[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 167 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8532-H8534]
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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 11 minutes remaining and the gentleman from 
California has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, just to remind Members where we are in this debate, we 
are about to debate and take up a measure that would, number one, 
preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while 
we have a $1.3 trillion deficit in the current year. We would also, if 
this bill were to pass, create a tax exemption for estates of up to $10 
million. That is for 6,600 individuals, which brings to mind, I will 
paraphrase Winston Churchill who said, it has been some time since so 
many have been asked to do so much for so few--and with no legitimate 
reason, I might add.
  We are also talking about raiding the Social Security trust fund for 
the next 2 years, a total of $111 billion, and increasing the deficit 
by about $1 trillion, which will require us to exceed the national debt 
limit. So in April or

[[Page H8533]]

May of next year, with this bill passing, we will definitely exceed the 
current $14 trillion debt limit that the country has.
  I had a fair opportunity to negotiate contracts when I was an 
ironworker; and one thing I learned, and it applies to this agreement 
with the Republican Senate, there's a big difference between compromise 
and surrender.

                              {time}  1220

  What this bill represents is a complete surrender of Democratic 
principles and standing up for working people and making them carry an 
undue burden under this new tax law.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very 
hardworking colleague from Columbus, Indiana, who offered some very 
thoughtful remarks and endured the Committee on Rules last night, Mr. 
Pence.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, since last summer, I've been among those voices in this 
Congress calling for action to prevent a tax increase that would affect 
every American just a few short weeks from now. So I rise with a heavy 
heart today to say that as I look at this short-term tax deal 
negotiated by the White House with congressional leaders, that I have 
concluded after much study that it is a bad deal for taxpayers, it will 
do little to create jobs, and I cannot support it. Let me say, though, 
that I have the deepest respect for my colleagues on the Republican 
side of the aisle who may differ with me on this issue in the final 
analysis. This is a tough call.
  No Republican in this Congress wants to see taxes raised on any 
American. We all know what we should be doing today is voting to extend 
all the current tax rates permanently. The reality is that uncertainty 
is the enemy of prosperity. And simply by extending some of the tax 
rates that are on the books today for a few short years, we will not 
create the certainty necessary to encourage businesses to take out 
loans, to expend resources in ways that will put people back to work. 
We just know that.
  I was back in Muncie, Indiana, just a couple of days ago. I had a 
banker walk up to me at Rotary, and he said, What are you going to do 
on this? Sounds like a tough deal. And I said, You know, I hadn't 
decided at that point. He said, Well, nobody is going to come walking 
into my office to sign a 5-year note on a 2-year Tax Code.
  So why are we doing 2 years? Well, there's an election in 2 years. I 
get that. There are people that, for whatever reasons, want to re-
debate this in 2 years. I get that. I just don't get how it actually 
gets people back to work. And with regard to the spending in this bill, 
we can help families that are hurting in this economy, particularly 
during this cherished holiday season. But we can also figure out how to 
pay for it.
  Lastly, let me say the American people have spoken on November 2, Mr. 
Speaker. The American people did not vote for more deficits or more 
stimulus or more uncertainty in the Tax Code. But that's just what this 
lame duck Congress is about to give them. I think we can do better. 
Every Republican in this Congress would like the opportunity to do 
better. Sadly, this rule does not permit us to even have a fair up-or-
down vote on extending all the current tax rates, and I'm profoundly 
disappointed by that.
  And so I rise in opposition to this rule, but I also rise in 
opposition to the underlying bill. We can do better. We must do better 
on behalf of hurting families and Americans who want to go back to 
work.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. I'll be voting ``yes'' on the amendment, and if it 
fails, as I expect it will, I'll be voting ``yes'' on the bill. I'll 
vote ``yes'' on the amendment, because we ought to have a fair estate 
tax in this country. But, instead, Republicans insist that we increase 
the deficit $28 billion over the next 2 years in order to provide the 
lowest tax rates in 80 years on the richest few dozen families in each 
of our States.
  We should care about the deficit. And to say that the tax rate 
included in the amendment is unfair is to say that every Republican 
voted for an unfair tax when they voted for the Bush tax law that was 
applicable to 2009.
  Furthermore, another problem with the estate tax in the bill is that 
it provides a rate of tax for those deaths that occur in 2010 that is 
less than zero because the richest families can choose between a zero 
tax rate or huge write-offs on their income tax, which might be even 
lower, and they'll get the best possible tax advice.
  Finally, under this bill you're going to have some people who realize 
that if the patriarch of the family dies this year, they save tens of 
millions of dollars over next year. I hope that no plugs are pulled.
  I am going to vote for the bill only because of one question, 
Compared to what? If we do not send this bill to the President's desk 
this year, he will certainly sign a worse bill next year. It is not 
clear that House Democrats were at the table in the December 
negotiations, but it is clear that House Republicans will be at the 
table for the negotiations in January on this bill. The President and 
Democrats in the Senate have already agreed to this deal and I fear 
that they would agree to something a little bit worse. So it is with 
great reluctance that I will vote for this bill, should the amendment 
fail.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I would like to make sure that we classify 
this not as class warfare, if you will, but a Good Samaritan waving the 
flag. And, frankly, if we take the best of America and recognize that 
working people need help, the unemployment insurance that is part of 
this bill is a valid part of it. The child tax credit, the payroll 
holiday, all of those speak to the vision of this Nation that we have 
the willingness to share.
  We understand when men and women on the front lines of Iraq and 
Afghanistan, they fight not for any one class or any one community. 
They fight for America. So when we provide an estate tax that blurs the 
understanding of America, that we need an estate tax that is $5 million 
and $10 million, we're not telling the truth. The present law provides 
for most Americans, $3.5 million for an individual, $7 million for 
those who are couples; provides for family businesses; it provide for 
farmers. It works--and it has worked. It is not necessarily the best. 
But to give $25 billion to $28 billion unnecessarily that would go and 
take away from education and Social Security and Medicare, domestic 
spending that is necessary, is a crime.
  So this is not about fighting against someone who has a few more 
dollars than the next person. It's to do what we're sent here to do and 
make sure that the capitalistic system works for everybody, including 
those who are now unemployed. Let's get our senses together. Let's get 
the Senate to understand what the real deal is. Fight for everybody, 
not just a small special interest group. It's time to stand up and be 
counted. And I'd like to see this rule go forward simply because I want 
to put it to them that you can't spend $28 billion and waste it on 
those who don't need it.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our 
very, very, very diligent and hardworking ranking member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. 
Barton).
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman-to-be of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California, my good friend.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a bad compromise that's before us, but it is 
also not the best compromise. It's not a bad deal, but it's not the 
best deal.
  The gentleman from California who spoke on the Democratic side just a 
few minutes ago I think said it best when he said, In January, our 
Republican friends will be at the table. We are making a compromise 
today on the Republican side, in my opinion, that we don't have to 
make. I think the tax

[[Page H8534]]

cuts should be permanent, not temporary. I think the additional 
spending should be paid for now, not just added to the deficit.
  A funny thing happened in November: We elected over 80 new 
Republicans. The majority is going from about 255 Democrats to 242 
Republicans. You cannot tell me that the week before Christmas that 
Americans in the business community are deciding what their capital 
investments are going to be for 2011. Those decisions have already been 
made. So I am going to vote against the rule and, with reluctance, vote 
against the bill, not because it's a bad compromise but because we can 
do better. And I fully expect in January, when the Republicans become 
the majority party in the House, that we will do better.
  So again, this is not the worst bill that has ever been before us, 
but it could be better and it should be better, and so I would ask my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
great State of New York (Mr. Rangel).
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. For the first time approaching this rule, it is my 
understanding that if I want to stop $23 billion from increasing the 
deficit by knocking out a Senate provision and substituting a Pomeroy, 
in order to do that I would have to accept the remainder of the Senate 
bill. I don't think Members of this House should have to make that 
choice.
  It seems to me that if you believe that it is inequitable for a 
handful of people to receive such a large amount of money at the 
expense of the deficit, at the expense of discretionary spending, that 
we should have an opportunity, one, to vote against the Senate bill in 
its present form that does that, and two, to vote for Pomeroy, which 
would allow us to at least control the amount of tax relief that we 
give to estate taxes.
  I yield back the balance of my time, but I do hope we get a rule that 
will allow us to express exactly how we feel, Republican or Democrat, 
because if you're not a part of the deal, it's hard to be supporting 
it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to my colleague from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. 
Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, like all major bills that we do here, there is good and 
bad in this bill. There are things I like and things I don't like. That 
is a normal circumstance here. But in the final analysis I think people 
have to ask themselves one simple question: Are we ever going to get to 
the place where we pay our bills? This bill doesn't do it.
  In 2002, the last time this House had the opportunity to be fiscally 
responsible--and that's not the same thing as fiscally conservative or 
liberal; it's responsible--we voted to let the PAYGO rules go and the 
results are where we are today. This bill will kill our children, with 
very little input or benefit at the moment. It is not an emergency.
  I want a tax cut just like everyone else, but I also consider myself, 
and I am a social liberal. I do believe in Social Security and Medicare 
and senior housing and all the other things that we do here. I do 
believe in them. I know that others don't, and I respect those who want 
to cut those programs. Let's have that debate, but let's not do it 
through the back door. If you believe in those programs, it is 
incumbent upon us to pay for them. Voting for this bill simply empowers 
those who want to cut those programs anyway, and I cannot, in good 
conscience, support that.
  This bill must go down even if the deal we get next year is worse. I 
understand that, but it's not the right thing to do for those of us who 
believe in the programs we have.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans alike share the goal of job 
creation and deficit reduction; we regularly hear that argued from both 
sides of the aisle. The best way for us to do that is to encourage 
economic growth. Economic growth is the key to dealing with job 
creation and deficit reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't like this bill that is before us, but I like 
even less the idea of increasing the tax burden on working Americans--
in fact, putting into place what would be tantamount to the largest tax 
increase that we have ever seen.
  I am very pleased that President Obama is beginning to embrace the 
John F. Kennedy vision for economic growth, the vision that has 
recognized that reducing marginal rates does in fact create jobs and 
create more opportunity, and the famous John F. Kennedy line, ``the 
rising tide lifts all boats.'' The fact that President Obama is now 
moving into that direction is a very positive thing.
  He has also, on another issue that is going to create jobs, done so 
on the issue of trade. I am pleased that he wants us to move ahead with 
what will be the largest bilateral free trade agreement in the history 
of the world, that being the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. I think 
it is imperative for us to do this in Colombia and Panama as well so 
that we can create union and non-union jobs, good manufacturing jobs 
right here in the United States of America. That is an issue that I 
hope we are going to be able to address early next year.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is the right thing for us to do, 
for us to make sure that we don't increase taxes on working Americans.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to close simply by saying that I 
agree with many of my colleagues who have come to the floor today to 
express their concern about how these tax cuts--mostly for the rich--
will add an incredible debt burden on the backs of our children and our 
grandchildren. We can do better than this.
  I am also worried because I think what my friends on the Republican 
side want to do is basically kind of take tax cuts for the rich off the 
table next year when they use a budget axe to go after domestic 
spending.
  I would just say to my colleagues that as we have this debate on tax 
cuts, there are a lot of people in this country who this debate is 
meaningless to because they're falling through the cracks. We have an 
obligation to help strengthen the safety net in this country. And I 
worry about the agenda that my Republican colleagues are going to 
pursue next year. I worry that it's going to be on the backs of the 
most vulnerable in this country, and that is wrong. We have an 
obligation, a moral obligation to be able to make sure that everybody 
in this country not only has opportunity, but is also not allowed to 
fall through the cracks.
  We have a hunger problem in this country. We have children who go to 
sleep at night hungry in the richest country in the world. We should be 
ashamed of ourselves. We can do better than add to the deficit by 
giving more tax cuts to the wealthy.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I withdraw the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution is withdrawn.

                          ____________________