[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 22]
[House]
[Pages 29250-29264]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PERMANENT ESTATE TAX RELIEF FOR FAMILIES, FARMERS, AND SMALL BUSINESSES 
                              ACT OF 2009

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 941, I call up 
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, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 941, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4154

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Permanent Estate Tax Relief 
     for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. RETENTION OF ESTATE TAX; REPEAL OF CARRYOVER BASIS.

       (a) In General.--Subtitles A and E of title V of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, 
     and the amendments made by such subtitles, are hereby 
     repealed; and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be 
     applied as if such subtitles, and amendments, had never been 
     enacted.
       (b) Sunset Not To Apply.--Section 901 of the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not 
     apply to title V of such Act.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Sections 511(d) and 521(b)(2) of the Economic Growth 
     and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, and the amendments 
     made by such sections, are hereby repealed; and the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such sections, 
     and amendments, had never been enacted.
       (2) Subsection (c) of section 2511 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is hereby repealed.

     SEC. 3. MODIFICATIONS TO ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.

       (a) $3,500,000 Applicable Exclusion Amount.--Subsection (c) 
     of section 2010 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating

[[Page 29251]]

     to applicable credit amount) is amended by striking all that 
     follows ``the applicable exclusion amount'' and inserting ``. 
     For purposes of the preceding sentence, the applicable 
     exclusion amount is $3,500,000.''.
       (b) Freeze Maximum Estate and Gift Tax Rates at 45 
     Percent.--Subsection (c) of section 2001 of such Code is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2),
       (2) by striking so much of paragraph (1) as precedes the 
     table contained therein, and
       (3) by striking the last 2 items in the table and inserting 
     the following new item:


``Over $1,500,000.........................  $555,800, plus 45 percent of
                                             the excess of such amount
                                             over $1,500,000.''.
 

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to estates of decedents dying, and gifts made, 
     after December 31, 2009.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert 
extraneous material in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I, along with Ways and Means Ranking Member David Camp, have asked 
the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the 
public a technical explanation of the bill. The technical explanation 
expresses the committee's understanding and the legislative intent 
behind this important legislation. It is available on the Joint 
Committee's Web site at www.jct.gov and is listed under document No. 
JCX-57-09.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4154, a bill that would 
provide permanent, responsible estate tax relief to taxpayers.
  This is a rough time for us in this great country in terms of 
joblessness, hopelessness. And the Congress has to work together as one 
unit with the President in order to restore confidence among the 
millions of people that today find themselves without jobs. In order to 
do this, we have to work at everything that we can to make certain that 
those that are in the position to create jobs that we give them the 
tools to work with so that we can get people off the unemployment lines 
and back into business.
  Members of Congress hear every day from their constituents how 
difficult it is to keep up with the current state of our tax laws as a 
result of the temporary nature of so many provisions in the Internal 
Revenue Code. So not only is there an argument in terms of what the 
rate should be in terms of estate tax relief, but there's an argument, 
for God's sake, do something. And that is why the Ways and Means 
Committee has agreed that we have to give a stable tax program that our 
business people can rely on and plan on so that we can bring stability 
to industry and get our people back to work.
  The majority of the provisions included in 2001 and 2003 were made 
temporary because there was an intent that we review the estate tax. 
And Members are familiar with the extending of expiring tax provisions, 
ultimately reducing them, and we are here to make certain that the 
doubts as to where we're going to go will be eliminated.
  So this week we have some certainty in our Tax Code as we enact a 
permanent extension of the 2009 estate tax exemption, and certainly 
people would see that it wasn't an easy decision to find what was 
compatible with most of the people in this House, but the work of Earl 
Pomeroy that he has done over the years and the suggestions that he's 
made, the people that he's talked with, allow us to say that we have 
made the best possible arrangement so that people would know what they 
should expect as it relates to estate tax.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask permission that the balance of my time be 
transferred to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for him to 
be able to appoint Members as he sees fit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, death in and of itself should not be a taxable event. 
Death should not force the sale of family farms or the dissolution of 
small businesses. The fear of death should not be a reason for an 
American to hire a battery of accountants and lawyers to find legal 
ways to reduce the bite of the estate tax. And after a long wait, we're 
about to realize that goal. Set in motion by a law passed by the 
Republican Congress earlier this decade, there will be no death tax in 
2010. That's just 29 days away.
  The bill before us, however, would resurrect the death tax next month 
and apply a 45 percent tax rate to estates above a $3.5 million 
exemption amount. The majority claims to be offering certainty to 
taxpayers, and I suppose in a way they are.
  They are certainly repealing the hope of ever eliminating the death 
tax. They are replacing that with the certainty of a Federal tax rate 
that at 45 percent must be considered confiscatory. No American should 
have the Federal Government take nearly half of their net worth.
  They're providing the certainty of an exemption that is not indexed 
for inflation, meaning that over time it is certain that more and more 
family farms and small businesses will be subject to this punishing 
tax. Just take a look at the AMT.
  Mr. Speaker, one other thing that is certain about this bill is that 
it is unlikely to be approved before the end of the year. As we are all 
aware, the Senate is fully engaged in the health care debate. It is 
unlikely to break from that to consider this bill this month, 
particularly since a clear majority of the Senate has indicated its 
support for a far more equitable and bipartisan death tax relief 
measure.
  We all understand that the current situation would benefit from a 
permanent solution, but this is not the right one, and I urge its 
defeat.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous 
consent the remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I want to thank the Speaker, Leader Hoyer, and Chairman Rangel for 
bringing this bill to the floor today.
  The purpose of this bill is very straightforward: establish clarity 
and certainty in the Tax Code for the estate tax while exempting 99.7 
percent of the estates in this country from this estate tax altogether.
  The estate tax has changed 10 times in the last 11 years. Now, this 
has been a bonanza for the attorneys, the accountants, the planners, 
but it has been very unfortunate for the American people trying to make 
reasonable plans for their estates.
  If recent history is bad, the next 2 years become completely absurd 
when it comes to the estate tax thanks to a law passed by Congress in 
2001, estate tax repeal in 2010 replaced with a new capital gains tax 
that will impact many more farmers. In fact, for the 6,000 estates 
estimated to benefit from the tax change next year, 71,000 will find 
themselves with new tax obligations, this capital gains tax. 
Additionally, come 2011 the repeal goes away. In this Tax Code they 
repeal the repeal and we're back at a $1 million level for estates, $2 
million joint, a 55 percent rate, the very rate it was in 2001.
  There's going to be a lot of talk on the other side about how this 
law should go forward for the benefit of family farms. Let me tell you, 
the capital gains tax they are proposing for family farms is a 
catastrophe.
  Let's say Grandma buys a farm at $100 an acre. It's now worth $2,000 
an acre. She deeds it to you. She passes. You acquire the property. You 
go to sell the farm. You're going to pay capital gains tax under 
present law on all appreciated value over the $100-an-acre

[[Page 29252]]

initial acquisition price. That's because under present law carryover 
basis is substituted for what we have under the existing framework, 
statutory basis.
  Here's what the Farm Bureau said about carryover basis when it was 
considered some time ago, in 1979: carryover basis fosters an insidious 
bias against farmers and ranchers. And that's precisely what they would 
create.
  Look at this. No estates with capital gains tax burden and 71,000 
suddenly with capital gains burden under the law if we allow it to go 
into effect next year.
  Another byproduct of this bill is to establish certainty once and for 
all on what the estate tax level is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  The 2009 level represents an exclusion from estate tax that is 75 
percent higher than last year alone, where it went from $2 million up 
to $3.5 million. This chart shows who pays the tax and who doesn't 
under the 2009 law. You may not be able to see this little sliver. It's 
because it represents .25 of 1 percent. The estate tax goes away for 
99.75 percent. That is almost perfection, about as close as this body 
is ever going to get. That's why we should vote for this bill and move 
it forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in opposition to this bill.
  Can you imagine working your whole life to keep your family farm or 
to build up a small business, and then when you die Uncle Sam swoops in 
and takes up as much as half of all you've spent a lifetime working 
for? That's what the death tax does. It is wrong, it is immoral, and in 
many ways un-American.
  This was brought home to me early in my first term in Congress. I had 
a family nursery in Texas. They have three nurseries. The parents had 
created it and built it up. Two of the three kids were working in it 
that day, and they just sat down with a pen and paper. They showed me 
the value of their nursery, talked about the death tax, and worked it 
through. And the bottom line was that if they could take out enough 
insurance on their parents' deaths, and because they're out of debt, if 
they could go back to the bank and borrow enough money, they might be 
able to pay their death tax bill.
  Think of what they're saying: If we make enough money off our 
parents' death and we can borrow enough money, the government might let 
us keep our family business. The government might let us keep our 
family business. That's why the death tax is wrong, and that's why it 
is in many cases, if not all, simply un-American.
  Today we have a bill that is the result of hard work by my friend 
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), but I object because I believe we can 
do better.

                              {time}  1230

  Some say at the end of the day if this bill passes, it will only 
impact a few estates. But the truth is, when it passes, still, the 
number one reason family farms and small businesses will not be passed 
down to the next generation is the death tax; and the number one reason 
the fastest growing number of entrepreneurs, women, and minority-owned 
businesses will not be passed down to the next generation. And this is 
the first generation of wealth building. It will be the same death tax.
  While it is fun to hear them talk about Bill Gates and Donald Trump 
and George Soros, the people most hurt by this tax are Bill the farmer 
or Donna the florist or George the funeral director, real people 
building wealth in our communities who oppose this death tax. These are 
not the aristocracies that are being referred to in this debate.
  We are told that this bill will be permanent and provide certainty. 
Well, it does create a permanently high tax rate and a permanently 
destructive tax rate; 45 percent is simply too high. And because, like 
the AMT, it is not indexed for inflation, it is certain to ensnare more 
and more family farms and small businesses in future generations. We 
have seen this play before. The alternative minimum tax was created to 
tackle and address only 100-plus of the wealthiest Americans in the 
United States, but because it wasn't indexed for inflation, today it 
would impact 24 million middle class Americans. We are going to see 
that same creep, those same small businesses and middle American 
families affected by this death tax in future generations.
  We are told, and I think sincerely, that this is the best we can do 
as a Congress. I don't believe it is. I so much appreciate Mr. 
Pomeroy's efforts. I know a lot of the groups that make up the death 
tax coalitions that are working to eliminate the death tax or find a 
reasonable compromise. They appreciate what he is doing as well. But we 
have to do better. And don't take my word for it. If you listen to the 
groups most intimately damaged by the death tax, from our Farm Bureau 
to our National Federation of Independent Businesses, from our grocers 
and funeral directors, from local newspapers and other groups, they 
have not given support to this bill because it still leaves intact the 
third highest death tax rate in the developed world, and it damages 
them too greatly.
  My thought is that rather than place on the floor, as Democrats did, 
unfortunately, a partisan bill that is supported by none of the groups 
most affected, that we ought to have offered a bill by the gentlewoman 
from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) 
and others that has the strong support of 49 national organizations and 
bipartisan support of the bill. Unfortunately, it was not allowed as an 
amendment to the bill and it would be ruled out of order as a motion to 
recommit, so we don't have an opportunity to come together as a 
Congress on this issue.
  At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I just observe that the Tax Policy Center 
estimates that 100 farms or small businesses are estimated to be 
impacted by the estate tax under the 2009 levels across the entire 
country, and CRS has estimated that one-half of 1 percent of those may 
be in a position of having to liquidate something.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Pomeroy.
  I stand before you to support H.R. 4154. Some of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle want you to believe, and we have heard this 
before, that everybody is going to pay an estate tax. If you listen to 
the rhetoric, and I am glad we are looking at the world. I am glad we 
are looking at the world, and we will find out on the health issue we 
are now 40th in terms of infant mortality. But let's look at the world. 
You are incorrect and it is very unfair when you claim that this is a 
tax for all Americans--it is not--and all family businesses. It is not. 
In fact, it is American to act on shared responsibility.
  The Citizens for Tax Justice just recently made this very clear, 
December 2: It follows that it is reasonable to tax the transfer of 
enormous estates, most of which consist of income that was never taxed. 
That's what you are protecting, the folks that have estates that have 
never been taxed. You want to throw a shield over them to protect what 
you did protect in 2001, which you did protect in 2003. You want to 
protect it from one generation of superrich families so they can send 
it on to another group.
  Since 1990s, opponents of the tax have even used the pejorative term 
``death tax.'' But they are flat out wrong. The estate tax affects only 
estates of significant size--presently, right now, over $3.5 million 
for individuals and $7 million for couples.
  The fact is that the estate tax is the most progressive tax in our 
Federal tax system. What you are suggesting is very regressive. Only 
the top 0.2 percent of the income earners paid all of the estate taxes 
collected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page 29253]]


  Mr. POMEROY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. If we do nothing, then 44,400 estates that are not 
currently subject to the estate tax will become targets. The point I 
want to make now is that many estates have paid no taxes. That is not 
shared responsibility.
  Under our bill, only the top 7,600 estates in the country will be 
subject to the estate tax in 2011. The truth of the matter is that I 
don't know any working class American families that own estates worth 
over $7 million. It is insidious to infer anything different.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I would point out that more and more Americans will be ensnared in 
the death tax because it is not indexed, like the AMT. And I would 
point out, we would not be here today if President Clinton had not 
vetoed the death tax repeal in 1999.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  And I would further point out that polls consistently show 70 percent 
of Americans support the complete and full repeal of the death tax 
because it is un-American for this country to swoop in and take up 
nearly half of what you have spent a lifetime building up and wanting 
to hand down to your children and grandchildren.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger) who has worked on the death tax issue as a 
senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. HERGER. I thank my friend and gentleman from Texas for all of the 
work he has done on this incredibly cruel tax.
  Mr. Speaker, far too many families have faced the grim prospect of 
selling the family farm or business in order to pay the taxes that are 
due when a loved one dies. My own cousins had to sell their farm that 
had been in our family since the early 1900s just to pay the death tax. 
Mr. Speaker, this is simply wrong.
  Although it is encouraging that Congress is attempting to provide a 
long-term certainty about death tax rates, the bill before us falls far 
short of a stable solution for agriculture and small business. The 
proposed exemption is simply not enough to protect family farmers, 
especially with the high cost of land in California and other heavily 
populated States.
  Worse yet, H.R. 4154 fails to index the exemption amount for 
inflation, thus guaranteeing a repeat of the alternative minimum tax 
disaster with more and more families facing the death tax in future 
years. That's why leading pro-agricultural groups like the California 
Farm Bureau and National Cattlemen's Association do not support this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this House has voted five times since 2001 to repeal the 
death tax entirely. In fact, no fewer than 65 members of the current 
Democrat majority have voted to fully repeal the death tax. It is time 
to end this unfair and cruel death tax once and for all.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I would just observe that the estate tax 
level last year was $2 million, this year $3.5 million, a 75 percent 
increase in the exclusion. Now, that is quite an index by anybody's 
measure.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a 
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if it were up to me, this 
would not have been done the way it is playing out today. I believe 
that this issue should be taken up in the context of tax reform, which 
the Ways and Means Committee and the House should visit next year, but 
it is what it is.
  But the most important reminder here today for all of us is this: 
This is not the House of Lords. This is not about peerage. This is not 
about, in America, being born to any class or any race that offers 
superiority. This is not permanent wealth. This is not the argument 
that because of your last name, you ought to be entitled to a special 
privilege in what is the most egalitarian society that the world has 
known.
  But the truth is that the extension that we are offering today takes 
us down the path to reform, and that is where I hope we end up. We need 
the certainty as to estate tax rules come January 1. If we let the 
current rules expire, there will be estates that are harmed by a loss 
of step-up in basis. This pits the ultrarich--who, by the way, are the 
ones who seek repeal--against the moderately rich who we attempt to 
assist here in this step-up in basis.
  But I want to quote Warren Buffett on the issue of estate tax. And, 
incidentally, he was cleverly left out by the other side as they 
ascribed responsibility for repeal of the estate tax. Warren Buffett 
said, ``Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. 
Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and 
meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy 
toward plutocracy.''
  This body is a reflection of meritocracy in American society. It is 
unlike other legislative institutions in other parts of the world. You 
get here largely on merit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I am going to close on the note on which I 
opened: This is not the way I would have done this, but I do think that 
Mr. Pomeroy has made a valiant effort to find some middle ground as we 
proceed to next year.
  This legislation makes permanent the current estate tax rules that 
include a 45 percent rate and a $3.5 million exemption for individuals 
and $7 million for couples. It achieves a middle ground among the 
various proposals offered, and it helps allow for tax planning 
certainty.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the lead 
Republican on the Small Business Committee, the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4154. While I 
appreciate the efforts of my colleague from North Dakota, this bill is 
not the answer. The bottom line is that death should not be a taxable 
event.
  I find it amazing that the people who are going to get hurt the most 
by this, the small business men and the farmers, are being referred to 
as the rich and the moderately rich, which couldn't be farther from the 
case.
  Small businesses and family farmers have felt slighted in Washington 
over the past 2 years. Congress has bailed out irresponsible players on 
Wall Street, pushed policies that will increase costs on small 
businesses and tax them at every turn to pay for the Big Government 
agenda.
  Today we have yet another bill on the floor that ignores the small 
guy. H.R. 4154 is not indexed for inflation, so small businesses will 
be forced to pay the death tax in future years. More small businesses 
will be forced to pay that tax.
  Additionally, the bill does not take into account capital-intensive 
small firms whose expensive equipment will cause them to be subject to 
this onerous tax. If Congress were serious about helping small 
businesses in this economic downturn, it would be debating a bill on 
the floor that repeals the death tax.

                              {time}  1245

  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill so that Congress can 
have an opportunity to bring real solutions to the table for our 
entrepreneurs and our farmers.
  Mr. POMEROY. The bill on the floor would establish the capital gains 
exclusion at $7 million for a couple. I don't think we've ignored the 
small guys one bit with this legislation.
  I yield Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon 2 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate 
his leadership on this issue.
  This is the culmination of a 12-year example of how not to create tax 
policy. I listened with interest to my good friend from Texas say, you 
know, they can do better than this bill. Well, ladies and gentlemen, 
they had 12 years

[[Page 29254]]

to do better. And what did the Republicans do? They didn't reform the 
inheritance tax. What they did is they established a 10-year gain where 
it was reduced a little bit each year until next year it disappears, 
and then they give it back to the American people at a $1 million level 
and 55 percent marginal rate. That is the best they could do.
  And as my good friend from North Dakota pointed out, it's even worse 
than that because they would have 70,000, not 7,000, the top two-tenths 
of a percent, but 70,000 people who are the real small business, the 
entrepreneurs, be subject to a capital gains tax. And I will tell you 
that the tax itself is only the tip of the iceberg because it will be 
an accounting nightmare to go back and figure out what grandma paid or 
what Uncle Charlie paid for the asset. Some people will spend more time 
researching and on accountants than they will pay in the tax. That's 
the best that the Republicans could do.
  What Mr. Pomeroy and our committee have done is to take generous 
levels, $3.5 million per person, and exempt below that the 
administrative nightmare of the capital gains tax. Is it a perfect 
solution? No.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. But compared to the best that the Republicans could 
do for 12 years, it's night and day.
  With all due respect, declaring one of my heroes, Teddy Roosevelt, 
who brought about the inheritance tax, as being un-American is an 
insult to the Republican Party who knows that the vast wealth in this 
country, you don't get to be a billionaire on a W2. So a lot of this 
money was never even taxed once. Let's get a grip. Let's pass this bill 
and move on.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself, Mr. Speaker, as much time as I 
may consume.
  I know Washington takes great delight in reading from comments from 
the very wealthy who, by the way, usually find loopholes by accountants 
and have whole planning teams to make sure they don't pay these taxes. 
But I like to listen to those who are actually struggling with these 
death taxes, our small businesses, our family farms and our local 
manufacturers who have got a lot of challenges.
  I have a letter from the National Federation of Independent Business 
which has weighed in on almost every key issue dealing with the impact 
on small businesses and independent businesses. Like me, they do 
appreciate the work that Mr. Pomeroy has done on this issue. But just 
quoting from their letter: ``While well intentioned, H.R. 4154 is an 
incomplete solution. A $3.5 million exemption per person and a 45 
percent rate do not provide adequate protection for many small 
businesses. In addition, the $3.5 million exemption is not indexed for 
inflation, meaning that protection from the estate tax will erode each 
year.''
  Our manufacturing groups, for example, National Association of 
Manufacturers, in a letter they wrote, again, yesterday, say: ``The 
NAM, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Nation's largest 
industrial trade association representing small and large manufacturers 
in every industrial sector and in all 50 States, urges you to oppose 
H.R. 4154,'' the bill we have before us today.
  ``While NAM appreciates efforts to provide certainty by making estate 
tax rates permanent, we do not view a 45 percent rate or an exemption 
that is not indexed to inflation as efforts that will achieve 
significant reform.''
  And finally, the American Farm Bureau Federation, again, family 
farmers all throughout this country are involved, again, in trying to 
help them keep those family farms, pass them down to the next 
generation, say that the current estate tax exemption is $3.5 million 
per person and the top tax rate is 45 percent under this bill. This 
exemption level is inadequate to protect our Nation's farms and ranches 
from estate taxes and causes financial burden of complicated and 
expensive estate tax planning.
  It is clear while we may claim on this floor that this is a bill 
great for family farms and great for small businesses, and only taxing 
the wealthy, our family farms, our small businesses, our local 
manufacturing companies say it does not.

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                 Washington, DC, December 2, 2009.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Federation 
     of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small 
     business advocacy organization, I am writing to share our 
     views about H.R. 4154, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for 
     Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009.
       With the current estate tax law expiring after 2010, H.R. 
     4154 provides certainty to help small business owners plan 
     for the tax and maintains stepped-up basis. While well-
     intentioned, H.R. 4154 is an incomplete solution. A $3.5 
     million exemption per person and a 45 percent rate do not 
     provide adequate protection for many small businesses. In 
     addition, the $3.5 million exemption is not indexed for 
     inflation, meaning that protection from the estate tax will 
     erode each year.
       NFIB has always supported full repeal of the estate tax as 
     the one solution that will protect all small businesses from 
     this tax. Short of that, NFIB has supported H.R. 3905, a 
     bipartisan compromise bill which provides an exemption level 
     of $5 million per person and a rate of 35 percent. Much of 
     the cost of the estate tax occurs before the tax is levied 
     because the threat of the tax forces families to pay for 
     expensive estate planning to ensure their business stays with 
     the family. Such costs are a drain on the finances of many 
     already struggling small businesses, and relief along the 
     lines of H.R. 3905 would provide additional protection for 
     many small businesses.
       NFIB is encouraged that the House of Representatives is 
     acting on this important small business issue by providing 
     long-term estate planning certainty. We look forward to 
     working with Congress to improve the legislation so that it 
     meets the needs of America's small businesses.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Susan Eckerly,
     Senior Vice President, Public Policy.
                                  ____

                                               Manufacturing Makes


                                               America Strong,

                                 Washington, DC, December 2, 2009.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The National Association of 
     Manufacturers (NAM), the nation's largest industrial trade 
     association representing small and large manufacturers in 
     every industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to 
     oppose H.R. 4154, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for 
     Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009.
       The NAM has consistently supported efforts to either repeal 
     or significantly reform the estate tax. For small and medium-
     sized manufacturers, owners and families, the estate tax is 
     more than a one-time tax. In a recent survey of the NAM's 
     small and medium-sized manufacturers, respondents said that, 
     on average, they spend $94,000 annually on fees and estate-
     planning costs in preparation for their estate tax bill. This 
     is money that could have been used to grow businesses and add 
     jobs.
       Legislation enacted in 2001 gradually phases out the estate 
     tax and ultimately repeals the tax in 2010. However, without 
     congressional action to make the repeal permanent, the tax 
     will revert in 2011 to the extremely high pre-2001 rates.
       H.R. 4154 would make permanent the 2009 rate of 45 percent 
     and the $3.5 million exemption. While the NAM appreciates 
     efforts to provide certainty by making the estate tax rates 
     permanent, we do not view a 45 percent rate or an exemption 
     that is not indexed to inflation as efforts that will achieve 
     significant reform.
       We urge members of the House of Representatives to oppose 
     H.R. 4154 and bring up legislation that will provide 
     significant relief for small manufacturers facing this 
     onerous tax.
       The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that 
     votes on H.R. 4154, including potential procedural motions, 
     may be considered for designation as Key Manufacturing Votes 
     in the 111th Congress. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jay Timmons.
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                 Washington, DC, December 3, 2009.
     To all Members,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: Individuals, family partnerships or 
     family corporations own 98 percent of our nation's 2 million 
     farms and ranches and produce about 82 percent of U.S. 
     agricultural products. Estate taxes threaten family-owned 
     farm and ranches and the livelihoods of families who make 
     their living in production agriculture. Farm Bureau believes 
     that estate taxes should be repealed.
       Estate taxes are especially harmful to farmers and ranchers 
     because their businesses are capital-intensive with a high 
     concentration of assets tied up in land, buildings and 
     equipment. Surviving family members

[[Page 29255]]

     are often forced to sell much needed land, buildings or 
     equipment in order to pay the tax. When farms or ranches are 
     downsized or disappear, farm families lose their incomes and 
     rural communities and businesses suffer. Farmland close to 
     urban centers often converts to development when estate taxes 
     force farm families to sell off land to pay taxes.
       The current estate tax exemption is $3.5 million per person 
     and the top tax rate is 45 percent. This exemption level is 
     inadequate to protect our nation's farms and ranches from 
     estate taxes and causes the financial burden of complicated 
     and expensive estate tax planning.
       The House is set to consider H.R. 4154, the Permanent 
     Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses 
     Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Earl Pomeroy, (D-N.D.). While 
     Farm Bureau acknowledges the need for certainty in estate tax 
     law and the importance of maintaining the stepped-up basis, 
     we cannot support a permanent $3.5 million per person 
     exemption or a 45 percent top rate. In addition the bill 
     fails to index the exemption for inflation. Farm Bureau 
     neither supports nor opposes passage of H.R. 4154, but 
     realizes that we must send a bill to the Senate in order to 
     improve the difficult and uncertain situation many of our 
     farm families are facing because of the estate tax law.
       Until estate taxes can be repealed, Farm Bureau urges 
     Congress to continue to work for meaningful estate tax reform 
     by enacting an estate tax exemption of $10 million indexed 
     for inflation, continuing the stepped-up basis and removing 
     the limits on the amount of farm land that can be valued for 
     farm use rather than at development value.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
                                                        President.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I would reference the earlier notation in 
the Farm Bureau that carry-over basis establishing this capital gains 
exposure falls particularly hard on family farms and ranchers.
  With that, I yield my friend and colleague, Shelley Berkley from Las 
Vegas, 2 minutes.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for 
yielding.
  The bill we are considering this afternoon is not my chosen option. 
While I will vote for this bill, I don't think it goes far enough, nor 
is it a truly permanent solution.
  Yesterday at the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that would 
have raised the estate tax exemption and reduced the rate, creating a 
sensible, stable and, most importantly, a permanent framework to help 
families and businesses effectively plan for the burden of the estate 
tax.
  This position is favored by a wide coalition of business and farm 
groups; and unlike the bill on the floor today, it is indexed for 
inflation. This is important, because without indexing, the estate tax 
will, like the alternative minimum tax, grow over time to cover more 
and more estates, eventually affecting many middle class Americans.
  Philosophically, I don't think there should be an estate tax. There 
are few things in this world that you can do to avoid paying taxes. I 
think dying should be one of those things.
  I introduced bipartisan legislation to alleviate the burden the 
estate tax creates for farms, businesses, and individuals. The 
legislation would have responsibly phased up the exemption to $5 
million, $10 million for couples, and lowered the rate to 35 percent 
over the next 10 years to reduce the burden on those estates that still 
have an estate tax liability.
  Given the current economic situation, even one job lost to the estate 
tax is too much. We need to encourage stability in every way possible. 
While the bill before us, in my opinion, is not a permanent solution, 
it is far better than a short-term patch. It ensures stability in the 
Tax Code and allows for estate planning. I believe it will free up 
resources currently used to plan for the estate tax.
  I will vote for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me and do 
likewise.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Yielding myself 15 seconds, I would like to 
submit for the Record a list of 49 organizations from family farmers to 
small businesses to local funeral parlors in support of Congresswoman 
Berkley's bill and amendment.

                  Family Business Estate Tax Coalition

       American Farm Bureau Federation; American Foundry Society; 
     American Hotel & Lodging Association; American International 
     Automobile Dealers Association; American Rental Association; 
     American Wholesale Marketers Association; Associated Builders 
     and Contractors; AMT--Association for Manufacturing 
     Technology; Association of Equipment Manufacturers; Comporium 
     Group/Rock Hill Telephone Company; Financial Executive 
     International's Committee on Private Company Policy.
       Food Marketing Institute; Heating, Airconditioning & 
     Refrigeration Distributors International; Independent 
     Community Bankers of America; Independent Insurance Agents & 
     Brokers of America; International Franchise Association; 
     Marine Retailers Association of America; Mason Contractors 
     Association of America; Mortgage Bankers Association; 
     National Association of Convenience Stores; National 
     Association of Manufacturers; National Association of 
     Wholesaler-Distributors.
       National Automobile Dealers Association; National Beer 
     Wholesalers Association; National Cattlemen's Beef 
     Association; National Electrical Contractors Association; 
     National Federation of Independent Business; National Funeral 
     Directors Association; National Grocers Association; National 
     Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association; National 
     Newspaper Association; National Restaurant Association; 
     National Roofing Contractors Association.
       National Small Business Association; National 
     Telecommunications Cooperative Association; National Utility 
     Contractors Association; Newspaper Association of America; 
     North American Die Casting Association; Plumbing-Heating-
     Cooling Contractors--National Association; Policy and 
     Taxation Group; Printing Industries of America; S Corporation 
     Association; Society of American Florists; The Associated 
     General Contractors of America; The Bowling Proprietors' 
     Association of America.

  At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to one of the 
outstanding members of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think the gentlelady made an excellent point highlighting the 
weakness of this bill. The gentlelady from Nevada pointed out that this 
is not indexed for inflation. Let's make no mistake: a characterization 
that someone else is kicking the can down the lane, this bill, in fact, 
kicks the can down the lane because if it's not indexed for inflation, 
then at the very least we are going to be knocking up against the 
alternative minimum tax problem that has so plagued this Congress over 
the past couple of years.
  I heard, Mr. Speaker, a couple of minutes ago one of the folks on the 
other side of the aisle who is sort of characterizing things as folks 
weren't paying taxes. I want to put that into a context. Look, here is 
a little bit of a list. If you're running around the United States of 
America and doing any kind of economic activity, these are the taxes 
you're going to run into. You're going to be paying capital gains, 
you're going to be paying Federal income taxes, or unemployment taxes, 
or motor fuel taxes, or gift taxes, Medicare taxes, payroll taxes, 
property taxes, real estate transfer taxes, telecommunications taxes, 
sales taxes, self-employment taxes, Social Security taxes, State income 
taxes, tolls, bridges. You name it, you're going to be loaded up with 
taxes.
  And so here is an opportunity for us to say, let's have a clear, good 
shot. As Representative Camp said a couple of minutes ago, death should 
not be a taxable event. Let's not act as if this accumulation over a 
period of years has not been taxed along the way.
  So I think the National Association of Manufacturers accurately 
pointed out that it's not the tax burden alone that's the problem here. 
It's not simply the fact that it's not indexed for inflation. But the 
cumulative effect is, in fact, the problem because according to the 
NAM, $94,000 a year is spent on tax preparation and estate planning. I 
say let's lift the tax burden. Let's recognize the cumulative nature of 
taxes that people are paying. Let's not, with a straight face, try and 
say people aren't paying taxes, and let's vote against this bill.
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield my friend and Ways and Means colleague from 
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) 2 minutes.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And since I have been in this Congress, I have worked to extend the 
benefits with estate planning and raise exemptions for the last 12 
years. The estate tax was never meant to affect the vast majority of 
Americans. Under

[[Page 29256]]

H.R. 4154, only 25 of every 10,000 estates would be subject to estate 
tax.
  By extending current law, this bill strikes a balance. It provides 
certainty for estate planning and prevents tens of thousand of estates 
from being subject to taxation while also being fiscally responsible.
  Critically, this bill protects our small businesses and farmers. In 
my district in North Carolina, there are plenty of farmers that are 
``land rich and cash poor'' that may be affected by the reach of the 
estate tax because their land and equipment are worth quite a bit, but 
their business may be barely getting by.
  Many small businesses that form the backbone of our economy are the 
engine of job creation, and they face the same dilemma. Rather than 
worrying about the estate tax, these businesses need to focus on the 
growth and expansion that can improve our economy. This legislation 
will allow them to do just that.
  Only 100 small businesses and farm estates would owe any estate tax 
in 2010 under these rules, according to the numbers I get.
  Now, as a former small businesses owner, I also know that that 
provides certainty that is crucial for business planning. This is 
equally true for individuals who need to plan for the future of 
themselves, their children and their grandchildren. We should encourage 
the dreams of Americans who want to build wealth that they can leave to 
their children and grandchildren, but also it needs to be fair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. America is the land of equality of opportunity; and by 
making sure that 99.8 percent of estates are exempt from estate tax 
while encouraging that the fewer than 8,000 pay, this bill provides and 
preserves opportunity for all.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. The two questions we ought to ask ourselves when 
we consider this bill, besides the principle underneath it, which is 
should family farms and small businesses work their whole life, build 
up a nest egg and have Uncle Sam swoop in when they die and take up 
nearly half of it themselves, is this supported by the people whom you 
say it will help, and will this bill or can this bill become law?
  As to the first case, it is not supported by the organizations that 
have worked the longest and the hardest on the death tax. And we have, 
again, 49 organizations who support a bipartisan compromise who 
unfortunately cannot support this bill, small businesses, family farms, 
local newspapers, local marketing groups, equipment manufacturers, 
local builders and auto dealers. We have local convenience stores and 
beer wholesalers, our cattlemen, just the people who make up the fabric 
of our local economies believe this bill will not help them and will 
not help them enough.

                              {time}  1300

  But the other thought is, will this bill become law? And the answer, 
unfortunately, is no. H.R. 4154 is dead on arrival in the Senate. Even 
if it squeaks through the House with whatever arm twisting must be 
done, it will be dead on arrival in the Senate. Earlier this year the 
Senate voted on a bipartisan basis for a far more generous estate tax 
relief package. The Lincoln-Kyl amendment to the Senate's budget 
resolution, which mirrors the Berkley-Brady amendment that was not 
allowed to be offered today, provides a considerably higher exemption 
and a more reasonable 35 percent rate.
  It's very unlikely that the Senate is going to take a break from 
health care and other issues to pass a bill that they have serious 
concerns about, and especially because they have serious concerns as 
well about this PAYGO sham language that is attached. Also, recent 
press reports make clear that key Senators, even Democratic Senators, 
believe that this bill, H.R. 4154, is insufficient.
  According to a December 22 article in the BNA, it's quoted that the 
House plan to make permanent the 2009 estate tax rate exemption levels 
falls far short of what is needed in the long run and quotes key 
Senators in that Chamber. So, I think our goal ought to be helping the 
people we say we're trying to help: family farmers and small 
businesses. And we ought to be pushing a bill forward that can be 
accepted by the Senate, make it to the President's desk, and provide 
that certainty that helps these people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to our 
distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, Mr. Pomeroy, the representative of the 
Ways and Means Committee, for yielding, and I want to thank him for his 
efforts in pursuing this bill and introducing this bill and effecting 
the policy that currently exists in this country of a generous but fair 
provision for exemptions on estates. That exemption, as has been, I'm 
sure, debated today, provides for $3.5 million for each spouse, or $7 
million a family, for an exemption under the estate tax. However, what 
the Republican policy did was create a situation where there is no 
certainty, no ability to plan, and no confidence of what the tax policy 
will be in the coming years.
  I, therefore, rise to support this bill which permanently extends 
estate tax relief to American families and which strikes a fair balance 
between what we owe to families, farmers, and small businesses, and 
what we owe to our country's fiscal future. This bill simply continues 
present law at current rates and exemptions. But it does not abolish 
the estate tax altogether, which I think would be a mistake. In fact, 
Teddy Roosevelt thought it would be a mistake. Teddy Roosevelt thought 
it would be a mistake because he did not want to see the constant 
accretion in just a few very wealthy people in America of the wealth of 
this country.
  Abolishing the estate tax would add billions and billions to our 
deficit, as will happen next year if we do not pass this bill. And 
while a small number of wealthy families would benefit, the growth of 
our economy as a whole would suffer. So would vital programs on which 
millions of Americans rely. The estate tax also sets a limit on the 
concentration of inherited wealth from generation to generation. That's 
what Teddy Roosevelt, Republican President the early part of last 
century, thought was appropriate in American policy, which, at a time 
when this country's middle class is truly struggling, would make 
inequality even starker and more damaging to our country's social 
fabric.
  That is why advocates of a dynamic economy have supported an estate 
tax for generations. When first proposing an estate tax, Theodore 
Roosevelt said, ``The man of great wealth owes a particular obligation 
to the state because he derives special advantages from the mere 
existence of government.''
  And Bill Gates, along with Warren Buffett, one of the two wealthiest 
people in America, recently argued that the estate tax, ``puts a brake 
on the concentration of wealth and power, generates substantial revenue 
from those most able to pay, and encourages billions of dollars in 
charitable giving each year. The estate tax is not only fair,'' Bill 
Gates said, ``but an essential component of our Nation's economic 
dynamism.'' That's Bill Gates, who will, I think, be perceived by the 
American public as having probably the possibility of one of the 
largest estates.
  Finally, it's important that this bill is permanent, and not a 
temporary fix. That guarantees families, farmers, and small businesses 
the certainty they need to plan ahead rationally. President Bush's 
estate tax policy, by contrast, gave the country anything but 
certainty. It phased out the estate tax, repealed it entirely for 2010, 
and then brought it back, at 2001 levels, for 2011. In other words, 3.5 
today, zero tomorrow, and 1 in 2011. No accountant or estate planner is 
going to look you in the eye and say, Well, based upon that policy, I 
can give you some rational advice.
  That was truly an irresponsible tax and fiscal policy brought to us, 
very frankly, by the minority party when it

[[Page 29257]]

was in power. It made it impossible for families to plan with 
confidence for the future. It also hid the policy's true cost to our 
national budget. This bill can change that. It is in keeping with 
President Obama's pledge of a new honesty in budgeting.
  I also want to point out that passing this bill is also an important 
step toward fiscal responsibility because attached to it is the House's 
support for statutory PAYGO, as it's affectionately referred to by 
some, me included. Now, let me say something about statutory PAYGO. My 
friends on the Republican side of the aisle are not for it. They're not 
for it because they wanted to make deep revenue cuts and didn't want to 
pay for them. They wanted my children to pay for them and my 
grandchildren to pay for them. And very frankly, that's who's going to 
pay for them. Those of us of my age are not going to pay for them 
because we incurred real debt by not paying for what we buy, and 
created extraordinary deficits over the last 8 years of the Bush 
administration.
  As we know, the principle of paying for what we buy was central to 
turning record deficits of 1993, of 1992, of 1991, of 1990, and all of 
the years of the 1980s, turning record deficits into record surpluses. 
It was statutory PAYGO that allowed us to do that, along, obviously, 
with the extraordinary growth in the economy that occurred under an 
economic program put in place in 1993, for which none of my colleagues 
on the Republican side of the aisle voted. It can be an important step 
in our return to fiscal health today.
  By passing this bill, we can also strengthen our commitment to pay 
for all new policies that reduce revenues or expand entitlements. In 
fact, I wish that this extension of estate tax relief were also paid 
for. It is not, of course. Why is it not paid for? Because we can't pay 
for it at a time when we are at great economic risk. We can't depress 
the economy. We need to stimulate our economy. But if we put in place 
PAYGO, we will give additional confidence to those who are prepared to 
invest their capital that we will continue to have sound fiscal 
policies.
  It's unlikely that we will have the votes to pay for this extension 
of policies with bipartisan support. I choose to support the strongest 
version of PAYGO possible. That is the PAYGO provision in this bill. 
So, on the one hand, we bring in this bill estate planning rationality, 
substance, and confidence. And on the other hand, we adopt once again 
in this House the premise of statutory PAYGO, which got us to 4 years 
of surplus during the Clinton administration, the only 4 years of 
surplus in the lifetime of anybody in this Chamber.
  I hope that the Senate will join the House in taking this essential 
first step out of America's deep fiscal hole. My friend, Mr. Brady, 
thinks that they will not. Perhaps he is correct. If he is correct, it 
will be unfortunate. My friend, I know, has been a proponent for the 
years he's been here, and some others have been, of going to zero, no 
estate tax. Very frankly, because of that position, we have not been 
able to reach compromise and, therefore, we find ourselves in this 
untenable position.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, which makes a fair 
estate tax permanent, makes estate planning more reliable, and makes 
our commitment to fiscal discipline clear and unequivocal.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  We have short memories around here. While I know it's sort of popular 
to blame President Bush for everything from acid reflux to Tiger Woods' 
car accident, the truth of the matter is we wouldn't be here today if 
President Clinton had not vetoed the full permanent repeal of the death 
tax once and for all for America. A Republican Congress sent him that 
bill saying the only peace of mind we can give to family farmers and 
small businesses is to put this death tax to death. But because of his 
actions and irresponsible veto, today we see a high tax rate and low 
exemptions and real damage upon America's family farms and small 
businesses.
  We talk about fiscal responsibility. I just heard some more rhetoric 
about that. Now, let me point out that while Republicans, 
unfortunately, in responding to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and 
creating a Homeland Security Department, I believe, while well-
intentioned in defense of this country, also spent too much money. And 
you can tell from these red bars how once that mistake was made, the 
deficit, year after year, went down. In the first year Democrats had 
control of Congress the deficit went from 162 to 459. It tripled in 1 
year that House and Senate, they tripled the deficit. This year it is 
almost nine times higher than when Republicans left Congress.
  So, when I hear a lecture on fiscal responsibility, after a $1.4 
trillion deficit, a quarter of a trillion dollar unpaid bill 2 weeks 
ago for the doctor fix, an unprecedented spending spree, bailouts, and 
PAYGO rules that have less credibility than all the fake stimulus jobs 
we hear about, please, no lectures. And when you talk about statutory 
PAYGO, I'll remind Members how many violations of PAYGO have occurred. 
Two dozen of them in the last couple of years by this Congress, 
supposedly fiscally responsible.
  And you know the way they got around it? In some cases they used the 
same PAYGO 25 different times. That's like mortgaging your house 25 
times to the bank as collateral. They used some PAYGO 10 different 
times. In fact, one time, to try to look like they balanced the bill, 
this Congress, on this floor, with this leadership, decreed that there 
will be no terrorist attacks for the next 5 years so that this bill can 
look like it was paid for.
  So, please, no lectures on fiscal responsibility from a Congress and 
a White House that is ruining this country, driving us so deep into 
debt I don't know how our grandchildren will ever get out of it.
  I think the main point today that I will refute as well is that this 
is the only option. The truth of the matter is that there is a 
bipartisan bill that has support of some 39 or so Members of this 
House, supported by so many of the groups, family farms, small 
businesses, local nurseries, home builders, and retail shops, that does 
have support in the House and in the Senate. That's the compromise that 
should be on the floor today. That's the way we make sure we help our 
family small businesses.
  And let me tell you, too, whenever Washington says we're only going 
after a few of the wealthy, grab your pocketbooks because we've seen 
this run before. And the alternative minimum tax was supposed to tax 
100 or so of the wealthiest Americans, as we just heard. Today that tax 
can grab almost 24 million Americans. We're going to see every year 
more and more family farms, more and more small businesses trapped, 
damaged, destroyed by this death tax unless this bill is voted down. 
And we have other options that really can help.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating my friend, Mr. Brady. He 
has been entrusted to manage time on the bill. He's done a great job of 
it. For many years I've had a running debate with Mr. Hulshof who's no 
longer with us as he did not run for reelection last year. I think Mr. 
Brady has more than picked up the banner from Mr. Hulshof, and I 
commend him for a good discussion.
  I do believe that he begins with a curious point. He attacks the 
Democrats for budget deficits while advocating a bill that would cost 
twice as much as the bill on the floor. Repeal of the estate tax would 
lose roughly half a trillion dollars over the next decade. That is well 
over double the cost of the bill before the House. Another thing about 
that bill that you did not hear one speck of discussion on from the 
Republicans in the debate today is this capital gains tax issue. Let me 
briefly recount it.
  Right now, when someone inherits property under an estate, if they go 
on to sell it, the capital gains is on the value of the asset at the 
time it was inherited. If we don't act, the law that is

[[Page 29258]]

on the books brings a different formula--it's called carryover basis. 
When you inherit property and go to sell it, you pay capital gains on 
everything over the value of the initial acquisition--the price grandma 
paid when she got the farm or what have you. The Farm Bureau has called 
this insidious relative to its impact on farms and small businesses. We 
make that problem go away, and it needs to go away.
  I don't think it's right, responding to another point made by my 
friend, Mr. Brady, to blame Mr. Clinton for the estate tax. President 
Bush had 8 years of governing after Mr. Clinton. Six of those years 
Republicans controlled this Chamber. If they needed to do something, 
they certainly had time to do it. But what they left us is a mess that 
now needs to be attended to; because to have the estate tax repealed 
next year, have a capital gains tax come in instead of the estate tax, 
a capital gains tax that will hit 71,000 taxpayers. While the 6,000 get 
relief on the estate tax, 71,000 have new capital gains exposure and 
then have it all go back to the 2002 levels in the year after that; $1 
million, $2 million joint, 55 percent rate. It makes no sense.
  The bill on the floor achieves almost unanimous relief from the 
estate tax while making the rules very clear: 99.25 percent get 
excluded from the estate tax. Those estates, joint estates, over $7 
million would continue to have the exposure--although they would 
obviously have the wherewithal to apply to that. The rate 45 percent 
only applies to assets over the $7 million. So in a taxable estate 
there is zero tax on the first $7 million, 45 percent over that. On 
average, that means you have got about an 18 percent rate, not nearly 
half as had been described by the other side.
  In closing, I have a quote from a Washington Post editorial talking 
about this situation in today's paper. It says, ``In one of those 
fiscal time bombs left from the Bush administration, the estate tax, 
having gradually dwindled, is set to be eliminated entirely next year--
only to spring back to life, full-force, in 2011. Unless something is 
done, 2010 will be the year to throw Mama from the train, tax-free. 
This would be terrible policy, not to mention unkind to Mama.''
  So I believe that we need to act. The bill before us is a reasonable 
resolution of this issue. I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I would say while I disagree strongly with some of those assertions, 
I do very much appreciate the work that Mr. Pomeroy has done on this 
bill. It is an issue that concerns so many of us. I am hopeful we can 
still come together on a bipartisan compromise that can pass this 
House, and for many of us who have as our goal full and permanent 
repeal of the death tax, I hope someday to work with him on that as 
well.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4152, the 
Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses 
Act of 2009. This is responsible legislation that would provide 
permanent tax relief to middle-class families and family-owned 
businesses, while maintaining the estate tax for only the 7,600 
wealthiest individuals nationwide, according to the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  H.R. 4152, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and 
Small Businesses Act of 2009 permanently would set the estate tax at 
the 2009 level. This would allow families and small businesses to have 
certainty about the rate of taxation on their estates and plan 
accordingly.
  Currently the estate tax exemption is set at $3.5 million for 
individuals and $7 million for couples and with a maximum tax rate of 
45 percent. Unless the House and the Senate take action, the estate tax 
is scheduled to enter 1 year of full repeal in 2010 followed by a 
return of the estate tax in 2011 with a drastically reduced exemption 
level and a much higher maximum rate of taxation. If we allow the 
estate tax to return to a $1 million exemption at a tax rate of 55 
percent, 30,000 more American small businesses, farms, and families 
will be subject to the estate tax in 2011. Given the high property 
values in New Jersey, allowing the estate tax to revert to a million 
dollar exemption would hit my constituents especially hard.
  Additionally, the legislation we are considering today would require 
all new spending to be paid for and not increase the debt by 
instituting pay-as-you-go budgeting as law. I support pay-as-you-go 
rules because fiscal discipline must always be a hallmark of our 
government. In the 1990s with pay-as-you-go as the law, we turned the 
massive deficits of the 1980s into a record surplus under President 
Clinton. Pay-as-you-go is only one tool, but it is a strong one to 
return our Nation back to fiscal stability.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4154, the 
``Permanent Estate Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses 
Act of 2009.'' This bill will extend permanently the 2009 estate tax 
rules, which are estimated to affect only 1 in 500 estates. By allowing 
the estate tax to expire next year, we will be depriving the Federal 
Government of critically needed funds to finance, among other things, 
economic stabilization programs. Moreover, at a time when many working 
Americans are losing their jobs and finding it difficult to make ends 
meet, particularly in southeast Michigan, it strikes me as wholly 
unconscionable that the Congress should approve a tax cut for the 
wealthiest of the country's citizens. Furthermore, while I am ever 
cognizant of the effect of Federal policy on small businesses, I would 
remind my colleagues that, according to the Tax Policy Center, only 100 
small business and farm estates in the entire Nation would owe any 
estate tax in 2010 if the 2009 rules were extended, and virtually none 
of them would have to be sold to pay the tax.
  Thus, in my view, the bluster about the purported effect of this bill 
on farms and small businesses is unfounded. As such, I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, as I will.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the permanent 
extension of the 2009 estate tax. The American people have more 
pressing concerns. Our priority should be to create jobs, enact health 
reform, and extend unemployment insurance and COBRA assistance, not 
provide gifts for the wealthiest 7,000 Americans.
  I favor a 1-year extension of current law, and then we can consider 
the estate tax in the context of all of the expiring Bush tax 
provisions. This provision should not be given priority over helping 
those who can't find affordable health coverage or have lost their home 
or their job.
  Now is not the right time for this legislation. Let's pass a 1-year 
extension and get back to the issues that are truly important to the 
American people--creating jobs and assisting struggling families. I 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Permanent 
Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 
2009.
  If enacted into law, this legislation would permanently extend the 
estate tax at its current 2009 top rate of 45 percent and exemption 
level of $3.5 million, $7 million for joint filers. In so doing, H.R. 
4154 will provide needed certainty for families engaged in estate 
planning while significantly reducing the total number of estates 
subject to the estate tax relative to current law. This measure is 
consistent with both President Obama's FY 2010 Budget, as well as 
Congress's FY 2010 Budget Resolution--and importantly, today's rule 
incorporates statutory PAYGO into the underlying initiative, which will 
go a long way towards restoring our Nation's long-term fiscal 
discipline.
  I urge my colleagues' support.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, today I stand in support of H.R. 
4154, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small 
Businesses Act of 2009 because I understand the importance of 
protecting Iowa's farms and small businesses. This bill helps ensure 
that these businesses are not downsized as they are passed from one 
generation to the next.
  While I am supportive of the estate tax exemption of $3.5 million per 
person in the short term, I am frustrated that the bill does not adjust 
this amount for inflation. Earlier this week, I submitted an amendment 
to the Rules Committee to adjust the estate tax for inflation, but that 
amendment was not allowed to the House Floor. While the title of this 
bill indicates that it is a permanent fix, I worry that we will be 
right back in the same situation in a few years.
  Do not let the estate tax go down the same path as the alternative 
minimum tax, AMT. The AMT was originally passed in 1969 as a measure to 
target 155 high-income households that were paying little or no income 
tax because of loopholes in the tax code at that time. However, because 
it was not adjusted for inflation, an increasing number of middle-class 
taxpayers have found themselves subject to this tax. Indexing the 
estate tax for inflation will help ensure that it does not have the 
unintended consequence of impacting middle-class families in the 
future.

[[Page 29259]]

  As this bill continues through the congressional process, I urge my 
colleagues to adjust the estate tax for inflation so that it truly is a 
permanent fix.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, throughout our history, Americans have 
worked vigorously to achieve great success despite extraordinary 
hardships. Farmers have tilled the earth, inventors have exercised 
their ingenuity, builders have constructed, entrepreneurs have 
established businesses, and all made our nation even greater than the 
founding fathers envisioned. In the process of becoming successful, 
wealth is created. When a person successfully pursues a dream and 
wisely manages resources over a lifetime, the Federal Government should 
not punish those accomplishments by seizing a significant portion of 
what was intended to be passed along to family members upon death.
  Due to burdensome death taxes, there are countless examples of 
families who have been forced to sell their business or purchase it 
back from the government. A business that has been in a family for 
generations can be lost overnight because of the death tax. And when a 
business leaves its family roots, there is a loss of pride in the 
fundamental traditions that helped make the business a success. This is 
not the legacy parents want to leave their children and grandchildren.
  Growing up on a family farm, I understand the impending doom the 
death tax imposes. Instead of proudly teaching one's children and 
grandchildren how to work the land of their forefathers, farming 
families are instead focused on whether they can save enough to pay the 
death tax or literally, ``lose the farm.''
  I am pleased to have worked with my colleagues in the House of 
Representatives to eliminate this tax. I strongly supported the 
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, EGTRRA. 
Under EGTRRA, the death tax and generation-skipping transfer tax are 
scheduled to be repealed effective January 1, 2010. However, the death 
tax will come back in full force on January 1, 2011, unless Congress 
takes action to extend or permanently repeal the tax.
  Mr. Speaker, we don't need a reform to the Death Tax, we need full 
repeal. Under this legislation, the 0 percent tax death tax rate in 
2010 will be raised by 45 percent. This is not the direction we should 
be moving in.
  In both the 107th and 108th Congresses, the House passed legislation 
making the repeal permanent, but the Senate did not. In the 109th 
Congress, the House passed H.R. 8 that would have permanently repealed 
the estate tax. On June 8, 2006, the Senate held a cloture vote on a 
motion to proceed to consider H.R. 8. However, the vote of 57-41 fell 
three votes short of the 60 needed to consider the bill.
  Instead of fully repealing the Death Tax, this Democrat majority 
deems it necessary to still tax almost half of an individual's estate 
upon their death.
  The legislation before us today will keep the estate tax at its 2009 
level, meaning the government gets 45 percent of a deceased person's 
estate valued over $3.5 million dollars instead of 0 percent as under 
the 2001 act.
  Additionally, the $3.5 million exemption is not indexed for 
inflation. Similar to the Alternative Minimum Tax, the Death Tax will 
gradually affect more and more families and businesses than originally 
intended.
  I have been a strong supporter of permanently ending the death tax 
throughout my career and will vigorously oppose this tax increase in 
the President's budget and the underlying bill before the House today.
  This is not the legacy parents want to leave their children and 
grandchildren. This is not the legacy that this Congress wants to leave 
to its constituents. I unequivocally urge my colleagues to vote against 
this unjust tax scheme.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
4154, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief of Families, Farmers, and Small 
Businesses. I am worried sick that we have misplaced our priorities as 
Congress when we are voting on legislation to permanently, not 
temporarily, extend a tax cut to the richest, top 1 percent, of all 
income earners when Congress has not passed a public works job program 
for the unemployed. We are sending 30,000 of America's finest young men 
and women off to war in Afghanistan at the estimated potential cost of 
$20 billion per year. Congress must pass a public works job program.
  This bill has not been considered through regular order. This bill 
has had zero hearings, there have been no subcommittee or full 
committee mark ups by the House Ways and Means Committee.
  We currently have more than 15 million unemployed Americans. The 
national unemployment rate is more than 10 percent. In the State of 
Michigan, we have a reported rate of more than 15 percent, and in the 
city of Detroit, the unemployment rate is more than 28 percent. These 
are the reported rates. As Chairperson of the Congressional Black 
Caucus during the 110th Session of Congress, from 2007 to 2008, I 
pushed to get a public works program. I also worked to get an 
aggressive summer jobs program in 2008. Both to no avail.
  It would not be difficult to get a public works program done 
immediately. Working from the template that was established with the 
Civilian Conservation Corps, CCC, during the Depression era, updated by 
the Comprehensive Employment Training Act, CETA, we could insert 
language in one of the remaining Appropriations bills for 
consideration. Not only to get such a bill authorized, but appropriated 
as well. This would help hundreds of thousands, if not millions, get 
the best stimulus package there is--a job. The American people are 
begging Congress to do something to help them with employment. Private 
industry cannot do it alone. Our states and our cities do not have the 
resources to employ our people. It is up to Congress to make that 
happen. The Federal Government is the employer of last resort.
  The President, just this week, will send 30,000 additional troops to 
Afghanistan. This troop build-up, in America's second longest war, is 
estimated to cost half a million dollars per servicemember, and an 
estimated $20 billion per year. These troops will be on the ground in 
Afghanistan in less than 3 weeks. Meanwhile, Congress will still have 
done nothing toward getting jobs for their parents, their siblings, or 
their neighbors through a public works jobs program.
  I am proud of my vote in favor of the economic stimulus package, 
which has helped to delay our downward economic spiral. The abysmal 
unemployment rate, however, demands that Congress do more. An 
aggressive public works jobs program, with funding from the Federal 
Government going directly to cities and counties, providing jobs and 
training, focusing on infrastructure development and based on the 
successful Civilian Conservation Corps and Comprehensive Employment 
Training Acts, is what America wants and Americans need. Infrastructure 
investment has created more jobs, with fewer dollars, and with less 
time than any other Recovery Act program. There are still 9,500 shovel-
ready projects across the country that could get started in the next 
120 days. An aggressive investment by Congress in a new Civilian 
Conservation Corps or Comprehensive Employment Training Act focused on 
infrastructure repair and improvement would create thousands of 
American manufacturing jobs, American construction jobs, American city 
and county government jobs, and American service sector jobs.
  Why is the House of Representatives today pushing for a permanent 
extension at this time of this legislation, when the Ways and Means 
Committee asked for a temporary extension? Furthermore, the Senate has 
said that they will only consider a temporary extension--which, in 
these fiscally austere times, is certainly reasonable.
  I am a supporter of our families, our farmers and our small 
businesses. I want our families, farmers, and small businesses to 
succeed. The timing for this permanent extension to the wealthiest 1 
percent of all Americans, when we have more than 15 million Americans 
out of work, is wrong. I will continue to fight in Congress for a new, 
comprehensive public work jobs program that will get Americans, who 
want to work, back on the job.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, nearly all American families do not qualify 
for the Federal estate tax. In fact, under the law as currently written 
in 2009, 99.75 percent of estates are exempt.
  The Federal estate tax has been amended many times through the 
years--most recently in 2001 as part of the Republicans' omnibus tax 
cut legislation. That measure gradually increased estate tax exemptions 
and lowered estate tax rates between 2001 and 2009.
  In 2002, people with estates valued less than $1 million ($2 million 
for joint filers) after deductions for expenses, debts, and bequests to 
a surviving spouse or charity were exempt from paying the Federal 
estate tax. Those with estates above that value were taxed at a rate of 
55 percent.
  In 2009, people with estates valued less than $3.5 million ($7 
million for joint filers) after deductions for expenses, debts, and 
bequests to a surviving spouse or charity are exempt from paying the 
Federal estate tax. Those with estates above that value are taxed at a 
rate of 45 percent.
  The 2001 tax law phases out the federal estate tax in 2010 but then 
reinstates the tax in 2011 at the level it was in 2002--$1 million for 
single filers and $2 million for those filing a joint return. This 
fluctuation in estate tax rates

[[Page 29260]]

has caused a great deal of confusion for business owners and farmers 
who are participating in estate planning. In order to provide more 
certainty to those individuals, the Congress has been working to set a 
permanent estate tax rate that would exempt nearly all but the very 
wealthiest Americans.
  Through the years, I have voted to eliminate the estate tax or to 
maintain suitably high exemptions to better shield farmers and small 
business owners from the burdens of the tax. This year, I cosponsored 
H.R. 3905, bipartisan legislation written by Congresswoman Shelley 
Berkley (D-NV) that would permanently exempt estates valued at less 
than $5 million for single filers and $10 million for joint filers and 
set the tax rate on estates valued above that amount at 45 percent on a 
decreasing scale to 35 percent over the next ten years.
  I have also cosponsored H.R. 3524, the Family Farm Preservation and 
Conservation Estate Tax Act, which was introduced by Congressman Mike 
Thompson. This legislation would add a provision to the federal tax 
code allowing farmers and ranchers to defer payment of the Federal 
estate tax as long as the land is owned within the family and remains 
in agricultural production. H.R. 3524 would also defer the tax for land 
placed into a conservation easement. The measure would represent a win 
for farmers, for conservation and hunters, and for all of rural 
America. That is why it is supported by groups like the National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Corn Growers Association, 
the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Milk 
Producers Federation, the National Pork Producers Council, the Dairy 
Farmers of America, and the Agricultural Retailers Association.
  While I would have preferred the House of Representatives to consider 
one of these well-written bills, the House of Representatives has 
considered a different measure, H.R. 4154, the Permanent Estate Tax 
Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009, which 
would permanently extend the estate tax levels at the current, 2009 
rates.
  It is very important for families, farmers, and businesses to have 
greater certainty with respect to estate planning. Groups representing 
a good number of Missourians expressed to me their views on this issue. 
The Dairy Farmers of America, which represents nearly 18,000 dairy 
producers in America, urged Congress to ``take action now on this 
important measure'' and to ``support H.R. 4154.'' The American Farm 
Bureau Federation, while neutral on the bill, indicated the ``need for 
certainty in estate tax law and the importance of maintaining the 
stepped-up basis.'' And, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's 
largest business federation representing more than three million 
businesses and organizations, wrote that Congress should 
``expeditiously approve a permanent estate tax solution to provide 
certainty for family-owned businesses and farms.'' The Chamber further 
indicated that ``H.R. 4154, the `Permanent Estate Tax Relief for 
Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009,' is a step towards 
this goal.''
  As a rural Missouri Congressman, I understand that farms and small 
businesses are disproportionately impacted by the Federal estate tax. 
That is why I supported H.R. 4154. Under the 2009 estate tax 
guidelines, nearly all small businesses and farms are exempt from 
paying the tax. Only a small fraction of all estates in America--
9,600--are expected to owe Federal estate taxes in 2009. For farmers, 
USDA data indicate that, after deductions, approximately 554 farm 
estates throughout our Nation would be considered taxable.
  We should strive to reduce the number of farms and small businesses 
that are subject to the Federal estate tax. As I have mentioned, I have 
cosponsored legislation to do just that. And, to make clear my view 
that we should strive for higher tax exemptions, I was one of only 21 
Democrats to vote with Republicans against the Rule to consider H.R. 
4154 in the House of Representatives and was one of only 18 Democrats 
to vote with Republicans to send H.R. 4154 back to the Ways and Means 
Committee so that it could be improved.
  At the end of the day, though, both of those procedural votes failed 
and we were left with two choices--either pass a bill to give farmers 
and small business owners more certainty or sit back and do nothing, 
which would allow the rates to become more painful to farmers and small 
business owners over the next 2 years. To me, that choice was easy. 
H.R. 4154 is a step in the right direction and I look forward to 
working with the Senate on this important legislation.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4154, the 
Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses 
Act of 2009. This legislation is a necessary step in cleaning up the 
toxic fiscal legacy of the Bush administration.
  The estate tax is set to expire completely in 2010 unless Congress 
acts. Under current estate tax parameters, an individual can inherit, 
tax-free, a trust fund worth $3.5 million--more than a middle class 
family making $70,000 a year earns in a lifetime. For couples, the 
exemption is $7 million. H.R. 4154 would permanently extend these 
generous parameters, ensuring that 99.8 percent of Americans never pay 
a dime in estate taxes.
  This legislation helps put the Nation back on a path of fiscal 
sustainability. While it affects only a handful of the wealthiest 
Americans, the estate tax is an important source of Federal revenue. 
Eliminating this tax completely would expand the deficit by $662 
billion and reduce funding available for schools, roads and other 
priority investments. The bill also includes a ``pay-as-you-go'' 
provision that mandates fiscally responsible spending, restoring a 
1990s law that turned record deficits into surpluses.
  Without congressional action, the estate tax will return in 2011 at a 
much higher rate. By permanently extending current levels, H.R. 4154 is 
a compromise between higher estate taxes in the next decade and a 
complete elimination of the tax.
  Republican opposition to this compromise legislation is wrong-headed 
and hypocritical. By supporting nothing but a full repeal, Republicans 
are pushing for a policy that adds $662 billion to the deficit. This is 
extraordinarily irresponsible in a time of rising deficits and economic 
recession. With many middle-class families losing their jobs and their 
homes, it is difficult to justify a costly new tax cut for the Nation's 
wealthiest estates so they can pass on even larger inheritances tax-
free. H.R. 4154 is a far more reasonable approach.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4154, a bill 
that would cut taxes for millionaires at a time when Americans are 
struggling to hold on to their paychecks, their homes, and their 
dignity.
  Today, one in ten Americans is out of work, one in eight Americans is 
receiving food assistance, and one in six of our children is living in 
poverty. With such need in this nation, Congress's primary mission must 
be to create jobs and strengthen economic security for the American 
people. When Congress convened in January, the economy was losing 
20,000 jobs each day, and we took decisive action to avert the freefall 
of the economy and to set it on the path to recovery. The American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act made critical investments in our 
communities, infrastructure, education, and clean energy, and has so 
far created or saved as many as 1.6 million jobs.
  As a result of this decisive action by Congress, the most recent 
Department of Labor jobs report showed that this country lost 587,000 
fewer jobs in November 2009 than January 2009. While a significant 
improvement over the numbers at the beginning of this year, it is clear 
that this recession is still exacting a devastating toll. Congress must 
keep its focus on creating jobs. Legislation is urgently needed to 
provide assistance to prepare workers to fill occupations like nursing 
which have a shortage of skilled workers, to invest in new job-creating 
technologies, and to encourage the next generation of entrepreneurs to 
produce the new ventures and products that will ensure that the 
American economy returns to its preeminent position in the world.
  This legislation does not help the millions of Americans in need nor 
does it set the right priorities for this country. In such dire 
economic times with the largest budget deficit in this nation's 
history, this Congress does not have the luxury of bestowing this tax 
cut of a quarter-trillion dollars on millionaires.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill that helps only 
millionaires, and to turn their focus towards the problems of those 
Americans who are in economic crisis or could shortly be confronted 
with painful financial decisions if this economy does not start 
improving its employment outlook.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 941, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. HELLER. Yes, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.

[[Page 29261]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Heller moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4154 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Death Tax Repeal Permanency 
     Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. ESTATE TAX REPEAL MADE PERMANENT.

       Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to title V of such 
     Act.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order under clause 10 of 
rule XXI. The motion increases the deficit for purposes of that rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, this point of order shows the blatant 
inconsistencies the majority has set up with its own rules. On one 
hand, clause 10 of rule XXI--known as the PAYGO rule--requires 
amendments, including those contained in motions to recommit like this 
one, to be budget neutral. On the other hand, clause 7 of rule XVI--
known as the germaneness rule--constrains our ability to offer pay-fors 
by requiring that they be related to the underlying bill.
  These two rules are problematic in today's case because H.R. 4154 is 
drafted so narrowly that it is impossible to identify germane offsets. 
Thus, not surprisingly, the majority has stacked the rules of the House 
to try to make it impossible for the minority to offer its preferred 
approach. We saw that 2 weeks ago on the SGR fix and are witnessing it 
again today as the rules are being used to keep us from offering a full 
and permanent repeal of the death tax.
  Ironically, the bill before us today, H.R. 4154, doesn't even meet 
the House's own PAYGO rules. That's right. That is because the budget 
resolution allows the chairman of the Budget Committee to simply reset 
the baseline to accommodate a certain amount of death tax relief.
  Mr. Speaker, you are being asked to rule on whether this motion to 
recommit complies with PAYGO, but the base bill itself is not PAYGO 
compliant. It would increase the deficit by more than $230 billion. 
This begs the question, if it's appropriate for the majority to 
consider estate tax relief under H.R. 4154 without offsets, in 
violation of the spirit of PAYGO, then why is it now inappropriate, or 
out of order, for the minority to provide even more tax relief under 
their amendment?
  I request that you overrule the point of order and allow the House to 
debate our alternative, which is complete repeal of the death tax.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity be heard on the point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Dakota makes a 
point of order that the amendment proposed in the instructions included 
in the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Nevada violates 
clause 10 of rule XXI by proposing a change in revenues that would 
increase the deficit.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XXI, the Chair is authoritatively 
guided by estimates from the Committee on the Budget that the net 
effect of the provisions in the amendment affecting revenues would 
increase the deficit for a relevant period.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the motion is not in 
order.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of 
the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 186, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 927]

                               YEAS--234

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     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)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     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
     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
     Perriello
     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
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     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--186

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     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
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster

[[Page 29262]]


     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Baird
     Barrow
     Bishop (UT)
     Bono Mack
     Capuano
     Edwards (TX)
     Gonzalez
     Linder
     Lucas
     McGovern
     Melancon
     Moran (VA)
     Schock
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1351

  Messrs. KINGSTON, MINNICK, McINTYRE, and BLUNT changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to nay.''
  Messrs. HOLT, McDERMOTT, and PERLMUTTER changed their vote from 
``nay'' to yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. HELLER. I am, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Heller moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4154 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Death Tax Repeal Extension 
     Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. EGTRRA SUNSET ON ESTATE, GIFT, AND GENERATION-
                   SKIPPING TRANSFER TAX PROVISIONS DELAYED 1 
                   YEAR.

       In the case of title V of the Economic Growth and Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, section 901 of such Act 
     shall be applied by substituting ``December 31, 2011'' for 
     ``December 31, 2010'' both places it appears in paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) of subsection (a) of such section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Nevada is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. HELLER. H.R. 4154 would be better called the Permanent Estate Tax 
Increase for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act. My second 
motion to recommit still addresses elimination of the death tax. As the 
Chair has just ruled, the sensible alternative, full permanent repeal 
of the death tax, is not allowable under the House majority's rules. 
Therefore, this second motion to recommit is drafted to meet the 
arcane, pro-tax increase PAYGO rules.
  This motion continues the full elimination of the death tax for 2010, 
as currently scheduled and promised to the American people, and then 
extends that full elimination 1 additional year to 2011. Business or 
farm income was taxed when it was created, saved, invested, and spent. 
These assets were taxed annually with property taxes. They don't need 
to be taxed yet again upon death. While 2 years is shorter than many of 
us in the House would prefer, it's the only alternative left.
  Colleagues, the flaws with H.R. 4154 are numerous, but in defense of 
their misguided bill the majority cries that certainty trumps the 
punitive 45 percent rate. But the Federal Government shouldn't be 
entitled to half or even one-third of your assets when you die. Make no 
mistake: the purpose of the inheritance tax is to erase all of an 
individual's net worth within three generations. Let me repeat that: 
the purpose of the inheritance tax is to erase all of an individual's 
net worth within three generations.
  Enshrining a 45 percent punitive tax rate is bad policy, and the only 
thing worse than bad policy is permanent bad policy. I am sure the 
American people will be upset with the certainty of zero. Today the 
majority is working hard to bring new vigor to the old adage ``The only 
things in life that are certain are death and taxes.''
  Let's remember that the unemployment rate is still high: 10 percent 
nationwide and more than 13 percent in my home State of Nevada. Recent 
estimates show that the full repeal of the tax would create 1.5 million 
jobs. Again, that's jobs created. Who knows how many jobs will be saved 
by eliminating the death tax.
  Eliminating the death tax will also have several other positive 
effects on the economy. One recent study showed that eliminating the 
death tax will increase small business capital by over $1.6 trillion; 
eliminating the death tax will increase the probability of hiring by 
8.6 percent; eliminating the death tax will increase payrolls by 2.6 
percent; eliminating the death tax will expand investment by 3 percent; 
eliminating the death tax will create 1.5 million additional small 
business jobs; and eliminating the death tax will reduce the current 
jobless rate by almost 1 percent.
  The American people know that the death tax punishes hard work by 
discouraging savings and investing, undermines job creation, and 
frankly contradicts the central promise of American life. They know the 
death tax is a jobs destroyer.
  Colleagues, our Founding Fathers worked to ensure the rights of life, 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In addition, they fought, spurred 
largely by unfair taxation, to secure their rights to private property 
and the efforts of their work. They wanted a nation where one could 
work, think, produce, create, invent and prosper. This made our Nation 
different than all others at the time which created the tremendous 
engine of the American economy. What would they say about a government 
confiscating 45 percent of property earned over a lifetime?
  Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 18 were 
merchants or businessmen and 14 were farmers. Many lost their lives or 
family members, and at least 11 signers had their homes and property 
destroyed. In committing their ``lives, fortunes, and sacred honor'' as 
the Declaration of Independence reads, they sacrificed to ensure their 
heirs could keep what they earned. What would those who sacrificed so 
much say about a permanent 45 percent rate?
  Congress made a promise to fully eliminate the death tax. The 
American people are sick and tired of broken promises from their 
government. Congress should keep this promise to the American people 
and do what it committed to do 8 years ago: allow the estate tax to 
expire in 2010 and extend that expiration to 2011.
  Death should not be a taxable event. Support this motion and keep the 
death tax buried.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Dakota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. POMEROY. I commence my comments by offering to yield to the 
gentleman if he would like to discuss the capital gains tax 
implications of the motion to recommit.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond. If the 
gentleman is asking to refer this piece of legislation back to Ways and 
Means and the Budget Committee, I would be happy to do so so that we 
can discuss those issues.
  Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, that wasn't much of an answer, so 
let me make it a little more clear.
  The bill would impose a new capital gains tax obligation. Six 
thousand people would get estate tax relief if full repeal goes into 
effect; 71,000 have a new capital gains tax laid upon them because 
carryover basis is established instead of the step-up basis.
  In other words, if you inherit Grandma's farm, if Grandma paid $100 
an acre for it and it's now worth $2,000 an acre, and you go to sell 
it, you have capital gains on all appreciated value over $100. That's 
not how the law works now. How the law works now, if you have property 
worth $2,000 an acre, that's your basis. There's no capital gains if 
you would sell it for $2,000 an acre. The Farm Bureau has said this 
falls particularly insidiously on farms and small businesses, the very 
people they claim to be helping.
  The motion to recommit, unfortunately, brings what has been a pretty

[[Page 29263]]

respectable debate into, I think, some of the same overblown rhetoric 
that has plagued this issue in the past. The estate tax has changed 10 
times in 11 years. Now, isn't it time we provide some certainty to the 
American people, not just more of the uncertainty that they offer?
  What's more, it's not just certainty. We make the estate tax go away 
for 99.75 percent of the people in this country, 99.75 percent. But 
that's not good enough for them. They'll hold out for that last few 
tenths of a percent even if it means laying a capital gains tax 
obligation on 71,000 families to achieve that end.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for yielding. I 
also thank Chairman Rangel for his work and also particularly the 
gentleman from North Dakota for his longtime dedication to resolving 
this issue and making it fair and permanent for families who are trying 
to plan estates.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the motion to recommit and 
in favor of H.R. 4154, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, 
Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009. The bill before us creates 
permanent financial guidelines for the future of families, farmers, and 
small businesses across this country.
  Due to the policy enacted in 2001 under the Republican leadership, 
financial planning for estates since then has been at best 
unpredictable, a crapshoot for now a decade. The leadership at that 
time had a chance to fix this problem because we had surpluses as far 
as the eye could see. But they failed to act, and by doing so, they 
failed hundreds or thousands of families in this country, despite, as I 
said earlier, a picture of record surpluses as far as the eye could 
see. Instead, a policy was created that set an unsustainable rate for 
political gain.
  Congress can do better. We can provide some permanency. The 
leadership of this body, my Democratic colleagues and I, have chosen to 
solidify the future of American families by making these 2009 levels 
permanent.
  Let's be clear. The motion to recommit provides the same sort of 
uncertainty for folks who are planning for their estates as was done in 
2001. What the motion to recommit does is extend the zero tax rate for 
1 year to the end of 2011, and then in 2012 it comes back just like it 
was in 2001. How in the world are families supposed to plan when 
they're sitting down with their lawyers and their accountants near the 
end of life, how in the world are they supposed to plan with those 
kinds of laws in place? It is heartily irresponsible.
  So I would plead with you to defeat this motion, pass H.R. 4154. 
Let's send it to the Senate hooked with PAYGO and see if we can't get 
this country back on track economically and provide some certainty and 
permanency for the folks as they plan for their estates.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage, if ordered, and the motion to suspend the 
rules on H.R. 3570.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 233, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 928]

                               AYES--187

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

                               NOES--233

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     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)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     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
     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
     Perriello
     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
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     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

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barrow
     Bishop (UT)
     Boehner
     Capuano
     Gonzalez
     Linder
     Lucas
     McGovern

[[Page 29264]]


     Melancon
     Moran (VA)
     Paul
     Roskam
     Royce
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute 
remaining in the vote.

                              {time}  1421

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 928 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, on December 3rd, 2009 I was unavoidably 
detained and missed rollcall vote No. 928. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``aye''.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 928 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 200, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 929]

                               YEAS--225

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     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)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     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
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--200

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Himes
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     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
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Owens
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     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
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Scalise
     Schauer
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barrow
     Bishop (UT)
     Capuano
     Gonzalez
     Lucas
     McGovern
     Melancon
     Moran (VA)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1431

  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I missed a vote today. Had I been present, 
I would have voted on rollcall No. 929 ``yea.''

                          ____________________