[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 22]
[House]
[Pages 29240-29249]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4154, PERMANENT ESTATE TAX RELIEF 
        FOR FAMILIES, FARMERS, AND SMALL BUSINESSES ACT OF 2009

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 941 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 941

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4154) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
     the new carryover basis rules in order to prevent tax 
     increases and the imposition of compliance burdens on many 
     more estates than would benefit from repeal, to retain the 
     estate tax with a $3,500,000 exemption, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
     rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  In the engrossment of H.R. 4154, the Clerk shall--
        (a) add the text of H.R. 2920, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 4154;
       (b) conform the title of H.R. 4154 to reflect the addition 
     to the engrossment of the text of H.R. 2920;
       (c) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (d) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POLIS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4154, the 
Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses 
Act of 2009. The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI and 
against the bill itself. The rule provides that the previous question 
shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except 1 
hour of debate and one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  In the engrossment of H.R. 4154, the Clerk is directed to add at the 
end the text of H.R. 2920, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2009, as 
passed by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, this past weekend in honor of the Thanksgiving holidays, 
NBC's ``Meet the Press'' hosted the Reverend Rick Warren in a 
discussion on giving and civic duty. During the dialogue, Rev. Warren 
stated his belief that it isn't a sin to be rich, but it is a sin to 
die rich. While I don't agree with Rev. Warren on many issues, I ask my 
colleagues to now reflect on the meaning of those words. The Reverend

[[Page 29241]]

was speaking, of course, of the importance of charity and our moral 
obligation to improve the condition of our fellow man whenever and 
wherever we can.
  Today I speak to you with the same sense of duty--duty to our country 
that has allowed me personally to achieve personal wealth, and in turn, 
to help others.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us under this rule is a significant tax 
cut. Without this bill, the estate tax will return in the year 2011 at 
a much lower exemption amount, an exemption of $1 million instead of an 
exemption at a rate of $3.5 million and at a much higher tax rate, a 
tax rate of 55 percent rather than a tax rate of 45 percent, which we 
have under this bill.

                              {time}  1030

  We all know that the occasion of the death of a loved one is a very 
difficult time for family and friends. The price of love is 
unfortunately loss, and that's a price that we all must pay at some 
point in our lives. While no act of government can ease this emotional 
pain, today we have the opportunity to at least give families who have 
achieved great success some surety in their ability to ensure that the 
next generation will receive the benefit of their works.
  An estate tax distorts a free market less than an income tax. Instead 
of taxing productive capital, it takes taxes from a random heir. On a 
revenue-neutral basis, I for one would much rather pay taxes after 
dying than before dying. And however much an income tax may distort the 
market, an estate tax distorts it less on a revenue-neutral basis.
  Mr. Speaker, allow me to be clear. Individuals like myself, who 
through hard work have been able to start businesses, create jobs, and, 
as a result, have been rewarded with the financial resources to provide 
a high standard of living for our families, have a duty to our fellow 
Americans to pay our fair share. And an estate tax, the existence of an 
estate tax, is critical to prevent a permanent aristocracy from arising 
in this country.
  When I think of the everyday tax burden for my constituents or, for 
that matter, for my staff and associates as a proportion of their 
income as a result of sales taxes, property taxes, let alone income 
taxes, I can think of no credible argument for suggesting that an 
estate tax is unreasonable. I also take comfort in knowing that, with 
the passage of this bill, we are locking in that 99 percent of my 
constituents will never pay the estate tax. According to The Urban-
Brookings Tax Policy Center, under this proposal only .25 percent, 
that's \1/4\ of 1 percent, of debts would be subject to an estate tax.
  We ask those who labor to build the roads to also shoulder the cost. 
We ask those who educate our Nation's children to also help pay for the 
schools. Shouldn't we ask those who die with wealth to help give back a 
little to those around them? I say to my colleagues this is fair, this 
is right.
  When factoring the full costs of being a member of a society, it's 
very clear that all too often we ask the most of those who have the 
least. For our country to continue to prosper, we can't just rely on 
the middle class to support our Nation's public safety and welfare and 
to cushion the success of families who are successful in this country. 
I can personally tell you, as one of those Americans that's in the .25 
percent, I would gladly pay an estate tax to give back to the 99.75 
percent of families who do the heavy lifting in this country every day 
and ensure that they never have to pay this tax and that family farms 
can be passed down to the next generation and small operating family 
businesses will be subject to no estate tax.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with Rev. Warren that it's no sin to be 
rich, but I disagree that it is a sin to die rich. A life's work should 
rightly be a benefit to one's heirs and one's causes. My belief that a 
family farm, a family business, or simply accumulated wealth should be 
passed from one generation to the next is consistent with the fact that 
those who benefited the most from the freedom and security that this 
country offers should pay their fair share for the benefits and the 
landscape that allowed them to reach the level of success that they 
did.
  What all Americans deserve, rich or poor, is the knowledge that at a 
time of great personal pain for families, the stress will not be 
exacerbated by a complex or uncertain tax policy. That's one of the 
many reasons I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and 
the underlying bill.
  Throughout our history, transfer taxes have been used to fund 
critical operations of the Federal Government. The modern estate tax 
was established by the Revenue Act of 1916 to offset declining import 
tariff revenues as a result of and to finance the United States' 
participation in World War I. Since World War I, the estate tax has 
continued to provide Federal revenues that have financed World War II 
and the New Deal, and have helped end the Great Depression. The estate 
tax includes, importantly, an unlimited deduction for charitable 
giving. In 2006 nearly two-thirds of charitable requests came from 
estates valued over $10 million.
  What a way for Americans to leave a legacy for the next generation. 
Universities, hospitals, and arts organizations have come to rely on 
these contributions from our Nation's most wealthy. One need only tour 
a college campus to see the direct impact of the philanthropy on our 
students and its effect on our future displayed prominently on plaques 
outside many campus buildings like those at the University of Colorado 
in Boulder, which I represent.
  H.R. 4154, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and 
Small Businesses Act, does exactly what it says. The bill will make 
permanent the lowest estate tax rate our Nation has seen in a decade, 
making the current rate permanent and giving families the ability to 
plan ahead for an orderly transfer of assets. Business owners will be 
able to plan ahead to ensure that their employees will still have a job 
and their company will be able to continue to provide for their 
families after they're gone. Farmers will be able to keep their land in 
their family.
  I remind my colleagues that the $3.5 million exemption means that no 
family will pay any estate tax unless the estate is valued at at least 
$3.5 million. It is substantially higher than it has been in this 
decade, and without our action today, we put families in a situation of 
unnecessary financial uncertainty at a time when their head and their 
hearts can least afford it. Without this bill the estate tax will 
return in the year 2011 at a much lower exemption amount of $1 million 
and a much higher tax rate of 55 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank my friend 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Eight years ago, Mr. Speaker, the Republican-led Congress passed 
legislation that provided over $1.3 trillion in tax relief by, among 
others, gradually increasing the exemption for the estate tax while 
decreasing the tax rate itself. As part of that legislation, the estate 
tax, also known as the death tax, is set to disappear next year. The 
underlying bill would undo the repeal of the death tax and instead 
bring back the tax, extend the estate tax rate of 45 percent, and 
include an unindexed exemption.
  I believe these are excessively high rates of taxation, especially 
when we realize that the tax is imposed at the end of a lifetime of 
work on which taxes were paid throughout the stages in which income was 
made. It is wrong, I believe, to tax individuals who have spent their 
entire lives working to provide their families with some financial 
security, and so that's why I oppose the underlying legislation.
  This double taxation, which is really what we're talking about today, 
I believe is destructive to family-owned businesses and farms, which 
are often torn apart or need to be liquidated entirely just to pay 
those burdensome taxes at the time of death. Americans who work hard 
and pay taxes all of their lives I don't think should be punished for 
responsibly saving with yet another tax when they pass away.

[[Page 29242]]

  When the country has double-digit unemployment, the current majority 
in Congress is threatening small businesses, the engines of economic 
growth and job creation in the Nation, with even higher tax burdens. 
Small businesses are often struggling to survive, to meet payroll and 
avoid layoffs, and yet this is another example, Mr. Speaker, of the 
fact that the majority time and time again is proposing legislation 
that hampers the ability of small businesses to thrive and to hire new 
workers.
  It's unfortunate that the majority feels that they can continuously 
impact, hit small businesses with tax after tax and expect them to 
survive and thrive and retain their workers. That's not the way the 
economy works.
  Even if small business owners do not receive an estate tax bill, they 
still spend resources on estate tax compliance. According to a recent 
survey of small and medium-sized manufacturers, those small businesses 
spend an average of $94,000 on fees and estate planning costs in 
preparation for an estate tax bill. Imagine what a small business, Mr. 
Speaker, could do with that money. They could invest it in their 
company to grow their business. They could add more workers. Instead, 
the majority prefers placing more and more burdens. And this is but one 
example, the legislation being brought forth to the floor today, of the 
majority's incessant endeavor to place more and more burdens on the 
engines of our economic growth.
  Small businesses are responsible for 60 to 80 percent of all new net 
jobs that were created in the last decade. If the majority continues 
with their current policies, if they continue on this track of placing 
more and more burdens on small business, the unemployment rate is going 
to continue to rise.
  I think what we should be doing is everything possible to lower 
unemployment, to spur investment and job growth. That's where we should 
be heading.
  So I believe what we should be doing is extending the repeal of the 
death tax. And many of us in this Congress, especially on this side of 
the aisle, we feel very strongly on this issue. Short of passing the 
permanent repeal, which I support, at the very least I think we should 
enact legislation that sets a reasonable rate, provides an appropriate 
exemption amount, and indexes that amount for inflation. We already saw 
with the alternative minimum tax what not indexing is capable of doing 
when Congress acts in that manner. So, unfortunately, the bill does 
nothing of what I just said, a reasonable rate and indexing an 
exemption amount.
  Yet we on our side of the aisle will not be able to have a debate on 
legislation, on a proposal to do just that, to index an exemption 
amount and set a reasonable rate indefinitely into the future. We won't 
be able to do that because the majority again is closing down the 
process, shutting down debate. They promised to do quite the opposite, 
as you know, Mr. Speaker.
  So let's contrast what the current majority is doing today with the 
estate tax rule that we passed when we were in the majority. That rule 
allowed our distinguished colleague Mr. Pomeroy to offer his substitute 
amendment. Today we in the minority will be treated much differently.

                              {time}  1045

  We will not be given the opportunity that we gave the current 
majority and Mr. Pomeroy. We will not be allowed to debate our 
substitute proposal. We will not be afforded a vote on our alternative 
legislation.
  The difference in treatment is not an isolated incident but the 
standard operating procedure for this majority. They continuously close 
down the process. They shut out Members from both sides of the aisle 
from being able to introduce and have debated their amendments, and I 
think it is unfortunate.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear with what happens if the 
House does not pass this bill: The estate tax would go away for 1 year 
in the year 2010, and then it would return at 55 percent and a 
deduction of only $1 million, so every estate above $1 million would be 
taxed at a rate of 55 percent. Many families would lose their family 
businesses, their family farms, if we fail to act and pass this bill to 
preserve the ability of Americans to pass along their assets to the 
next generation.
  It would also create a very bizarre circumstance in the year 2010 
where there would be an incentive to die. I had a friend with a good 
sense of humor who stated that his wealthy family, his father, had 
joked with him that he planned not to stand near the top of a staircase 
in the year 2010 if that was the case.
  Mr. Speaker, the estate tax is paid by very few Americans. 
Historically, fewer than 2 percent of Americans have paid the estate 
tax, and under this bill it will be even less. And only 3.5 percent of 
those who pay the estate tax pay it on small business assets, and only 
5 percent on farms. When looking at specifically family-owned 
businesses, the number goes down to one-half of 1 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the options for wealthy families. The 
estate tax does two important things. First, it provides revenue to 
government to provide services in the context in which wealth can grow, 
provides the landscaping in our country that allows entrepreneurs and 
businesses to succeed. Programs paid for from this revenue fund our 
social safety net, our legal structure, our public safety programs, and 
our regulatory framework that allows businesses to prosper. It is the 
protection of the law that allows those who have gained wealth to be 
able to keep it and transfer it to the next generation.
  The second and, arguably, also more important function of the estate 
tax is to provide an incentive for charitable giving. By supporting 
charities and nonprofit organizations of their choice, the wealthy can 
simultaneously give back to the community directly and protect the 
assets that they leave to their heirs.
  The estate tax is an important incentive to leverage the work of 
government with the efforts of nonprofits to create broad opportunities 
and assistance throughout society. By making the rules of the estate 
tax stable and permanent, we give families the ability to plan for 
their future as well as invest in the future of their communities.
  We know that planned giving is an important part of the fundraising 
strategy for the nonprofits that do the good work that government and 
industry cannot, and there is no denying the link between the estate 
tax rate and the amount of planned giving. A 2004 Congressional Budget 
Office analysis of charitable giving in the year 2000 indicated that 
estate tax not only provided an incentive for charitable giving at 
death, but also played a role in philanthropic decisions made during 
people's lives. The same report estimated that the repeal of the estate 
tax would result in a decrease in bequests of anywhere from 16 to 28 
percent or $13 billion to $25 billion, more than total corporate 
donations in a year.
  I ask my colleagues, which universities do you know could take a 16 
to 28 percent hit to their endowment, coupled with the decreases in the 
market of the last year, and yet continue to prepare our students to be 
competitive in the global marketplace? This is the real-world impact of 
what would actually occur were the estate tax to be abolished in the 
year 2010, not to mention what would happen when it came back at 55 
percent and only a $1 million deduction the following year.
  Now imagine in the worst case scenario devised by opponents of the 
estate tax. Imagine that came true for a family, that in order to pay 
the tax, the heirs had to liquidate the assets of a business that had 
been in the family for some time. Do opponents of this bill truly 
believe that somehow making the family pay capital gains tax on these 
assets if they had purchased them in 1959 would be better? I know in my 
district, due to the growth and economic success Colorado has enjoyed, 
taxation on real estate assets, as an example, from a 1959 basis would 
be devastating. It would capture a much larger portion of middle class 
families. Many middle class families and, indeed, wealthy

[[Page 29243]]

families worth $1 million, $2 million, $3 million would be stuck with 
large tax bills forcing liquidation if they were forced to pay capital 
gains tax on a 1950 basis or a 1959 basis.
  I can't tell my constituents that I am against a permanent reduction 
in the estate tax and yet support a dramatic increase in capital gains 
taxation for them, which would bring the estate tax to upper middle 
class families. I hope the majority of my colleagues agree and will 
support the rule and the underlying bill.
  I would like to thank Chairman Rangel, the members of the Ways and 
Means Committee and their staffs for their efforts in bringing this 
bill, and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for introducing 
this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to consider that 99.75 percent of Americans will 
never pay this tax; and those who do should be thankful that they have 
had the opportunity to succeed in this great country and the privilege, 
the honor of being in a position where they are subject to this tax 
because their estates are worth more than $3.5 million.
  I would like to remind my colleagues who stand by the old adage ``you 
can't take it with you,'' and I ask my friends and colleagues to 
consider the far-reaching benefits of charity and a sense of duty to 
country, and I ask for the passage of this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this rule as well as the underlying bill, H.R. 4154, the Permanent 
Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 
2009.
  In 2001, this Congress passed legislation that was signed into law by 
President Bush that provided significant estate tax relief for 
families. Before this action was taken, individuals who passed away 
could face up to a 55 percent tax for estates valued over $3 million. 
Additionally, if the value of those estates were between $10 million 
and $17 million, then the estates were hit with an additional 5 percent 
surtax, a grand total of 60 percent.
  Since the 2001 tax cuts have been enacted, the overall estate tax has 
been gradually reduced. For deaths that occur in 2009, the estate tax 
ceiling is 45 percent for estates valued over $1.5 million, but it 
allows up to $3.5 million in assets to be exempted. Furthermore, 
current law dictates, and rightfully so, that the estate tax will be 
completely repealed in 2010.
  Mr. Speaker, while a number of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle will claim that the estate tax in this bill will only affect the 
lavishly wealthy, the estate tax has the potential to drive a number of 
hardworking families, many of whom are small business owners, to 
liquidate assets and sell their businesses and farms that they have 
owned for generations. Clearly, this is not the intent of any form of 
an estate tax. And I don't believe that Rev. Rick Warren's remarks on 
``Meet the Press'' this past Sunday were advocating that our children 
and our grandchildren should be born poor and die poor.
  I wholeheartedly believe that there should be no ``taxation without 
respiration,'' and I support a full repeal of the estate tax. Former 
Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin issued a study 
earlier this year that indicated the long-term impact of eliminating 
the death tax would be to increase small business capital investment by 
$1.6 trillion and create up to 1.5 million jobs, something this 
country, Mr. Speaker, desperately needs.
  Unfortunately, this closed rule and underlying bill look to break the 
commitments made by Congress in 2001 by extending the estate tax at the 
2009 level in perpetuity. And I am also concerned that although the 
exemption level is $3.5 million under H.R. 4154, it is not properly 
indexed for inflation and we could, therefore, find ourselves in a 
situation similar to the alternative minimum tax where individuals 
could inadvertently be subjected to the tax in the future.
  I urge all of my colleagues to defeat this rule. Let's go back and 
have an open debate, as the gentleman from Florida said, on the repeal 
of the estate tax. That is what we should do.
  Mr. POLIS. I am our final speaker, so I reserve the balance of my 
time to close.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), my distinguished friend 
and colleague from the Rules Committee.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this rule and the bill 
exemplify the arrogance of the majority party. Once again, they show 
their bias to government control of our lives as opposed to support of 
the American family. They also show their arrogance in bringing a 
closed rule because they indicate that this is a perfect bill. It 
hasn't been through committee. They allow no amendments, so they must 
consider it a perfect bill. We know there is at least one flaw, as my 
colleague from Georgia just indicated, and that is the problem with 
indexing. Just as we have had to fix the AMT every year, we will have 
to do that with this or else more and more people will be caught with 
this bill as it is proposed.
  They continue to assault those who create jobs on the very day that 
the President is having a conference on jobs. They want to seem to be 
doing something positive while really doing great damage to our economy 
and hardworking Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to an article from The Wall Street 
Journal of 31 March 2009 and place it in the Record.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 31, 2009]

                     Night of the Living Death Tax

       Lawrence Summers, President Obama's chief economic adviser, 
     declared recently that ``Let's be very clear: There are no, 
     no tax increases this year. There are no, no tax increases 
     next year.'' Oh yes, yes, there are. The President's budget 
     calls for the largest increase in the death tax in U.S. 
     history in 2010.
       The announcement of this tax increase is buried in footnote 
     1 on page 127 of the President's budget. That note reads: 
     ``The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameters.'' This 
     means the death tax won't fall to zero next year as scheduled 
     under current law, but estates will be taxed instead at up to 
     45%, with an exemption level of $3.5 million (or $7 million 
     for a couple). Better not plan on dying next year after all.
       This controversy dates back to George W. Bush's first tax 
     cut in 2001 that phased down the estate tax from 55% to 45% 
     this year and then to zero next year. Although that 10-year 
     tax law was to expire in 2011, meaning that the death tax 
     rate would go all the way back to 55%, the political 
     expectation was that once the estate tax was gone for even 
     one year, it would never return.
       And that is no doubt why the Obama Administration wants to 
     make sure it never hits zero. It doesn't seem to matter that 
     the vast majority of the money in an estate was already taxed 
     when the money was earned. Liberals counter that the estate 
     tax is ``fair'' because it is only paid by the richest 2% of 
     American families. This ignores that much of the long-term 
     saving and small business investment in America is motivated 
     by the ability to pass on wealth to the next generation.
       The importance of intergenerational wealth transfers was 
     first measured in a National Bureau of Economic Research 
     study in 1980. That study looked at wealth and savings over 
     the first three-quarters of the 20th century and found that 
     ``intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority 
     of aggregate U.S. capital formation.'' The co-author of that 
     study was ... Lawrence Summers.
       Many economists had previously believed in ``the life-cycle 
     theory'' of savings, which postulates that workers are 
     motivated to save with a goal of spending it down to zero in 
     retirement. Mr. Summers and coauthor Laurence Kotlikoff 
     showed that patterns of savings don't validate that model; 
     they found that between 41% and 66% of capital stock was 
     transferred either by bequests at death or through trusts and 
     lifetime gifts. A major motivation for saving and building 
     businesses is to pass assets on so children and grandchildren 
     have a better life.
       What all this means is that the higher the estate tax, the 
     lower the incentive to reinvest in family businesses. Former 
     Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin 
     recently used the Summers study as a springboard to compare 
     the economic cost of a 45% estate tax versus a zero rate. He 
     finds that the long-term impact of eliminating the death tax 
     would be to increase small business capital investment by 
     $1.6 trillion. This additional investment would create 1.5 
     million new jobs.
       In other words, by raising the estate tax in the name of 
     fairness, Mr. Obama won't merely bring back from the dead one 
     of the most

[[Page 29244]]

     despised of all federal taxes, and not merely splinter many 
     family-owned enterprises. He will also forfeit half the jobs 
     he hopes to gain from his $787 billion stimulus bill. Maybe 
     that's why the news of this unwise tax increase was hidden in 
     a footnote.

  Mr. Speaker, ``Lawrence Summers, President Obama's chief economic 
adviser, declared recently that `Let's be very clear: There are no, no 
tax increases this year. There are no, no tax increases next year.' Oh, 
yes, yes, there are. The President's budget calls for the largest 
increase in the death tax in U.S. history in 2010.
  ``The announcement of this tax increase was buried in footnote 1 on 
page 127 of the President's budget. That note reads: `The estate tax is 
maintained at its 2009 parameters.' This means the death tax won't fall 
to zero next year as scheduled under current law, but estates will be 
taxed instead at up to 45 percent, with an exemption level of $3.5 
million . . . Better not plan on dying next year after all.''
  I know we are not discussing the President's budget here today with 
that bill, but I think this shows that they are trying every way 
possible to reinstitute what is probably the most hated tax in the 
United States. The American people understand this is not a fair tax, 
whether they are hit by it or not.
  I want to read another piece from The Wall Street Journal article. 
``The importance of intergenerational wealth transfers was first 
measured in a National Bureau of Economic Research study in 1980. That 
study looked at wealth and savings over the first three-quarters of the 
20th century and found that `intergenerational transfers account for 
the vast majority of aggregate U.S. capital formation.' The co-author 
of that study was . . . Lawrence Summers.''
  Mr. Summers understood this when he was first at Harvard.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 30 more seconds.
  Ms. FOXX. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the additional time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not good for the American people at a time when 
we need to be creating jobs not destroying jobs. Again, the President 
wanted to create jobs with the stimulus. He has created no jobs with 
it. This is going to destroy even more jobs. This is the wrong 
direction to be going.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my friend from Colorado: we 
all should be paying our fair share. However, this Congress has said in 
the past maybe 39 percent should not pay their fair share. They won't 
pay any income tax. And this administration apparently has indicated he 
wants to take that at least to 44 percent of Americans not paying their 
fair share.
  But what the death tax does is go after people who have paid at the 
highest levels of income tax throughout their lives and yet have still 
been frugal enough to build a business, build a farm, and then when 
they're dead, come in and take it away from them. They've paid their 
fair share.
  Even though the argument is made that this won't affect that many 
people, that not that many people pay the estate tax. When something is 
not right, you need to draw the line. That is what the Founders did. 
They said principle is worth fighting for, and we will not give in to 
these confiscatory practices of the monarch in Great Britain. So we had 
a revolution.
  Now, after someone dies, and someone comes in and steals from them, 
we consider that, in most societies, reprehensible. That is just 
despicable. I have sentenced people personally to prison for doing 
that. But when the government comes in, because we have the power to 
pass laws and legalize theft that otherwise would be considered 
reprehensible, it's okay. It is not okay. It is not okay.
  I have a personal family situation. A great aunt and her husband, who 
predeceased her, built through generations a family farm. They were 
land rich, but money poor. They had employees. They had things going 
on. They had a very active ranch. But when she died, the estate tax was 
55 percent. And within the year, while the estate was being settled, 
the FDIC dumped land. The $5 million estate fell in value. Land that 
was valued at $2,000 at her death became valued at $700 an acre. The 
IRS came in and sold every acre of my great aunt's land, her wonderful 
home where she had a will, she promised things to her direct 
descendants, we all had to gather at an auction the IRS forced to buy 
things from my great aunt. This is morally wrong.
  And Jesus never advocated to the government, Go steal. He said, You 
do it, do it with your own money. Don't go steal it from somebody else. 
And that's why this should not pass.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
my distinguished friend from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, this debate today from every angle 
reminds me, once again, reinforces how proud I am to be a Texan and how 
proud I am to be a conservative Republican. Because the contrast is 
just astonishing, to think that today the Democratic President at the 
White House is holding a jobs summit and breakout sessions trying to 
figure out how to create jobs while his Democrat friends in Congress 
are creating a permanent death tax.
  Raising taxes, once again, is the standard reaction of this majority 
that has controlled Congress since 2007. In my first year in 2001, I 
was here, proud to vote for the permanent repeal of the death tax, 
taking it to zero forever. The Democrats in the Senate prevented us 
from making that permanent by blocking it with 60 votes. And that is 
often a source of confusion. People need to remember, they often ask 
me, Why isn't the death tax repeal permanent? It is because Democrats 
in the Senate prevented us from getting 60 votes which was required to 
make it permanent. So we were stuck with this 10-year window.
  And the reaction of the Democrat majority in Congress today is to 
create a permanent death tax and try to pitch it as a ``tax 
reduction.'' It's absurd. It's sad. It illustrates clearly how blind 
the Democrat majority is to the fundamental truths of job creation. We 
in Texas understand that to create jobs you cut taxes. You pass tort 
reform to prevent frivolous lawsuits. We brought doctors into Texas by 
giving doctors medical malpractice caps and limits on lawsuits against 
doctors. People from all over the country have moved to Texas because 
of the number of jobs that we create with a low-tax environment and 
with litigation reform.
  Mr. Speaker, these are self-evident truths. You create jobs by 
cutting taxes, by protecting businesses from excessive litigation and 
regulation. This is why I'm again reminded why I'm so proud to be a 
conservative Republican. I try not to use that word often. But today it 
illustrates why we are going to have a revolution next year. In 2010, 
there is going to be a revolution at the ballot box, and we will have a 
conservative majority in this House because of votes like this to raise 
taxes.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to 
yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Florida 
for his leadership on this.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people across the country are asking, Where 
are the jobs? And all they see from this Democrat-controlled Congress 
is more bills that will actually kill jobs and run jobs out of the 
country. And make no mistake about it: the death tax will kill more 
jobs in this country.
  To place a permanent 45 percent tax on death is immoral. Think about 
this: the small businesses in our country are hit the hardest. The 
actual job creators in this country are hit the hardest by the death 
tax. When a family member dies, the biggest decision they make after 
that death should not be about how they have to sell their family 
business because they can't afford to pay the taxes upon death. And 
that's what happens under this death tax. And here

[[Page 29245]]

they have a bill to enshrine the tax at 45 percent.
  Now, if anyone wonders where are the jobs, as the President is 
holding a jobs summit, while unemployment smashed through the 10 
percent mark earlier this year, all they have to do is look at the 
policies President Obama keeps bringing up. It started with the 
stimulus bill that didn't create jobs and just added more debt to our 
children and grandchildren. And then they brought the policies like 
this energy tax, the cap-and-trade energy tax, and then the government 
takeover of health care. And here we are today debating a bill that is 
going to enshrine a 45 percent tax on death. And Speaker Pelosi 
wouldn't even allow us to bring an amendment to the floor that would 
repeal it.
  There is a clear contrast between the two parties on this issue. When 
we are in the majority, we will repeal the death tax, and here they've 
got a bill that will enshrine it at 45 percent permanently.
  Taxation without respiration should not be the law of the land.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
could talk about a lot of bad things about this tax and this bill. I 
could talk about how inefficient it is, how it costs almost as much to 
collect as it raises in revenue. I could talk about how most of the 
income that would be taxed or most of the wealth would be taxed here 
has already been taxed once. I could talk about the morality of saying 
that in this country some people are allowed to leave the fruits of a 
lifetime of work to their children, and other people are not allowed to 
leave the fruits of their lifetime work to their children.
  But there are two other things I want to emphasize in this short time 
here this morning. One is that the one thing we need more than anything 
else in this country right now are jobs. And this bill will kill jobs. 
Why? Because when people are subject to this tax, they spend all their 
time, effort and money, and as a CPA who worked on this at one time I 
have seen it up front and close and personal, reducing the value of 
their wealth so they can reduce the tax. That does not create jobs.
  Without this tax, if the tax were eliminated, those people would 
continue to be employing that wealth in income-producing efforts in the 
sorts of things that create jobs. But also this particular bill that's 
before us today is not indexed for inflation.
  Now let's see. What other tax do we have that's not indexed for 
inflation? Oh, yeah, the alternative minimum tax, which when that was 
passed, this House was told, well, it is only going to tax 139 
taxpayers. Don't you worry about it. It's just to get the very wealthy, 
just the really bad people. But now because it's not indexed for 
inflation, that tax now, instead of 139 people, hits 25 million people. 
And this death tax, not indexed for inflation, will do exactly the same 
thing, particularly when the inflation that the Obama administration is 
heading us towards comes together.
  This is a bad bill. Defeat it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
my distinguished friend from Texas, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on 
Trade ranking member, Mr. Brady.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be a co-chairman of the 
Death Tax Coalition in the U.S. House, those of us who understand the 
destructive levels of this tax on our family farms and small businesses 
in America.
  Can you imagine working your whole life risking your money and your 
time working your weekends to either build your family farm or to start 
your business only to find out when you die, Uncle Sam swoops in and 
takes nearly half of all you spent a lifetime building up, takes half 
of what you had hoped to give to your children and grandchildren?
  That is the death tax in America. It is the wrong tax. It is the 
wrong people at exactly the wrong time.
  The only real solution to it is to fully and permanently repeal it, 
to solve it once and for all, to give family farms, small businesses, 
women and minority-owned businesses the peace of mind of knowing that 
they can hand down to their children the nest egg they have spent a 
life of toil, risk and taxation to build up.
  That is what Republicans support. That is what we are going to vote 
for today. And it is time to bury the death tax once and for all.
  As they set the rules for this debate today, we naively think that 
Congress is a debate of ideas, the best ideas win. Unfortunately, the 
American public won't get to hear that debate or have that choice today 
because the Democrat majority did not allow an amendment, a bipartisan 
amendment, a better idea in how we help our family farms and small 
businesses survive.
  This amendment was offered, a bipartisan one, by Congresswoman 
Shelley Berkley of Nevada, myself, Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, 
and Congressman Devin Nunes of California. And it's an amendment 
supported by the groups that are most damaged by this death tax, small 
businesses, family farms, local printers and grocers and others. And 
what it did is provide a $5 million exemption for the death tax and a 
below-35 percent tax rate in permanence.
  This is an amendment to a bill that has strong bipartisan support. It 
is has 37 cosponsors, and it has strong support from around the 
country. So when people say today, this is the best we can do? No, it's 
not.
  It's not the best we can do. Given a choice, we have to do better for 
our family farms and small businesses. And there is no support for the 
overall bill from small businesses, family farms, from our local 
retailers, none at all. So rather than place on the floor a bipartisan 
bill that had broad support, they chose to offer a partisan bill that 
has no support.
  It is time to solve this problem. It's time to bury the death tax 
once and for all. It's time to hear better ideas on this floor that can 
help create jobs in America, help generations go forward, and reward 
the people who work the hardest, work the longest, and work the 
smartest in hopes of handing nest eggs down to their children. The 
death tax is not just unfair; it is immoral and un-American.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to my dear friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we all know the sad news 
that under this administration and this Congress, our Nation has the 
worst, the worst unemployment rate in a generation. Over 3\1/2\ million 
of our fellow countrymen have lost their jobs since President Obama has 
come into office.
  So what have our friends on the other side of the aisle tried to do? 
Well, they have tried to spend their way into job creation with a $1.1 
trillion government stimulus plan, a $410 billion omnibus spending 
plan, and a threatened trillion dollar takeover of our health care 
system plan. Well, that didn't get us any jobs.
  So they have tried to borrow their way into prosperity. Now we have 
the first trillion-dollar deficit in our Nation's history, a spending 
plan to triple, triple the national debt in the next 10 years.
  So borrowing didn't work. Spending didn't work.
  So here's the latest plan, Mr. Speaker. Let's have a perpetual plan 
to tax people when they die. Maybe that will create jobs in the 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, it doesn't work. It doesn't work. As the gentleman from 
Texas said, it is time to put the death tax to death. People have 
already paid. We will not start new businesses when you tax small 
businesses. It's time to get rid of the death tax once and for all.
  It's an unfair tax. It ought to be an illegal tax.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the 
courtesy, and my friend, Mr. Polis, for his courtesy and all those who 
have participated in this debate. And I think the essence of the 
contrast of ideas that has been shown today is that we

[[Page 29246]]

on this side of the aisle believe that we should be focused like a 
laser on job creation. I think Mr. Hensarling said it very well, Will 
this legislation create jobs?

                              {time}  1115

  We don't think so. As a matter of fact, we are convinced that it will 
continue to take the country in the wrong direction with regard to 
employment. Unemployment continues to rise, and the majority brings 
more regulation, more taxes, and further stifles small business at a 
time when we should be encouraging jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, we believe, as the overwhelming majority of the American 
people do, that Members should have the ability to read bills before 
they vote on them. It really shouldn't be an issue because that was 
promised by the distinguished Speaker during the campaign when the 
majority was campaigning to take the majority. And even on her Web 
site, you'll read Members should have at least 24 hours to examine 
bills before floor consideration.
  But that hasn't been the case. I remember when the Rules Committee--
at 3 in the morning we were handed a 900-page amendment to the so-
called cap-and-trade energy legislation that we had to vote on simply 
hours afterward. And the American people were rightfully outraged about 
examples such as that. That's why there's legislation that's been filed 
by a bipartisan group that has 182 Members that have signed, right up 
there, right in front of you, Mr. Speaker, a discharge petition to have 
legislation brought to the floor requiring at least 72 hours before the 
legislation has to be voted on by this House.
  So that's why today I'm asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so that we can consider that legislation, bipartisan 
legislation by Congressmen Baird and Culberson. It's not going to 
interrupt the death tax debate, the estate tax bill, because if the 
motion passes, the motion I'm making provides for separate 
consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days. So we can vote 
on the estate tax bill and then, once we're done, consider that 
legislation requiring the 72 hours.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and 
extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by addressing some of the 
misconceptions and inaccuracies in the arguments that have been made on 
the other side of the aisle.
  First, I'd like to address some made by the gentleman from Texas that 
this is a tax on those who have paid the highest tax rates throughout 
their lives. I'd like to dispute this notion. Many of the people who 
have accumulated great wealth in this country have, throughout their 
lives, paid the capital gains tax rather than the income tax rate. I, 
for one, and I'm, I think, the fourth- or fifth-wealthiest Member of 
this body--I've accumulated some degree of wealth with my success in 
the Internet sector, starting companies, selling them. I've paid the 
capital gains tax. That is a 15 percent tax, not a 39.6 or a 35 percent 
tax.
  In a moment we will hear some quotes from Mr. Buffett, Mr. Gates and 
Mr. Soros, three wealthy Americans, all supporters of the estate tax. 
They have also accumulated their wealth and have paid the capital gains 
rate. In the case of, for instance, Bill Gates, the wealthiest 
American, he has paid a rate substantially below 15 percent, due to his 
charitable contributions. The rate that Mr. Gates has paid is probably 
somewhere in the 10-12 percent tax range.
  So again, I have paid less percentage tax than members of my staff 
here in Congress that earn $50,000, $60,000 a year. They pay a higher 
tax rate. So it's inaccurate to say that those who are hit with the 
estate tax have paid the highest tax rate throughout their lives. There 
might be some movie stars, sports stars, high-wage earners that have 
been paying the high-income margins, highest marginal income tax rate 
throughout their lives. But the majority of wealth is accumulated on 
the capital side and has been subject to the capital gains rate, which 
had been 20 percent, more recently, 15 percent, and scheduled to return 
to 20 percent; regardless, well below the highest marginal rate.
  I'd also like to address a remark made by my colleague from North 
Carolina, Dr. Foxx. She called this the biggest increase ever in the 
inheritance tax rate. Again, this is a decrease, a decrease in the 
inheritance tax. Yes, there is a 1-year effect. For the year 2010 
alone, it's an increase. For every other year it's a decrease. Instead 
of 55 percent and $1 million, every dollar above $1 million would be 
taxed at 55 percent if we don't pass this in the year 2011 and beyond. 
We are reducing that.
  This is a substantial decrease one of the largest decreases in the 
inheritance tax rate, to 45 percent from 55 percent in 2011 and beyond. 
And we're increasing the deduction. We're starting that at a $3.5 
million estate--that's a $7 million estate for a couple that passes 
away, instead of a $1 million deduction, to be clear. I'd further like 
to make it clear that repealing the estate tax and replacing it with a 
capital gains tax on the increase in basis would be a tax increase, as 
proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This would be 
a tax increase for upper middle class families and would actually 
result in many families losing their family businesses.
  If you have a $3 million family business, family farm, under the 
Democratic proposal they pay zero tax. Under the Republican proposal, a 
$3 million family estate or farm with a very low basis, they started it 
maybe with $100,000 in the 1950s, so that's a $3 million gain, that 
would be subject to $450,000 capital gains tax. At 20 percent it would 
be over $600,000 in taxes. That could result in the family losing the 
farm or losing the small business. Under the Democratic proposal we 
allow families to keep family farms and small businesses in the family.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is one of many steps that Congress must take 
towards an equitable Tax Code. The bill highlights Democratic 
commitments to fairness by making permanent the current estate tax 
exemption of $3.5 million, $7 million total, at a maximum tax rate of 
45 percent. Opponents of this bill may say the estate tax should be 
repealed. Well, that's supporting a debt finance tax cut of $1.3 
trillion.
  Yes, repealing the estate tax in its entirety would result in an 
increase in the deficit of $1.3 trillion. That's $1 trillion in lost 
revenue and $277 billion in increased interest payments on our growing 
national debt. Does that sound like fiscal responsibility? The only 
result of repealing the estate tax would be that the .25 percent, 
quarter of 1 percent, of the wealthiest American families will pay a 
small estate tax, while other Americans won't have to suffer from 
increased debt.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be honest with the American people. The estates of 
those 99.75 percent of Americans will continue to be tax free. As for 
those .25 percent that are subject to the tax, such as Bill Gates' 
estate, such as my own, we understand that ``the government that 
protects our business activities, the traditions that enable us to rely 
on certain things happening, that's what creates capital and enables 
net worth to increase.''
  Those are Bill Gates' words, not mine. But I strongly agree. In 
Warren Buffett's opposition to the repeal of the estate tax, he said 
that the repeal of the estate tax would be akin to ``choosing the 2020 
Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold medal winners in 
the 2000 Olympics'' because ``without the estate tax, you in effect 
will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the 
ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather 
than merit.''
  America is, and should be, a meritocracy. Estate tax helps prevent a 
permanent aristocracy of the wealthy from arising in this country. Some 
opponents of the estate tax claim that it

[[Page 29247]]

forces families to hand over half of their wealth to the government. 
But the facts simply don't support this claim. The truth is that few 
estates pay any estate tax whatsoever, and those that do, pay less than 
20 percent of the value of their estate. We also know that the claims 
of rampant liquidation of farms is completely untrue. In fact, the 
American Farm Bureau Federation acknowledged to The New York Times that 
it couldn't find a single example of a farm to substantiate the claim, 
even when the estate tax was higher, 55 percent rather than the 45 
percent it is today.
  I'd like to give a quote from the president of the National Farmers 
Union, who says, ``Family farmers and ranchers are insulted by those 
who use farmers as the reason for eliminating estate taxes.'' I'd also 
like to give a quote from George Soros. George Soros said, ``The estate 
tax is the least damaging of all our taxation because it does not 
interfere with wealth creation. It increases social equality. It is so 
obvious estate taxation is a valuable taxation, and we should keep 
it.''
  Again, on a revenue neutral basis, I would much rather pay $1,000 in 
tax after I die than before, when I'm using that capital to create 
value and jobs, or at least I was before I got to Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, our choice here is clear. We can pass this bill which 
will remove the impact of the estate tax from 99.75 percent of 
Americans and give those who will pay this tax a substantially larger 
deductible. We can make sure that family businesses and family farms 
won't be subject to onerous taxation. Or we can increase the deficit by 
over $1 trillion and increase taxes for estates of $2 million, $3 
million, $4 million with sizable capital gains within those estates.
  Once again, I thank Chairman Rangel, the members of the Committee on 
Ways and Means and their staffs, as well as Representative Pomeroy, for 
bringing this important legislation to the floor. In America, it's not 
a sin to be rich, nor is it a crime to die rich. This bill gives our 
Nation's wealthiest families the ability to know exactly what their 
obligation to the Nation that fostered their wealth will be. And it is 
fair, and it is just.
  Mr. Speaker, I'd ask my colleagues to join me on the side of facts, 
equity, and the 99 percent of Americans who will never pay this tax and 
who wish that they were lucky enough to be successful enough to pay 
this tax, and remind them that a ``no'' vote is a vote against these 
principles.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Permanent Estate Tax 
Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009. I urge 
a ``yes'' vote on the previous question, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on 
the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

 Amendment to H. Res. 941 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain 
     instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 941, if 
ordered; agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered; 
and suspending the rules on House Resolution 28.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 187, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 923]

                               YEAS--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello

[[Page 29248]]


     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--187

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Himes
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Arcuri
     Barrow
     Bishop (UT)
     Burgess
     Capuano
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Hirono
     Lucas
     McGovern
     Melancon
     Moran (VA)
     Perlmutter
     Ryan (OH)
     Sutton
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1153

  Ms. KOSMAS and Messrs. FRANKS of Arizona and LUETKEMEYER changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 923 I was unable to arrive 
in time to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 192, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 924]

                               AYES--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--192

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill

[[Page 29249]]


     Himes
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Barrow
     Bishop (UT)
     Boehner
     Braley (IA)
     Burgess
     Capuano
     DeFazio
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Hirono
     Kagen
     Lucas
     McGovern
     Melancon
     Moran (VA)
     Sutton
     Welch
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1201

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________