[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18688-18693]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4853, MIDDLE 
   CLASS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2010, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
                      MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1745 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1745

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
     the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to 
     extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, 
     and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, 
     and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 
     point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule 
     XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate 
     amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 
     intervening motion.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of December 3, 2010, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The 
     Speaker or her designee shall consult with the Minority 
     Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for 
     consideration pursuant to this section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The gentlewoman from Maine is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of this 
rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1745 provides a closed rule for 
consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853. The rule makes in 
order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means 
that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 with the 
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
the resolution. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule 
provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered 
as read. Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to 
suspend the rules through the legislative day of December 3, 2010. The 
Speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his 
designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to 
this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to do the right thing and 
put American workers ahead of millionaires and billionaires. This 
should be our priority and shouldn't be a tough choice to make. Today 
we can focus on economic growth to help those who are suffering from 
this recession and to provide permanent, equitable tax relief for the 
middle class.
  These should not be controversial positions. They aren't and they 
shouldn't be. The economic growth that all Americans can share in ought 
to be a top priority for every elected official, and lowering the tax 
burden for working families shouldn't be any kind of a partisan fight.
  After the last administration and the previous Congress spent 
billions of dollars starting two foreign wars and bailing out the big 
banks that ran roughshod over our economy, isn't it only fair that we 
do more to help out those who are struggling to find work and to make 
ends meet? Today we are simply voting on whether or not to protect the 
middle class and to make sure working

[[Page 18689]]

families do not suffer needlessly as winter approaches. Nothing more, 
nothing less.
  This is not political showmanship or a partisan game. We are doing 
the work the American people asked us to do. We are not voting on 
whether or not to extend tax cuts for the wealthy. We are only voting 
on extending tax cuts for the middle class, and this is something I 
sincerely believe we should all agree on.
  One of the biggest pieces of misinformation about ending tax cuts for 
the wealthy is that it would hurt small businesses, which is simply not 
true. The bill we are talking about today extends tax cuts for incomes 
up to $250,000. That covers 97 percent of all small businesses in the 
United States. And let's be clear about another thing: For all small 
businesses, the cuts continue for their first $250,000 of profit.
  If we really want to help small businesses, let's offer real direct 
benefits. Let's help them access funding to grow, offer larger tax 
deductions for purchasing equipment or create incentives to hire more 
workers.
  I am glad many business owners in my State, the State of Maine, have 
been able to see through this misinformation. Jim Wellehan, who owns 
one of the largest shoe store chains in the State, has recently come 
out against tax cuts for the wealthy because they offer no benefit to 
his business or his employees. He recently said it makes no sense from 
any perspective to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in 
this country. It will just increase the wealth gap and create more of a 
social and economic problem.
  Jim hits on a critical point. Over the last 30 years, the wealthiest 
have gotten richer and richer compared to everyone else. In 1980 the 
average income of the country's top .01 percent of earners was 180 
times that of the bottom 90 percent. Today that number is 1,000 times. 
Meanwhile taxes for the rich have gone down dramatically. So as the 
wealthiest take a larger and larger piece of the pie, they have given 
less and less back to the public infrastructure, to our communities, 
and to the people who helped create that prosperity.
  The truth about tax breaks for the ultra rich is that they are very, 
very expensive. Cutting taxes for those making over $250,000 will add 
$700 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years alone. That's about 
the cost of the entire stimulus bill, and most economists agree it 
would do very little to stimulate the economy.
  In January of this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
analyzed 11 policy proposals and ranked them by how effective they 
would be in fueling economic recovery.
  Number one on that list was extending benefits for the unemployed 
because those dollars go immediately into local economies and spur more 
spending. If only that was the bill we were voting on today.
  What was number 11? Number 11 on that list was extending tax cuts for 
the wealthy. The benefit of those dollars going to the rich was 
marginal, because that money would be mostly saved, not spent. That's 
just not right.
  I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me 
today in supporting this commonsense bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I first want to express my appreciation to 
my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from 
North Haven, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the very thoughtful statement of my 
friend and Rules Committee colleague, I'm reminded of--and as I looked 
at news reports this morning, I guess I should say--as I listen to her 
statement and then look at the reports that we have this morning, I'm 
reminded of the 1992 Presidential campaign. And I would like to point 
to two very famous quotes from that 1992 Presidential campaign.
  First, in the general election you will recall that Bill Clinton, 
George Herbert Walker Bush and Ross Perot all ran against each other. I 
know the Speaker pro tempore understands very well, coming from Texas, 
that that was a fascinating campaign 18 years ago. And there was a very 
famous Vice-Presidential debate. And in that debate, the great, highly 
decorated Admiral James Stockdale, who I was happy before his passing 
to have as a good friend, famously began the debate by saying, Who am 
I, and why am I here?
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we already have reports this morning that the 
negotiators have come together and decided there will be probably a 2-
year extension of the effort to ensure that we don't increase taxes on 
any Americans over the next 2 years. And in light of that, we are now 
resorting to a little more than a political ploy saying, well, we've 
all come together and agreed that we don't want increased taxes on 
middle income Americans, and so what we should do is let's vote for 
this and agree on it when, in fact, we're arguing that we should not 
increase taxes on any Americans.
  Now to my second quote from the 1992 Presidential campaign. Senator 
Paul Tsongas, whose widow, Niki, serves very well here in the House, 
the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, said very famously, and I quoted 
him, and she corrected the quote when I told her that I quoted him 
widely, I quoted him as follows: Senator Tsongas in the 1992 
Presidential campaign when he was challenging Bill Clinton in the 
primary said, The problem with my Democratic Party is that they love 
employees but they hate employers. And Mrs. Tsongas reminded me that he 
apparently said, You can't love employees without loving employers. 
Well, either way, it's very clear that when you look at where we are, 
it gets back to that famous Lincoln line: you can't lift up the wage 
earner by pulling down the wage payer. And so all we're saying is that 
as we look at the challenges that we're facing today, focusing on job 
creation and economic growth is something that we should do.
  And I believe that every Democrat and every Republican in this 
institution clearly wants to see our economy get back on track. They 
want to see us grow. They want to see us emerge. No one wants to see 
the United States of America diminished to the level that was predicted 
by Dave Cote, a member of the debt commission, the head of Honeywell, 
who in his statement yesterday said that at the rate we are going, the 
United States of America will become, in fact, a second-rate Nation. No 
one, no Democrat or Republican, wants that to happen. And so why don't 
we use empirical evidence that will prove that we can take a course 
that will get this economy back on track.
  Now, my friend says that we have a cost of $700 billion. If we fail 
to increase taxes on those small businesses and those who are upper 
income wage earners, a $700 billion cost is what is claimed. In fact, 
if you talk to economist after economist, as I have, that is, in fact, 
not the case. Just yesterday a very prominent economist met with a 
number of Members of this body pointing to the fact that if you do, if 
you do, Mr. Speaker, actually keep those taxes low, we will actually 
see an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.
  And I point to that again, as I have time and again here. I believe 
we should be utilizing the bipartisan--the bipartisan model, put 
forward first by a great Democratic President. We will mark the 50th 
anniversary of John F. Kennedy's inaugural address. He was elected 50 
years ago. On January 20, there is going to be a great celebration here 
in this Capitol marking the 50th anniversary of the great inaugural 
speech, which many of us have been quoting since we were children, of 
John F. Kennedy.
  And we should be utilizing the model put forward by Ronald Reagan, 
who on February 6 of next year will mark his 100th birthday. And that 
economic model is one which says that making sure that we reduce 
marginal tax rates will actually grow the economy and create an 
increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as we look at where we are today, you have 
economists from even on the left who will say--

[[Page 18690]]

even Keynesian economists--that the notion in a down economy--and we 
all know we have a 9\1/2\ percent unemployment rate and we heard the 
sad news about housing sales that came out this morning--we all know 
that in a down economy, even the Keynesian economists will say that 
increasing taxes is a prescription for failure. It actually undermines 
the potential for economic growth.
  Now, we had quite a meeting in the Rules Committee last night, Mr. 
Speaker, when we brought this measure up, and the distinguished ranking 
member soon-to-be chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Houston, Mr. Brady, referred to what was going on here as 
political theater. I said that I believe that to be very generous. This 
is sleight of hand, a political ploy. There are all kinds of 
pejoratives that can be used to describe the process that we have here.
  We have a closed rule, as my friend said, and I argued that I'm for 
an open rule, which is what I'm often arguing for, and we hope to be 
able to have that in the 112th Congress as often as possible, but I 
argued for a modified closed rule, a modified closed rule for 
consideration of this measure.
  Now, what would that mean, Mr. Speaker? If we were to have a modified 
closed rule, it would mean that we would simply allow this House to 
have a vote, which is under the present structure before us going to be 
denied, a vote that has been requested by 31 Democrats and all 
Republicans. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we could, in fact, have a 
strong bipartisan vote in this House to extend, to ensure that we don't 
increase taxes on any Americans at this time. And this rule would allow 
that.
  I offered an amendment that would simply say, okay, let's just 
provide the ranking member, Mr. Camp, of the Ways and Means Committee, 
a chance to offer one substitute which would basically mean we are not 
going to increase taxes on small businesses, and we are not going to 
increase taxes on any Americans. I offered that amendment, and on a 
party-line vote it was rejected.
  It was fascinating, Mr. Speaker, to hear the chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee, my very good friend, Sandy Levin, say that making sure 
we don't increase taxes on middle income Americans is something we can 
all agree on. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, we can agree on that. But I think 
it is very evident that this House could, with a majority vote, ensure 
that we don't increase taxes on any Americans during these very 
troubling, difficult economic times.
  So I would argue that I think it's very important for us, as an 
institution, to realize that it's really a joke that has been put 
before us, tragically, during a time when the American people are 
hurting. I have an unemployment rate in part of the area I'm privileged 
to represent in Southern California, Mr. Speaker, that is in excess of 
15 percent. We have a statewide unemployment rate in the largest State 
of the Union, the largest, most important State of the Union, the State 
of California, we have a 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate. People are 
hurting. And so to do anything other than ensure that we don't increase 
taxes on the people who are struggling to create jobs for our fellow 
Americans is something that we have a responsibility to do.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this rule and allow us to let the House work its will and have what I 
am totally convinced would be a strong, strong vote in favor of 
ensuring that we don't increase taxes on any Americans.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1050

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to one of my 
colleagues, I want to answer a couple of things that my good colleague 
from California mentioned. Soon his party will be in power, and I am 
confident he will be the chair of the Rules Committee and the Rules 
Committee will be very open perhaps at that time to have more open 
rules and to change the process. So I look forward to, as a sophomore 
Member, learning how a different process will be conducted by the other 
side of the aisle.
  I do want to remind him that during 12 years when his party was in 
control, there was never a tax bill that came to the floor which 
allowed for amendments. I don't know if that process will change in the 
future. It certainly wasn't that way in the past.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlelady yield on that point?
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I will tell you about the 12 years we were in the 
majority, we did often provide substitutes. So all we are asking for, 
as I said, all I asked for on this measure is not an open rule, a 
modified closed rule, which would have provided simply one bite at the 
apple, one alternative, which is out of respect to the Democrats in 
this House who would very much like to have a chance to vote to ensure 
that we don't increase taxes on any American.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you for making that point. I think it is 
slightly different from the other point of saying that tax bills never 
were allowed to be amended in the last 12 years. But I look forward to 
modified open rules or open rules or whatever process we will be 
working with in the future. That isn't what we have before us today.
  I do want to comment that while you were kind of referring to this as 
political theater, I also recall that you asked for 3 hours of debate 
on this; and if it is truly political theater, that would be tying up a 
lot of the people's time to have us conduct this debate for 3 hours if, 
in fact, you do not consider it serious debate. I mean, in my opinion, 
you and I just have a strong disagreement. Our two parties and many of 
our Members disagree on where the appropriate place to have tax cuts 
is.
  We are putting this bill on the floor today because we believe it is 
important to extend tax cuts for the middle class, that that has the 
greatest benefit to our economy. And as the OMB and other studies have 
shown us, tax cuts for the wealthiest to the country just do not 
stimulate the economy. The money does not go where we think it needs to 
go to create more jobs, and it is not a good expenditure of $700 
billion, which is what this will cost us over the next decade in a time 
when we are clamoring to find ways to reduce the deficit.
  So I find it unfathomable that there would be any objection to taking 
a vote on what is clearly the most agreed upon part of our tax cuts 
here and then allowing for other debate on the rest of the package. So 
for me, this is a logical way to bring this to the floor. I am pleased 
that we have this opportunity here.
  I am a little frustrated every time I hear this tried to be portrayed 
as the real argument is only about small businesses. You know, 2 
percent of the small businesses in our country are the ones that will 
be affected by this.
  I disagree with your statement that Democrats love employees and 
dislike employers. Many of us on this side of the aisle are employers. 
I am an employer. I have a small business, and I actually feel pretty 
good about myself.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentlelady will yield, I was simply quoting the 
late Senator Paul Tsongas. It wasn't my quote. I was simply quoting 
Senator Tsongas.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I do appreciate that, and I am glad to know 
that dear Senator Tsongas' wife has corrected you on the appropriate 
way to use that quote. But either way, it was something that you 
brought to the floor to make the point that somehow you think this bill 
is put forward so that Democrats can show their disapproval of 
employers. And I can speak personally that I work closely with 
employers in my district. I am an employer and think there are 
employers who will benefit under this as well. That is why I quoted, in 
my own remarks, Jim Wellehan who owns a chain of shoe stores in our 
State who said: I am not in favor of a bill that would give tax cuts to 
the wealthy because it doesn't do anything to help my employees or my 
business. And that, in

[[Page 18691]]

fact, is what he is concerned about. You know, employers need 
customers, which are those employees, and that is why we consider it so 
critical to make sure that we do something to benefit those people who 
will be purchasing.
  Just one other comment that I had in my notes here today from a small 
business owner in Lincoln, Nebraska. People talk about the $250,000 
without talking about that as net profit. Here is how he described it: 
A lot of people don't understand how small business works. We reinvest 
in our business. We try to minimize the amount of taxable income we 
have. I went out and bought an $80,000 piece of equipment. I did it so 
I could reduce my taxes. The only people I can think of who could 
honestly call themselves small businesses that this would affect would 
be stock brokers and lawyers.
  That is what Rick Poore, owner of a Lincoln, Nebraska, clothing firm 
who employs 30 people thinks about this.
  Well, if in fact the 2 percent we are trying to help today are stock 
brokers and lawyers, I don't think the American public is clamoring for 
them to have another tax break, and I think people aren't explaining 
and displaying an understanding of how business works. This is about 
net profit for small businesses, which even reduces further the number 
of businesses who will be affected by this.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).
  Ms. HIRONO. I thank the gentlewoman from Maine for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of the rule and the bill we are voting on 
today, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act. This bill will help millions of 
Americans who are trying to make ends meet by providing them with 
sorely needed tax relief. The Middle Class Tax Relief Act permanently 
extends the tax cuts for middle class taxpayers so that individuals who 
make less than $200,000 a year, under $250,000 for joint filers, will 
get the tax relief they need. This legislation would help about 323,000 
lower-and middle-income families in my congressional district alone.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made it clear that 
they won't vote for this bill because it doesn't meet their highest 
priority--continuing the status quo of providing tax breaks for the 
wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. On the one hand, they claim to be 
concerned about reducing the $13.8 trillion national debt, opposing an 
extension of unemployment benefits for the nearly 2 million Americans 
who desperately need the assistance, including more than 4,000 in 
Hawaii. Not only is this reprehensible, it is bad math. A recent Labor 
Department report shows for every dollar spent on unemployment 
insurance, $2 are reinvested into the economy.
  On the other hand, continuing tax breaks for millionaires and 
billionaires, the richest 2 percent of Americans, would add a whooping 
$700 billion to our deficit over 10 years. These tax breaks would not 
trickle-down to create more jobs or help our economic recovery. In 
fact, they would add to our deficit. And, by the way, these richest 
taxpayers will also get the benefit of this tax relief in this bill for 
their first $200,000 of income. Why should this group of taxpayers then 
get an additional benefit that 98 percent of Americans will not.
  Mr. Speaker, this is about fairness. We need to fight for working 
families and let the tax breaks for the wealthy expire so that they can 
start to pay their fair share of taxes. Today's vote on this bill will 
let the American people, the 98 percent who don't make $200,000 a year, 
including 323,000 families in Hawaii, know who is on their side 
fighting for them.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to both of my colleagues who are both good 
friends of mine that as I listen to the arguments that have been put 
forward, the standard old class warfare, us versus them, rich versus 
poor, is an argument that has failed for years and years and years. I 
think all we need to do is look at the November 2 election. There was a 
rejection of this divisive tone which we regularly hear around here: 
the haves and the have-nots.
  The fact of the matter is any Member of this House who votes in favor 
of the measure that is going to be before us is voting for a tax 
increase. They are voting in favor of increasing taxes on American 
investors and small businesses in this country. There is all kinds of 
dispute about this: how many are small businesses, 2 percent. We have 
evidence that it is substantially higher than that. But if there are 
any small businesses that are out there trying to create jobs and this 
policy of increasing taxes undermines them and inhibits their ability 
to say to a person in this country who is seeking a job opportunity 
that they can't have it because of this burden that is being inflicted, 
this is clearly wrong.
  Now, again, on the notion of this $700 billion, this $700 billion, 
the cost, and we are exacerbating the deficit, that is preposterous. If 
we can get people with a 9.4 percent unemployment rate, 9.6 percent, as 
I said, in my State, 12.5 percent unemployment rate, if we can get 
people from the unemployment rolls onto the working rolls, that in and 
of itself is evidence that we will increase the flow of revenue to the 
Federal treasury.

                              {time}  1100

  Why? We'll diminish the cost of unemployment benefits, and we will 
have people who are working as productive members of society who are 
paying taxes. So this $700 billion figure is a ridiculous one.
  Mr. Speaker, I will say again: Any Member of this House who votes in 
favor of the measure that is before us is going to be voting to 
increase taxes on working Americans, and it is just plain wrong.
  Let me just close again by saying that, when I used the term 
``political theater,'' I was quoting the very thoughtful ranking member 
of the Trade Subcommittee of Ways and Means, Mr. Brady, who came before 
us in the Rules Committee and said, This is political theater.
  Why? There are reports today that the negotiators from the White 
House and both Houses of Congress have come to an agreement that we are 
going to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans for at 
least 2 years. Those are the reports that we have that have come out. 
So we are here on the House floor, denying this institution an 
opportunity to vote on a proposal like that.
  We in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, simply said, Gosh, since 31 
Democrats have signed a letter saying they believe it would be a 
mistake to increase taxes on any Americans, the House should have a 
chance to vote on that.
  I offered that proposal upstairs last night in the Rules Committee. A 
party-line vote.
  The Democrats said, Oh, no. We're not going to allow what would 
clearly be a majority of this House, I believe, if we were to actually 
have a vote, to work its will. We are going to resort to legerdemain 
and not allow a motion to recommit.
  This bill before us, Mr. Speaker, happens to be the airport and 
airway bill. It's basically the FAA bill. They did that to deny even an 
opportunity for a motion to recommit. Now, I know that's all inside 
baseball stuff, but it's inside baseball stuff that led the American 
people to cast the votes that they did on November 2, because it was a 
year ago last June when this ``read the bill'' measure came forward, 
when we had the 300-page amendment dropped in our laps at 3 o'clock in 
the morning in the Rules Committee, and we didn't have a chance to read 
it. So the American people started looking at what takes place in this 
institution, and on November 2, they rejected it.
  Well, with what we are doing here today, it is obviously an 
indication that this majority that is now in charge is tone deaf. They 
don't understand the message that the American people sent, because 
they have spent time looking here at what is going on, and that is why 
we have focused on increasing transparency, disclosure, and 
accountability.
  So, as they have done that, they've said, Don't do the kinds of 
things that

[[Page 18692]]

you are contemplating doing right now.
  The bottom line is, by resorting to legerdemain, we are going to end 
up increasing taxes on working Americans.
  I say, in closing, Mr. Speaker, that any Member of this House who 
votes in favor of this measure is voting to increase taxes on the men 
and women in this country who are out there saving, investing, and 
working to create jobs for our fellow Americans, and it is just plain 
wrong. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' 
vote on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank the gentleman from California for his 
remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would just say again that I think we 
have a difference of opinion on the semantics here.
  You want to argue that, if we don't continue tax cuts/tax breaks for 
the wealthiest people in this country that we are increasing taxes. I 
would say it is time we let those tax breaks end, those tax breaks that 
went on for too long and that did nothing, in my opinion, to stimulate 
the economy.
  I also just want to add my own comment.
  You know, there is a lot of interpretation about November 2. The 
voters cast their votes. Things changed dramatically. Many of us who 
have been in politics over time know that sometimes you're in the 
majority, sometimes you're in the minority; sometimes your ideas come 
out on top, and sometimes they don't.
  But I have to say personally, in interpreting my own district, voters 
heard me say every day that I pledge to continue the tax breaks for the 
middle class but that I will not vote to extend them for the wealthiest 
in this country. I debated my opponent, and it was written about in the 
newspaper. There were endless interviews when I made it very clear as 
to what my point of view was and why I thought it was important. I come 
from a State where small business rules, where I am a small business 
owner, and where I said to people, You know, this isn't a small 
business issue; this is about helping the wealthiest people in this 
country.
  I just have to say, when I go back and look at the November 2 
election, oddly enough, I'm still here, and I intend to be here on 
January 5 and to be sworn in again. Somehow, the voters in my district 
said, Go for it. We don't want to see any more tax breaks for the 
wealthy. We, in fact, only want to see tax cuts for the middle class.
  So I am interpreting November 2 to mean we are doing the right thing 
on the floor today. We are putting forward the one measure that allows 
us to make sure we can separate the tax cuts for the wealthiest from 
the tax cuts for the middle class. That is what we are doing here 
today.
  Let me just close, Mr. Speaker.
  Ten years ago, Congress passed a package of tax cuts with the lion's 
share of the benefits going to the wealthiest of the wealthy. The 
stated intent was to grow and secure our economy. Today, millions of 
families across this country are struggling. They are worried about 
finding work. They are barely covering their monthly expenses.
  I have to ask my colleagues: Do your constituents feel more 
economically secure than they did 10 years ago?
  Since these cuts took place, we have gone from a balanced Federal 
budget to troubling deficits. We have seen the middle class weaken, and 
we have experienced the worst economic downturn since the Great 
Depression. The billions we have given in handouts to the super rich 
have been major contributors to all of those realities.
  Today, we have a historic opportunity to support the middle class, to 
show real Americans that we as Members of Congress are hearing their 
frustrations and their anger. We can stand up today and say that we are 
going to help the vast majority of Americans, that we care deeply about 
the economic security of the middle class and that, for once, Congress 
is going to act in the best interest of the middle class.
  I strongly stand behind H.R. 4853, extending the tax cuts for middle 
class families and businesses who make up to $250,000. They need a 
break, and we should be doing even more for them. It is simply 
outrageous to suggest that we should hold these tax cuts hostage in 
order to continue a failed policy that has weakened our economy, has 
placed a bigger burden on working families and has only been effective 
in making the rich richer. I urge all of my colleagues to support 
middle class Americans and to vote for the underlying bill.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 1745, if 
ordered, and suspending the rules with regard to House Resolution 1638, 
House Resolution 1598, and House Resolution 1576, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 186, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 596]

                               YEAS--224

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     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
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     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
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--186

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)

[[Page 18693]]


     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     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
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Berman
     Boucher
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buyer
     Cardoza
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Fallin
     Grayson
     Hastings (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Marchant
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meek (FL)
     Oberstar
     Putnam
     Schrader
     Shadegg
     Taylor
     Waxman

                              {time}  1144

  Messrs. TERRY, GRAVES of Missouri, SCALISE and GOODLATTE changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 596 on Motion on 
Ordering the Previous Question--H.R. 1745, I was unavoidably detained 
because of a transportation delay. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor of Arizona). The question is on 
the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, 
nays 203, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 597]

                               YEAS--213

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     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
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     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
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--203

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachus
     Baird
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Himes
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Space
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Boucher
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buyer
     Cardoza
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Fallin
     Hastings (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Marchant
     McMorris Rodgers
     Owens
     Putnam
     Schrader
     Shadegg
     Taylor


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1155

  Messrs. BOYD, POSEY, and COSTELLO changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________