the
table, the wealthiest few in America have done very well. The fat cats
on Wall Street are riding high once again with multimillion-dollar
bonuses and golden parachutes. Unproductive, because study after study
have shown that one of the least effective ways to stimulate the
economy is to put more money into the pockets of the rich. The
wealthiest few are more likely to save that money rather than invest it
in our economy. CBO has found that of all the things we could do to
stimulate the economy, tax breaks for the rich people in this country
have the worst record of encouraging economic growth. And
irresponsible, because this bill will add billions and billions of
dollars onto our Nation's debt. None of these tax cuts are paid for.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. McGOVERN. We just came through a campaign in which everybody
talked about the need for deficit reduction. The bipartisan Bowles-
Simpson commission made it clear that we are on an unsustainable
course. When they presented their report, everybody in this town nodded
gravely and said this is important work. Yet here we are, less than a
month later, making the problem worse.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the underlying legislation as written.
I know we will have an opportunity to improve this bill by supporting
an amendment to pare back some of the estate tax cuts for the
wealthiest estates in America. I urge my colleagues to support that
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this. We must do better than this.
Future generations are counting on us.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very
hardworking Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from Grandfather
Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I thank my distinguished colleague from California (Mr.
Dreier) for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to make it clear I am opposed to allowing
tax increases to go into effect on January 1. However, I am also
opposed to this rule and the underlying bill.
It's very interesting to hear our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle arguing against the tax bill before us today because of their
concerns that we're adding to the deficit. We didn't hear those
arguments when they were voting for the trillion-dollar stimulus and
all the other trillions they have voted for in the past 4 years. In
fact, their stories and those of the President have changed
dramatically over the past few days. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put
into the Record an article in American Thinker, December 14, ``Tax Cuts
Clearly Explained.'' The article does a really good job of explaining
the flip-flops on the side of the Democrats.
I want to quote a couple of sentences from it. It says, ``The
Republican position was to keep tax rates where they are now and where
they've been since 2003. Democrats fought to keep the Bush tax rates
only for those making less than $250,000 in a year. That is curious,
since they've been saying for about 10 years that the `Bush tax cuts'
went only to the wealthiest Americans. Democrats are arguing to keep
something they said never existed.'' So we
[[Page H8529]]
find our friends again on the other side of the aisle flip-flopping on
this issue.
I'd also like to add a couple of more comments from this article.
``As a matter of record, the final Bush tax rates passed Congress in
mid 2003, shortly after Republicans retook the Senate. From August 2003
to December 2007, over 8 million net new jobs were created and real GDP
grew almost 3 percent per year. At the same time, Federal revenues
increased by 2.3 percent of GDP, $785 billion, putting revenues above
the average level of 1960 to 2000, the 40 years before Bush.
Unemployment fell to 4.4 percent and the deficit fell to 1.2 percent of
GDP. Such was the catastrophe of 4 years of Bush's tax rates and
Republican-written Federal budgets.
``You will hear that this or that group, the top 2 percent of those
who inherit dad's farm, et cetera, does not `deserve' to have its taxes
kept at the current rate. There are only two alternatives for where
that money goes: the family that earned it or the government. If the
family doesn't `deserve' it, does the government?''
It appears from all the comments that our colleagues have made that
they believe that the money that the hardworking Americans earn belongs
to the government. As a member of the Rules Committee, I have seen up
close how the ruling Democrats have violated every promise they made to
run an open Congress but have shut out the opportunity to offer
amendments.
We should vote down this rule and allow any amendments to be offered.
[From American Thinker, Dec. 14, 2010]
Tax Cuts Clearly Explained
(By Randall Hoven)
If you go to the White House website, right at the top is a
bar you can click on to see ``Tax Cuts Clearly Explained.''
If you click, you see a video of one of President Obama's
economic advisors using a whiteboard to explain that
Republicans are bad, that Obama is above politics, and that
if Obama gets his way, jobs and growth and goodness will
spring forth.
The video starts out simply enough. Republicans want to
extend the Bush tax rates for everyone; Obama wants to leave
out the top 2% of income earners. It was all about the Bush
tax rates and for how long, and to whom, to extend them.
But then the video starts talking about a host of things
unrelated to those tax rates. The economist even lists them
on his whiteboard.
Unemployment insurance,
Earned income tax credit,
American opportunity tax credit,
Child tax credit,
Payroll tax,
Investment incentives.
The ``clear'' explanation is that since the current tax
rates for the top 2% would be extended another couple years,
this list of unrelated ``targeted and temporary'' tax cuts
must be added to the package to somehow offset them. The
concern was that extending current tax rates for the top 2%
would increase the deficit too much. So politicians
compromised in a way that would increase the deficit more
than either party's initial proposal. (King of like the way
they compromised on TARP in 2008. Remember ``sweeteners''?)
Since Congress got into the compromise act, tax credits for
ethanol, alternative fuels, and who knows what else have also
been added.
In the spirit of clarity, what follows is my attempt to
explain tax cuts.
The Republican position was to keep tax rates where they
are now and where they've been since 2003.
1. Democrats fought to keep the Bush tax rates only for
those making less than $250,000 in a year. That is curious,
since they've been saying for about ten years that the ``Bush
tax cuts'' went only to the wealthiest Americans. Democrats
are arguing to keep something they said never existed.
2. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the entire
package, as currently proposed in the Senate, would add $858
billion to the 2011-2020 deficit. Without it, the 2011-2020
deficit would be $6,246 B. So this package theoretically
increases the ten-year deficit by 14%.
3. Of that $858 B, about $544 B comes from keeping current
tax rates; the rest comes from the new goodies unrelated to
the Bush rates. So because Democrats said some part of that
$544 B adds too much to the deficit, they added another $314
B to the deficit. That is how compromise and ``the middle
way'' work in Washington.
4. The CBO calculates future revenues under the assumption
that tax rates have zero effect on the behavior of investors,
consumers, employers, etc. Congress forces the CBO to make
that assumption. Every economist this side of Paul Krugman
knows that that assumption is wrong. One such economist is
Christina Romer, President Obama's first choice as chief of
his economic advisors. She said a tax increase of 1% of GDP
reduces GDP by about 1.84%. And she said that this year in a
published, peer-reviewed academic paper.
5. Another top economic adviser to President Obama, Larry
Summers, was more direct. ``If they do not pass this [tax cut
agreement] in the next couple of weeks, it will materially
increase the risk of the economy stalling out and that we
would have a double-dip [recession].'' Bill Clinton advised
that passing the tax cuts would ``minimize the chances that
it [the economy] will slip back [into recession].'' Again,
top Democrats say we must keep the Bush tax rates or the
recession resumes.
6. President Obama's view is that not keeping the Bush tax
rates on those making under $250,000 ``would be a grave
injustice'' and ``would deal a serious blow to our economic
recovery.'' Again, this is curious because Democrats keep
saying that Bush's tax cuts went only to the wealthiest
Americans and caused all the harm we now see to the economy.
But apparently, not continuing the Bush policy for 98% of
taxpayers would be a ``serious blow'' to the economy.
7. President Obama believes that keeping the current tax
rates for those making over $250,000 in a year ``would cost
us $700 billion'' and do ``very little to actually grow our
economy.'' He assures us that ``economists from all across
the political spectrum agree'' on that. I believed he polled
the same economists who said his stimulus would keep the
unemployment rate below 8%.
8. As a matter of record, the final Bush tax rates passed
Congress in mid-2003, shortly after Republicans retook the
Senate. From August 2003 to December 2007, over eight million
net new jobs were created, and real GDP grew almost 3% per
year. At that same time, federal revenues increased by 2.3%
of GDP ($785 B), putting revenues above the average level of
1960-2000, the forty years before Bush. Unemployment fell to
4.4%, and the deficit fell to 1.2% of GDP. Such was the
catastrophe of four years of Bush's tax rates and Republican-
written federal budgets.
9. You will hear that this or that group (the top 2%, those
who inherit dad's farm, etc.) does not ``deserve'' to have
its taxes kept at the current rate. There are only two
alternatives for where that money goes: the family that
earned it, or the government. If the family doesn't
``deserve'' it, does the government.?
[In fact, it appears from spoken and written comments that
our colleagues think that the money that Americans earn
should all belong to the government.]
As usual, this is not about anything the Democrats say it
is about. If they are worried about the deficit, why did they
add to the deficit to get this deal?
Republicans would have compromised by simply extending the
current rates for two years instead of permanently. Obama saw
that bet and raised unemployment insurance, earned income tax
credit, American opportunity tax credit, child tax credit,
payroll tax, and investment incentives. Congressional
Democrats saw that bet and raised it ethanol and alternative
fuels subsidies.
This is all about the Democrats rewarding their interest
groups and blaming the certain deficit on Republicans. As
usual, the Stupid Party will see that bet, holding a pair of
deuces.
I'll try to clarify it with another analogy. A 700-pound
man goes to the doctor. The doctor says the man needs to
diet, and in fact prescribes a certain salad as the man's
meal for the next few months. The 700-pound man agrees to eat
the salad each meal--along with three roasted chickens, two
pounds of bacon, a large pizza, and four cheeseburgers with
the works. In his view, he compromised with his doctor.
Then when the man weighs 800 pounds after a few months, he
blames his doctor.
Now you play doctor. Would you make that compromise, given
you'll be sued for malpractice if the man gains weight?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
me this time to speak on this legislation.
It is very clear, because of the fragile state of our economy, that
there are many important provisions in this tax bill before us. For
middle income families, it means their tax rates will not go up. For
people in need of unemployment insurance, it extends those benefits
another 13 months. And for families struggling to make ends meet, this
bill extends tax credits for them so that they can pay for their
children's education and they can take care of their children. These
are lifelines for hardworking families that are struggling in this
economy.
I have fought my entire public career for these tax breaks to support
middle income families to make college more affordable. These
provisions help some 155 million Americans in this economy.
But that's not all that's in this tax bill. Tragically, these 155
million Americans were held hostage to a ransom that the Republicans
would only help these families, help these individuals, help these
students struggling in school if we gave tax cuts to the wealthiest
people in this country. It is as if the wealthy don't have enough money
and struggling middle class
[[Page H8530]]
families have too much. But that was the price that was extracted for
this legislation to help these 155 million Americans struggle through
this economic downturn.
So we see that some $25 billion will be lavished on 6,600 of the
wealthiest estates in this country. These are estates in excess of $10
million for a husband and wife. These are estates that have used all of
the tax laws to minimize the size of that estate to their advantage
before they pay the estate tax. But the Republicans were not prepared
to give unemployment insurance to millions of Americans who are
struggling to find work unless they could provide this money to the
wealthiest people in the country. This is not fair, it will
unnecessarily increase the deficit, and it has no stimulative value.
Economist after economist has told us what happens with this money
when you give it to the wealthiest people in the country. They put it
in the bank, and some day they may use it or they won't use it. It's
not like middle income families that have to pay the rent, pay the
lights, send their kids to school. It's a completely different
operation.
{time} 1110
So no stimulative value to giving billions and billions of dollars to
the richest 2 percent of the people in the country; it's not fair in
terms of the resources of this country being used for those individuals
while other families struggle; and it creates deficit unnecessarily. If
you're going to create the deficit, at least it ought to be
stimulative, at least it ought to grow the economy; that's not what
this does. It should be rejected for this reason because this deficit,
beginning the first of the year, will start immediately coming out of
the hides of programs that support these very same middle income
families and the education of their children.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very
good friend and California colleague, the gentleman from Elk Grove, Mr.
McClintock.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the Senate for passing the tax relief measure
yesterday and I certainly hope that the House passes it today.
According to the CBO, this bill comprises $136 billion of additional
spending. That's true, but that's for $721 billion of tax relief. That
means that 15 percent of this bill is spending; the other 85 percent of
it is tax relief. That means no across-the-board increase in income
taxes next year, no AMT biting deeper into middle class families, a
death tax that is a third less than what it otherwise would have been,
threatening far fewer family farms and family businesses with
extinction.
If this relief fails, when the ball drops at Times Square on New
Year's Eve, Americans will have just been walloped by a tax tsunami the
likes of which we haven't seen since the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Families
and small businesses will be spending the new year struggling to pay
thousands of dollars of new taxes. A family making $50,000 will see at
least $3,000 more taken from its paycheck. A small businessperson whose
shop makes $300,000 will have to cut another $8,400--perhaps the
difference between a part-time and full-time job for an employee.
From the left we're told we should raise taxes on the very rich who
make over $200,000 because they don't pay their fair share. Well,
according to the IRS, those folks earn 36 percent of all income; they
pay 49 percent of all income taxes. But a lot of them aren't people at
all. Half of the income earned by small businesses will be hit by these
tax increases. These are the job generators that we are depending upon
to end the nightmare of unemployment for millions of American families.
To confiscate billions of dollars more from them and then expect more
jobs to come of it is simply insane.
Some of my fellow conservatives object to the 15 percent of this bill
that spends money we don't have and I agree, but that damage can be
corrected through offsetting spending reductions next year. The new
Republican House majority can do that without the Senate or the
President simply by refusing to appropriate funds--and it is committed
to doing so. But it cannot rescind the taxes next year without the
Senate and the President, who have made their opposition to just such a
clean bill abundantly clear. And even if such a retroactive bill could
be passed by spring, these families and businesses won't get their tax
overpayments refunded to them until they file their returns a year
later.
Mr. Speaker, massive tax increases under Hoover turned the recession
of 1929 into the depression of the 1930s. Let that not be the legacy of
this Congress.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady for yielding the time.
It is fairly extraordinary to listen to the debate coming from the
Republican side of the aisle. We are headed toward--before this vote--a
$1.3 trillion deficit next year. With this single vote, we will
increase the deficit, the debt of the United States, by $430 billion
this year and $430 billion next year.
Republicans want to pretend that somehow if you cut your income, you
can still balance your budget. That would surprise most Americans. Most
Americans don't cut back hours at work when they can't make ends meet
at home unless they are forced to by their employer.
These tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, were put into effect at a time of
surplus. The rationale was give people back their money, we have a
surplus as far as the eye can see. Now we're teetering on the edge of
having the United States of America's debt rating downgraded. And if
you increase the debt next year by $1.7 trillion--and you say, well,
don't worry, we'll take care of it with some cuts. Cuts? $450 billion
in 1 year? I don't think so, unless basically you eliminate virtually
the entire government, close the prisons, turn the prisoners out, open
the borders, no Coast Guard, and we go on down the list. $450 billion?
No, you're not going to do that, and you know you're not going to do
that. You're just pretending.
But even worse, $111 billion of this is going to come from Social
Security. The Social Security trust fund has been inviolate since it
was set up by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and wise men 75 years ago. He
said this will be an earned benefit; Congress can't touch the money and
can't cut the benefits. No, but what we're going to do in this deal,
constructed by the Republicans--no Democrat has ever proposed this, no
hearing has ever been held on it--is we're going to give a tax holiday.
But don't worry, we'll make the Social Security trust fund whole; we'll
go out and borrow $111 billion from China and we'll inject it back into
the Social Security trust fund. What an absurdity and what a threat to
the future of Social Security because next year they'll say, hey, we
can't afford to subsidize Social Security, we can't afford to borrow
$111 billion from China, but don't let that tax go back up, that will
be the largest tax increase on working people in the history of the
United States--just like we're hearing now. We go back to the Clinton-
era taxes, the largest tax increase in the history of the United
States. We created 23 million jobs during the Clinton administration,
we balanced the budget of the United States of America, and we did that
under the tax rates that would come back into effect on the 1st. But
now you're going to attack Social Security, hold the unemployed
hostage, and reduce the income of the United States and increase our
debt. What a pathetic position to take.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very
thoughtful and hardworking colleague from Livonia, Michigan (Mr.
McCotter).
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to
the underlying bill.
Amidst our tumultuous age of globalization wherein big government's
restructuring is not merely desirable but inevitable, the sovereign
people's congressional servants must facilitate the conditions for
sustainable economic growth so people can work, and preserve and
promote America's economic preeminence in the world.
To accomplish these vital tasks, government must adopt deep and
enduring tax relief, and spending, deficit and debt reduction. These
policies are neither novel nor fashionable. They are necessary.
Therefore, because I oppose raising taxes, increasing deficits and
debt, and
[[Page H8531]]
worsening the entitlement crisis, I fundamentally object to this
compromised tax bill's following provisions:
One, a permanent tax increase in exchange for a temporary tax
reprieve is mistaken since any and all tax increases in a recession
retard a recovery.
And, two, a raid on Social Security requiring increased Federal debt
to fund a temporary tax gimmick that will not increase sustainable
employment is also mistaken.
Despite its proponents' best intentions, this bill will not end the
suffering of the unemployed and economically anxious Americans. It will
prolong it. For we cannot delay the day of big government's
restructuring; and, in endeavoring to do so, we make the inevitable
more painful, more prolonged, and, because it was unnecessary, more
deplorable.
Finally, to those Republicans who claim no choice but to vote for a
flawed bill now rather than wait 3 weeks for a better one, I disagree
and offer an analogy. Imagine prior to the Battle of the Little Big
Horn General Custer looking at his troops and saying: ``We must strike
now before there are more of us.''
I disagree with this and urge my colleagues to reject the bill.
{time} 1120
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank the gentlelady from New York.
I am in a lonely place today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the tax cut compromise.
Although our economy is in recovery, it remains fragile. If we don't
pass an extension of the tax cuts now, every American will see smaller
paychecks and higher taxes in January.
This compromise provides needed assistance to every American: an
extension of the unemployment insurance that the CBO says will add
600,000 jobs; an extension of Earned Income Tax Credits and Child Tax
Credits for lower income families; an AMT patch for middle income
families; a 2 percent cut in the payroll tax that provides up to $2,000
in tax relief for workers; a 2-year extension of the income tax rates
for all Americans; and business tax cuts that will spur up to $50
billion in private sector investment in the economy, which is
desperately needed.
According to economist Mark Zandi, this compromise will add a full
percentage point to the gross domestic product next year. Although we
are in recovery, it is not a robust recovery. We need all of the
stimulus we can get. This isn't a perfect bill, but I support the
bipartisan compromise.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, in this dealing-making, it became more important to get
a deal--any deal--than to secure an agreement that reflects our
American values and accomplishes our goal of renewed economic growth.
This bill is largely a mishmash of rejected Republican ideas that
cost too much to accomplish too little. Under this misbegotten deal, we
will borrow immense amounts of money from the Chinese and others to
provide the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans with a tax cut that is
greater than the median income of a Central Texas family for an entire
year. This is the same fortunate 1 percent, for the most part, that
took two-thirds of all of the income gains in the country during the
heart of the Bush years. That is not fair, and it will not encourage
significant economic growth.
The Republicans will rule this House for the next 2 years. Let's not
give them an early start today. I would vote for a bill that creates
more jobs and reduces the debt. This is not it.
Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule
and the underlying bill.
I am very excited that President Obama has demonstrated that he
believes in keeping taxes low for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, you know, as I talk to people in my district and across
the country, people like the fact that the Democrats are the party of
staying out of their personal business, that we are not doing the
moralizing of how they should live their lives--live your own life;
make your own decisions--that we are the party of personal
accountability and of personal responsibility. Yet they're always
concerned in the back of their minds that the Democrats are going to
raise their taxes. That is something I always hear.
Oh, I like the Democrats because of the liberty issues, but you know,
I always worry they're going to raise my taxes.
Well, I am proud to say that we are conclusively proving here today
that the Democratic Party is the party of low taxes and that President
Obama has a strong pro-growth agenda to keep taxes low for all
Americans.
Let me add, by the way, that this tax cut that we are supporting
today most benefits middle class Americans. They receive the true
benefit from this tax cut. Families making $40,000 a year receive about
a 7 percent rate reduction through this act. For families making
$60,000 a year, it's 6.1 percent, all the way up to families making $10
million at 4.6 percent.
So this is a progressive tax cut for America. It is one that puts
money into the hands of middle class families, who are those who need
it the most. They're the families making $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a
year. To tell families making $50,000 a year that they somehow need to
come up with $800 or $1,000 more a year in taxes when they're not
getting raises is going to put them out of their homes. They're
struggling to make mortgage payments as it is.
Mr. Speaker, in my district, there are a few people making over $1
million. Many of them say, You can raise my taxes. It won't affect my
quality of life. But for the people who need it the most, the people
making $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, $90,000 a year, who are struggling to
get by--a kid in college--who are struggling to make their mortgage
payments, this bill and President Obama have delivered tax relief to
them.
In addition, in the midst of a recession, we cannot allow
unemployment insurance to run out. Over 2,500 people a week in my home
State of Colorado, if we don't act today and renew unemployment
insurance, will lose their benefits--again, worsening the housing
crisis, reducing the ability of their continuing to make their mortgage
or rent payments, and forcing them to become liabilities rather than
assets.
We will get them back to work, Mr. Speaker, especially with this pro-
growth set of tax cuts that will encourage investment in our economy.
We will get these Americans back to work, and we will ensure that
everybody someday has the honor of paying at a higher tax bracket.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the gentleman an
additional 30 seconds, and I would like to ask him to yield to me, if
he would.
Mr. POLIS. I yield to my colleague from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I would like to
congratulate my friend on his very thoughtful statement and to say
that, at the end of his remarks, Mr. Speaker, he talked about the
notion of job creation/economic growth as a policy. Obviously ensuring
that we don't increase taxes for any American who is paying income
taxes is key to that.
I would appreciate hearing my colleague's thoughts on that.
Mr. POLIS. If I could request an additional 30 seconds to answer.
Mr. DREIER. Absolutely.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this tax cut that President Obama and the
Republicans and Democrats are delivering here today will encourage
solid growth in our economy by keeping taxes low and by giving some
predictability over a 2-year period so people can make investments and
know that the government is not coming in to take their money but will
let them keep their money to reinvest in the economy.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my colleague for his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H8532]]
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
speak out of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Mississippi is recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us, on a nearly trillion-
dollar bill between spending and tax cuts, apparently does not allow
for any time for the opponents of this measure. If you look at page 2,
line 4, it says this resolution allows for 3 hours equally divided and
controlled between the chair and the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
It is my understanding that both of those gentlemen are for the bill.
What guarantee do those of us who oppose increasing the deficit by a
trillion dollars have of being able to voice our objections if this
rule passes?
If Mr. McGovern would like to answer that question, I would welcome
it.
Mr. McGOVERN. My understanding is that there is an informal agreement
that there will be time designated for those in opposition; at least an
hour.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, there is no guarantee for
those of us who are opposed to raising the national debt by $1
trillion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________