[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.

                          ____________________