[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 22416-22465]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 TAX RELIEF, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REAUTHORIZATION, AND JOB CREATION 
                              ACT OF 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pending any declaration of the House into 
the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 1766, the Chair 
would note that the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4853 contains an emergency 
designation for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles under clause 10(c) 
of rule XXI and an emergency designation pursuant to section 4(g)(1) of 
the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
  Accordingly, the Chair must put the question of consideration under 
clause 10(c)(3) of rule XXI and under section 4(g)(2) of the Statutory 
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the Senate amendment to 
the House amendment to the Senate amendment?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1766 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the Senate amendment 
to the

[[Page 22417]]

House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 4853.

                              {time}  1937


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to 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 Mr. 
Sablan in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the Senate amendment is considered 
read.
  General debate shall not exceed 3 hours equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp) each will control 90 minutes.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GOHMERT. My parliamentary inquiry is, since the rules of the 
House allow for someone in opposition to claim time in order to speak 
on a bill, is that rule being abrogated now, or can we follow the rules 
and have someone like me, who is opposed to the bill, claim time?
  The CHAIR. No such rule is applicable to these proceedings.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I'm sorry. I did not understand.
  The CHAIR. There is no such rule.
  Mr. GOHMERT. So this is set up now, the rules have been abrogated, so 
no time is allotted to anyone in opposition? Did I understand that 
correct, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Parliamentary inquiry, then.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Under the rules of the House, going back to the Thomas 
Jefferson rules of the House, as adopted by this majority in this term, 
someone in opposition to a bill is always given the right to claim 
time. So I am asking the parliamentary inquiry if that is now the case, 
or if that rule--the standing rule--is not going to be allowed at this 
time?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman's premise is incorrect.
  Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman's premise is incorrect?
  So someone can claim time in opposition? Thank you.
  The CHAIR. The House is operating under a rule that allocates control 
of the time for debate to the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. TAYLOR. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi will state his inquiry.
  Mr. TAYLOR. I understand that under the rule just passed, the time 
has been allocated to a proponent on this side of the aisle for the 
bill, a proponent on this side of the aisle for the bill. The 
understanding was, though, that time would be allowed to the opponents 
of this bill.
  I am asking if the Chair or someone would identify who that time will 
be yielded to.
  The CHAIR. The rule provides for the debate time to be allocated 
equally and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Democratic majority in the House has made it crystal clear that 
we stand on the side of middle income families, of unemployed workers, 
of small businesses struggling in this difficult economy. The 
compromise before us clearly requires painful choices. These choices 
relate to each of the three criteria for judging the merits of this 
package: Does it add to the deficit? Does it promote economic growth? 
And does it promote fairness?
  For decades, Republicans have unwisely promoted a view that tax cuts 
pay for themselves. So while making deficit reduction their rhetoric, 
they never have had any intention of paying for tax cuts which add to 
the deficit, plain and simple. Adding to the deficit is defensible if 
the bill meets another criterion: Does it promote economic growth? 
Adding to the deficit in the short term as a tool to promote economic 
growth that will, in turn, help address the long-term deficit has been 
the basis of vital actions taken by the Democratic majority, actions to 
stem the financial crisis, jump-start the economy, and save the auto 
industry. These were necessary steps, sometimes unpopular ones, and 
steps unfortunately not effectively articulated at times by the 
administration.
  This bill does include important provisions aimed at increasing 
economic growth and jobs: unemployment insurance for millions out of 
work who will spend money received to keep their families afloat; the 
middle income tax cut; the temporary reduction in payroll taxes; and 
business provisions like the R&D tax credit, the new markets credit, 
and full expensing of business investment for 1 year.
  Unfortunately, in their zeal to undo the Recovery Act, Republicans 
have insisted that we not extend the successful 48C credit for advanced 
engineering manufacturing or the Build America Bond program, working to 
rebuild our economy. The Republicans have insisted on provisions that 
violate the third criterion, fairness for taxpayers.
  In order for the administration to be able to include provisions that 
help lower and middle income families, it came at the price of 
assisting the very wealthy, the Republicans' priority. Their position 
has led to a package where the top six-tenths of 1 percent of the very 
wealthiest receive 20 percent of the benefits of the tax package. My 
amendment would strike a blow at this unfairness by replacing the 
highly irresponsible and unfair Kyl estate tax giveaway. The resulting 
$23 billion in additional borrowing won't go to create jobs. It will be 
used to provide an average tax cut of more than $1.5 million to the 
6,600 wealthiest estates next year. This represents less than three-
tenths of 1 percent of all estates.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to change this egregious piece of the 
legislation so the American people can see clearly who puts the 
interests of the middle class ahead of the very wealthiest. And then 
the Republicans in the Senate will have a stark choice that might be 
painful for them. It would make it clear whose side they are on.
  I will accept the remainder of the bill because after the approach 
taken by Republicans in the House and Senate these last weeks, 
obstructing and holding hostage everything until they get their way on 
the tax breaks for the very wealthy, I am not willing to put the fate 
of the middle class and the unemployed in the hands of the Republican 
majority next year. Especially when voiced by the Senate Republican 
leader that their main priority is the failure of our President.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This House--the people's House--has a simple choice today: raise 
taxes on families and small businesses or prevent a massive job-killing 
tax increase from going into effect a mere 16 days from now.
  If you think our economy can handle higher taxes, if you think middle 
class families should lose roughly $100 per week out of their 
paychecks, then vote ``no'' today. Make no mistake about it, a ``no'' 
vote today is a vote for higher taxes, taxes that would devastate 
families and send shock waves throughout our economy.
  If you believe we should stop this massive tax increase in its 
tracks, especially when unemployment is stuck at nearly 10 percent, 
then vote ``yes.'' If you want to be sure we don't extend the failed 
Making Work Pay policy from the failed stimulus law that has

[[Page 22418]]

the IRS writing checks to people who pay no income or payroll taxes, 
then vote ``yes.'' If you are opposed to the Federal Government taking 
more than half of a family farm or business due to a death, then vote 
``yes.'' And if you are interested in fundamental tax reform--getting 
rid of exemptions, deductions, and loopholes that complicate our Tax 
Code--then vote ``yes'' because this bill gives us the time that we 
need to rewrite the Tax Code, cut spending next year, and get our 
economy back on track.
  I know some of my friends want to wait until January when Republicans 
are back in the majority because they think that we can get a better 
deal. That is as misguided as it is politically callous. And let me be 
blunt. It's irresponsible to play a game of chicken with the Senate and 
the White House next year when middle class Americans are literally 
forced to pay $100 more a week in taxes and are forced to suffer even 
greater job losses. If this bill fails today, that's what will happen. 
Paychecks and jobs will burn while Washington fiddles.
  If that's your stance, then I ask, What better deal could we get? 
People talk about making tax rates permanent. That's something I 
support. That's something every Republican in this House supports. But 
how does waiting until January, February, March, April, or May make 
that a reality?
  The Senate voted yesterday on the DeMint amendment which would have 
made the rates permanent, and it failed 37-63. Last time I looked, we 
didn't pick up 23 seats in the United States Senate. And the President 
has flatly refused to sign such legislation into law. So again, tell 
me, how do we get a better deal by waiting? It makes no sense to gamble 
with the American people's jobs and the very paychecks they rely on to 
put food on the table and keep the house warm this winter.
  Americans are suffering through the deepest and longest recession 
since the Great Depression. This is not a time for political speeches 
or electoral posturing. This is a time to act responsibly, to do what 
is right, and to vote ``yes.'' Employers are begging us to pass this 
legislation. Small businesses and the National Federation of 
Independent Business are supporting the bill because they know they 
cannot afford a tax hike. The Business Roundtable which represents the 
largest employers in the country with over 12 million employees is 
supporting this bill because they know the economy cannot afford a tax 
hike.

                              {time}  1950

  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is supporting this legislation because 
they know we cannot afford a tax hike. The National Association of 
Manufacturers is supporting this legislation. Economists across the 
spectrum, from the far left to the far right, are supporting this 
legislation, and so should the Members of this House.
  By no means is this bill perfect. For example, I think we should have 
paid for the extension of unemployment insurance and, frankly, we will. 
I'm committed to producing legislation next year to revamp, reform, and 
pay for the Federal unemployment benefits our Nation provides. We 
should not have to choose between adding to the deficit and providing 
this important help, but we cannot allow that single concern to hold 
this bill up.
  Time has run out. This is our only chance, and the harm to our 
economy and the hit families would suffer is far too great a risk.
  And let's be clear, this bill is about taxes, longstanding tax 
policy, for that matter, and preventing a tax hike. It isn't about 
spending. Nearly 90 percent of this bill is tax policy, and that policy 
is aimed at preventing a tax hike for families and employers or 
providing direct tax relief to the American worker.
  It also protects family farms, ranches and businesses from being hit 
by the destructive death tax. That will go as high as 55 percent next 
year if we do not act. Instead, this bill reduces that rate to 35 
percent, while increasing the exemption amount from $1 million to $5 
million.
  Now, I know $1 million sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But 
think about the family farmers in your districts. Think about the costs 
of the big machinery it takes to operate and manage their land. Some of 
the combines I see every day in my district cost a quarter of a million 
each. That isn't cash in the bank. That's equipment in the field, and 
the Federal Government has no right to take half of it when mom or dad 
passes on.
  While I support a total repeal of the death tax, at least this bill 
makes significant improvements to the estate and gift taxes, and it 
deserves our support.
  Members should also know, and the American people should know, that 
this bill does not contain new policy. New provisions were not snuck in 
late in the night or behind closed doors. We took a firm stand against 
new policy. We took a firm stand against policy that had not been 
renewed repeatedly and, as a result, more than 70 provisions, some of 
them my own, were excluded from the bill, well over $100 billion worth.
  The most notable provisions of these we terminated were from the 
failed stimulus bill, like the refundable Making Work Pay credit, the 
Build America Bonds program, which simply subsidized State and local 
governments going deeper into debt, and grants in lieu of the low-
income housing credit. None of that is in here, nor are there the usual 
Washington Christmas tree ornaments. This bill is narrowly focused on 
tax and unemployment policy.
  Unlike the omnibus Democrats are preparing, there are no earmarks 
like the $2 million for an Ice Age National Scenic trail in Wisconsin. 
There isn't a $3.5 million study on subterranean termites in New 
Orleans, and there certainly isn't an extra $1 billion for the new job-
killing health care law.
  My friends, the election's over. Let's not start the next campaign 
here today. Let's make the right choice. Let's stop this tax hike from 
going into effect in 2 weeks. Let's put our constituents' jobs before 
our own. Let's show the American people we can govern and we can take 
yes for an answer.
  So let's pass this bill with broad bipartisan support, as the Senate 
did yesterday by a vote of 81-19. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Tonight is going to be a rather historic vote. In the old 
days, the House would initiate tax bills, and then we would send it to 
the Senate, and then the Senate and the House would come together and 
have what was known as a conference.
  But it's clear to me that rules are changing fast, and now that the 
House has spoken in terms of a tax bill, in terms of giving some 
comfort to those people who are unemployed, it seems to me now that it 
works that the President works with a handful of Republicans and tells 
us, on the House side, that if we change anything, there's absolutely 
no deal. I think the President said that these people that were 
unemployed were being held as hostage.
  In addition to that, we find that all of the tax benefits seem to be 
centered among the people who are the richest that we have in this 
country, while we find more and more Americans going into poverty. I 
submit to you that democracy cannot grow with this type of diversity, 
where we find so much wealth held in the hands of so few and so many 
other people are without jobs and without hope.
  It would seem to me that we have time to correct these things. 
There's nothing in the Constitution or the House rules that indicates 
that we can't work closer to Christmas. I know other people believe 
that this would be a violation of Christian values. But helping those 
people who are poor, helping those people who are without jobs, I 
submit to you and to Christians, Jews and Gentiles, that this will be 
the proper thing to do, with the spirit of Christmas, rather than just 
to do what people outside of the House have dictated that if we don't 
do it their way, then these people that we have such a moral commitment 
to will go without

[[Page 22419]]

compensation, and the rest of the people that deserve a tax break would 
be denied if we don't go along with the package.
  So, to Members who are coming to this body, this is a new set of 
rules, a new set of tradition; but I tell you, it is not the American 
tradition that I knew and loved so well.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, the bill that came to us from the Senate 
is far from perfect. I'm going to vote ``yes'' because if the scheduled 
$3.8 trillion tax increase takes effect in just 2 weeks, the 
consequences for our economy could be catastrophic. Even if we reversed 
this tax hike next year, families and small businesses would see higher 
taxes immediately on January 1.
  According to the Tax Foundation, the average middle class family in 
my own northern California district would see their Federal income 
taxes more than double. People in my district are already struggling. 
Small businesses are barely hanging on. The unemployment rate is near 
20 percent in several counties I represent. We simply cannot afford 
this enormous tax hit.
  This has been a difficult decision for me. I'm outraged that the 
President and the Democratic leaders are demanding billions of dollars 
in unpaid-for spending on unemployment benefits and special interest 
giveaways as the price for stopping a massive tax increase.
  Additionally, we should be making the current tax rate permanent. If 
businesses face the threat of another tax increase in 2 years, they 
will be reluctant to make investments that pay off in 5 or 10 years.
  Madam Chairman, we have to provide long-term certainty for America's 
small businesses. I commend Mr. Camp for his dedication to protecting 
taxpayers and his hard work on this legislation. In the next Congress, 
I look forward to working with Chairman Camp to fix this bill's flaws. 
We must bring permanency to the Tax Code, and we must cut wasteful 
Federal spending, both to pay for the unemployment benefits and also to 
start bringing down our unsustainable Federal deficit.
  Finally, I know from personal experience how much of a burden the 
death tax is for family businesses. My relatives on my mother's side of 
the family had to sell our own family's farm in North Dakota just to 
pay the death tax bill. That should not happen in America.
  I urge the House to vote ``no'' on the Pomeroy death tax amendment 
and ``yes'' on the Senate bill.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from 
North Dakota, a member of our committee, Mr. Pomeroy.
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chair, for the last five sessions I have worked to 
try and clarify the rate of estate taxation in this country. I felt the 
right approach was ultimately to take the 2009 levels and make them 
permanent.
  The amendment that carries my name in this debate would take the 2009 
levels for estate taxation instead of the levels contained in the 
Senate compromise.
  The rationale for the 2009 level is pretty compelling. The estate tax 
in 2009 was the smallest rate of taxation on estates in 80 years.
  My friend just referenced an estate tax situation encountered from 
his family. He did not say it was at a much higher rate of tax than was 
ultimately achieved in 2009. In fact, the rate in 2009 means 99.8 
percent of the families in this country have no estate tax. Zero. It 
went gradually lower and lower, and in 2009 hit a lower rate of 
taxation for estates than was ever the case under Ronald Reagan, was 
ever the case under George Bush I, was ever the case under George W. 
Bush.
  Now, why would we want to go with 2009 levels as opposed to the 
Senate deal? It's simply a matter of money: $23 billion over 2. And, 
quite possibly, the levels in the Senate bill would be the new rate for 
the estate tax. In that case, we would lose $90 billion over 10.
  I have heard on the other side such concern about unpaid-for 
unemployment benefits. I have not heard one word about unpaid-for 
estate tax levels. They would add to the national debt $23 billion more 
than the 2009 levels. They don't pay for a cent of it, and they seem to 
think that is fine. Do you know who benefits from the Senate tax levels 
compared to the 2009 levels? 6,600 of the wealthiest families.
  Let's go with the 2009 levels. Let's save $23 billion over 2, let's 
save $90 billion over 10. Let's tackle these deficits, starting with a 
fair estate tax level.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 4 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chair, a gun is pointed at the head of our 
taxpayers, and it will go off January 1 unless Congress acts.
  If we let that gun go off, it is going to hurt families who are 
struggling to make ends meet, it is going to hurt small businesses 
trying to survive this recession, it is going to hurt seniors, almost 
tripling the taxes on the dividends that they need to live month to 
month and day to day. It is going to hurt businesses trying to track 
capital. And it is going to revive the death tax, an immoral tax where 
you work your whole life to build up your nest egg, your small 
business, your family-owned farm, and when you die, Uncle Sam swoops in 
and takes more than half of everything you have earned. All that 
happens if Congress refuses to act.
  Some are here today saying, no, let's not change that death tax. 
Let's raise that death tax.
  Last night on my Facebook page, I got a posting from Tammy Fisher of 
East Texas. Her family has had to sell 6,000 acres of their timber land 
to pay the death tax. They held that land for 100 years.
  Clarence Leaveritt of Texas is a rancher. His grandmother died. They 
had to take out a loan from the bank to pay the death tax. They are 
still paying on it. His father passed away recently, and they had to 
take out a second loan. Today he is paying two loans to Uncle Sam and 
can barely keep his ranch. And last night, we heard Democrats say, 
Those people are stingy and cheap, and haven't worked a day in their 
life.
  All that death tax comes back January 1 if we don't act. And I'll 
tell you what, we have some very good friends of mine who say, ``Look, 
just let that gun go off because we can get a better deal later.'' 
Well, I am conservative and I am skeptical, and I am not raising taxes 
for anyone for any period, period.
  I don't like the spending in this bill, and I offered an amendment, 
along with other conservatives, to cut $152 billion from this bill to 
cover all the costs. We couldn't get a vote on that. We are voting on a 
lot of things tonight, but not a straight up-or-down vote on trimming 
government.
  We didn't get that vote, but I can tell you, on the spending cuts, 
this isn't the end of that discussion; it is the beginning. When we 
have a new Republican majority, I'm going to take that gun down from 
our taxpayers' head. I'm going to give them a chance to keep their own 
money, get this economy going, and keep fighting for permanent tax 
relief and a permanent death tax repeal.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), an active member of our committee.
  Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Chair, I am standing in opposition to this proposal. When we 
debated the middle income tax cut a few weeks ago, I spoke in favor of 
a tax system that we might design for the future, a progressive system 
with substantial tax relief for working families, and, in our own 
Democratic caucus, suggested that the number $250,000 was too low; that 
if we raised that ceiling to $500,000, we could take care of every S 
corporation, we could take care of every small business person who at 
the end of the month uses their credit card. That was rejected. But I 
still thought that was a reasonable compromise.
  Now, when my friend Mr. Camp spoke a couple of minutes ago, he 
delineated the clearest position of the two parties

[[Page 22420]]

when he said he was upset that we were not paying for the extension of 
unemployment benefits.
  For years they borrowed the money for Iraq, they borrowed the money 
for Afghanistan, and, I challenge anybody on the other side tonight to 
dispute this point, they borrowed the money for the Bush tax cuts as 
well. That is what we are discussing here.
  Now, the reason that I stand in opposition to this proposal tonight--
because there are many good provisions in this bill, including 
alternative minimum tax, and I do wish the Build America Bonds program 
was in here--this represents a serious threat to the solvency of the 
Social Security system. We will never return that number down the road. 
And you mark my words tonight, what they will argue down the road is 
the Social Security system has been weakened, proving that you need 
private accounts. Their fingerprints will be all over it. They will 
suggest this proves the theory of the benefit of a private account.
  So we borrowed the money for Iraq. And when I said to President Bush 
in 2001 in the Oval Office, ``Mr. President, modest tax cuts for middle 
income Americans,'' it was rejected. And that is why we are in the 
condition that we are in today financially.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Chair, I rise today in 
support of grownups, grownups who realize that the end of the year is 
coming, and taxes will be raised if we don't act now.
  When I first came to Congress, I knew that partisanship had taken 
over. I knew the enormous extent of the philosophical divide, but I 
didn't fully realize that entire years would go by without the two 
sides working together to come up with an answer for the American 
people. Sadly, it seems it takes a genuine crisis and a sense of panic 
before we can work together. In any case, here we are.
  The bill before us is not the bill that I would have written, that I 
would have participated in; it is not the bill that conservative radio 
talk show host or Tea Party constituents would have liked written; and 
it is not the bill that The New York Times editorial page or the 
President himself would have written. It is a compromise. This is what 
a compromise looks like. Some so-called constitutionalists want to 
ignore the fact that the Constitution itself actually was a compromise, 
with a capital ``C.''
  And while we are still in this bipartisan moment of clarity, let me 
say a few other things. First, while I strongly disagreed with the 
policies put forth by my Democrat colleagues, I do not envy them for 
having to preside over the biggest economic collapse in a generation. 
And while I believe their economic premise is misguided, I cannot fault 
any legislator for sticking to his or her principles.

                              {time}  2010

  What I do believe is unforgivable, however, is the tremendous 
uncertainty that has been created over the past few years. Uncertainty 
is not good for families; it is not good for investors; it is not good 
for employers.
  Regardless of the cause, all economic crises are ultimately a crisis 
of confidence. Frankly, the Democrat-controlled government has 
contributed to that. At a basic level, beyond all of the fancy models 
and theory, the economy is really not that complicated. Uncertainty 
leads to doubt, doubt leads to fear, and fear leads to paralysis; and 
that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly where our country is today.
  By refusing to work with this side of the aisle until this point, we 
have prolonged uncertainty and aggravated the fear. Even here today, in 
what feels like a great legislative compromise, the most we can deliver 
for the American people is a year of this and 2 years of that.
  The uncertainty must end, Madam Chair, and I believe Mr. Camp when he 
says that we are going to work on that in January when the Republican 
majority takes over. At this point, I don't much care what the policy 
is. I just think it needs to be set in stone. My constituents want to 
see all the tax cuts extended permanently, and they want the estate tax 
eliminated permanently.
  Now, let me make it clear: I probably have about five wealthy people 
living in my district, so some might say, What do they care about the 
estate tax? While they may not be wealthy, they certainly hope that 
sometime in their life they will be wealthy or their children will be, 
and they realize the impact of that. And based on the economic 
situation, it is kind of a mystery to me why they would even care so 
much about these rich people, but as I said, they probably would like 
to work hard and become them.
  Madam Chair, we know better and our constituents know better. If they 
aren't rich, they have lived just long enough to know that in this 
world there are no free lunches. You have to work for what you get and 
you have to fight to keep it. So even though many of them are poor and 
even though many of them are struggling, my constituents don't want 
handouts. My constituents just want to be able to earn an honest living 
and rest easy at night knowing that the government isn't going to come 
in and suddenly swoop in and take everything away from them. For them, 
Madam Chair, it is more than a matter of principle--it is simply a way 
of life.
  My constituents are upset that the tax cuts aren't permanent, and 
many of them believe I should vote against this bill.
  In short, the story cannot explain that despite the fact that only 2 
percent of Americans are rich, more than half the country does not want 
them to be taxed more to expand government spending. You know, the 
truth of the matter is, Madam Chair, it is simple. They don't want 
government's help and they don't want our generosity with other 
people's money. My constituents simply don't buy it. They don't want a 
nanny state, and they don't want somebody else to have to pay for it--
not their kids, not the Chinese, not their grandchildren, and not rich 
people.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Norton). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
  Their philosophy and mine is we want the government to reward hard 
work, savings, investment, and job creation. I simply don't think these 
things should be punished, and certainly not in the name of fixing 
everybody's problems everywhere, because at the end of the day, doing 
that will just create more problems, more uncertainty, and more panic.
  Finally, Madam Chair, my constituents know that we will never climb 
out of this ditch as long as we keep moving that ladder. Keeping taxes 
low has to be our goal. That is the ladder to getting out of that 
ditch.
  I urge adoption of the bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of our committee.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill 
and in support of the Pomeroy amendment. But let's be clear what this 
legislation does tonight. It adds another $1 trillion to our national 
budget deficit over the next 2 years. One trillion dollars.
  Given the weak recovery we have going on with our economy, I think 
everyone is in agreement that now is not the time to be increasing 
taxes on working families and small businesses. We did that. We had 
that vote just a couple of weeks ago, where we protected tax relief on 
the first $250,000 worth of income, no matter who you are, and on small 
businesses. That covered 98 percent of Americans.
  But for those of you who are saying we need to continue tax breaks 
for the wealthiest 3 percent that is included in this bill, I say, find 
corresponding spending cuts in the budget to pay for it so we are not 
having to go to China to borrow another $300 billion and adding to the 
debt burden of our children and grandchildren.
  These are two unstated facts that we have before us today that no one 
is

[[Page 22421]]

talking about and that are not being reported in the media. First, our 
effective tax rate in this country today is at a 60-year low. A 60-year 
low. That predates the Medicare program and it certainly predates the 
80 million baby boomers who are about to begin their massive retirement 
and join Medicare and Social Security.
  But also, the effective tax rate for the wealthiest 3 percent is not 
the 36 or 39 percent marginal rate that some talk about. The effective 
tax rate for the wealthiest 3% is 17 percent, after they itemize and 
they deduct and back out their expenses with the numerous tax loopholes 
that exist in the current code. That is less than the average working 
family is paying with their effective tax rate. We cannot sustain that. 
It is irresponsible.
  Now, about a week from now little boys and girls around the country 
are going to be waiting for Santa Claus' arrival. And I hope they are 
not watching this debate tonight, because the truth is there is no 
Santa Claus for the U.S. economy. But there are too many people in this 
Congress who think that their Kris Kringle is China that they can run 
to and borrow money from in order to sustain a fiscally and 
economically reckless policy. Rather than their children leaving out 
cookies and milk for Santa, they instead should leave out their piggy 
banks because of what we're doing to them in this bill.
  We can do better, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this legislation.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee and the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, let me address just a few of the issues that I have been 
hearing here on the floor. I am hearing some of my colleagues from the 
other side of the aisle saying, ``We just can't afford these tax 
cuts.'' Well, let's look at it.
  Only in Washington is not raising taxes on people considered a tax 
cut. What we are talking about here is not cutting taxes. We are 
talking about keeping taxes where they are and preventing tax 
increases.
  The second point: We, meaning the government, can't afford this. 
Whose money is this, after all? Is all the money that is made in 
America Washington's money, the government's money, or is it the 
people's money who earned it? I hear all this talk about the death tax, 
the estate tax. This is going to give a windfall to these people, all 
this money going to these privileged people who have built these 
businesses, made all this money. It's their money.
  Which is it? Do we have a country built on equal natural rights, 
where you can make the most of your life, get up, work hard, take 
risks, become successful, create jobs, grow businesses, do well, earn 
success, and, yes, pass it on to your kids? What on Earth is wrong with 
that? That's the American Dream.
  And to my friends on my side of the aisle who simply don't like some 
of the spending in this bill, I don't like it either. So let's cut the 
spending next year when we're in charge.
  There's junk in the Tax Code. Everybody agrees with this. This is 
advancing some of the junk in the Tax Code. And what I say to my 
friends on the other side of the aisle is, next year, let's get rid of 
that junk in the Tax Code when we're in charge. But right now, let's 
not hit the American people with a massive tax increase.
  If we want to get this debt under control, if we want to get our 
deficit going down, there are two things we need to be doing: We need 
to cut spending and we need to grow the economy.
  We need prosperity in this country. We need job creation. We need 
people going from collecting unemployment to having a job and paying 
taxes so the revenues can reduce the deficit. And if we raise taxes, 
even the Congressional Budget Office is telling us, if this bill fails 
and these tax increases continue, we're going to lose 1.25 million jobs 
next year. Do we want to do that?
  Low tax rates give us economic growth. Low tax rates make us 
competitive in the international economy. Low tax rates allow 
businesses to plan.
  Is this a growth package? No, it's not a growth package. You know why 
it's not a growth package? Because it still proposes to move this 
uncertainty forward. It's only a 2-year extension.

                              {time}  2020

  So we're not talking about a pro-growth economic package, but we're 
talking about preventing a destructive economic package from being 
inflicted on the American people in about 2 weeks. The last thing you 
want to do is put more uncertainty in the economy, hit the economy with 
a huge tax increase, trigger a stock market sell-off, and lose jobs.
  So do we want to make these permanent? You bet we do. And that's 
exactly what we're going to be advancing. But the last thing we want to 
do is inject more uncertainty, raise taxes. We need economic growth. We 
need spending cuts. That's exactly what we intend on doing. And I think 
that's the message the voters sent us here. So let's prevent this tax 
increase from happening. Let's clean up the stuff we don't like in this 
bill next year. And let's make sure that when people go to Christmas, 
they know they're not going to have a massive tax increase 5 days 
later.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that is necessary to prevent our economy 
from getting worse. This is not a bill that's going to turn it around. 
Next year, let's pass the policies that will turn this economy around.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 15 seconds to Mr. Welch of Vermont, followed 
by 3 minutes to Mr. Jackson of Illinois.
  Mr. WELCH. We have been awarded 45 minutes to state our objections to 
this bill. And it is essentially this: Too much debt, too few jobs, too 
much risk to Social Security.
  Our lead speaker is the member from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, in about a month, almost every 
Member of this body will be speaking at events in their district 
commemorating the life of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and his famous, 
``I Have a Dream'' speech. Amid the soaring rhetoric and the beautiful 
prose, Dr. King made a clear point. In a sense, we have come to our 
Nation's capital ``to cash a check. When the architects of our Republic 
wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of 
Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every 
American wants to fall heir. That note was a promise that all men would 
be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness.''
  And I paraphrase, It is obvious today that America has defaulted on 
this promissory note. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, 
America has given the people a bad check which has come back marked 
``insufficient funds.'' But we refuse to believe the bank of justice is 
bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the 
great vault of opportunity in this great Nation. So we have come to 
cash this check--a check that will give us upon demand the riches of 
freedom and the security of justice.
  Mr. Chairman, if we pass this bill, it will signal a refusal to pay 
our fair share into the vaults of opportunity for all Americans. It 
will drive up the debt and put pressure on our Nation's Capital to cut 
programs for the most vulnerable. If this agreement passes, when out-
of-work Americans look in the 112th Congress for help in paying their 
rent, our Nation's Capital will look to those Americans and say, 
insufficient funds. When we look to veterans who need health care that 
is owed them, the 112th Congress will say, insufficient funds. When our 
schools look for funding they need to teach our kids, our Congress will 
say, insufficient funds.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will only drive up the deficit, which is 
already too high in the eyes of the American people. It will put even 
more pressure on Congress and the President to cut vital programs when 
we convene next year.
  If this sounds familiar to the American people, it should. In the 
early 1980s, President Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, 
conceived of a strategy called ``starve the beast.'' By

[[Page 22422]]

cutting taxes and increasing military spending, the President could 
force Congress to cut social spending in order to control the deficit. 
As Stockman put it, they would cut ``real blood and guts stuff.'' You 
heard it from the Budget chairman a few moments ago. When they're in 
charge, they plan to cut real blood and guts stuff.
  Mr. Chairman, if this tax deal goes through, blood and guts will 
affect us. At a time when they're needed the most, they will put these 
important programs on the chopping block. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, we 
refuse to believe that the American people should be forced to accept 
this tax deal, to accept ``insufficient funds.'' We see $858 billion 
that should be in the vaults of opportunity of this Nation. And that's 
why we oppose this bill.
  Members will follow me opposed to any argument that say there are 
insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity to rebuild this 
Nation.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, today we debate legislation to 
prevent taxes from increasing on all taxpayers as our economy struggles 
to recover. We know without any doubt that virtually all Americans will 
be forced to send more of their hard-earned dollars to Washington on 
January 1, 2011, if we fail to act.
  Although this legislation is not perfect in my estimation, the 
package does provide a measure of certainty and predictability that 
will allow broader debate in the coming Congress without immediately 
damaging our fragile economy. This package will prevent devastating tax 
increases from falling on the backs of hardworking Americans, small 
businesses, and job-creating investments.
  This imperfect legislation represents the best agreement that can be 
reached by Republicans and Democrats determined to avoid the shock to 
our economy that would come from increasing taxes on the American 
people and many of our job creators. A vote against this agreement, 
which would prevent the largest tax increase in history, is really a 
vote for a $3.8 trillion job-killing tax increase. Regardless of what 
side of the aisle the opposition comes from, they're willing to accept 
the proposition that taxes will increase for all Americans. They may 
hope to gain political points, but I am not willing to let perfect 
stand in the way of good when it comes to matters that negatively 
impact the paychecks of Kentuckians.
  Earlier this week, this package earned the bipartisan support of more 
than 80 Senators. If we fail today, middle class families will see 
roughly $100 per week taken out of their paychecks. Increasing taxes 
now will cause more pain for families with tight budgets, force small 
businesses to cut more employees, and further slow economic growth 
throughout the Nation.
  Critics of extending the tax cuts for Americans have suggested that 
the cost will add to the deficit in coming years. While taxing is a 
functioning of government, the Federal Government is not entitled to 
any specific amount of revenue from the American people. What is the 
``cost'' of letting Americans and job creators keep their own money? 
Because of budgetary gimmicks in Washington, many Members of Congress 
have lost sight of the fact that the money Congress spends comes from 
the American people, is owned by the American people, and the debt we 
accrue falls on their shoulders. Instead of following the budgetary 
common sense possessed by most Americans, Democrats and Republicans in 
Congress have routinely spent well beyond their means.
  Now, many of my colleagues are looking to the pockets of the American 
people to foot the bill rather than making tough choices to cut 
spending in Washington. If less tax revenue is coming into the 
Treasury, Congress has an obligation to spend less. Democratic 
leadership in the House refuses to accept that proposition. Rather than 
take steps to solve excessive congressional spending, Democrats in 
Congress have had one response to the problem of our mounting debt: 
send more money.
  Americans have lost faith in the ability of their Federal Government 
to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and self-control. Why would they 
trust those who claim the tax increases are the answer to our fiscal 
problems? With the tax record of this Congress, increasing taxes is 
tantamount to entrusting your teenager with a credit card.
  This past November, voters sent a clear message, a restraining order 
on Washington: stop the political games with our economy, restore 
fiscal sanity to Washington, and create certainty and stability in our 
markets. American families and small businesses can't afford for 
Congress to play chicken with their hard-earned tax dollars rather than 
renewing the expiring tax cuts. Therefore, if Congress chooses to 
ignore the demands of the people, dragging the debate into the next 
year, the result will be more money taken out of American families' 
paychecks, impeded job creation, and more partisan political bickering.
  Were I drafting this legislation, I would repeal the AMT, permanently 
abolish the estate tax, make the tax reductions permanent for all 
Americans, and insist that the unemployment compensation be offset by 
commonsense spending reductions. However, President Obama has made it 
clear that he won't sign an extension of current tax relief without the 
unemployment provisions or that makes the 2001 and 2003 tax relief 
permanent. Congress must develop and adopt a workout plan to eliminate 
the deficit just like any business or family in financial trouble.
  Congress must learn from the mistakes epitomized by Washington's 
``bailout'' culture and support policies to increase American 
competitiveness and improve the economic climate for entrepreneurs and 
small businesses. The road to prosperity allows you to take more home 
to your family and enjoy the economic freedom that historically has 
been a hallmark of American culture.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. ``Moment of Truth'' is the very appropriately entitled 
report of the President's bipartisan deficit commission, since it took 
barely a moment for him to cut a deal with Senate Republicans that 
spikes our national debt upwards almost a trillion dollars in new 
borrowing from the Chinese and others. This deal borrows from our 
future to throw tax money at problems with the efficiency of most of 
its provisions that you would get if people stood and shoveled out cash 
at the front door of the Capitol.

                              {time}  2030

  Billionaire estate bonuses, or 1 percent of the people getting a 
giant tax cut--that doesn't provide meaningful job growth.
  There is a very good reason we pay Social Security taxes: in order to 
share in the old-age survivor and disability insurance that is Social 
Security. This proposed Republican payroll tax holiday is not a day at 
the beach. It endangers the very fabric of Social Security. That is why 
the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has 
rightfully called this bad deal ``a disaster'' for Social Security.
  In a very few months, these same Republican privatizers of Social 
Security will claim, just as they are tonight about the Bush tax 
proposal, that we are raising taxes on workers when we seek to end this 
alleged ``temporary'' payroll tax cut.
  This same dangerous deal for Social Security discriminates against so 
many people, who tonight are on the front lines with their lives, as 
our firefighters, as our law enforcement officers, as those who educate 
our children--those who provide vital public services. They don't get a 
dime out of this provision. Ninety-five percent of the public employees 
in Massachusetts and a majority of those in the State of Texas get 
absolutely no benefit from this provision.
  This bill undermines a guiding Democratic principle--dignity for 
seniors--and it undermines 75 years of Social Security.

[[Page 22423]]


  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for this bipartisan tax 
compromise. We need to do this. We need to do this to prevent a massive 
tax increase on the American people, on American families and on 
American businesses.
  The clock is ticking and the American people are waiting. If Congress 
doesn't approve this proposal, our small businesses will be saddled and 
crushed by a $858 billion tax hike. One-third of all business activity 
in the United States will see higher taxes--businesses that create 80 
percent of our jobs in this country. Raising taxes on small businesses 
in the middle of a recession is absolutely the last thing Congress 
should do. Even those in Congress who want to raise taxes must question 
the timing of doing so when credit is scarce, wages are being cut, and 
people are losing their jobs.
  As I travel around my district, I hear one consistent theme over and 
over again from small business owners: they need certainty. They want 
certainty--certainty so they know what Uncle Sam is going to take from 
them from their bottom lines now and into the future; certainty so they 
can plan for and make future investments--hire workers and buy 
equipment; certainty so they can pursue the American Dream without 
worrying about how government will get in the way.
  Opponents of extending all of the individual income tax rates ignore 
the fact that more than 4.5 million small businesses in America pay 
taxes at the individual rate, not at the corporate rate. Failure to 
extend the current individual tax rates is a tax hike on small 
businesses.
  My colleagues who want to discuss comprehensive tax reform should 
remember that extending all of the rates now will give us the chance to 
have that discussion without adding a massive tax increase on small 
businesses.
  Avoiding this tax hike is just as important for families across this 
country as it is for our small businesses. Millions of Americans are 
employed by small businesses that will face this tax hike; and in many 
cases, their wages and their jobs hang in the balance of the decision 
that we will make here today.
  The business world needs certainty and families need certainty--
certainty to plan for the cost of higher education for their children, 
certainty to buy homes that they can call their own, and certainty for 
the day-to-day task of making ends meet in order to provide for the 
basic needs of their families. Businesses are struggling and families 
are hurting. The last thing we need government to do is to reach deeper 
into their pockets and take their hard-earned dollars.
  This compromise package isn't perfect, as has been said over and 
over--compromise rarely is--but perfection shouldn't be the barrier to 
what is practical and necessary.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I came to peace with my decision on this 
bill this weekend when I was holding my 2-year-old grandson, Brody, who 
was checking out the Christmas tree. I became focused on the real 
question before us: Is it right to put $858 billion of debt on that 
kid's shoulders? The answer is ``no'' for three reasons.
  First, this bill represents an old and unsuccessful experiment in 
supply-side economics. It has failed time and time again. In 2001, it 
was going to create jobs. It didn't create a single net job. Most of us 
remember when the first President Bush called this type of scheme 
``voodoo economics.'' Do you remember that? Well, this is deja vu 
voodoo economics, and we have no interest in erecting a fiscal monument 
to the failed policies of George Bush.
  Second, let's be honest about what this deal is--a bipartisan deal 
gone bad. It's a case where both sides handed out candy to their 
favorite constituencies, put the candy together in one pile of $858 
billion of deficit spending and said, We will sober up, just not today.
  We've got to have time to eat our spinach, not just our candy. Stop 
kicking this can down the road. True bipartisanship will happen when 
both parties confront fiscal reality and become responsible.
  Third, we have to face the music as to what this deal is. It's just 
another case of using an overextended credit card. We cannot build an 
economy based on consumer credit card spending, which is what got us in 
the hole in the first place. This deal does not educate one kid; it 
does not build one bridge; it does not lead to the production of one 
innovative company. It doesn't build America. It just builds American 
debt.
  So let's learn from our past. Let's put away the credit card. Let's 
get an unemployment extension the old-fashioned way. Let's have more 
jobs and less debt.
  Let's defeat this bill.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, indeed, this is a sad state of affairs in which we find 
ourselves and having to deal with this in the waning days of the 111th 
Congress. In just a mere 16 days, a massive tax increase--$3.8 
trillion--will hit every American taxpayer at a time when we are 
dealing with high unemployment, very sluggish economic growth, and 
uncertainty about our future.
  American families and businesses have had uncertainty hanging over 
their heads for months, and we have known about the date of the 
expiration of these tax provisions. It is time for this Congress to 
act. It is way past due.
  No one is satisfied. No one in this body, I'm sure, is satisfied 
completely with this bill. I certainly don't like provisions in it. We 
may not like the situation that we find ourselves in, but it is this 
situation that determines our duty to act.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot roll the dice with the American economy and 
with the fate of American families and American businesses. That would 
be the height of irresponsibility, and we have seen enough of that in 
this 111th Congress. Let's examine just some of the provisions in this 
bill.
  If you vote ``yes,'' you are voting to prevent tax increases on 
working Americans. You are voting to prevent tax increases on small 
businesses and job-creating investments.
  If you vote ``no,'' you are voting for a job-killing $3.8 trillion 
tax increase that kicks in on January 1, and it will be paid for by 
every taxpayer and most small businesses in this country. If you vote 
``no,'' you are basically voting to allow for the average middle class 
family to see $100 pulled out of their paychecks every week. That is a 
lot of money for the average family.
  If you vote ``yes,'' you are voting to prevent a hike in the death 
tax on our family farmers and small business owners, who take risks and 
who have built farms and small businesses--taking those risks in a 
uniquely American way.

                              {time}  2040

  Why do we want to penalize that? Mr. Chair, now there are some who 
say on our side that we ought to wait. They may think it's good 
politics. They may think we may have more leverage. Well, it's not all 
that clear as to what could be gained if we were to wait. But I will 
say this, Mr. Chair: It's inevitable that there would be delays in 
enacting any kind of a package, and as a result of the delays, months 
going by perhaps, we'll see a job-killing massive tax hike on everyone.
  For those concerned about the deficit, certainly a concern I share, 
this tax increase will basically hit economic growth, hit prosperity in 
this country like a category 5 hurricane. It will put us back into a 
recession, and the prospects to try to correct these problems will be 
even worse and make it much more difficult for us to act in the future.
  Let's be clear. This is not a pro-growth program as my colleague Mr. 
Ryan said earlier. This is a 2-year

[[Page 22424]]

agreement. It is a first step in correcting the severe problems that we 
find ourselves in. This will give us time to move forward with 
fundamental tax reform which, when coupled with spending decreases, 
cutting spending, we can get our country back on a sustainable economic 
course, a sustainable path to prosperity, a sustainable path to restore 
American competitiveness and to restore American leadership at a time 
when we need to do this from a position of economic strength.
  So let's clear the slate so that we can start anew in January to get 
our country back on a competitive basis. I urge our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to support the passage of this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a member of 
our committee, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Senate 
amendment to the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010.
  This bill has good parts to it for the poor and the middle class, but 
it gives away $120 billion to the superrich, $120 billion the rich 
don't need, and will not create any jobs. It's a huge giveaway to the 
superrich in these tough economic times. It just boggles the mind. It's 
unconscionable. It's indefensible.
  We all know the only reason we're even considering this craziness is 
to get Republican votes in the Senate so they won't filibuster the 
bill. That Republicans insist on giving away taxpayer money to the rich 
while sticking it to the poor and the unemployed is worse than wrong. 
It is without conscience.
  Yesterday, my State of Washington announced it will cut all of the 
working poor health care from the State basic health plan. 66,000 
people and 16,000 low-income children will lose their health care. All 
they will have is the emergency room. It doesn't end there. Washington 
State is also cutting off 85,000 elderly off their drug assistance 
program. These are people's lives we're talking about, and we're 
pushing American families off their last lifelines during a recession 
to give tax breaks to the rich. That's the Republican tradeoff.
  Americans don't want this giveaway. They want us to act with 
compassion and economic common sense and not help start another 
Republican economic disaster.
  We could and should fix this bill with fair rates, but we won't 
because Senator McConnell says, Give me money for the rich.
  I urge you to vote against it.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Senate Amendment to the 
Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010.
  This bill has good parts to it for the poor and middle class, but it 
gives away $120 billion dollars to the super rich--$120 billion dollars 
the rich don't need and will do nothing to create jobs.
  A huge give-away to the super-rich in these tough economic times just 
boggles the mind.
  We all know the only reason we're even considering this craziness is 
to get Republicans votes in the Senate so they won't filibuster the 
bill.
  That Republicans insist on giving away tax payer money to the rich 
while sticking it to the poor and unemployed is worse than wrong--it's 
without conscience.
  Just yesterday my own State of Washington announced it will cut all 
of the working poor from the State basic health plan.
  Working poor numbering 66,000 and 16,000 low income children will 
lose their health care--all they'll have is the emergency room. It 
doesn't end there--Washington State is pushing 85,000 elderly off of 
drug assistance too.
  This bill undermines Social Security and increases taxes on the poor. 
Republicans won't ever want to restore the so-called temporary 2-year 
cut to social security taxes in this bill. Republicans will soon be 
calling the restoration of this tax, which keeps social security 
solvent, a `tax hike'. Then Republicans will bring up privatization as 
the only way to solve the shortfall. As a replacement to the Making 
Work Pay Credit, this tax cut actually increases taxes on the poor, and 
gives even more tax benefits to the rich.
  This bill creates only stop-gap funding for unemployment insurance. 
Next year at this time unemployment will still be high, and we'll have 
another mean-spirited debate that demonizes the unemployed.
  The give-aways and bad policy in this bill are capped off with the 
wasteful, environmentally disastrous Ethanol subsidy. Subsidizing 
ethanol distorts food markets and slows this country's real progress 
toward a sustainable green energy economy.
  This bill transfers enormous amounts of wealth from the average 
American tax payer into the pockets of the wealthiest of this country 
at a huge cost.
  These are people's lives we're talking about. We're pushing American 
families off their last life lines during a recession to give tax 
breaks to the super rich. That's the Republican trade off.
  Americans don't want this give-away. They want us to act with 
compassion and economic common sense--and not help start another 
Republican economic disaster.
  We should fix this bill with fair rates for the wealthy and funding 
for unemployment insurance that lasts until the working families of 
this country are back on their feet.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The State of Washington is cutting the working health care for the 
working poor? That's what we heard a minute ago. But wasn't it just an 
argument just a couple of months ago, Mr. Chair, that if this body took 
up the ObamaCare that basically the birds were going to be chirping and 
the sun was going to come out and the clouds were going to part and the 
economy was going to be fabulous and we were not going to have another 
health care problem again? But what happened? Running ramrod through 
this body ended up a job-killing health care bill, and now we're 
wringing our hands. It's amazing to me.
  Back when I was in the Illinois General Assembly, Mr. Chair, I used 
to practice law, and there was one time when I filed a motion at a 
courthouse and I approached a judge, and he knew that I was a 
legislator. And with a twinkle in his eye, he said, Well, Mr. Roskam, 
let's see how you voted on the judicial pay raise, and he kind of 
looked underneath his blotter. He was teasing me, and I quickly said, 
Well, Your Honor, I voted ``no'' but I hoped ``yes.'' He thought about 
that for a second and he said, Motion granted.
  Now, I hope today there's a whole lot of show business going on here, 
because I hope today, Mr. Chair, what's happening is that there's a lot 
of people who say they're voting ``no'' that aren't really voting 
``no.'' I mean, with due respect to my friend and colleague from the 
State of Illinois who acknowledged that there's insufficient funds, he 
thinks there's going to be insufficient funds, Mr. Chair, in the 112th 
Congress? Hey, look around, 111th Congress, there isn't sufficient 
funds.
  This Congress and this leadership, Mr. Chair, has doubled our 
national debt in 5 years and, based on their own numbers, will triple 
that national debt in 10 years. So this is not a news flash that's 
coming in the 112th Congress. It's here today.
  We had Debt Dependence Day here in the United States on August 4 of 
this year, which was the date at which every dime that went out from 
the Federal Government, Mr. Chair, was borrowed money. So let's not act 
as if this is a new issue. This is not a new issue.
  Here's the issue that's before us: We're looking at a cataclysmic tax 
increase that has the potential to drive us and to push us to a tipping 
point and a spiral that goes further and further down.
  Now, let me talk to friends on my side of the aisle who think a 
better deal is coming. Friends on my side of the aisle say, Oh, we're 
going to get a better deal. On January 5, we'll pass a bill. On January 
6, somehow, miraculously, the Senate is going to pass it. On January 7, 
the President is going to remove all his objections. Even assuming, Mr. 
Chair, that that's true, let's think that through for a second.
  Okay. So January 7, a new fabulous bill is signed into law. It's not 
until mid-February until the Internal Revenue Service can deal with 
that. It's not until mid-March when corporations and payers can deal 
with it. And so,

[[Page 22425]]

again, at the best case scenario, you're looking at sucking the life 
out of this economy for 90 days. And what does that do to all of our 
constituents? That puts us in a downward trajectory that none of us 
want. Nobody wants that.
  You know, I think one of the messages of November 2 is that we need 
to come together and work together. Yeah, there's things in this bill I 
don't like. There's things in this bill that I'm not pleased with, but 
I do know that at all costs we need to avoid a job-killing tax 
increase.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just wanted to ask the question. I was hoping the gentleman might 
comment on whether or not his impression of the bill was that it was 
deficit neutral. The gentleman has spoken about the deficit in the 
past. I wanted to know if he wanted to comment on that.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Reclaiming my time, clearly it's not deficit neutral. 
Clearly, it does add to the deficit, which is why I said that it's not 
completely satisfactory. So Mr. Ryan, as ranking member and incoming 
chairman of the Budget Committee, has indicated what his intentions 
are.
  But, you know, I do find it ironic that there is this newfound robust 
interest on the other side of the aisle as it relates to deficit 
reduction, notwithstanding the CBO's, OMB's, and everybody else's 
numbers that the national debt will triple in 10 years based on the 
current majority.
  So I've said my piece, but I think it's very clear that what we need 
to avoid, Mr. Chair, at all costs, is raising taxes and putting this 
economy into a spiral out of which real, real difficulties come.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an active member 
of our committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. A vote on this agreement may or may not be good 
politics, but it is wrong. It continues the Washington tradition of 
ducking tough issues, making suboptimal choices, and trying to make 
every interest group happy.
  I'll be the first to admit that it contains items I support, 
including some I've worked hard to enact, but they're not worth the 
price, no matter how much I've invested in them.

                              {time}  2050

  This should be the time when we stopped adding to the deficit with 
nothing to show for it but a temporary boost to pocketbooks with a 
minimal boost to the economy and controversies that will continue 
nonstop through the next election. If, like a prudent family, we must 
borrow, it should not be for current operations but for long-term 
investment. The tinkering around the edges of the tax code and the 
fixes, like the need to continue to ``patch'' the AMT in order to 
protect 30 million people, is counterproductive. It will cost money to 
repair the broken tax code, but it is an investment well worth the 
cost.
  We should, instead, repeal the AMT, lower the rates, broaden the 
base, make the code simpler, more fair, and less costly. If we will be 
$1 trillion more in debt, we should at least address the infrastructure 
deficit. That would at least pay for itself with projects that will 
last for decades while putting hundreds of thousands to work at family 
wage jobs.
  Make no mistake, this vote means an exchange for a little temporary 
relief weighted in favor of those who need it the least. This bill 
means Americans will pay more in debt and interest, a sluggish economy, 
and costs of an unfair tax system. It's a bad bargain for the future of 
America's families.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I don't have time to detail all that is wrong with this bill, so I 
will focus on one very small part of it. It's the Social Security 
payroll reduction. I want everybody in this body to remember this 
figure, this one number: $2,136. $2,136--that's the raise that we're 
all giving ourselves with this bill. That's the raise that we're giving 
ourselves, and we're borrowing every penny of it from our kids and our 
grandkids, or probably China.
  $2,136. We don't know where that came from. I asked people in this 
body, How did that provision get in here? It's not part of extending 
current tax rates, keeping the tax rates current. This is something 
completely new. We're told, Oh, somebody in the Senate put that in. But 
nobody has sought to remove it here. But keep in mind, again, $2,136. 
That's how much every Member of this body--because all of us make more 
than $106,000 a year, so all of us are giving ourselves a $2,136 raise 
with this legislation. We had better remember it because the voters 
certainly will.
  As I mentioned, we're borrowing this money. We don't have it. We 
can't pull it from another account. There is nothing in the Social 
Security Trust Fund to take it from, so we're borrowing it, every penny 
of it. So just remember that number, $2,136. That's the raise we are 
giving ourselves with this legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pascrell), a very distinguished colleague on the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, our families are hanging by threads--
literally--as we debate this tonight. We know the economic wreckage 
that occurred between 2001 and 2008. Double unemployment, flat wages, 
and unbridled greed. We didn't do a very good job in correcting the 
problem in the second 2 years since we took over, no question about it. 
So these are perilous times.
  And I say to my friend from Arizona, both sides agree. We need 
extraordinary remedies in extraordinary times. Ordinarily, your side 
and our side would vote against this legislation because it's not paid 
for. But these are not ordinary times.
  You have said in the past ``no'' to tax relief that every American, 
even billionaires, could take advantage of, if an extra 2,800 estates 
don't get a massive tax break at a cost of $60 billion. We had an 
agreement on the estate tax. H.R. 4151 provided a $7 million exemption 
for families, affecting less than 0.02 percent of the country. That 
wasn't good enough. So when the negotiations over the next tax relief 
for America's middle class started, opponents saw the chance. They 
decided to take the middle class hostage, agree with the tax relief for 
all of America, only if 2,800 additional estates worth over $7 million 
were also provided billions more in tax relief.
  The truth of the matter is that I don't know any working class 
families that own estates worth over $7 million. Maybe you do in your 
district. No, you said to middle class tax relief, if the top bracket 
is not extended for the top 2 percent, so as to give $63.2 billion to 
315,000 families making over $1 million a year.
  I ask for your support of this amendment.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say, the gentleman from Arizona who spoke is a cosponsor 
of the legislation that would reduce the payroll tax that would give 
the so-called pay hike to Members of Congress. But let me just say, 
this payroll tax deduction applies to every working American, just as 
the rate reductions apply to every small business in America.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.
  When I ran for Congress, I made a pledge to the people of Kansas that 
I would not vote to raise their taxes. Today I will honor that pledge 
and vote for the tax bill before us because a ``no'' vote on this 
measure is a vote to raise taxes on every American taxpayer, every 
working parent, every small businessperson, every retiree, everyone. 
While the economy struggles to get back on its feet and unemployment 
remains at nearly 10 percent, allowing liberals to achieve their goal 
of raising taxes on American families and small businesses by nearly $4 
trillion is extremely bad economics.
  There are several aspects of this provision that I am adamantly 
against, including the massive deficit spending

[[Page 22426]]

required to extend unemployment benefits for 13 months that are not 
paid for and the onerous 35 percent death tax which will create 
hardship for many family farms across the entire Midwest. But failure 
to pass this legislation will be the equivalent of reaching into the 
bank account of every middle class family and pulling out an additional 
$5,000 next year. The families I represent in Kansas have had to 
tighten their belts and can't figure out why Washington continues to 
raid their bank accounts and refuses to tighten the belt of the Federal 
Government.
  It is truly sad that we have reached this point. The current majority 
could have addressed this issue at any time over the last 2 years, but 
they were so busy throwing money at solutions in need of problems that 
they didn't take time to build a budget, appropriate money, or address 
the issue of taxes, and now our backs are against the wall. While this 
is far from the ideal permanent extension we desire, a 2-year extension 
of all the current tax rates provided in this bill gives business some 
short-term certainty so they can go out and invest and hire new workers 
to grow the economy, and it provides Congress with a window to truly 
reform the tax code correctly without a mad scramble next year to undo 
the damage.
  When we reconvene in January, it is imperative that the next 
Congress, led by a new majority, reform our tax code and the death tax, 
rein in spending, and balance our budget. Placing punitive and 
oppressive taxes on hardworking Americans until Washington can agree on 
how best to accomplish all that is not the right way to go about this. 
Kansans expect more of their representatives in Washington. I urge my 
colleagues to cast a vote against tax increases and vote in favor of 
this bill.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished Member from the great State of Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this bill. The people 
in the State of Nevada are having a very tough time right now. We have 
the highest unemployment rate in the country and the highest mortgage 
foreclosure rate. The people in my district are particularly hard hit. 
One in five people that I represent have no jobs. The unemployment 
benefit extension in this piece of legislation is critical to the very 
survival of so many of the families that I represent.
  Everybody thinks of my district of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas as a 
very glitzy, shiny, wonderful town, and it is all of those things. But 
it's a working class town, and most people don't fully appreciate that. 
I represent construction workers and electricians and plumbers, Keno 
runners and cocktail waitresses and waiters and waitresses and valets 
and porters. All of these people are middle-income wage earners, and 
the middle-income tax extension is going to be a tremendous help to 
these families.
  The child care tax credit, so many of the people that I represent in 
Las Vegas are single mothers who are working. The bane of every single 
mother, and I know this, is good child care at an affordable price. The 
child care tax credit makes a difference whether these women can go to 
work or not.
  If you add in the alternative minimum tax, 33,000 of the people I 
represent will be slammed by that if we don't extend it.
  Marriage penalty tax, earned income tax, these are all very important 
to the middle-income wage earners that call Las Vegas and Nevada home.
  One of the most important things is the tax extenders that are 
included in this. Nevada is one of eight States that does not have a 
State income tax. If you're a State income tax State, you can deduct 
your State income tax from your Federal income tax. Nevada doesn't have 
one, so we, a few years ago, along with Brian Baird and a few others, 
were able to get an extension for sales tax and being able to deduct 
the sales tax.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Snyder). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Buchanan).
  Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, job creation is priority number one. 
Fourteen million Americans are striving every day to find a job. But 
what they fail to understand in Washington, to get a job, you've got to 
promote small business and free enterprise and entrepreneurship.
  Seventy percent of all the jobs created in America are created by 
small business. In my State of Florida, 99 percent of all businesses 
registered in Tallahassee, our capital, are either small businesses or 
medium-sized businesses mainly, a couple of hundred employees or less.
  To raise taxes in this environment, when many businesses right now 
are struggling, on the verge of trying to stay open--many of them can't 
get credit. If we raise the taxes on small businesses--and a lot of 
people don't realize, a lot of small businesses are subchapter S, LLCs, 
partnerships, sole proprietorships, so it's all pass-through income to 
them personally. But raising taxes on small business, they're saying it 
will affect 48 percent of the businesses if we don't pass this today.
  People ask, Why is it that business doesn't have any confidence right 
now or the confidence they should?
  They just don't believe what's happening in Washington. The 
administration and this Congress, in their mind, and they're right, is 
very antibusiness.
  So if we want to create jobs, the last thing we should be doing is 
raising taxes on small businesses. If we want to help families and we 
want to get people back to work, we need to pass this bill and do what 
we can. No tax increases come January 1.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of our committee.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is 
credited with saying that taxation is the price that we pay for a 
civilized society. And today we need the money.
  As a matter of fact, I was in a meeting 2 days ago at CEDA--that's 
the organization in Chicago and Cook County that services low-income 
families--trying to figure out how to help some of my constituents get 
their homes heated, because it might be snowing in Washington, but it's 
cold in Chicago.
  The telephone rang. Somebody said, Could you take a call from the 
President? I said, Which President? They said, Well, the President of 
the United States. And I said, Of course, I'll take it.
  I got on the phone and the President said to me, Danny, we need to 
pass this bill, and we need to pass it because even though it's cold, 
it's going to get colder; and there are going to be people who don't 
have any unemployment compensation benefits, and they can't pay their 
heating bill. There are going to be people who want to send their kids 
to college, and without the tax credits for college tuition, they won't 
be able to pay the tuition.
  And I said, Yeah, but, Mr. President, what about those people way up 
at the top that are getting all of this money?
  He said, Well, there might be an opportunity to reduce that.
  And I'm looking forward to voting on the Pomeroy amendment so that we 
can reduce some of that money that they're going to keep in their 
pockets, put it into the Treasury so that we can help the poor people 
in Chicago who are cold and don't have any heat.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
underlying tax bill and in opposition to the Pomeroy amendment that 
would increase the death tax.
  It is vital we do not stymie any economic recovery by failing to 
extend current tax rates. If we fail to enact this legislation, in just 
two short weeks, taxes will increase on every American.
  Our country needs real economic growth, which can't happen if 
Washington doesn't prevent these tax increases on farmers, ranchers, 
and small businesses. The sooner we can provide

[[Page 22427]]

certainty to American businesses, the sooner they can get our economy 
back on track and start hiring again.
  In particular, I would like to highlight the importance of providing 
certainty to farmers and ranchers in my district with a lower estate 
tax rate indexed for inflation. Despite the rhetoric from some, these 
folks aren't millionaires and billionaires. They want to simply leave 
their children and grandchildren the land they use to grow and raise 
food which feeds Americans and others around the world.
  In the last year, the value of Nebraska farmland has increased by 9 
percent, continuing a trend in which this land has doubled in value 
over the past decade. Without an estate tax exemption indexed for 
inflation, these farmers and ranchers will be forced to divide or sell 
their land, threatening the very existence of farming traditions which, 
in many cases, have been passed on for several generations.
  Grieving families should never be forced to deal with the IRS during 
a time of mourning. The prosperity earned by generations of Americans 
should not be forfeited just because one life has reached its end.
  I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Member from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, tonight I rise in support of middle class 
Americans. As families and the Nation continue to face economic 
challenges, we should extend tax cuts for Americans; yet the 
Republicans insisted that tax cuts apply to all incomes, even 
multimillionaires. And they are insisting, even tonight, on including 
an additional tax break for just 6,600 wealthy estates at the expense 
of tax relief for middle class Americans.
  The goals of this tax relief package should be to help middle-income 
Americans and promote economic growth. And because of the President and 
Democrats in Congress, most of this bill accomplishes just that.
  I commend the pro-growth business provisions, particularly the 
acceleration of business depreciation and extension of the research and 
development tax credits, which encourage innovation and investment. And 
I strongly support the extension of tax breaks for middle class 
families.
  Unfortunately, the Senate Republicans' last-minute estate tax 
provision does not meet the goal of either economic growth or tax 
relief for the middle class. It is simply a bonus to the wealthiest few 
that is not fair, not justifiable, and not fiscally responsible.
  Instead, the estate tax proposal that we offer as a substitute saves 
$25 billion. The House should vote for this proposal because it 
promotes economic growth, extends tax cuts for all Americans, and 
provides sensible estate tax relief for 99.75 percent of the Nation's 
small businesses, families, and farms.
  Vote for the tax cuts. Vote for fair estate tax policy. Vote for this 
legislation, as amended.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

                              {time}  2110

  Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, our number one priority in Congress should be enacting 
pro-growth policies that will put Americans back to work and get our 
economy back on track.
  Sadly, in the past 2 years, this body has done very little to 
accommodate the record high unemployment that this country has faced. 
And this tax bill before us today will give us an opportunity to 
finally change that, because in just 2 weeks our country's small 
businesses will see a huge job-killing tax increase imposed upon them.
  Now, we all know small businesses have been the backbone of our 
economy for a long period of years. They have served as our Nation's 
top and chief job creators, generating nearly 7 out of every 10 new 
jobs created. But according to the National Federation of Independent 
Business, small business optimism is still at a recessionary level, and 
only a net 4 percent of firms are even planning to create new jobs. 
Stopping these tax increases on January 1 will add jobs to the economy.
  On the other hand, imposing these job-killing tax increases on our 
small businesses is only going to further delay an economic recovery 
that has been denied to the American people. So we must act now to 
prevent this from happening.
  This bill also has a significant impact on our Nation's families. 
Voting against this bill will lead to a nearly $100 tax increase on 
every hardworking American family every single week. These are families 
that are already struggling to make ends meet in tough economic times, 
and increasing taxes on them is only going to make matters worse.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is not perfect. Would I like to see these tax 
rates made permanent? Yes. Would I like to see the spending provisions 
and portions paid for? Yes. But well over 80 percent of this bill is 
tax relief. It prevents income tax rates from increasing; it prevents 
the alternative tax from hitting more middle-income families; it 
preserves the child tax credit; and it prevents the marriage penalty 
from being put in place.
  Unless we act, on January 1 we will see job-killing taxes. But 
tonight, and today, we will have an opportunity to support American 
families and the small businesses that employ them.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. I ask unanimous consent to control the time until the 
gentleman from Michigan returns.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Driehaus). The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Holt from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. I rise in opposition.
  I am most concerned that this bill will undermine the very idea of 
Social Security by taking money out of Social Security and promising to 
make it whole with general revenues.
  When FDR and others created Social Security in 1935, it was a 
political master stroke. Social Security was created as an insurance 
program and has remained intact for 75 years because Americans have a 
real sense of ownership for the program. FDR said Social Security 
should not use general tax revenues.
  This bill puts Social Security on the table with tax breaks for the 
top 2 percent, with estate tax, alternative minimum tax, accelerated 
depreciation, making it essentially another bargaining chip. If we 
allow Social Security to become another bargaining chip for dealing 
politicians, then it will not be long for this world.
  In good economic times and bad, this sense of ownership that 
Americans will get their due from Social Security has allowed it to 
survive despite determined efforts by determined enemies.
  We can find better ways to boost our economy that do not add billions 
of dollars of debt to pay for tax cuts for the privileged few and do 
not jeopardize Social Security.
  It is with regret that I rise in opposition to this legislation. Less 
than two weeks ago, I joined a majority of this House in passing middle 
class tax relief that balanced the needs of working families with our 
Nation's need to get its fiscal house in order. Unfortunately the 
Senate failed to pass this bill.
  The legislation we are considering today is deeply flawed. We should 
try to put money in the pockets of working families, and I do not fault 
President Obama and many of my colleagues who want to get something 
done on behalf of the millions of Americans who need help. But, this is 
the wrong way to do it.
  Yet, at a time when income inequality in the United States has risen 
to its highest level in decades, the bill under consideration would 
shift the burden of funding the Federal government further onto middle-
class and working-class families. The bill would give away tax breaks 
to the wealthiest two percent of households at a cost of more than $120 
billion charged to the national debt.
  I am most concerned, however, that the bill undermines the very idea 
of Social Security. Social Security has been a pillar of our society 
for generations. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Frances Perkins, and 
others created Social Security in 1935, it was a political 
masterstroke. Social Security was created as an insurance program and 
has remained intact for 75 years because Americans have a real sense of 
ownership for the program.
  In good economic times and in bad, regardless of which political 
party is in power, this sense of ownership--that Americans will get

[[Page 22428]]

out that which they put into the Social Security--has allowed it to 
survive despite the efforts of determined enemies.
  A provision in the bill would reduce an employee's contribution to 
Social Security from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent of salary. This could 
have a beneficial stimulative economic effect. The $112 billion cost to 
the Social Security trust fund of this payroll tax holiday is supposed 
to be replaced with money from the general treasury fund. But that is 
just the problem. In Social Security's history such a commingling of 
payroll taxes and money from the Treasury at this scale is 
unprecedented.
  This is not just about the financial health of Social Security, 
rather it is about Social Security's rationale that has worked well for 
generations. This bill places Social Security on the table with tax 
breaks for business expenses and tax breaks for the top two percent of 
Americans--essentially making it just another bargaining chip. If we 
allow Social Security to become a bargaining chip for dealing 
politicians, then it will not be long for this world. As much as we 
need economic stimulus now, we will need Social security for decades to 
come. Rather than taking money from Social Security, I would support a 
tax credit--similar to President Obama's Making Work Pay tax credit--
that would give working families a sizeable tax break with money from 
general revenues.
  In a message to Congress on January 17, 1935, FDR insisted that 
Social Security should be self sustaining and that funds for the 
payment of insurance benefits should not come from the process of 
general taxation. FDR's message is as correct today as it was 75 years 
ago.
  To be sure, the legislation before us today contains many good 
provisions that I would support on their own. The bill contains a one 
year extension of emergency unemployment benefits. According to the 
Labor Department, there are five job-seekers for every job opening in 
the U.S. Extending unemployment is the right thing to do morally and 
for the economy. The legislation would extend middle class tax relief 
for two years along with many family-friendly tax breaks such as the 
Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, Alternative Minimum Tax 
relief, and marriage penalty relief. The bill also would extend 
expanded transportation benefits for commuters and tax credits like the 
research and development tax credit to help businesses grow and create 
jobs.
  Congress needs to provide unemployment insurance for Americans 
searching for work, extend tax relief for working families, and find 
solutions to our budget crisis. Yet these must not come at the expense 
of Social Security. It is too important to lose.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).
  Mr. LEE of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am amazed how my friends across 
the aisle now, all of a sudden, have found religion when it comes to 
fiscal issues.
  But where were they when we had the $800 billion stimulus? Where were 
they with the $1.2 trillion health care bill that they all promoted? 
Where were they when the Speaker chose not to enact a budget resolution 
this year, the first time in 36 years? And now they're preaching fiscal 
responsibility when we are out promoting a bill that is not cutting 
taxes; it is helping to ensure that every American citizen who pays 
taxes won't be seeing an increase this year. It is truly, truly 
amazing.
  Simply put, this bill before us today will allow taxpayers to keep 
more of what they earn and will allow small businesses, the engines of 
our economy, to invest in themselves and invest in jobs. This bill will 
provide much-needed certainty that businesses have been screaming for. 
They are looking to invest in themselves and truly what they want to do 
is hire more workers, but: tell us what the rules are going to be.
  Currently, today, businesses are sitting on close to $2 trillion in 
cash and liquid assets awaiting to know what the rules are going to be. 
This bill is not perfect, but it will help set the stage for businesses 
to get some confidence and certainty in this economy and go out and 
start investing in U.S. workers. Congress is long overdue in providing 
this certainty to small businesses, and it is one of the best ways that 
we can start turning around this economy.
  I ran a manufacturing business before coming to Congress. I know what 
it feels like to look at a production line and not know if you will be 
able to operate it the next month because Washington is dragging its 
feet.
  By acting now, we can also ensure that small businesses and family 
farms aren't hit with a 55 percent death tax. We reaffirm our 
commitment to providing incentives for manufacturers to invest in 
research and development. And we help every American family by 
extending current tax rates, the child tax credit, and the marriage 
penalty relief.
  Is this bill perfect? No. Few things are that come out of Washington. 
But the bottom line is that this bill will allow families to keep more 
of what they earn and help small businesses grow and invest in 
themselves.
  This is a proven recipe for job creation. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bipartisan legislation so we can protect taxpayers and get 
on to the tough work of cutting spending next year.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This bill is a bad deal for the middle class. If you work hard and 
play by the rules, you should be rewarded; however, today's bill 
ignores this. It lines the pockets of the mega-rich at the expense of 
everyone else.
  Our top priority right now should be job creation. We tried the tax 
cuts proposed today for the last decade under the illusion that they 
would create jobs. And so I ask, Where are the jobs? Where are the 
jobs? This recession wasn't an act of nature; it was man-made. Shame on 
us if we do the same thing again and expect different results.
  I will continue to fight to strengthen the middle class, and I will 
continue to fight to extend unemployment benefits for the millions who 
are out of work through no fault of their own. I have voted in favor of 
both in recent weeks. However, we should not support a giveaway to 
millionaires and billionaires at the expense of future generations.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill needs more jobs and less debt.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things that have been talked 
about here that I think need to be addressed. One that I want to 
address point blank is this concept, this myth, that somehow preventing 
a tax increase adds money to the deficit.
  Only in Washington would some liberal politician think that allowing 
somebody to keep money in their pockets and not have a tax increase 
somehow adds to the deficit.
  In fact, if you really want to see growth in this country, if you 
really want to see more money coming into the Federal Government, 
something that's always been proven is having lower tax rates coupled 
with controlled spending. And that's the problem, that we don't have 
those issues being addressed here today. Hopefully, we will address 
that, and, I know in the new Republican Congress, we will address that 
we should make these tax rates permanent, including a complete repeal 
of the death tax, and you'll see some real growth in this country.
  But there is a moral imperative here, too. There's been this talk 
about class warfare on this House floor tonight, and a lot of people 
running around talking about certain people that should have a tax 
increase. And that is a moral imperative because who is the greedy one 
here. Is it the single mother who is struggling to make ends meet right 
now? Or is it the liberal Washington politician who is trying to saddle 
her with another 50 percent increase in her tax rate if this bill 
doesn't pass? Who is the greedy one? Is it the small business owner who 
is struggling in tough economic times but maybe wants to create another 
20 jobs in their small business? Or is it the liberal Washington 
politician that is going to try to saddle them with thousands of 
dollars in new taxes that will make it impossible for them to create 
jobs? That's the moral imperative.
  It's time for the liberal Washington politicians to get their hands 
out of the pockets of the taxpayers and hardworking Americans in this 
country so we can get some real job growth. I am

[[Page 22429]]

glad the gentleman from Michigan, when he becomes the chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee next year, wants to address the long-term 
problems. But in the short term, we need to prevent any American from 
having their taxes raised, and that's what this debate is all about.

                              {time}  2120

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Arizona who 
spoke earlier. There is another important number in this bill, and that 
number is $119 billion--$119 billion. You might ask why that number is 
important. That is the amount of money that this bill will rob from the 
Social Security trust fund if it is implemented, at a time when more 
and more of our seniors rely on Social Security as their sole source of 
income, at a time when more and more of our seniors are vulnerable and 
are on fixed income and can't go out and get a second job, at a time 
when more American workers are desperately needing Social Security 
benefits because their defined benefit pensions have gone away, any 
kind of pensions have gone away.
  In spite of the remarks of the gentleman from Louisiana who just 
spoke, it is easy to forget that on most of these issues, Democrats and 
Republicans agreed. We agreed that 98 percent of Americans needed a tax 
break continued. We are fighting about that 2 percent. That is where 
the argument is. We are arguing about people who have $10 million in an 
estate. In a windfall to them, should they pay taxes?
  It is interesting that in this bill, those people have been 
protected, but the folks who are on Social Security and the solvency of 
the Social Security trust fund is fair game. Vote ``no'' on this 
measure.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, there's not much time when there's 3 hours 
and most of that is dedicated to pushing this bill. But the fact is, 
following up on Social Security tax, it's reduced by 2 percent, from 
6.2 percent, for 2 years, which dramatically does affect the solvency 
of Social Security.
  When I proposed the payroll tax holiday, I was going to pay for 
that--it's in the bill--pay for it with TARP. We were going to take 
that money from the Wall Street bailout and give it to the people that 
actually earned it. That would have worked. This isn't paid for.
  We were elected into the majority to stop the deficit spending. We do 
need to extend the current tax rates so that we can give some stability 
to this economy. But two years, analysts say, is not going to push 
businessmen to run out and fix the economy.
  This is a mistake. We can do much better for the economy. This is no 
time to sell out just to get some extensions. We can do better.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, in 2006, Warren Buffett wrote, 
``There's class warfare, but it's my class, the rich, that's making 
war, and we're winning.'' Today, in this bill, Mr. Buffett's sentiment 
rings as startlingly true today as it did 4 years ago.
  I rise in strong opposition to this bill that will benefit only the 
wealthiest Americans at the expense of putting billions of dollars in 
debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren.
  Over the last 35 years, our tax policies have concentrated a third of 
this Nation's wealth in 1 percent of our population, leaving 80 percent 
of us with 16 percent of our Nation's wealth, the rest. The proposal on 
the floor today only exacerbates that trend.
  Mr. Chairman, we have staked our reputation and the legacy of this 
111th Congress on fighting for working families. I just don't 
understand how we can saddle those same families with unsustainable tax 
cuts for the wealthy, an estate tax that benefits 6,600 families, and a 
payroll tax that without question raids Social Security.
  If this is war, then let's put away this white flag. I refuse to 
surrender to those who want to benefit the two-percenters at the 
expense of the rest of us. To do that would surrender the hopes, the 
dreams, the retirements, and the paychecks of families all across this 
country.
  It is time to put away the white flag and fight for working families.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time 
remaining on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas controls 35 minutes; the 
gentleman from Michigan controls 52\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to a distinguished 
Member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
strong opposition to this reckless legislation. There is no question 
that I strongly support some of the items in this bill. Unemployed 
Americans desperately need their benefits extended, and I proudly have 
voted to do so every time I have had the chance. This bill also 
contains tax cuts for hard-working American families, tax cuts I voted 
for 2 weeks ago on this very floor.
  But this bill holds these good policies hostage to a giant handout to 
those who need help the least. It is political bullying at its very 
worst, an affront to working American families waged by Republicans 
whose irresponsible decisions got us into this mess in the first place.
  This bill contains a radical change to the inheritance tax that will 
concentrate wealth and power in even fewer hands than it is now. In a 
country that prides itself on being a meritocracy, not an aristocracy, 
such a giveaway is irrational. It completely neuters our ability to 
invest in people and infrastructure.
  This bill contains tax breaks for those who will make more than 
$250,000 a year, breaks that our country can ill-afford when teachers 
are being laid off and libraries are being closed, when those who have 
been unemployed for the longest are losing their safety net, and young 
men and women are still being asked to serve and die in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  The payroll tax cut is another bad idea. Not only does it make Social 
Security less secure, many public servants, including California 
teachers, won't see any tax cut at all.
  Overall, this bill adds nearly $1 trillion to the deficit, while 
doing very, very little to create jobs, spur economic growth, or invest 
in America's future.
  Because I am committed to creating jobs, making retirement secure, 
and investing in this country, I cannot in good conscience support this 
bill. Compromise is one thing, surrender is another, and I will not 
surrender in my fight to ensure that America remains the land of 
opportunity for all.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Altmire).
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill because it 
strikes the right balance between support for the unemployed and those 
who continue to suffer in the economic downturn, the continuation of 
pro-American and pro-family economic policies, and providing the much 
needed certainty for American job creators to make the long-term 
strategic decisions necessary to help grow our economy.
  Now is not the time to raise taxes for anyone in America. One of the 
key factors that has stalled our economic recovery is the uncertainty 
about the regulatory environment and tax rates that small businesses 
will face in the coming years. With passage of this legislation, we can 
provide the certainty these businesses have sought, enabling them to 
finally be able to make the long-term strategic and hiring decisions 
that they were reluctant to do before they knew what the playing field 
would look like.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation 
compromise that will help kick-start our economy.

[[Page 22430]]


  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the very 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Let me first correct the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Gohmert, when he says that this bill would make the Social Security 
trust fund less solvent. Every penny that the Social Security trust 
fund doesn't receive from payroll taxes it gets from the general fund.
  But let me especially correct him when he says, oh, the other way to 
pay for this is by canceling the TARP bill. We canceled the TARP bill 
six months, seven months ago. He voted against the bill, but that bill 
passed, was enacted, and returned $225 billion to the Treasury. Having 
done that once, we can't make money by just doing it again.
  The Republican Senators held this country hostage, they held the 
middle class tax cuts hostage, they held the American economy hostage. 
President Obama agreed to pay the ransom. Now the question before this 
House is, do we block that ransom payment?

                              {time}  2130

  The problem is that if we do not make the ransom payment this month, 
President Obama will be willing to pay just a little bit more next 
month. So today we will do what we have to do.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. For many Americans, tonight their urgent priority is to 
find a job. It should be our urgent priority to create those jobs for 
those Americans. I support this imperfect bill because I believe it 
will help create those jobs. I think a tax cut of $1,000 a year for a 
family making $50,000 will help spur spending. I think that not raising 
taxes on people who sell real estate or teach school or drive a school 
bus is the right thing to do.
  I think that some degree of tax certainty for business people and 
investors over the next 2 years will help to spur investment. And I 
know that every penny that people receive in an unemployment check will 
be spent as soon as possible--because people have to. And that helps 
spur the economy as well. And I also hope that the bipartisan agreement 
tonight to do the easy thing, which is reduce people's taxes, will be 
followed by a bipartisan agreement to do the hard thing--and that's 
reduce spending in a way that is sensible, equitable, fair, and 
necessary. This is not a perfect agreement, but it's a necessary one.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) who has been a leader on lowering taxes, 
fighting the expansion of government, and expanding liberty.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, as we contemplate the tax agreement before us, I urge 
my colleagues to put politics aside and focus on the facts. We are 
crawling out of the worst economic downturn in generations. Working 
families and businesses remain gripped by economic uncertainty, and to 
this day Washington has only made the problem worse. If we want to cut 
into the 9.8 percent unemployment rate, Mr. Chairman, we have to 
instill confidence in the economy and begin to foster an environment 
for job creation. Today, we take our first step toward achieving that 
goal.
  This tax deal is not perfect. And nearly all of us, myself included, 
disagree with certain elements of this bill. But let us not forget what 
we're fighting for. The reality is, Mr. Chairman, that on January 1, 
one of two things is going to happen to all taxpayers and most small 
businesses: Their tax rates are either going to go up, or they'll stay 
the same. The choice is to act now or impose the onset of a $3.8 
trillion tax increase that will crush the fragile recovery and cost 
tens of thousands of jobs nationally. This is an indisputable fact--and 
an unacceptable result.
  Mr. Chairman, this tax increase would punish families and small 
businesses that cannot afford to pay it. Middle class families will see 
their taxes go up by $100 per week. Let me be clear. There's only one 
path out of this economic crisis--and it's economic growth. But by 
transferring vast sums of cash out of the private sector and into 
Washington, Congress would be taking a club to investment, 
entrepreneurship, and innovation--the very building blocks of what we 
need to foster economic growth and job creation. About 84 percent of 
this package, Mr. Chairman, is either tax relief or extension of 
current tax rates. So, while not perfect, this is the kind of action 
that most Americans voted for last November.
  In addition to preserving all marginal tax rates, it would kill the 
Making Work Pay credit and replace it with a payroll tax credit for all 
workers. It would deal with the alternative minimum tax that would 
begin to hit individuals making well below $100,000, and would head off 
a punishing increase in the death tax.
  Mr. Chairman, we could try to hold out and pass a different tax bill. 
But there's no reason to believe that the Senate will pass it or the 
President would sign it if this fight spills into next year. Meanwhile, 
Mr. Chairman, the uncertainty associated with a prolonged debate would 
cause grave economic harm and possibly send us back into a double-dip 
recession.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass this current 
legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we're voting on a tax package that gives away $139 
billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans over the 
next 2 years in exchange for $57 billion in unemployment compensation 
benefits for the next 13 months. The math just doesn't add up.
  Many Members are opposed to this bill because it's bad economic 
policy. But it's also morally wrong. Last Friday, the Congressional 
Black Caucus, led by Congressman Bobby Scott, a member of the Budget 
Committee, proposed a fair deal by eliminating the tax giveaway to the 
richest in our country and by extending the middle-income tax cuts, 
unemployment insurance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Build 
America Bonds, affordable housing provisions, and the earned income and 
child care tax credit. Our proposal would also protect Social Security 
by offering a tax rebate instead of a payroll tax holiday to ensure 
that Social Security is not cut in the future, and it would create the 
same amount of jobs at half the cost.
  We should let the Bush tax break for the rich expire. Period. 
Extending them for another 2 years digs us deeper into this deficit 
hole--and we know who will end up paying for it. It won't be the rich. 
It will be the poor, low-income communities, and communities of color, 
who lack well-paid lobbyists to look out for their interests here on 
Capitol Hill. I am reminded also of what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 
called to our attention: ``A bad check such as the one being written 
today will come back marked `insufficient funds.'''
  Instead of stuffing the stockings of the super rich, we need to 
stimulate direct job creation and economic recovery efforts. And we 
should not leave the chronically unemployed, those who have exhausted 
their 99 weeks of unemployment compensation, out of this deal. They 
should not be left out in the cold due to insufficient funds.
  We should not allow the other side of the aisle to shove these tax 
breaks for the super rich down our throats in exchange for middle-
income tax breaks. As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said yesterday 
in opposition to this bill, ``Working families must not continue to 
bear the cost of unnecessary giveaways to the wealthiest,'' due to 
insufficient funds.

  Congressional Black Caucus Alternative to the President's Compromise

       Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are 
     overwhelmingly opposed to the President's compromise with 
     Republicans on

[[Page 22431]]

     extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts for two years. While 
     we are an ideologically diverse Caucus, the CBC has reached a 
     consensus that we cannot support extending the Bush-era tax 
     cuts for the wealthiest Americans; we can support moving 
     forward on the following:
       A 13-month extension of Emergency Unemployment Insurance 
     Benefits plus additional assistance for the chronically 
     unemployed--those Americans who have been unable to find work 
     for more than 99 weeks.
       A payroll tax holiday or equivalent payment, such as a tax 
     rebate check, with guarantees that Social Security will not 
     be deprived of revenue.
       Targeted tax relief through a 2-year extension of the Bush-
     era tax cuts for hardworking middle- and low-income families 
     and extending the enhanced provisions included in the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the Earned Income 
     Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and the American 
     Opportunity Tax Credit.
       The CBC proposal will cost less than half of the 
     President's proposed trillion dollar compromise.
       Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are keenly aware 
     of the day-to-day struggles of hardworking American families 
     and the unemployed. In the long-run, we believe permanently 
     extending the Bush-era tax cuts will add trillions of dollars 
     to our national debt thus jeopardizing the fiscal solvency of 
     the United States Government.
       This nation has difficult decisions to make in the years 
     ahead and the CBC believes that vital programs, such as 
     public education funding, financial aid for students to go to 
     college, child nutrition programs, Veterans benefits, Social 
     Security and Medicare, will all be put at risk if we 
     permanently extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts. We believe 
     the benefits of these vital programs to all Americans, 
     especially to middle- and low-income Americans, far outweigh 
     any tax cut.
       It will take strong political will to make the tough 
     choices necessary to bring our fiscal house in order. One 
     such choice the Caucus made was to consider and reject 
     support for the proposed reduction in the estate tax, which 
     has a two year price tag of $60 billion and only benefits the 
     wealthiest 2% of American families. Rejecting that choice is 
     particularly timely in light of the recent defeat of a $250 
     payment to struggling Social Security recipients who are 
     going another year without a Cost-of-Living-Adjustment. As we 
     move ahead on ways to accelerate our economic recovery and 
     balance our budget, the CBC stands ready to assist the 
     President in a meaningful and responsible way.

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. I do rise in support of this legislation. Obviously, it's 
not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. And we have heard all the 
policy and political arguments against this bill. Let me just be very 
clear. It's really time to stop this $3.8 trillion tax increase that 
awaits the American people. It's time to take ``yes'' for an answer. 
It's really time to get on board. If this bill fails, taxes go up on 
American savings, investments, income, estates, small businesses. We 
know what is coming. We know what is awaiting the American people.
  As it relates to the estate tax, just think about that one moment. 
After January 1, we know people will die. And if this law is not 
enacted, this bill is not enacted, we know what will happen. Lifetimes 
of hard work, sacrifice, and thrift will be punished, and this Federal 
Government will confiscate money from people at 55 percent who have 
less than $5 million in assets. It's terribly unfair to family farms 
and family businesses.
  Let's be clear. If you're voting ``no,'' you're voting to raise 
taxes. Again, if you're voting ``no,'' you're voting to raise taxes by 
$3.8 trillion. If you're voting ``yes,'' you're voting to stop a $3.8 
trillion tax increase. This is the vote that counts. The political 
games are over. No more posturing. The train is pulling out of the 
station. It's time to get on board. Vote ``yes.'' Stop the tax 
increase.

                              {time}  2140

  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Tonight, by extending the Bush-era tax cuts, the greedy will prevail, 
and the needy will fail to receive desperately needed social services 
going forward. Even the so-called middle class Bush-era tax cuts will 
deliver six times the benefit to the wealthy than to ordinary 
hardworking families.
  How many times do we have to hear Republicans boldly declare, We will 
starve the beast and deny the least social welfare?
  Frankly, this $1 trillion tax cutting and Social Security gutting 
feeds right into the 75-year Republican sentiment to eliminate 
entitlements: $1 trillion debt and goodbye Social Security net. Lure 
them with short-term gain and usher in long-term pain.
  Colleagues, beware. Tonight begins the undermining of Social Security 
and Medicare.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
  Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying bill that ensures 
that taxes will rise on no one in America on New Year's Day, 15 days 
from now. What a terrible New Year's present that would be to the 
American people.
  This bill creates greater certainty in the business community so that 
businesses across America can create the jobs this country so 
desperately needs, especially given our current 9.8 unemployment rate. 
New jobs will lower our annual deficits. Almost 85 percent of this bill 
provides tax relief, including preventing the job-killing tax hikes; 
enacting the AMT patch--extremely important to the district I serve and 
to New Jersey as a whole; and reducing the Federal estate tax from the 
scheduled 55 percent rate on January 1 down to 35 percent--also 
extremely important to New Jersey where residential real estate is so 
expensive.
  This bill has been endorsed by leading conservatives, including our 
new reform Governor in New Jersey, Chris Christie. It will give us time 
in the new Congress to enact fundamental reform, including deficit 
reduction, a permanent extension of existing tax rates, and the 
elimination of the Federal estate tax.
  Mr. LEVIN. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each 
side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan controls 46\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Texas controls 28\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my real privilege to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in opposition to the bill because its passage will make it 
impossible to ever balance the Federal budget.
  This compromise will add about $900 billion to the national debt. 
That's more than TARP. That's more than the stimulus package. The 2-
year cost of the bill is about the same as the 10-year cost of the 
health care reform bill. At least we paid for that.
  We need to make tough, unpopular choices to balance the budget. 
Obviously, letting tax cuts expire would be unpopular. But when we ever 
decide to get serious about the deficit, we will find that the 
alternatives are even more unpopular because, after today's vote, the 
choices will necessarily include cuts in Social Security, Medicare, 
education, and other popular programs.
  If we don't have the political will to end the disastrous Bush-era 
tax cuts now, we certainly won't have that political will during the 
middle of a Presidential election. The job creation in this bill is 
paltry--$400,000 a job. We can do better than that.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to make the tough 
choice and defeat this bill.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to 
a very active member of our committee, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  For more than 200 years, America has worked hard to earn a reputation 
around the world that, when the going gets tough, America gets going.
  We could lead in tough times. We could withstand adversity. We were 
prepared to sacrifice. Then, as our country matured, we were prepared, 
not only to do all those tough things, but to do them the right way, 
and we

[[Page 22432]]

were able to somehow figure out where the sweet spot was for prosperity 
in America--building the middle class: the GI Bill for our troops, 
Social Security and Medicare for our seniors, the best universities for 
our kids. As we invested in the middle class, our prosperity bloomed.
  Fast-forward to the Bush recession and to the tough times we find 
ourselves in today. Americans are hanging tough, fighting to hold onto 
their jobs and their homes. But is everyone in America sharing in the 
sacrifice? This proposal gives millionaires $139,000 in tax breaks each 
year. On top of that, it gives the 6,600 wealthiest Americans a tax 
break equal to $23 billion.
  Perhaps the most sinister provision in this proposal is the more than 
$100 billion that it diverts from the Social Security trust fund and 
then borrows money from places like China to replace those dollars.
  Everyone in America is ready to sacrifice. Everyone in America should 
be ready to sacrifice. This bill doesn't ask all Americans to 
sacrifice. The day should come, as the days have come, when all of us 
are prepared to sacrifice. This is not the bill. This is not the time 
to change America's history. Let us all work together, to pull 
together, to let everyone in the world know that we are prepared to 
sacrifice. America's wealthy are ready to sacrifice as all Americans 
who are trying to hold onto their jobs and their homes are prepared to 
sacrifice.
  Let's do this together. We have that reputation. We know how to do 
it. Adversity doesn't concern us. We will do it the right way. Let us 
pull together. We can do much better than this bill. It is our chance 
to prove it to America.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to another active, distinguished 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me state that there is much in this bill that 
concerns me.
  Specifically at a time when our budget deficits and national debt 
continue to hold back our economic growth, we should not be passing 
bonus tax breaks for the wealthiest few in this country and handing the 
bill to our children and our grandchildren. I also strongly prefer the 
House-passed language that provides estate tax relief in a responsible 
manner. Additionally, I worry that the payroll tax provisions, while 
good for working families in the short run, could undermine the 
finances of Social Security over the long run.
  But, at a time when so many people face uncertainty in a fragile 
economy, doing nothing is not a very good option.
  For far too long in this town, shortsighted partisanship has 
prevailed against the long-term best interests of our country. We need 
more bipartisanship in Washington, D.C., to tackle our Nation's most 
pressing problems.
  I commend the President for getting us beyond the partisan stalemate 
and for laying the groundwork for economic progress for the American 
people.
  There are many provisions in this bill that are going to help working 
families. I strongly support the middle class tax cuts, or at least to 
keep them going, in this bill. Child tax credits, marriage penalty 
relief, and education incentives will help middle class families make 
ends meet and invest for a brighter, more secure economic future.
  Most urgently, Congress needs to pass the extension of unemployment 
benefits contained in this legislation. In my home State of North 
Carolina, thousands of workers have lost their jobs in the recession 
caused by the misguided policies of the previous administration. I have 
met with many, many of these people and have looked them in the eyes as 
they have told me their stories. These are good people who have worked 
hard and who have played by the rules. They are depending on these 
unemployment benefits to get them through these tough times until the 
economy picks back up and creates good jobs. We are here the week 
before Christmas, and the last thing we should do is cut off their 
lifeline.
  I will vote to pass this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
doing so.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
  What we are about to do here today is extraordinary, and the impact 
will be felt by our kids and grandkids for the next 30 years. With one 
vote, we are going to increase the already projected record deficit for 
this year of $1.3 trillion to $1.7 trillion.

                              {time}  2150

  Every penny of income forgone here tonight will be borrowed, much of 
it from China and some of it from our Social Security trust fund, for 
the first time in our history. For what? For continuing the failed 
economic policies of the last 9 years? We've got these tax cuts in 
place today. How many jobs are they creating? But you tell me we can't 
afford to invest, we can't rebuild our Nation's crumbling 
infrastructure, we don't have the money to do that. We know we can 
create real jobs there. We can increase the productivity of our Nation. 
We can compete better worldwide if we invest in our infrastructure and 
our education system and our people.
  But no, we're going to have debt-financed, consumption-driven 
recovery as people buy goods made in China and, of course, the $112 
billion taken out of Social Security. And the Republicans have made it 
painfully clear tonight that the temporary cut in Social Security 
income is not temporary. They've said it time and time and time again. 
There is no such thing as a temporary tax cut.
  I hope the White House is listening. They're about to spring the 
trap, and next year, they will say, Mr. President, you're going to 
raise taxes on every working American by making Social Security whole. 
You can't do that. Oh, and by the way, we're tired of subsidizing that 
program with money we're borrowing.
  That is a horrible, horrible step for this Congress to take.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Yielding myself 30 seconds, I would point out, 
our Democrat friends have run the first and second highest deficits in 
American history the last 2 years. They have raised taxes this session 
$625 billion, and guess how much went to reduce the deficit? Not one 
dime. In fact, all that money was sent in twice. No one seriously 
believes Democrats will use tax increases to lower the debt, but to 
expand and grow this government.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise with deep concerns over the 
temporary payroll tax cut included in the package before us tonight, 
not because we shouldn't provide relief to the middle class. We must, 
tonight. Cutting Social Security contributions could have lasting 
consequences, however, for our Nation's most successful domestic 
program.
  In a year, in this very Chamber, many of our colleagues across the 
aisle will likely work to make this tax holiday permanent, just as they 
are tonight for the Bush tax cuts. Jeopardizing Social Security's 
independent revenue stream will open retirement benefits to budgetary 
attacks for the first time and pave the way for attempts to privatize 
Social Security.
  We could give middle class Americans tax relief without threatening 
Social Security in this way. The unfortunate truth is we will not 
accomplish that here tonight, even as we do provide struggling working 
families and jobless Americans with a lifeline that they desperately 
need.
  But we must commit ourselves tonight to the fight that lies ahead. We 
must be ready to protect Social Security and defend our seniors and 
working Americans from the attacks that are sure to come.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 22433]]


  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my real pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Etched on the stones in the FDR Memorial are his words 
that are applicable tonight. He said: The test of our progress is not 
whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is 
whether we provide enough for those who have little. President 
Roosevelt.
  On December 2, the Democrats in this House honored those words. We 
passed a middle class tax cut, and we passed unemployment insurance, 
and we provided for those who have little. Tonight, because of the 
ransom that's been demanded by our Republican colleagues, we're left 
with a different option. We're left with the option of providing 
abundance to those who already have much, $130 billion, every dollar 
borrowed probably from China. Is that fiscally responsible? I think 
not.
  And furthermore, President Roosevelt, we are, in this bill, about to 
destroy your greatest heritage, the Social Security system. The 
Republicans are opening the door to the destruction of the Social 
Security system and thereby carrying out their 74-year task.
  It cannot happen. We provided an alternative and we must not let that 
happen. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the active Member 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR. Our country is going bankrupt. On May 9, 2001, Mr. Camp, 
our Nation was $5.643 trillion in debt with a 4.3 unemployment rate. 
Guys like you came to the floor and said let's pass the Bush tax cuts. 
They did. I didn't vote for it. Eight years later when the President 
left office, our debt had increased by $4,983,609,000,000, and the 
unemployment rate had gone up to 7.7 percent.
  The argument that somehow these tax cuts are going to magically put 
people to work is bunk. Since the Bush tax cuts, we are now 
$8,204,749,000,000 deeper in debt, and the unemployment rate is a 
shocking 9.8 percent. How much is enough? How much debt is enough? How 
many more bills are we going to stick on my kids and my grandkids so 
that you and others can get reelected?
  It is time to draw the line, Mr. Camp. I do believe in a balanced 
budget, and I would beg my colleagues, I would beg my colleagues, to 
defeat this measure.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Schiff). Members should direct their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this so-called tax 
compromise because it represents a windfall for the wealthy, a windfall 
that will result in one thing and one thing only: insufficient funds 
for all other social programs.
  By holding assistance for the unemployed hostage and giving tax 
breaks to the billionaires, tax breaks actually that create absolutely 
no jobs, we will create a big hole, a big hole in all of the support 
that we need for our children, for women, for veterans, for our 
education and health programs, and that only names a few, Mr. Chairman. 
Rather than tax breaks for the wealthy, we need policies that create 
jobs, jobs that will help our working families.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this flawed tax package 
because it will yield only one thing, and that is insufficient funds 
for any of the social programs we need in our country.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask that we send this bill 
back to the drawing board, work with the President, so that we can 
really help the unemployed, the 99ers, and not just grow the deficit. 
Where are the good Samaritans?
  We have voted over and over for tax cuts. I believe in them. The 
House voted for tax cuts 2 weeks ago, but this tax bill is a budget 
buster and just growing the deficit, the same deficit that we're going 
to be called upon to do something about.
  I want America to thrive. So they cannot be giving tax cuts to 
billionaires who do not want them. We cannot cut into the Social 
Security, costing us $120 billion and impacting firefighters, teachers, 
and police who do not get a benefit from the payroll tax holiday. I 
want middle class tax cuts, but I want the Republicans to stop holding 
us hostage for hardworking Americans to get a dime from this country. 
They work hard.
  I offered an amendment to ensure that the corporations that are 
getting the tax cuts really do save a job or hire the people who are 
unemployed. With billions being spent and trillions in the deficit, it 
is time now to work for middle class Americans.
  Mr. Chair, I have deep reservations with portions of this bill, 
especially as it relates to the estate tax and tax cuts for the 
wealthiest 2% of Americans. Nevertheless, I do support portions of H.R. 
4853, to extend vital tax cuts for America's middle and working class 
and extending unemployment insurance benefits that will otherwise 
expire at the end of this month. I have consistently supported and 
voted for middle class tax cuts, as I did two weeks ago when I voted 
for the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010, and the extension of 
unemployment benefits.
  I am deeply saddened that the fate of unemployed, low and middle 
income Americans has been held hostage by the insistence by Republicans 
that this legislation include a giveaway to the wealthiest 2% of 
Americans that is going to irresponsibly expand the already large 
deficit. I have spoken to and heard from many fine, patriotic, 
hardworking middle income Americans from Houston, from the great State 
of Texas, and all across the nation. Middle class American families and 
small businesses are deeply concerned about our troubled economy, the 
skyrocketing national deficit, high unemployment rates, job creation, 
and sorely needed extension of the tax relief and unemployment benefits 
set to expire at the end of this month. The American people are asking 
the President and Members of Congress to move swiftly and take decisive 
action to help restore our economy in a fiscally responsible manner. I 
am disappointed that Republicans have insisted on holding unemployment 
benefits and tax cuts for working and middle class families' hostage in 
order to benefit the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
  I also have some serious concerns that the temporary payroll tax cut 
included in this legislation could jeopardize Social Security. Although 
this is a temporary tax cut, there will inevitably be debate in the 
future about extending it before its expiration, which could create 
substantial shortfalls in Social Security's long term viability. Future 
extensions of this payroll tax at the expense of Social Security could 
force hard-earned retirement benefits to compete with other government 
programs for funding rather than remaining self-sufficient. Tax cuts 
must be instituted without compromising Social Security.
  I would like to thank President Obama for his determined leadership, 
support and commitment to protecting important tax relief issues for 
middle-income Americans and the nation's small businesses and farmers 
during these challenging economic times. I would also like to thank all 
the Members and their staff who worked diligently to bring this 
essential legislation to the House floor today in an attempt to do all 
that we can to protect the American people and move this nation toward 
fiscally responsible economic recovery.
  I support those provisions of H.R. 4853 as amended by Senate 
Amendment 4753 that provide necessary tax relief to struggling middle 
income Americans. Under the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance 
Reauthorization and Job Creation Act, Senate Amendment 4753, middle-
class families and small businesses will see their taxes go down. This 
measure contains job-creating tax incentives, including incentives to 
create clean energy jobs, energy-efficient homes, and investments in 
renewable energy. It also ensures that millions of Americans still 
looking for work continue to have access to an emergency safety net to 
afford basic necessities, without extending the amount of time these 
benefits can be claimed for any given household.
  The specific ways that this bill will benefit middle-class families 
and aid the economic recovery include the following:
  It preserves the current income tax rate for middle-class families (2 
years).

[[Page 22434]]

  It reauthorizes the current emergency unemployment insurance program 
(13 months, or through the end of 2011).
  It continues vital middle-class tax credits, including the American 
Opportunity Tax Credit to help families pay for college, the Child Tax 
Credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (two years).
  It helps businesses by allowing them to deduct 100 percent of certain 
investments in 2011 and 50 percent in 2012.
  It extends the state and local sales tax deduction, which is 
particularly important for states, like Texas, which have no state 
income tax (2 years).
  It extends Alternative Minimum Tax relief through 2011 (2 years).
  I have already voted for all of the above benefits.
  Unlike those provisions of H.R. 4853 which benefit America's 
struggling middle class, I do not support the provisions of this 
legislation which condition that desperately needed relief upon the 
unconscionably high cost of providing an unnecessary, expensive 
giveaway to the wealthiest Americans by providing a two-year extension 
of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans while lowering 
their estate tax rate to 35% on estates valued at more than $5 million 
for individuals and more than $10 million for couples. These giveaways 
to the wealthiest Americans during these dire economic times needlessly 
add billions of dollars to our skyrocketing deficit yet create no value 
for our ailing economy since these tax cuts are not tied to job 
creation and preservation.
  I offered an amendment that would require all large businesses and 
corporations who received a tax benefit under this legislation to 
report how their tax savings are being used to create or save jobs. Tax 
cuts for America's largest corporations must be tied to job creation or 
preservation, which is why I offered my amendment. Failing to tie tax 
cuts to job creation is irresponsible since it exacerbates our growing 
deficit without bolstering job creation.
  I would like to add my support for the Amendment to H.R. 4853 
introduced by my colleague, Mr. Pomeroy of North Dakota. This amendment 
would strike Title III of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4583 and amend 
the bill to provide two years of estate tax relief at 2009 levels. In 
calendar years 2011 and 2012, the estate tax exemption amount would be 
$3.5 million ($7 million total for a married couple) and the maximum 
tax rate on estates would be 45%. Additionally, the amendment would 
provide estates from decedents in 2010 with the ability to elect to be 
treated under the 2009 levels or to be treated under current law for 
tax purposes. This election will allow estates to receive a step up in 
basis on inherited property rather than the 2010 carryover basis rules. 
The exemption level and rate are consistent with the estate tax 
proposal included in the President's FY2010 and FY2011 budgets.
  While I am opposed to the portions of H.R. 4853 that amount to an 
expensive giveaway to the wealthiest 2% of Americans, I want to 
emphasize that I fully support President Obama's vision for change. I 
share his commitment to fighting for low and middle-income Americans 
who are the backbone of this country and our economy. However, this 
legislation, especially as it pertains to tax cuts for the top 2% of 
Americans and estate tax provisions that are regressive and inflate the 
deficit, does not comport with this vision. I have serious misgivings 
about extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of 
our deficit, especially if these tax cuts are not targeted towards job 
creation.
  I strongly support the tax and unemployment insurance relief that 
H.R. 4853 provides to middle-income families, small businesses and 
farmers. But, my friends, I must express my concern that this 
legislation does not provide extension of unemployment benefits for 
those unfortunate unemployed Americans who have run up against a brick 
wall. These so-called ``99ers'' have been sincerely looking for work 
for a very long time and have run out of resources to provide for their 
families and pay their mortgages, pay their bills and buy food. They 
simply want and need a job to pay for these obligations. H.R. 4853 
proposes to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, yet fails to 
provide for the so-called ``99ers.''

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. BECERRA. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, my constituents are willing 
to support this Congress borrowing money, but only if all of that 
effort is targeted at creating jobs. This bill fails that test. We're 
going to borrow almost $900 billion under this bill in order to give 
$140,000 in tax cuts to somebody that makes $1 million. We're going to 
reduce the estate tax so that only 3,500 families in the entire country 
pay it next year.
  Tax cuts for billionaires don't create jobs. Sure, there are 
important provisions in this bill that do help the most needy, like 
extending tax cuts to the middle class and unemployment benefits to 
those that are out of work. But these benefits are going to be greatly 
outweighed by the crushing debt that those same families will have to 
carry and the cuts to education and to health care and to Social 
Security that will inevitably be passed in order to finance those same 
tax cuts.
  My constituents want a bill that is 100 percent focused on jobs. 
Unfortunately in this bill, 20 percent of the money goes to almost only 
1 percent of Americans. It's not a deal to create jobs. It's not a deal 
that we can afford.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, tonight we find ourselves faced with a 
very important decision with regard to what sort of taxes we face in 
the coming years. We are not simply voting on whether to ``keep tax 
cuts.'' We are voting on whether or not we ``raise taxes.'' To let our 
current tax law expire is to raise taxes on Americans.
  Some say that the tax cuts will cost the government $700 billion. 
Well, I say that allowing the current tax cuts to expire will cost 
taxpayers $700 billion. Who needs that money the most, our government 
or the people? If this bill fails and taxes go up in the middle of a 
very fragile economy, we risk any potential job growth and recovery 
from this great recession. Refusing to take more of taxpayers' money is 
not spending we wish we could afford. Taking taxpayers' money is 
spending the taxpayer cannot afford.
  Mr. Chairman, I contend that we cannot punish taxpayers with a 
massive tax increase to pay for the massive spending problem in 
Washington. Let's let Americans keep more of their money, and let's 
start cutting spending and be responsible with the money that they have 
entrusted us with.
  Should we increase taxes to bring more money into the government so 
that we can pay for the spending that's happened over the last several 
years? I say no. The message we need to be sending to the citizens of 
our great Nation is this, that we get it. We are not going to live 
beyond our means and ask you to foot the bill. We are going to cut 
spending, eliminate waste, and reduce our national debt responsibly. 
Let Americans keep their money and see what happens to the economy. Let 
Americans keep their money and see what happens to the unemployment 
rate. Let Americans keep their money because it's the responsible thing 
to do.
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Obama tax 
bill.
  I strongly support middle class tax cuts. I strongly support 
extending unemployment benefits to Oregon families who are still 
struggling to find jobs. However, this bill is not balanced. The bill 
extends tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires for 2 years. Yet 
unemployment insurance is extended for only 1 year. Why are we 
providing tax cuts to the very wealthy while literally leaving 
unemployed Americans out in the cold?
  Further, this bill is fiscally irresponsible and, as a result, bad 
for jobs and bad for our economy. The bill costs over $800 billion over 
the next 10 years. The bond markets are already reacting to this, 
interest rates are going up, and this will squelch what anemic job 
growth we do have.
  We should defeat this bill, restore fairness and balance between 
those who have the most and those who have the least, and cut the cost 
in length of this tax giveaway to millionaires so that interest rates 
rise less and job growth can continue. Please defeat this legislation.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the 
time until the gentleman from Michigan returns.

[[Page 22435]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, when families around the country try to deal with their 
budgetary issues and there are limited resources available, what they 
do is, they say, Well, we may have to borrow money; but if we're 
borrowing money, we're going to borrow it for survival--meaning 
necessities--or we're going to borrow it to make an investment that 
will pay off over time.
  There are many things in this package that represent those two 
standards. Unemployment benefits represent necessities. Those are 
things our citizens need to survive for them and their families, and 
there are business tax credits in these bills that represent 
investments that will create jobs and stimulate economic activity. All 
of those are good things.
  On the other hand, there are expenditures in this bill that don't 
meet either of those standards. These are the expenditures that give 
over $100 billion to the wealthiest citizens in this country, the ones 
whose net worth has dramatically increased over the last decade, who 
now, 1 percent of this country, control a vast majority of the wealth 
of this country. They have done extremely well. To give them more money 
when we're borrowing it is not the kind of priority we need to set. It 
does not represent an investment in jobs or in stimulative activity, 
and it does not represent necessities. These are bonuses to people who 
don't need them.
  There are lots of good things in this bill. Unfortunately, the price 
for getting them is much too high. This is like going to the hospital 
when you're very sick, and the doctor says, You know, I'm going to give 
you $250,000 of care that's going to be really effective for you. It's 
going to make you well. Unfortunately, you're going to have to eat 
$100,000 worth of candy which will do nothing for you. This is the 
price that we are being asked to pay by Republicans in the Senate for 
the many good things in this bill. Always, government is about choices. 
Governing is always about choices and priorities. This is the wrong set 
of priorities for this country.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And, Mr. Chairman, I had not originally thought I would come here to 
speak. I must admit, I have been watching the debate in my office and 
have some amount of envy for my colleagues who bring such passion and 
certainty of their vote as they come to the floor.
  As I look at this legislation and listen to my colleagues, I must 
admit I consider it to be a very successful negotiation because I am 
not sure I have heard anybody who really likes the bill. Perhaps that's 
a hallmark of a successful negotiation. As I look at the legislation, 
it is the classic challenge of, Is the glass half full or is it half 
empty? I, for one, have decided it to be half full.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly there are items in this legislation that I find 
not just empty but, frankly, atrocious. Yes, there is tax pork in this 
legislation. There is an unpaid-for extension of unemployment benefits. 
Mr. Chairman, at some point, I would hope the majority--soon to be 
minority in this institution--would realize that we have got to 
concentrate on the paychecks. Americans want paychecks, not 
unemployment checks. And if we're going to have them, they need to be 
paid for. And worst of all, what's happening to Social Security, with 
the payroll tax without putting any fundamental reform on the table. 
And what I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, It 
is you who brought that to the table.
  Mr. Chairman, I made a pledge to my constituents. I told them I would 
fight any tax increases. I told them I would try to bring certainty to 
this economy because that is what businesses need. Trillions of dollars 
sitting on the sidelines, waiting to come into this economy; but yet 
the party who has been in control of Congress for 4 years, had the 
White House for 2 years waits until almost Christmas Eve, and we still 
don't know what tax rates are. There's no certainty.

                              {time}  2210

  The only thing I am certain of is that if we don't pass this 
legislation, there's about to be a $3.9 trillion tax increase on the 
American people, on school teachers, on farmers, on single mothers, on 
small businesses, on job creators, and, yes, even the vilified wealthy.
  Mr. Chairman, we've heard the class warfare rhetoric for quite some 
time now; and look what it's got us, almost serial double digit 
unemployment and human suffering.
  Mr. Chairman, I've held a lot of jobs in my life. I used to bus 
tables at the Holiday Inn in College Station, Texas. I used to work on 
a loading dock and load windows. I used to clean out chicken houses, 
which to some extent was sufficient training for the present 
occupation, but that's a subject for a different time.
  But, you know what, Mr. Chairman? In all these jobs I've held, no 
poor person ever hired me. It was somebody who went out and risked 
capital and took a chance and built something. And yet the left and my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to vilify this person, 
that somehow it's bad to go out and be successful and create jobs so 
that people can put roofs over their heads, put food on their table, 
send their kids to college. I don't get it.
  Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle say well, this will 
add to the deficit. Well, why didn't I hear that argument during the 
$1.2 trillion failed stimulus? I didn't hear the great angst and 
anxiety from my friends on the other side of the aisle at that point 
when we passed an almost $400 billion omnibus spending bill. I really 
didn't hear it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I didn't, Mr. Chairman, hear this angst and anxiety 
when my friends on the other side of the aisle not only brought us the 
first trillion dollar deficit in America's history, but backed it up 
with the second trillion dollar deficit in American history. I didn't 
hear all this concern. I only hear it now when we're talking about 
letting the American people keep what they earn.
  We're not even talking about a tax cut here. We're talking about 
preventing a tax increase. So I don't quite understand all of a sudden 
this great angst and concern about the deficit.
  And I might remind all of my colleagues, it is the deficit which is 
the symptom. It is spending which is the disease. We can clearly get 
rid of the deficit tonight. Let's increase taxes 60 percent, 60 percent 
on all Americans. Let's more than double taxes on our children and 
destroy the American Dream. Sure, we can balance the budget. That 
doesn't take care of the fiscal insanity.
  And so to avoid a further job meltdown--and let me make it very 
clear, Mr. Chairman, this is not any great economic growth package that 
is put before us. I don't believe that this is going to be the 
cornucopia of jobs. What we're trying to do here is avoid further 
damage to a crippled economy that, again, has almost double-digit 
unemployment on a serial basis. I wish we had at least 10 years of 
certainty of these tax rates. I'm sorry it's only two.
  I would say to my friends on this side of the aisle who say, well, we 
could have gotten a better deal: well, I don't know. I wasn't in the 
room. I didn't negotiate the deal. Maybe their crystal ball is clearer 
than my crystal ball.
  Here's what I see in my crystal ball. I'm absolutely for certain in 
my crystal ball that come January, Barack Obama is still going to be 
President of the United States. In my crystal ball, Harry Reid is still 
going to be Senate majority leader.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HENSARLING. That's what I see in my crystal ball. So maybe the

[[Page 22436]]

friends on my side of the aisle, maybe you're right. But you have a 
degree of certainty and clarity of the future I do not have. So, 
personally, I'm not willing to take the chance.
  I'm going to cast the ``aye'' vote. I'm going to stop the job-killing 
tax increases. I'm going to add at least a modicum of certainty, 2 
years of certainty to the Tax Code. And I'm going to fight to put this 
Nation back on the road to fiscal sanity because, in this legislation, 
I see the glass half full.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the very 
distinguished Member from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I'm deeply disappointed in the recently 
negotiated tax deal by the White House. While one can find items that 
are politically and practically attractive, in its totality, it borrows 
just shy of $1 trillion to pay for, amongst other items, expiring tax 
breaks for the top 2 percent of our country. My fear is that the 2001-
2003 Bush tax cuts will become permanent, and our fiscal future will 
dim as America struggles with the largest transfer of wealth and debt 
creation in its history. We should, instead, be investing in capital 
formation, technological innovation, job creation, and education. These 
are the real building blocks for a strong future for all Americans.
  I'm also deeply, deeply concerned about borrowing from the general 
fund to cover Social Security payroll taxes. This is the first time in 
the history of Social Security that the firewall between the general 
fund and Social Security is being taken down. This is dangerous. It's a 
bad precedent and one I believe we will all regret.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to a member of 
our committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who has 
been working day and night on this issue.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have worked with 
Congressman Pomeroy and Chairman Levin and others on the amendment that 
we're going to be voting on later tonight.
  While this House recently passed, and Democrats have been fighting, 
to ensure that tax rates do not go up on 98 percent of the American 
people, Senate Republicans made it clear that they will raise, that 
they will raise taxes on every American if they don't get a special 
bonus tax break for the very top 2 percent.
  In order to break that stalemate, President Obama concluded he needed 
to cut a deal. What this amendment we will be voting on later tonight 
does is give the American people a better deal. Specifically, it asks 
all of us to consider this question: In an era of $1 trillion deficits, 
with our national debt approaching $14 trillion, barely 2 weeks after 
the bipartisan fiscal commission's ``Moment of Truth'' report, should 
we really be borrowing $23 billion from China to give the wealthiest 
6,600 estates an average tax break of $1.7 million a year?
  Think about it: $23 billion for the wealthiest 6,600 estates a year, 
at a time of fiscal challenge, in a Nation of over 300 million people, 
without any benefit for job creation or economic growth.
  Mr. Chairman, much of the deal negotiated by the White House is 
defensible. But I would say to my colleagues, if we can't agree now 
that now is not the time to be giving the top three-tenths of 1 percent 
a multi-million dollar tax break, we're clearly not serious about 
bringing down the deficit.
  There's another way, and that's in the amendment we will be voting on 
later today. We can adopt the amendment. It will provide a $3.5 million 
exemption and 45 percent maximum rate. That's identical, identical to 
the rates and exemptions that were in effect in 2009 and significantly 
better than the rates that will take place if we take no action on 
January 1 when the exemption would go to 1 million and the rate would 
go to 55 percent. In fact, if enacted, this amendment would represent 
the lowest estate tax in 77 years up through 2009.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to level with the American people. We've got to 
start somewhere bringing down the deficits. And if we can't settle on 
the estate tax exemptions and rates that were in place in 2009, which, 
as I say, were the lowest, the lowest in 77 years, if we can't do that 
and, instead, we're going to say to the very wealthiest estates, heck, 
we're going to give you $23 billion over the next 2 years to benefit 
just 6,600 estates, how can we look the American people in the eye and 
say we're serious?

                              {time}  2220

  Mr. Chairman, I hope when this amendment comes up later today we can 
make this deal one that truly benefits all the interests of all the 
people in this great country.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr).
  Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Wake up and listen to the sirens, the sirens of the election that 
were about the deficit in America, and you want to add $1 trillion to 
that deficit. Wake up and listen to the sirens of the people who are 
needing of help.
  I can't believe that you talk about this bill as fiscal sanity. It's 
fiscal insanity, putting us in another trillion dollars of debt, and 
with this concept of, if you give the rich more money, it will trickle 
down.
  Well, those sirens that are responding to the children that are in 
need of health care, to the people who need to be rescued, aren't paid 
for by trickle-down economics. The rich never pay for that. There isn't 
an ambulance in the country that's paid for by the rich. There isn't a 
soldier that's paid for by the rich. There isn't a schoolteacher in a 
public school paid for by the rich. That doesn't happen.
  Your putting our country into debt is what Admiral Mullen said is the 
biggest issue in national security. It's what the debt commission said 
we couldn't do. There's nothing in this bill that's fiscal sanity. It's 
insanity. We fixed this debt by closing these tax loopholes, and now 
you want to give them away. Shame on you.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am privileged to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over 
again and expecting a different result.
  To my friends on the Republican side, we did this 10 years ago with 
the Bush tax cuts, and it didn't work. It has been mentioned over and 
over again. It built up these deficits, including the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan that you supported so well, and has created this deficit 
that threatened our country to make us look like a future Ireland, a 
future Portugal, countries that are in great deficit, problems that we 
are putting our country and our future into. We don't need to be insane 
and try to do this over again. I feel like it's a return to Christmas 
Past.
  And there's a book in the New Testament that says: From those who are 
given much, much is expected. But in this Congress, from those who have 
much, we are expecting little, we get little from it, and we are giving 
them the biggest tax breaks of all. And to the people who die and are 
the richest in our Nation, the Steinbrenners who died with $1.1 
billion, we will be giving them this year a $450 million free ride and, 
with the differences in the taxes of 35 or 45 percent, $100 million. 
This is wrong, and that's why I'm opposed to the bill.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chairman, what an honor and privilege it is to be a 
Member of this House, and what an amazement it is to me to hear this 
debate that I have heard so much in the past. The road to prosperity is 
not through tax increases. The road to prosperity in America is not 
through class warfare.
  My mother and father came to an America, a United States of America,

[[Page 22437]]

for a better life, for an opportunity--not a guarantee, an opportunity, 
for their kids to be successful, for their kids to do well and pay 
taxes and do well for their kids.
  When you're voting on a bill tonight that extends current tax rates, 
the current Tax Code that represents, Mr. Chairman, three-quarters of 
this bill, that represents three-quarters of the, quote, spending in 
this bill, and Members of this body say we have to borrow to allow 
people to keep the money that they earned, where have we come?
  My father was a steelworker who loved John F. Kennedy, who proposed 
similar types of tax increases. My mother was a seamstress. Neither 
graduated from high school. They don't believe in class warfare.
  Do they support all of this bill? Certainly not. Do I? Certainly not. 
But the question now, Mr. Chairman, is: Do we allow, on January 1, the 
largest tax increase in American history? That's the question.
  I didn't negotiate this bill. If I were king, I would have certainly 
negotiated it differently. Only in Washington, D.C., can people keep 
what they have today and not pay more taxes does it cost the government 
money.
  Think about the farmer who is sick, who is trying to plan his estate. 
And would I support permanency in the estate tax? Absolutely. And let's 
eliminate it. But if this bill doesn't pass, a $1 million exemption 
occurs for that sick farmer trying to plan his estate. Will he have to 
sell his land, Mr. Chairman?
  How about the single mom with two jobs trying to provide for her two 
kids? Her taxes will go up. How about the teacher and the police 
officer raising a family? The marriage penalty. How about the small 
business owner who pulled me aside on Wednesday and said: I can't even 
plan my business. I'd like to hire somebody. And you folks in 
Washington have known for how long that these tax rates were going to 
go up?
  Last year, the majority party had 60 votes in the Senate, had a clear 
majority in the House. You could have passed something. And here we 
are, 9 days before Christmas, and the Grinch is about ready to steal it 
for so many Americans who will see their taxes go up, Mr. Chairman, if 
this bill isn't passed.
  Now, there are a lot of things in this bill that I don't like. But 
the question today, Mr. Chairman, is: Do we let the perfect be the 
enemy of the good?
  I could sit up here and pick apart pieces of this legislation. But 
when three-fourths of this is the current Tax Code, three-fourths of 
this allows for the current rates to continue so taxes don't go up on 
millions and millions of Americans, Mr. Chairman, it really comes down 
to this simple logic:
  We cannot tax our way to prosperity. We cannot tax our way to fiscal 
responsibility. We must pass this bill and give 2 years for this 
Congress, this President, this Senate to come up with a better way, a 
more simple way to tax Americans; allow them to keep more of their 
money; provide for a way for capital to work in America's favor and 
allow America to be more competitive again, with a Tax Code that makes 
sense.
  But the question today is: Do we allow taxes to go up, or do we allow 
Americans to have some certainty for the next 2 years?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene 
Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair of the 
committee for allowing me to speak.
  I support maintaining the estate tax at the exemption of $3.5 
million. That's not what is in this legislation. And I believe in the 
value of hard work and rewarding those who are able to succeed, but I 
know some perceive the estate tax as undermining these values.
  However, we know that Americans with multimillion-dollar estates are 
not the only hard workers in our Nation. We have millions of Social 
Security recipients who have worked their entire lives but have seen 
their benefits decline due to no cost of living adjustment for 2 
straight years now.
  What message do we send our Social Security recipients that we are 
giving 6,600 families a tax break on the average of $1.5 million each, 
but we can't find it appropriate to give our seniors on a fixed income 
a little bit more breathing room by sending them a $250 check to allow 
them to pay their bills and afford their medicine?
  The government's calculation tells us that the cost of living has not 
increased over the last 2 years, but seniors in my district and most of 
our own districts have done their own calculations. The cost of 
electricity, gas, and health care have risen dramatically.
  I hope to support a bill that will benefit most of my constituents, 
but this bill does not. Hopefully, we will see amendments that will 
make it better.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of people that believe the 
Democrats stand for a lot of mainstream American values: keeping our 
air and water clean so we can breathe and drink freely, improving our 
public schools, our live-and-let-live policies. But somewhere in the 
back of a lot of Americans' minds, they are worried that the Democrats 
are going to raise taxes.
  Well, I am proud to say tonight that thanks to the leadership of 
President Barack Obama, we are going to deliver one of the largest tax 
cuts in history.
  Here is a $20 bill, Mr. Chairman. For every $20 that an American 
family earns, that earns $40,000 a year, $60,000 a year, they are going 
to get an extra dollar, an extra dollar for every 20 they earn this 
year. And, yes, there is money that is going to go to people earning $1 
million. They might get 60 or 70 cents for every $20 they earn, and, 
yes, we would have rather used that money to reduce the deficit.
  But let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, mainstream America, that extra 
dollar will help keep people in their homes. In addition to that extra 
dollar, Mr. Chairman, every American that gets a paycheck will get a 2 
percent raise this year, thanks to the leadership of President Barack 
Obama. Two percent right off the payroll tax, every paycheck. I know a 
lot of companies have frozen their employees' salaries. Federal 
employees had their salaries frozen.
  Well, thanks to the leadership of President Barack Obama, the 
citizens of our country can rest assured they will not get a tax 
increase.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, the time 
is now for us to ask the one fundamental question before us: What is in 
the best interests of the American people at this time? By ``American 
people,'' I mean every American, from the top of the economic ladder to 
the bottom, but especially those at the bottom.
  This is basically a 24-month stimulus bill, by getting money to those 
who need it most, who will put it in the marketplace the quickest, 
which will help us create jobs. Seventy percent of this entire $853 
billion package will go to the low income and the middle income. There 
is no other way to put it.
  And when you talk about rates, we dare not go home here today having 
raised taxes on the American people. We have got to cut the taxes, keep 
them down.
  Ladies and gentlemen, you have to realize that at the lowest economic 
ladder, the lowest tax rate is 10 percent. If we don't move, those 
people at the bottom that we care about, especially us on the 
Democratic side, their taxes will go up 50 percent.
  We've got to move this bill in the best interests of the American 
people.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
  Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Chairman, tonight, well-meaning Members of Congress 
have been debating who will pay to clean up the mess left behind by 
President Bush's failed economic policies,

[[Page 22438]]

policies that included two tax cuts to the richest Americans at the 
very same we were prosecuting two wars.
  But we all know this: there is no free lunch. And yet the Senate is 
asking the House of Representatives to designate this bill as an 
emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go, thereby failing to live within 
our means and driving our children deeper into debt.
  The Senate also seeks to fix this emergency by immediately turning 
over $129 billion of money we don't have to the very wealthiest 
Americans, wrongly thinking that the Republican-inspired idea of 
trickle-down economics will work today when it failed miserably in the 
recent past.
  Well, responsibility must begin somewhere. Let it begin here with me. 
The reality is there is no emergency that justifies handing out tax 
cuts to millionaires and billionaires at this time. Instead, we should 
bring our children home from wars overseas, and, after paying for these 
wars, then determine if we have any money left over for tax cuts to 
millionaires and billionaires.
  America cannot afford tax cuts for the rich. We don't have the money. 
They do.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. I thank the gentleman.
  You know, it doesn't take a great deal of courage to come to the 
floor of the House and say I'm in favor of low taxes. Yes, I think we 
all want no taxes. We would all like to have no communal needs that we 
have. We would like to have no national defense. We would like to have 
no concerns about clean water.
  What we hear of the fight about in elections and, frankly, every 
single day on the floor is, Who do we stand for? Who are we defending?
  On this side of the Chamber we believe that those people in the 
middle class and those struggling to make it, who each and every year 
for the past two decades have been getting pushed further and further 
down, need help.
  On the other side of this Chamber are people who quite literally 
stood up all day today to say, I want to give tax cuts to people who 
make $1 million and $1 billion a year; and, wait for it, ladies and 
gentleman, we want to borrow the money from the Chinese to give it to 
them.
  I want the wealthy to be as wealthy as they can be. I have no grudge 
against that. I want all of us to be that wealthy. But we should be a 
country that fights for those who really need the help. We should not 
be a country that says: You know what? If you're a billionaire, we want 
to give you a little bit more.
  Who's going to pay the bill? Who is ultimately going to pay for this 
tax cut? It is going to be our children and our grandchildren. And to 
come to the floor and say, well, I want to help hardworking Americans, 
I have to tell you, when the top 1 percent in this country are making 
as much as the next 25 percent, I think I know who we want to help.
  On this side, we want to help those middle class people and those 
struggling to make it, and my Republican friends all over this evening 
have been standing up for millionaires and billionaires. That is the 
fundamental choice that we have to make here.
  I believe that this tax bill has fundamental flaws. If you believe 
that you should be borrowing from Social Security to pay for a payroll 
tax, you like this bill. But I know a lot of Americans don't believe 
that.
  So I think what we should do, what we should do is make sure that we 
fix the estate portion of this, and then we should take a step back and 
say, you know what we should do? Let's stand up for the middle class. 
That is what the Democrats stand for.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Reed).
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, let me first note that this whole situation 
is an example of what is wrong with Washington. As a new Member, I 
think we have to stop continuously putting off difficult decisions 
until we are forced to make a decision in crisis mode as the clock 
clicks to zero hour. This vote has profound ramifications for every 
American, and now we are backed into a corner where the current tax 
rates expire on all taxpayers if we do nothing.
  It didn't need to be this way. Shame on the politicians whose 
inaction over the decade forced us onto this precarious ledge. Shame on 
the leadership of the past 2 years who put us into this boxed corner.
  Good policy cannot be handcuffed by this sort of last minute 
political guerilla warfare. The process which brought us to this point 
is inexcusable, so much so that the average middle class family in my 
district will pay more than $1,500 in increased taxes if we fail to 
act.
  Our economic recovery in upstate New York continues to lag. 
Preventing the pending income and estate tax hikes that will hit every 
family and business in my district is paramount at this time. But once 
this bill is passed, we must begin in the next Congress to eradicate 
out-of-control spending. We cannot be put into this position again.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to 
the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his leadership on fairness for growing the economy, for 
reducing the deficit and for creating jobs, because that is some of 
what is done in this bill.
  I think I want to use my time to make some distinctions here. 
President Obama and the Democrats have supported initiatives to protect 
the middle class. We are fighting for the middle class. We are wanting 
to grow the economy and to create jobs and reduce the deficit, so we 
must subject whatever legislation that comes before us as to how it 
meets those tests.
  This legislation on the Democratic side of the ledger does create 
jobs and the demand that creating jobs injects into the economy helps 
reduce the deficit. For example, unemployment insurance provisions that 
are in the legislation economists across the board tell us return more 
money to the economy than almost any initiative you can name. People 
spend that money quickly. These are people who are looking for work, 
people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Their 
unemployment insurance is spent immediately, again injecting demand 
into the economy, creating jobs.
  Low income tax credit, refundable.

                              {time}  2240

  Child tax credit; refundable. All of this placed in the hands of the 
working families in America, again, spent immediately, injecting 
demand, creating jobs. The college tuition tax credit, very important 
for America's working families and their children.
  So here we are with a bill on one side of the ledger that benefits 
155 million Americans. We have tax cuts for the middle class across the 
board. Everybody gets that tax cut. But in order for the middle class 
to get that tax cut, the Republicans insist that those who make the top 
2 percent in our country get an extra tax cut, adding billions of 
dollars to the deficit and not creating any jobs. To add insult to 
injury, they have now added this estate tax provision--and, mind you, 
the Democratic side of the ledger benefits 155 million Americans. In 
order for the President to get those terms accepted, the Republicans 
insisted that $23 billion in benefits go to the 6,600 wealthiest 
families in America. 6,600 families holding up tax cuts for 155 million 
Americans. Is that fair? Does that meet any test of fairness that we 
have? Again, this $23 billion not creating jobs, this $23 billion 
increasing the deficit by 8 percent in the fiscal year.
  Think of what we could do with that $23 billion. We could triple our 
research in cancer and diabetes. I think that means something to all 
Americans, including those 6,600 wealthiest families. We could give a 
$7,000 raise to every public school teacher in America. We could 
create, investing in new technology, 780,000 jobs--780,000 jobs. 
Instead, we're giving a bonanza to 6,600 of the wealthiest people in 
America who really don't need the help.

[[Page 22439]]

  It's just amazing to hear our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle talk about deficit reduction when everything on their side of the 
ledger increases the deficit and does not create jobs. Tax cuts to the 
wealthiest 2 percent; the most egregious of all, the estate tax 
provision that they have that benefits not 1 percent, not one-half of 1 
percent, but one-quarter of 1 percent of the American people. We have 
to borrow that money from China and send the bill to our children and 
our grandchildren. And that is not good policy. It does not have a 
favorable impact on the deficit. It does not create jobs. It does not 
grow our economy. It does not stimulate growth in our country.
  And so I hope that our colleagues will vote favorably for the Pomeroy 
amendment to bring some fairness and clarity to the estate tax issue. 
On that, 99.7 percent of all Americans are exempted. 99.7 percent of 
all Americans are exempted from paying estate tax under Pomeroy. But we 
had to get that upper 3 percent in this legislation in order to benefit 
155 million Americans. These figures have to be engraved in our being--
155 million. You can't have that unless 6,600. I've said it over and 
over.
  And then, on top of all of that, on the Democratic side of the ledger 
we have the green initiative, 1603, that the Senate put in the bill. 
This is just a very positive provision for renewable energy--wind, 
solar, et cetera. But the Republicans said, That's the limit. We won't 
accept any more. And so all of the initiatives for innovation that have 
been passed the past few years that should have been extended, we said 
``no'' to innovation, we said ``no'' to the future, we said ``no'' to 
keeping America number one for encouraging our competitiveness.
  So if we're talking about growth, we have to talk about investments 
in the future. If we're talking about being number one, we have to have 
an innovation agenda to do it. The Republicans said ``no'' to that. 
They only said ``yes'' to tax cuts to the wealthiest.
  As Mr. Weiner said, we recognize success. We admire success. We all 
want to be part of it. God bless them for having the wealth that they 
have, whether it is inherited or earned. We recognize success and what 
wealth does to create jobs, et cetera. But we also want to reward work. 
We want to reward work. So in order to reward work in this legislation, 
we had to have a big payoff to the top one-quarter percent of America's 
wealthiest families.
  So for my colleagues, as they review this, this is very difficult. 
Nobody wants taxes to go up for the great middle class. In fact, 
everybody gets a tax cut in this. We just don't see why we have to give 
an extra tax cut to the wealthiest and then an extra, extra estate tax 
benefit to the top one-quarter percent.
  As Members have to make up their mind about this, I hope that they 
will vote for the Pomeroy amendment to this legislation. They'll have 
to make their own decisions as to whether it is necessary to be held 
hostage, to pay a king's ransom, in order to help the middle class. We 
absolutely cannot allow taxes to go up come January 1.
  The previous speaker said we have to look to how we were forced to 
this precarious ledge. Yes, let us look to how we were forced to this 
precarious ledge. This situation, the recession that we were in--the 
deep recession that we were in--President Obama was a job creator from 
day one with the Recovery Act and pulled us back from that recession. 
The financial crisis that they created, President Obama pulled us back 
from that. And, oh, by the way, remember the financial crisis? Remember 
the banks that all that money went to and they didn't extend credit? 
Now those same people are giving out over $100 billion in Christmas 
bonuses. And these Republicans in this House of Representatives are 
saying, We don't want you to be taxed to the proper extent on that $100 
billion. More money given in bonuses on Wall Street. Think of it. Over 
$100 billion dollars. And we want to give them a free ride in terms of 
paying their fair share.
  So if it comes to creating jobs, growing the economy, reducing the 
deficit, investing in growth and competitiveness and innovation to keep 
America number one, I applaud President Obama for his side of the 
ledger. I'm sorry that the price that has to be paid for it is so high. 
At a time when everybody is preaching the gospel of deficit reduction, 
the Republicans come in with an increase in the deficit to the tune of 
over $100 billion dollars for people in our country who need it the 
least and, again, where it does not create jobs.
  So Members will have to make up their minds as to how we go forward 
on the bill. But I hope that all of them in their consideration of it 
will vote for the Pomeroy amendment, which addresses the most 
egregious--with stiff competition, mind you, in this bill--the most 
egregious provision when it comes to fairness, reducing the deficit, 
and not creating jobs.
  I, again, commend the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and 
all of our colleagues who have had to explain through all of the 
misrepresentations that have been made about what this legislation is 
about. And, again, I salute President Obama for getting in the bill 
what is in there. I'm sorry at the price that has to be paid by our 
children and grandchildren to the Chinese government to pay for the 
increase in the deficit that the Republicans insisted upon.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The majority party has had large bipartisan majorities in the Senate 
and the House and controlled the White House for the last 2 years. And 
as we know, in the House, the majority can pretty much do what they 
want, as was demonstrated with the trillion-dollar stimulus bill, as 
was demonstrated with ObamaCare.

                              {time}  2250

  There is some explaining to do.
  Why wasn't this issue dealt with before the election? Why didn't the 
majority bring a bill to the floor before the election?
  Now, as Americans face these tax increases, here we are just a few 
short days before the end of the year, and now, because there is a 
bipartisan compromise, which incidentally passed the Senate 81-19, I 
think there is a recognition that this is just no time to be playing 
games with our economy. The failure to block these tax increases would 
be a direct hit to families and small businesses and employers, and it 
would further delay our economic recovery.
  For those reasons, I support this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, today, the House will vote on a 
bill that will explode the deficit by $858 billion. While this package 
includes several programs I have proudly supported, I cannot support 
the underlying bill.
  As recently as last week, I voted to give every American a tax cut by 
making the middle class tax cuts permanent for the millions of American 
families, consumers, and small business owners who drive our economy. I 
have consistently voted to extend unemployment insurance to assist the 
families struggling in this difficult time.
  Those were some of the good things included in this deal. 
Unfortunately, the merits of these good things do not outweigh the bad 
things in this deal. I cannot justify mortgaging our children's futures 
to provide a Christmas bonanza to the privileged few. I refuse to 
support increasing the deficit by at least $81 billion to provide a tax 
break to the wealthiest people in this country. I refuse to support a 
bill that would balloon the deficit by $23 billion to provide an 
average tax break of more than $1.5 million to only 6,600 families a 
year.
  That is why I am voting ``no,'' and I urge you to do the same.
  Americans spoke clearly on November 2. Congress must get serious 
about reducing the deficit and become better stewards of their tax 
dollars. After endless talk throughout this session about fiscal 
responsibility, the looming threat of a growing deficit and forcing 
America's next generation into crushing debt to China--a so-called tax 
deal has been produced. Today, this House will vote on a bill that will 
explode the deficit by $858 billion dollars.

[[Page 22440]]

  While this package includes several programs I have proudly 
supported, I cannot support the underlying bill. As recently as last 
week, I voted to give every American a tax cut by making the middle-
class tax cuts permanent for the millions of American families, 
consumers and small business owners who drive our economy. I have 
consistently voted to extend unemployment insurance to assist the 
families struggling in this difficult recession. I have voted to extend 
the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit to assist our 
Nation's low-income families who have a difficult enough time making 
ends meet as it is. I have consistently voted for ethanol and biodiesel 
tax credits that sustain the growth of our Nation's renewable energy 
industry and support the jobs of thousands of my constituents in Iowa.
  Those were some of the good things included in this deal. 
Unfortunately, the merits of these good things do not outweigh the bad 
things in this deal. I cannot justify mortgaging our children's futures 
to provide a Christmas bonanza to the privileged few. I refuse to 
support increasing the deficit by at least $81 billion to provide a tax 
break to the wealthiest persons in this country. I refuse to support a 
bill that would balloon the deficit by $23 billion to provide an 
average tax break of more than $1.5 million to only 6,600 families a 
year. And I unequivocally refuse to threaten the long-term viability of 
social security with a shell game to pay for diminished social security 
contributions.
  I'm voting ``no'' on this bad deal because we cannot keep kicking the 
can down the road when it comes to difficult decisions about the 
deficit, especially with a package that threatens the financial 
stability of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
``no.''
  Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The Speaker was talking about how the Republicans 
held hostage 150 million Americans in favor of 6,600 families who will 
get this inflated break on their estate taxes. Who are those families?
  The Koch Family: the primary funders of the tea party movement and 
other conservative causes, having a vast fortune estimated to be as 
much as $35 billion. Under the Republican, versus the Pomeroy 
amendment, that family would realize over $2 billion extra.
  The Walton Family: Wal-Mart; seven descendants; a combined worth of 
$87 billion--more than some whole countries. His family will pay $7 
billion less in taxes under the Republican proposal versus the Pomeroy.
  The Gallo Family.
  The Dorrance Family: the Campbell Soup giant with a combined wealth 
of $6.5 billion and a savings of $522 million.
  The Mars Candy Company Family: $30 billion in wealth. Their estate 
taxes will go down $2.5 billion.
  Are these the people this Congress is supposed to represent? Let's 
vote for Pomeroy.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now a real pleasure to yield 1 minute to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, two pieces of legislation 
tell us a lot about the values of our Republican colleagues.
  This bill will take $114 billion in revenues out of Social Security, 
helping them make the case ultimately, in a kind of self-fulfilling 
prophecy, that we can't pay everything we want.
  Earlier this session, they voted overwhelmingly and killed a proposal 
to give each Social Security recipient $250--not $250,000 or $250 
million, numbers with which they are more familiar--but $250. These are 
people who are going to be facing an increase in Medicare because we 
learned only in October that there would not be a cost-of-living 
increase.
  We couldn't afford the $14 billion to give $250 to older people who 
are having trouble paying their heating bills, but they can afford $114 
billion that will go to everybody, including to people who make 
$100,000 a year, who will get eight times $250. The values of the 
Republican Party are revealed by this.
  By the way, we are in this situation because of dishonesty. When 
George Bush and the Republicans passed the tax cuts in 2001, they 
didn't want to admit the full account of how much it cost.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Not simply are they showing their values, 
but they said, Oh, you're going to give $250 to Warren Buffett on 
Social Security.
  They want to give $250,000 to Warren Buffett, which, to his credit, 
he doesn't want.
  In fact, the reason we are in this bind is, in 2001 and 2003, George 
Bush and the Republican majorities wanted to pass very large tax cuts 
despite their professed concern about the deficit--and we now see from 
this bill that their slogan is ``deficit-schmeficit''--but they didn't 
want to admit how much it would cost, so the CBO couldn't give us the 
full value of the cost. They made very bad tax policy.
  They did it. I voted against it.
  They made major changes in the Tax Code to end after 10 years, and 
they did that Humpty Dumpty roller coaster with the estate tax. That 
wackiness was their effort to hide the true amount of the hole they 
were burning in the deficit, so they have only themselves to blame.
  But let me return.
  They couldn't afford $14 billion to give $250 payments to Social 
Security recipients--and overwhelmingly, they killed it when we tried 
to pass it--but they can take $114 billion out of Social Security.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my real pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a 
Member who has been very active on this issue, the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, with all the back and forth, what we really 
have before us are two problems facing America.
  One is too few jobs: 9.8 percent of Americans who want work are out 
of work--15 million people. Millions more are so discouraged that they 
are the underemployed. We have got to find a way to put them back to 
work.
  The second problem we have is too much debt. Without going into the 
history of how we went from a record surplus to a record deficit, we 
went from the Clinton tax rates to the Bush tax rates. We went from a 
surplus of 20 million jobs created to 8 million jobs lost. We have a 
debt now that is approaching $14 trillion, and with the passage of this 
bill, we will be approaching $15 trillion.
  The question for us to the American people is:
  If we are going to borrow a dollar for any reason, will there be a 
job bang for that dollar borrowed?
  That dollar borrowed is coming from China. What this legislation will 
do is literally ask the American middle class to borrow $200 billion to 
pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest families. This is not an objection 
to people being wealthy, as has been said. They can be generous, and 
they can create jobs. It is about whether that dollar borrowed will 
produce a job for an out-of-work American--and it won't.
  There are other alternatives to what is before us. We should not be 
borrowing money that won't be productive. What we should do is a very 
simple alternative that hasn't even been considered:
  We can extend the middle class tax cuts, as President Obama wants to, 
but we can stop it at $250,000. We can invest the savings in deficit 
reduction and half in infrastructure development. We can, as Mr. Frank 
said, provide a $250 one-time payment to the folks on Social Security, 
who haven't had a COLA increase in 2 years. We can have a piece of 
legislation that will borrow less, reduce the deficit, and create more 
jobs.
  Our responsibility, fundamentally, is to the American middle class. 
One of the reasons they so fear this debt is because they know, at the 
end of the day, they will have to repay it--their sons, their 
daughters. The bondholders will be okay, but the middle class will pay.

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 22441]]

  We've heard a lot of debate on floor this evening, but let's look at 
what the employers and economists are saying about this legislation and 
this agreement.
  The National Federation of Independent Business, the largest 
organization in the country representing small businesses: Senate 
passage of the tax compromise is a good step, the first step, to 
encourage the certainty that the small business community needs and has 
repeatedly asked for. Knowing their tax liability will remain low and 
including a workable estate tax compromise that will not threaten the 
family business are key components to a small business' ability to move 
forward, grow their business, and create jobs. Changes to this 
compromise would jeopardize the needed relief and certainty small 
businesses need. We encourage the House to take up this measure quickly 
and pass this bipartisan bill in its current form.
  The Business Round Table says: Restoration of these provisions lifts 
an uncertainty for businesses that will improve their ability to employ 
more workers and grow the economy.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Enacting this bipartisan framework 
forged by the President and Congress is one of the best steps 
Washington can take to eliminate the uncertainty that is preventing our 
employers from hiring, investing, and growing their businesses.
  And what does economist Mark Zandi say, frequently cited by the 
Speaker as an important voice in economic matters: The fiscal policy 
compromise reached this week by the Obama administration and 
congressional Republicans would be good for the economy next year.
  It is too risky to play games with the economy. We need to stop this 
massive tax increase in its tracks. Support this legislation in its 
current form. Oppose the Pomeroy amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to 
our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We have just come through a wrenching election. Wrenching, in large 
part, because of the pain being experienced by our constituents, some 
more than others. A pain that they're experiencing in part because they 
are unemployed or underemployed or working two or three jobs to support 
themselves and their families. We all heard that pain. We all heard 
that concern. At the same time as we heard the concern about the pain 
of economic uncertainty, we heard the concern and the fear about 
deficits and debt.
  And so, my colleagues, we are confronted with two twin challenges: 
growing our economy and creating jobs, and confronting this gargantuan 
deficit that puts at risk our economy and the future of our children. 
The American public would hope that we would come together and pass 
that on which we can agree, that on which we can compromise.
  This House, in fact, passed two pieces of legislation weeks ago and 
months ago. Months ago, we passed legislation which would give 
certainty, and my Republican colleagues talk about certainty and I 
agree with them. We need to give certainty to families, certainty to 
businesses, and, yes, certainty to those who are worried about estates. 
They ought to expect that of us, and we passed 12 months ago a 
continuation of then-existing law, $3.5 million per spouse or $7 
million per couple exemption and a 45 percent rate.
  But that languished in the United States Senate. It languished 
because, frankly, there was not a majority or at least not 40 votes to 
extend certainty. That was unfortunate, in my view, because I think 
that was an appropriate rate, and I will vote for it on this floor, 
embodied in the Pomeroy amendment.
  And then we passed just a few days ago legislation which would say to 
all Americans, you will not receive any tax increase on the first 
$250,000 of your income if you're a married couple or $200,000 if 
you're an individual. All individuals, no matter how rich, no matter 
how poor, all individuals would have their tax capped, and very 
frankly, there were only a few Members on this floor on either side of 
the aisle who disagreed with that proposition.
  But as too often happens because we don't get everything we want, we 
won't take something we want. That's not good for the American people, 
and it's not good for our country. And very frankly, only three or four 
Members on the Republican side of the aisle chose to vote for that 
legislation, notwithstanding the fact it carried out part of what they 
thought was appropriate, and we agreed. But it was not enough.
  The President of the United States has a responsibility to all 
Americans, and like every President he can't get everything he wants. 
To that extent, he's like us. We don't get everything we want, and this 
bill does not represent everything I want. Those of you who have heard 
me debate time after time know how concerned I am about this debt and 
deficit, and you have seen me vote on this floor sometimes in the small 
minority against steps that I thought would exacerbate the budget 
deficit without a proper return.
  This bill, the President of the United States believes, and I 
believe, will have a positive effect on the economy, and I think we 
need that. And unlike some of my colleagues, whose views I share but I 
have reached a different conclusion, I will vote for this bill because 
I don't want to see middle-income working people in America get a tax 
increase because I think that will be a depressant on an economy that 
needs to be lifted up.
  But I am also concerned about the deficit, and I know we're going to 
borrow every nickel in this bill. I'm for PAYGO. My children, if you 
ask them, would say they're for PAYGO because they don't want to pay 
our bills. They're going to have their own bills. Unfortunately, the 
President and we were confronted with alternatives: Do we extend 
unemployment insurance when unemployment is at a 9.6 to 9.8 percent 
rate, or do we let them languish with no certainty? Not certainty about 
planning whether or not their $7 million estate can be excluded from 
taxes, but worrying about whether they can put food on the table 
tomorrow. But unemployment insurance has languished because we haven't 
had a deal on upper-income taxes or estate taxes being increased from 
$7 million to $10 million for a couple.
  My friends on both sides of the aisle, we need to come together. We 
need to come together in dealing with this debt. We need to come 
together in dealing with tax reform. We need to come together in 
growing jobs. That ought to be the agenda of this next Congress and 
every Congress thereafter until we accomplish those objectives and the 
American people have the certainty and confidence that we want them to 
have.

                              {time}  2310

  Now, ladies and gentlemen on the Republican side, very frankly, I 
have not seen your economic philosophy work. Jack Kemp and I served on 
the Appropriations Committee, but I don't think supply side is working. 
Supply side, in my opinion, has the proposition that, if you do less, 
you get more. Nothing that I have done in life instructs me that, if I 
do less, I get more. And because of that, because of the concept, if 
you simply cut taxes on those who are the wealthiest in our society, 
somehow, magically, the deficit will be eliminated.
  Not one year did that happen.
  It happened, frankly, when we said the upper 1 percent was going to 
pay just a little more in 1993, and all of you opposed it--all of you, 
to a person. And you said it would destroy the economy. Your leader at 
that point in time--I'm not sure it was the majority leader at that 
time--Dick Armey said that this would tank the economy.
  He was 180 degrees wrong.
  In fact, we experienced the best economy we have seen in this country 
in my lifetime, with 22 million new jobs in 8 years--216,000 jobs per 
month in the private sector. But unfortunately, under the economic 
program that we adopted in 2001, we saw the worst economy, the worst 
job production since Herbert Hoover.
  Now, I'm going to vote for this bill because I think it does help the 
economy, but we are paying too great a

[[Page 22442]]

price for it because, very frankly, I don't need a tax cut. That's not 
to say I don't want a tax cut. But it will not affect my life, and it 
will not affect the economy. It will exacerbate the debt. That's not 
good for my children or for our country.
  So I would urge all of us, as we vote on this piece of legislation--
whatever decision we make--to understand the message that we all 
received about growing the economy. That is why the President has made 
this deal that a lot of us don't like, because we think that it was 
unnecessary to adversely affect the deficit with $700 billion.
  And because we have limited it to 2 years--it's less than that in 
terms of just the upper income--we did not have to pay that price. But 
we needed to pay the price. We needed to borrow the money to get this 
economy moving, to get the middle income people having dollars in their 
pockets so they can grow the economy. And that's worth the price 
because we will not solve the deficit problem if we don't get our 
economy growing. We cannot depress at the same time we try to grow, but 
we grow in the short term, and we solve the deficit in a little longer 
term.
  So I'm going to vote for the Pomeroy amendment. And then in the final 
analysis, I will vote for this bill. I believe that folks need 
certainty, as has been said.
  I urge my colleagues, as we vote on this legislation, to commit 
ourselves on both sides of this aisle to do what America wants us to 
do--to come together as we did. In 1993, we didn't. Some people lost 
their jobs because they voted with courage and conviction and 
correctness.
  Ladies and gentlemen, there probably is nobody on this floor who 
likes this bill; and therefore, the judgment is: Is it better than 
doing nothing? Some of the business groups believe that it will help. I 
hope they are right. Not only do I hope they are right, I hope if we 
pass this bill that they respond and create the jobs that we know they 
have the resources to do.
  This is a jobs bill, in my view, which is why I will vote for it. It 
could be a better jobs bill if we invested the money that we are giving 
to the wealthiest in America in job growth. It is a bill that will help 
those who have been unemployed week after week after week and whose 
angst has grown and grown and grown.
  Ladies and gentlemen, each of us will do our duty as we see it, but 
let us when we do so pledge that we will do better in the months and 
years to come.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 4853, 
the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job 
Creation Act.
  Two weeks ago, I voted for a better bill, the Middle Class Tax Relief 
Act, which passed the House but was not taken up by the Senate. That 
bill would have extended tax cuts for middle class taxpayers, including 
about 323,000 lower- and middle-income families in my congressional 
district who make less than $200,000 (under $250,000 for joint filers).
  The bill that is on the floor today extends tax cuts on all income 
levels, including the wealthiest Americans, costing $407.6 billion. 
Under this bill, the millionaires and billionaires can sleep soundly, 
secure in the knowledge that their tax cuts will continue for at least 
another two years, while the unemployed get relief for only 13 months. 
Economists predict that many millions will continue to be unemployed 
beyond the 13 months.
  This deal is weighted so heavily toward the richest few that the 
unemployed only receive 7 percent of the total package. We must fight 
for a better deal.
  But my biggest concern has to do with a threat to the solvency of 
Social Security contained in the legislation. The so-called ``payroll 
tax holiday'' in H.R. 4853 raids the Social Security Trust Fund. Anyone 
who cares about Social Security should be scared by this. This 
provision reduces the Social Security payroll tax and self-employment 
tax by two percentage points in 2011. Payroll taxes provide dedicated 
funding for the Social Security Trust Fund, which is completely 
separate from the General Fund. Under this bill, these Social Security 
funds will be repaid by $112 billion from the General Fund. But this 
``one-time'' infusion from the General Fund puts us on a slippery 
slope. While this payroll tax holiday expires in one year, there is a 
serious question as to whether expiration will occur. We can expect a 
bill to extend this payroll tax holiday because any other outcome would 
be characterized as a tax increase. A permanent decrease in the Social 
Security payroll tax will put the Social Security Trust Fund in 
jeopardy. Republicans will be one step closer to their stated goal of 
privatizing and dismantling Social Security's safety net. If we want to 
put more money in the hands of families, we could look at cutting a 
check for families from the General Fund, but weakening the funding 
source for Social Security is too risky.
  In Hawaii, Social Security benefits serve as a lifeline for 220,000 
seniors, disabled people, and dependents. Thousands of my constituents 
have urged me to preserve Social Security, and I have consistently 
acted to do so. Earlier this year, I spoke on the House floor in 
support of preserving this bedrock promise to our nation's seniors and 
fighting Republicans' plans to privatize or reduce benefits. I also 
signed a letter to the Fiscal Commission urging that any plans to 
reduce the deficit make no cuts to Social Security or change the 
retirement age.
  This bill truly is a raw deal for American seniors. One of my 
constituents in Hilo calls the proposal a ``bomb of a cut to Social 
Security taxes.'' A majority of Americans oppose cutting Social 
Security payroll funding and are willing to pay more so that they can 
be assured that they will get benefits when they retire or become 
disabled. I don't make pledges lightly, but I pledge that I will vote 
to return dedicated Social Security payroll tax funding should it be 
brought up for a vote next year.
  Further, this legislation gives an estate tax giveaway to only 6,600 
families in our entire country, giving them each an average additional 
tax cut of more than $1.5 million. According to the Tax Policy Center, 
the new tax would affect the smallest number of estates in any year 
since 1934. This tax giveaway to the richest families in the country 
will cost us more than $68 billion, adding to our deficit without 
creating jobs or strengthening our economy.
  The Levin/Pomeroy Amendment makes the bill a bit fairer by taxing 
estates at the 2009 rate of 45 percent and covering estates over $3.5 
million, not the $5 million in the Senate bill. This amendment would 
save $23 billion. Extending estate tax relief for two years at the 2009 
rate provides Americans with some certainty for estate planning in a 
way that is much more reasonable and fair than that proposed by the 
Senate bill.
  The key components of this bill that I strongly support include the 
extension of tax cuts for the middle class and the extension of 
unemployment insurance for Americans who lost their jobs because of 
this difficult economy. In addition to my recent vote on extending tax 
cuts for the middle class, I voted to extend unemployment benefits 
seven times this year alone.
  We've had numerous opportunities to extend the tax cuts for the 
middle class and extend unemployment benefits. The majority of 
Republicans voted against these proposals time and again.
  On balance, I cannot in good conscience vote for this bill in its 
present form. The $858 billion price tag and true cost of the bill--tax 
cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the impact of the ``payroll tax 
holiday'' on Social Security--far outweigh the benefits. This bill is 
blackmail, holding the unemployed and middle class hostage to give a 
special deal to the millionaires and billionaires. We must fight for a 
better deal.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation unless we are able to 
vote on a bill that genuinely helps the working families that we are 
here to represent.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition 
to the irresponsible and immoral tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans 
included in this bill.
  On this very night, senior citizens, disabled people, and poor 
families in public housing in Sanford, Florida are going without heat 
during one of the coldest spells in Florida's history. Yet, Congress is 
about to give billions to billionaires. There is a disconnect between 
tax cuts for the wealthy and the pain of everyday Americans that is 
shocking beyond belief.
  If we cannot take care of our poorest citizens, why are we giving 
handouts to the richest? The elections told us that Americans are tired 
of giveaways to Wall Street and CEOs. But here we go again.
  Why are we holding the middle class hostage to extending tax cuts for 
the top 2% of incomes? We can give away $700 Billion in income tax 
cuts, but we can't fix the heat in Sanford public housing.
  On Christmas Eve, why are we giving a 25 Billion Dollar gift to forty 
thousand families, but giving nothing to millions of people who have 
been unemployed for more than 99 weeks?
  The Bible teaches in Proverbs 21:13, ``if a man shuts his ears to the 
cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.''

[[Page 22443]]

  I have never shut my ears to the cries of Americans who need help, 
but I will not vote for a bill that ties the fate of many to the wealth 
of a few.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, after much deliberation, I rise in 
opposition to today's legislation.
  To me, this has never been about the wisdom or necessity of 
compromise. Like most of my colleagues, I understand the need for 
compromise, and I fully appreciate the predicament the President found 
himself in.
  While Democrats have been fighting to ensure tax rates do not go up 
on 98% of Americans, Senate Republicans have made it abundantly clear 
they are willing to raise taxes on every American this January unless 
they get a bonus tax break for the wealthiest in our society--and 
provide a tax-cut bonanza to a handful of super-rich estates.
  In order to break the stalemate, the President concluded he needed a 
deal--a deal that had to balance two of our Nation's very real but 
competing imperatives: the need to accelerate economic growth, and the 
need to reduce our national debt.
  Some elements of today's legislation strike the right balance. In 
particular, the middle class tax cuts, unemployment benefits and 
Recovery Act credits for working families are both economically 
justifiable and likely to achieve their intended effect.
  Unfortunately, other provisions significantly miss the mark. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the $89 billion spent 
extending tax breaks for upper income earners is unlikely to create 
jobs. Moreover, I have significant concerns about the structure and 
long term consequences of the payroll tax holiday.
  But the tipping point in this package is the estate tax. In an era of 
$1 trillion deficits, with our national debt approaching $14 trillion, 
barely two weeks after the publication of the bipartisan Fiscal 
Commission's ``Moment of Truth'' report, does anybody really think we 
should be borrowing $23 billion from China to give the wealthiest 6600 
estates an average tax break of $1.7 million a year?
  Think about it. $23 Billion. For the wealthiest 6600 estates a year. 
In a nation of over 300 million people. Without any benefit whatsoever 
for job creation or economic growth.
  I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that if we 
can't look this moment squarely in the eye and conclude that now is not 
the time to be giving the top three tenths of one percent of Americans 
a multi-million tax break, we are clearly not serious about tackling 
the monumental fiscal challenges we face.
  And I would remind my colleagues that these fiscal challenges are not 
theoretical. Earlier this week, Moody's warned that today's legislation 
increased the likelihood of a downgrade to the United States' Triple-A 
rating over the next two years. Bond prices have fallen sharply and 
yields now sit at six month highs. If we're not careful, the bond 
market could easily take away what today's legislation aims to provide.
  Many of my Republican colleagues supporting today's legislation 
profess a commitment to fiscal discipline and balanced budgets, but 
turn a blind eye to deficit spending so long as it arises from tax 
cuts. This is not coincidence. The rationale for the inconsistency has 
been succinctly explained by conservative activist Grover Norquist, who 
once proclaimed: ``I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to 
reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown 
it in the bathtub.''
  After starving government, these same Republicans will undoubtedly be 
back in the 112th Congress demanding debilitating and draconian cuts in 
priority investments like education, clean energy and biomedical 
research. This playbook is as predictable as it is misguided.
  Mr. Chair, we simply cannot afford to borrow billions of dollars to 
perpetuate wasteful and unwarranted tax breaks for our wealthiest 
citizens at a time of unprecedented and unsustainable national debt--
tax breaks that do little for job creation and even less for the 
economy. I accept the need for a deal. But for our children and our 
grandchildren, I firmly believe there is a better deal to be had.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I have been involved in 
politics for more than three decades. I am proud of my record of public 
service to the people of the great State of Michigan and to our Nation. 
Some of the proudest votes I have ever cast in my career have been in 
support of the economic stimulus package, health care reform, saving 
our manufacturing base by saving the auto industry, and preventing our 
banking system from dragging our economy into a full-blown depression. 
It is my point that we have not done enough to advertise the good 
things we have done for Americans.
  The economic stimulus package provided 95 percent of all Americans 
with a tax cut, saved or created close to three million jobs, and 
allowed States and cities to use bonds to fill their budget deficits. 
Thanks to the revolution in health care by our health care law, the 
largest deficit reduction law in the history of the United States, all 
Americans will have access to health care for the first time in 
history. While this law becomes fully phased in by 2014, some of its 
mandates are working for Americans now, such as the fact that citizens 
cannot be denied health care coverage due to pre-existing conditions, 
filling in the Medicare Part D ``doughnut hole,'' and that insurance 
companies cannot deny your health insurance once you are ill. The bold 
Democratic program to save the auto industry, like the Troubled Asset 
Relief Program (TARP) not only cost taxpayers less than anticipated, 
taxpayers can potentially reap a profit from these programs. We have 
been efficient and effective with the peoples' purse.
  We are now voting on a tax ``deal'' that President Barack Obama 
agreed to with Republicans to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts started 
by former President George W. Bush. These tax cuts, which were not 
offset by responsible spending cuts and gave the majority of the tax 
cuts to the richest one percent of all Americans, were fiscally 
irresponsible when they were first proposed. They were so controversial 
and so fiscally unstable, the Republicans refused to make them 
permanent. It took then Vice President Dick Cheney to come to the 
Senate to break the 50-50 tie that stopped the bill from final passage.
  I would like to take this opportunity to remind all Americans that we 
have had not one, not two, but if this bill passes, four major tax cuts 
at a time in which we are involved in not one, but two, wars. This is 
the first time in American history that we have had a war and we did 
not have a tax increase to help pay for that war.
  I cannot, and will not, support this fiscally irresponsible bill. 
This bill is a horrible deal for Americans. Not only does it extend the 
Bush tax cuts, and the Republicans are willing to hold the extension of 
unemployment benefits to three million American families to get it 
done, as the late night infomercials like to say, ``wait, there's 
more.''
  This bill hammers Social Security. Through this legislation's cut in 
the payroll tax, the tax that funds Social Security, the long-term 
stability and safety net for our senior citizens is in jeopardy. For 
every person who puts money into the Social Security program, two 
people take money out of it. If you think that this one-third cut to 
the payroll tax is going to come back in two years, don't count on it. 
The more that this fund is delayed, the more the Social Security 
program--a governmental program that has worked for more than seven 
decades, and which is the sole difference between life in a home or 
life on the street for over half of our senior citizens--is gutted.
  This bill insufficiently helps the unemployed. Michigan has one of 
the Nation's highest rates of unemployment, and Michiganders 
desperately need unemployment insurance. But guess what? While this 
bill extends unemployment for those three million people who currently 
get it, it does nothing, not one thing at all, for the millions of 
unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits under tier four. 
If you have been out of work more than 99 weeks--and plenty of 
Americans have been out of work that long through no fault of their 
own--this bill does not provide what I have been pushing for the last 
year. That is a new tier five level of unemployment benefits so that 
workers who have exhausted their federal and state benefits are able to 
feed their families and keep a roof over their head. If we are going to 
extend unemployment, let's extend it for all Americans.
  This bill is a tax increase for most Americans. While this bill is a 
sure-shot tax cut for those people making or inheriting millions of 
dollars, for nearly 50 million hard working Americans, this bill is 
actually a tax increase. Workers who make less than $20,000 per year 
will see a tax increase. And by the way, if you are a federal worker, a 
worker who will see a pay freeze over the next two years, if your job 
has not been totally eliminated, you will see a tax increase. Finally, 
if you work for your state or city government, you will see your taxes 
increase because of this bill.
  This bill is a woefully inefficient way to create jobs. The 
Congressional Budget Office and other non-partisan, objective 
organizations have widely stated that tax cuts is, by far, the most 
inefficient way to create jobs. At a total cost of over $900 billion, 
this bill is expected to lower unemployment by less than one percent. 
The most efficient way to create jobs in an economy in which businesses 
cannot create them? A federal direct-hire program. I offered such a 
program as an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
bill, a program modeled after the successful Comprehensive Employment 
and Training Act

[[Page 22444]]

(CETA) that would have immediately put more than one million people 
back to work. It was rejected earlier this year.
  I proudly voted for the extension of tax breaks for Americans who 
make $250,000 or less. I also proudly voted to extend unemployment 
benefits for three million American families, and continued to fight 
for the addition of a tier five level of unemployment benefits. These 
two fiscally sound policies would help reduce our deficit and stabilize 
American families during the holiday season and beyond. Unfortunately, 
this was apparently not good enough for the Republicans, who 
overwhelmingly did not support the preservation of almost three million 
jobs in the economic stimulus package, the saving of American 
manufacturing through the auto loan program, or the more than $100 
billion reduction in our deficit that will be the health care law once 
it is fully in effect.
  I cannot, and will not, support this fiscally irresponsible bill. It 
is my hope and desire that the wisdom of the Congress prevails and we 
reject this legislation and start over with a bill that caps the top 
level of earnings at $250,000 and adds a tier five level for all of 
those individuals who are unemployed and have exhausted their state and 
federal benefits. Our children and grandchildren, who have to pay for 
these programs, are watching what we do.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I support extending the 2001 and 2003 income tax 
cuts for all taxpayers, reducing or even eliminating the estate tax, 
and limiting the impact of the alternative minimum tax. If those were 
the only issues before us today, I would vote for that package to 
reduce the tax burden on Americans.
  But this package is a bridge too far and I will vote no. With this 
package we are saying ``charge it.'' We aren't even making an attempt 
to pay for it. We are voting to add over $857 billion to our Nation's 
already massive, nearly $14 trillion debt. This is less than two weeks 
after the president's debt commission issued its a report called ``A 
Moment of Truth,'' which outlined the looming financial crisis that 
threatens the future of our country.
  We're accumulating a trillion dollar deficit every year. This year, 
we are paying $202 billion a year in interest on our debt. That's 
nearly $4 billion a week.
  By 2021, we will pay nearly $1 trillion a year solely to service the 
debt. One trillion.
  That's nearly $19 billion a week or $2.7 billion a day. Two point 
seven billion dollars a day just to pay the interest. That is utterly 
unsustainable.
  And money that goes to paying off the interest, let alone the 
principle, on the debt is money that will not be invested in road 
construction, or cancer research, or homeland security, or math and 
science education.
  Over four years ago I came to the House floor to propose an 
independent bipartisan commission to address unsustainable federal 
spending. It would put everything on the table--entitlements, all other 
spending and tax policy. The SAFE Commission--short for Securing 
America's Future Economy--would operate in an authentic and transparent 
way, holding a series of public meetings across the country to hear 
from the American people. The commission would send its recommendations 
for a way forward to a sustainable economy to Congress, which would be 
required to vote up or down.
  Senator George Voinovich, who is retiring this year and who has been 
a champion of fiscal integrity throughout his career in public service, 
was my partner in the Senate as sponsor of the SAFE bill. Congressman 
Jim Cooper and I also teamed in the 110th and this Congress to push the 
SAFE bill, garnering 118 cosponsors. Joining the effort in the Senate 
with Senator Voinovich were Senators Lieberman, Conrad and Gregg.
  Senators Conrad and Gregg introduced a similar bill calling for a 
deficit commission that became the blueprint for the President's 
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and on which 
both senators served. On December 3, a bipartisan majority of 11 of the 
18 commission members voted to recommend a bold plan to Congress that 
would address our Nation's fiscal imbalance by cutting $4 trillion from 
the federal budget over the next decade. I commend Senators Coburn, 
Conrad, Crapo, Durbin, Gregg, and Representative Spratt for voting to 
advance the proposal. They recognize the seriousness of our fiscal 
situation and that the Congress needs to develop a plan for action.
  The leaders of the bipartisan fiscal commission, Erskine Bowles and 
former Senator Alan Simpson, wrote to the president and leaders of 
Congress:
  ``Our growing national debt poses a dire threat to this Nation's 
future. Ever since the economic downturn, Americans have had to make 
tough choices about how to make ends meet. Now it's time for leaders in 
Washington to do the same.''
  Yet today, we see that once again, Washington is punting. Less than 
80 hours after the commission's 11 to 7 bipartisan vote, ``this 
compromise'' was unveiled at a cost of nearly $1 trillion in borrowed 
money. The commission's chairmen told us that ``the era of debt denial 
is over.'' Yet the legislation before us today clearly demonstrates 
that that is simply not the case.
  To quote Senator Coburn's floor statement of December 8:
  ``What we need to do, Democrats and Republicans and our Independent 
colleagues, is recognize the depth and magnitude of our problem right 
now. There needs to be a great big time out. Who cares who is in charge 
if there is no country to run that can be salvaged? It doesn't matter.
  ``Economists worldwide and some of the brightest people at Harvard 
and MIT, the University of Texas, Pennsylvania, they don't sleep at 
night right now. They know we are on the razor-thin edge of falling 
over a cliff.
  ``The fact is, both parties have laid a trap for future generations 
by our inaction, our laziness, our arrogance, and a crass desire for 
power. We are waterboarding the next generation with debt. We are 
drowning them in obligations because we don't have the courage to come 
together and address or even debate a real solution. . . . The problem 
is so big and so urgent and so necessary that we ought to have [a] 
debate. We ought to make sure the American people know the significance 
of the problems facing us.''
  I couldn't agree more.
  On Monday, Moody's Investment Service warned that this legislation 
jeopardizes America's coveted AAA credit rating, and could lead to a 
negative outlook in as little as two years. For the record, I am 
inserting its report.
  If our credit rating is downgraded, the cost to borrow money will 
rise.
  Everything, from a home loan to a car loan to tuition for college to 
a credit card bill to interest payments on the debt, will increase. We 
will be paying more to sustain, not to improve, our existing quality of 
life.
  We need look no farther than Europe to see the destructive impact 
that results after a nation's financial crisis. There have been riots 
in Belgium, Spain, France, Ireland, England, Italy, and Latvia. Just 
Monday, Moody's threatened to further downgrade Spain's credit ratings. 
Will there be rioting in the streets here like we are now seeing 
abroad?
  This House, and the Senate before us, is continuing on its profligate 
ways of adding billions of dollars to the nation's credit card, which 
has been issued by the banks of China and Saudi Arabia, among others.
  More than 46 percent of the U.S. debt held by the public is in 
foreign hands. Saudi Arabia was home to the 9/11 terrorists. Saudi 
Arabia's Wahhabi brand of Islam is taught in some of the most radical 
mosques and madrassas around the world, including along the Pakistan/
Afghanistan border. Saudi Arabia represses women and persecutes 
Christians and Jews.
  Their textbooks are filled with hateful messages about minority 
faiths. Just last month a BBC expose' reveled that Saudi textbooks used 
for weekend education programs to teach about 5,000 Muslim children in 
Britain, contained claims that ``some Jews were transformed into pigs 
and apes . . .'' Further, the books, which again are Saudi national 
curriculum, contain ``text and pictures showing the correct way to chop 
off the hands and feet of thieves.'' Is this a country we want to be 
beholden to?
  Or what about communist China, our largest banker, which routinely 
violates the basic human rights and religious freedom of its own people 
where Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are 
jailed for practicing their faith? I've seen how they plundered Tibet 
with my own eyes. China was once again in the spotlight recently when 
famed dissident Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace prize. China's 
response? Place Liu's wife under house arrest, stop other dissidents 
from attending the award ceremony in Oslo and place them under tight 
surveillance, and indefinitely postpone trade talks with Norway.
  The U.S. intelligence community notes that China's attempts to 
penetrate U.S. agencies are the most aggressive of all foreign 
intelligence organizations. According to the FBI, Chinese intelligence 
services ``pose a significant threat both to the national security and 
to the compromise of U.S. critical national assets.'' Weapons that 
entities of the People's Republic of China supplied to Iran were 
``found to have been transferred to terrorist organizations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.'' China is a significant arms supplier and source of 
economic strength to the genocidal regime in Sudan. Do we really want 
China to be our banker?

[[Page 22445]]

  In a February 2010 piece, Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald Seib 
wrote, ``the Federal budget deficit has long since graduated from 
nuisance to headache to pressing national concern. Now, however, it has 
become so large and persistent that it is time to start thinking of it 
as something else entirely: A national security threat.''
  These foreign countries, with vastly different aims than our own, 
could end up negatively influencing U.S. foreign policy by threatening 
to dump our currency in the world market. Such actions would not be a 
historical anomaly.
  Recall 1956 in the Suez Canal crisis, which some believed signaled 
the end of Britain and France as world powers. Egypt announced that it 
was going to nationalize the canal, which outraged the British and 
French, who then devised a plan to use military force to keep control. 
The U.S. wanted to avert conflict at any cost. And President Eisenhower 
threatened to sell the U.S. reserves of the British pound, which would 
essentially result in the collapse of the British currency. The British 
changed course, demonstrating the power, the impact, that economic 
manipulation can have on foreign policy.
  Is it conceivable to imagine the Saudis threatening to dump our 
currency if we don't withdraw from the region? Is it conceivable to 
imagine China threatening to dump our currency if we don't stop 
pressing nuclear-armed North Korea?
  Simply put, we are presently borrowing hundreds of billions of 
dollars from countries which pursue aims that are at odds with our 
national interest and values, both directly and indirectly.
  The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has pointed to our nation's 
debt as a national security risk. It is expected that, as early as 
2014, our nation will spend more on interest payments than was spent on 
the 2010 defense budget. In case you missed that, we will pay more to 
borrow money than we will pay to defend our freedom.
  This is a package full of numerous perks to sweeten the deal. As the 
Wall Street Journal editorial, ``The Hawkeye Handouts,'' noted on 
December 13, Republicans ``should worry that the tax bill is turning 
into a special interest spectacle. The bill revives a $1 a gallon 
biodiesel tax credit at a cost of nearly $2 billion, and there's $202 
million for `incentives for alternative fuel,' $331 million for a 50% 
tax credit for maintaining railroad tracks, and so on. These credits 
are a form of special interest spending via the tax code, which is 
precisely the business as usual behavior that Republicans told tea 
party voters they wouldn't engage in.''
  Dan Eggen of the Washington Post reported yesterday that ``. . . the 
ethanol provision . . . has cost taxpayers more than $21 billion since 
2006. The Government Accountability Office recently concluded that the 
credit has had little impact in encouraging ethanol use or production, 
especially since the government already mandates rising levels of 
ethanol in gasoline and protects the corn ethanol industry through 
tariffs.''
  From farmers producing ethanol to Puerto Ricans making rum to film 
producers in Hollywood, there's something for everyone. Even worse, the 
payroll tax holiday raids, for the first time in our history, the 
Social Security trust fund, which is already going broke. No one comes 
away empty handed.
  This is, as Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post on 
December 10, nothing more than a stimulus by another name--an unfunded 
stimulus that costs considerably more than the President's stimulus of 
2009 that so many on my side of the aisle opposed.
  Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal 
Budget, hit the nail on the head in an October 2009 National Journal 
article when she said, ``It's like fiscal jenga, where people are 
piling on more and more debt, and finally, something's going to be the 
cause of it collapsing, but no one believes their thing is going to be 
the tipping point.''
  This package could be the ``thing'' that takes us closer to the 
tipping point.
  Candidly, I have never been more concerned about our country's 
future. We see a nation whose young people are lagging behind their 
peers globally. We see a Senate debating a $1.1 trillion omnibus 
spending measure containing over 6,000 earmarks representing over $8 
billion worth of spending. We see a Congress and a president embracing 
a tax package that risks our nation's highly valued AAA bond rating. 
All the while we see young men and women in uniform, in distant places 
like Afghanistan and Iraq, modeling the sort of sacrifice that few 
Americans even expect from their elected leaders any more.
  Only through shared sacrifice can we hope to walk back from the 
precipice. But instead of asking for sacrifice, the measure before us 
today provides something for everyone. Maybe not as much as everyone 
wanted, but what was truly sacrificed? The word compromise implies that 
both sides in the negotiation give up something. No one gave up 
anything. Legislation of this magnitude must be balanced by reforms.
  But instead of reforms we see recklessness. This legislation walks us 
further down the path to greater and greater deficits and debt that can 
only lead to a place none of us wants to go--a bankrupt America. I 
cannot in good conscience leave that type of country to my children and 
grandchildren.
  At his 1796 farewell address, George Washington admonished his fellow 
countrymen: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the 
burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.''
  Enough is enough. I vote ``no.''

          [From Moody's Weekly Credit Outlook, Dec. 13, 2010]

  US Tax Package Is Negative for US Credit, but Positive for Economic 
                                 Growth

       If the tax and unemployment-benefit package agreed to on 6 
     December by President Obama and congressional Republican 
     leaders becomes law, it will boost economic growth in the 
     next two years, but adversely affect the federal government 
     budget deficit and debt level. From a credit perspective, the 
     negative effects on government finance are likely to outweigh 
     the positive effects of higher economic growth. Unless there 
     are offsetting measures, the package will be credit negative 
     for the US and increase the likelihood of a negative outlook 
     on the US government's Aaa rating during the next two years
       One motivation for the two-year extension of the current 
     personal income tax rates (put in place in 2001 and 2003 and 
     referred to as the ``Bush tax cuts'') is to prevent a setback 
     to economic and employment growth that would result from 
     higher taxes beginning on 1 January, the expiration date of 
     the earlier tax cuts. Keeping the existing tax rates would 
     not provide an impetus to growth, but raising them would have 
     a negative effect. However, the package also includes, among 
     other things, an extension of unemployment benefits for the 
     long-term unemployed through 2011 and a two-percentage-point 
     cut in the Social Security payroll tax. The latter two 
     measures will give a boost to economic and employment growth 
     in the coming two years, with some forecasters significantly 
     raising their GDP growth numbers in 2011 and 2012.
       Higher economic growth should have a positive effect on 
     government revenues and reduce payments related to 
     unemployment. However, the magnitude of this positive effect 
     will be considerably less than the foregone revenue and 
     increased benefit expenditure, resulting in substantially 
     higher budget deficits than would have otherwise been the 
     case. The Congressional Budget Office's most recent estimate 
     of the deficit for fiscal year 2011 was $1.1 trillion, or 7% 
     of GDP, assuming no expiration of the tax cuts, and $665 
     billion (4.2%) in fiscal year 2012. These deficits would 
     raise the ratio of government debt to GDP to 68.5% by the end 
     of fiscal year 2012, compared with 61.6% two years earlier.
       The net cost of the proposed package of tax-cut extensions, 
     payroll-tax reductions, unemployment benefits, and some other 
     measures may be $700-$900 billion, raising the debt ratio to 
     72%-73%, depending on the effects on nominal economic growth. 
     The government's ratio of debt to revenue, instead of 
     declining rather steeply over the two years from about 420% 
     at the end of fiscal year 2010, would decline considerably 
     less to somewhere just under 400%. This is a very high ratio 
     compared with both history and other highly rated sovereigns.
       Thus, while higher growth and lower unemployment are 
     clearly good for the economy, the package is negative for US 
     government debt metrics. In addition, there is a risk that 
     the two-year extension may be renewed at the end of 2012, 
     given that that period coincides with a presidential 
     election. A permanent extension of the tax cuts alone 
     (without other measures) could result in a considerable 
     increase in deficits and debt levels unless other measures to 
     reduce deficits are adopted. The exhibit below illustrates 
     that the fiscal balance in the coming decade would be 
     considerably higher under such a scenario, all other things 
     being equal, and this would result in a worsening of the 
     government's debt position. A package of options put forth by 
     the fiscal commission at the beginning of this month provides 
     a menu of such measures that would reverse these trends, but 
     their adoption remains uncertain.

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, I recently voted again in favor of H.R. 4853, 
the Middle Class Tax Relief Act, legislation which ensures the 
continuation of the Bush-era tax cuts, fixes the AMT patch, and 
significantly reduces the burden of the estate tax in 2011. If no 
action had been taken by this Congress, all Americans would have had to 
pay higher income, dividend, estate, and capital gains taxes beginning 
on January 1, 2011. I will always vote to lower taxes at all levels, 
and I will never vote for tax increases.

[[Page 22446]]

  Many opponents of this bill labor under the mistaken impression that 
it contains huge amounts of pork, earmarks, and other spending. What 
they are referring to is hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax 
credits. Tax credits are not spending, they are not earmarks, they are 
not pork: they merely allow people to keep more of their own money. 
While the Administration's desire in extending these particular credits 
may be to placate certain constituencies or to spur consumption or 
investment into certain sectors of the economy, the morally correct 
position is to allow people to keep their hard-earned money. That money 
belongs to the people and businesses who earned it, not to the 
government. If one wants to make it more equitable, then the amount of 
tax credits should be increased to include everyone.
  Characterizing the tax cuts as fiscally irresponsible, as other 
opponents of the bill have done, is equally misguided. Those who wish 
to see this deal defeated because it ``adds nearly $900 billion to the 
National Debt'' are punishing taxpayers for the profligacy of the 
government. The National Debt is nearly $14 trillion because of 
excessive spending, not because of tax cuts. Every dollar added to the 
National Debt is due to the government's inability to rein in spending, 
not because American taxpayers are paying too little of their salaries 
to the Federal Government. This is why I vote against all 
appropriations bills. Allowing taxes to rise and provide more money to 
the federal government would only serve to further feed the beast that 
is devouring this country.
  This bill also reduces the burden of the estate tax, which according 
to law is set to return in 2011. This unconscionable tax is an 
insidious form of double taxation and comes into effect in 2011 with a 
55 percent tax rate. Americans should not be penalized for accumulating 
savings during their lifetimes. The estate tax especially harms small 
and family-owned businesses, which often must be sold to pay the tax 
bill. H.R. 4853 reduces this death tax rate from 55 percent to 35 
percent, and raises the exemption from $1 million to $5 million. While 
I would prefer to see this tax eliminated completely, this significant 
tax cut will help thousands of families.
  Many people have urged that this tax bill be rejected and that 
Republicans come back in January to vote on a clean bill. Waiting until 
the next Congress would also mean that taxpayers would have much more 
of their salary withheld until any tax cuts could be made. While it is 
certainly possible to wait until January, we still have a Democratic 
Senate, and a Democratic president who would likely veto a clean tax 
bill. I too would prefer to see a completely clean bill, but that is 
not what we have been given. A vote against the bill before us today 
would be a vote to raise taxes on all Americans.
  Much of the debate about this bill only serves to distract people 
from discussing substantive change and lead to argument about picayune 
minutiae. I believe we should abolish the income tax and eliminate the 
IRS altogether. Congress funded the government using excise taxes for 
more than 120 years without an income tax, and the Federal Government 
not surprisingly adhered much more closely to the constitutionally-
defined limits of its powers during that time. Real tax reform can only 
happen when we insist on reducing the size of the Federal Government 
and reducing the pork in its bloated budget.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Tax Relief Act 
of 2010 and urge its passage.
  My Colleagues, the goal of this legislation is to prevent the 
imposition of the largest tax increase in the history of the world and 
to continue many valuable tax provisions that promote economic growth.
  These goals are my goals. There Is never a good time to raise taxes, 
but I cannot think of a worse time to increase the tax burden on 
America's hard-working families and job-creating small businesses than 
in the middle of a weak recovery.
  Like all Members, I have strongly supported extending the Bush tax 
rates, enacted in 2001 and 2003.
  Like some of my Colleagues, I have supported extending these lower 
tax rates for everyone and making that extension permanent. That's why 
I introduced H.R. 4270 which would lock in these lower tax rates 
indefinitely.
  The important legislation before us today includes many beneficial 
provisions. For example, the agreement:
  Prevents tax increases on every American who pays income taxes.
  Eliminates job-killing tax increases on small businesses.
  Provides relief from the estate tax for family owned businesses.
  Preserves the $1,000 per child tax credit and marriage penalty 
relief.
  Blocks higher taxes on capital gains and dividends.
  Protects at least 21 million households, including 1.6 million in New 
Jersey, from being hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) in 2010.
  Provides a one-year payroll tax cut that is worth $1,400 for the 
average New Jersey household.
  I must acknowledge that I am not pleased that this bill prevents a 
tax hike on higher income Americans and small businessmen and women, 
which would have taken effect on New Year's Day 2011, for only two 
years.
  Our economy does not run on temporary, stop-gap half-measures. In 
order to invest and grow their companies for the future--creating 
private sector jobs and opportunities in the process--businesses of all 
sizes need predictability in the tax code. They need certainty in order 
to plan their operations and workforce expansion. In order to spur job 
creation, all the tax rates should be extended as far as the eye can 
see!
  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that fully 
extending the 2001 and 2003 tax rates would add between 600,000 and 1.4 
million private sector jobs in 2011 and between 900,000 and 2.7 million 
jobs in 2012. In addition, lower tax rates on capital gains and 
dividends will boost capital investment and spur economic growth.
  I also have strong reservations about some of the spending included 
in this bill and some of the so-called tax extensions.
  For example, the package extends the federal Unemployment insurance 
(UI) Program for another 13 months and maintains the current cap of 99 
weeks of total benefits.
  I understand that people need a helping hand and strongly support 
aiding unemployed Americans. However, the President has insisted that 
the cost of extending benefits be added to the country's $14 trillion 
debt. We can do better than this. The fact is that we CAN help the 
long-term unemployed AND pay for it.
  Likewise, we should object to certain so-called ``tax extenders'' 
such as the renewed subsidies for the production and use of corn 
ethanol. For yet another year, $6 billion will be extracted from U.S. 
taxpayers to prop up the struggling ethanol industry while diverting 
valuable corn supplies from other worthwhile uses.
  Despite these and other reasons, I will support this bipartisan 
agreement. I recognize that a ``no'' vote on this bill represents a 
``no'' vote on the U.S. economy.
  It would be nothing short of a disaster to allow the largest tax 
increase in U.S. history to crush American families and small business 
in two short weeks.
  Mr. Chair, the larger debate surrounding extension of the lower Bush 
tax rates underscores the need for Congress to act decisively in the 
New Year to support private sector job creation, reduce government 
spending, lower our dangerous public debt and enact permanent tax 
reform.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, when most people borrow money--and go into 
debt--it's either for survival or for an investment that will pay off 
in the future.
  Borrowing $114 billion from China to give massive tax breaks to the 
wealthiest Americans meets neither of those goals.
  Over the last ten years, while economic growth has stalled and middle 
class wages have stagnated, the wealthy have been doing just fine. In 
fact, two-thirds of all the income gains made in this country over the 
last ten years have gone to the wealthiest one percent. And the top one 
percent now owns more financial wealth than the bottom 90 percent.
  They clearly don't need any more help to get ahead.
  This $114 billion tax giveaway to the rich is not an investment in 
our economy.
  Just look at what happened in the decade that followed the passage of 
these cuts in 2001.
  Even if you exclude the beginning of the recession, we saw the 
slowest economic growth since World War 2: fewer jobs created, fewer 
businesses started, fewer dollars injected into our economy.
  So where did all that money go? Into the bank accounts of the 
wealthiest few. When their taxes were cut, they banked three times as 
much money than before. More money was stashed away rather than--as 
some would have you believe--put into business expansion or job 
creation.
  That's why the Congressional Budget Office ranked an extension of 
these tax breaks LAST among the options we have to help grow the 
economy and create jobs.
  There are things in this proposal that are about survival, like an 
extension of unemployment insurance to help the families hit hardest by 
this recession. There are investments, like the tax credits that will 
help small businesses expand.
  But unfortunately--and ultimately--the long-term costs of this bill 
are far more damaging to our nation than these short-term gains.

[[Page 22447]]

  Borrowing money to give tax cuts to the rich--tax cuts that are more 
than most families make in a year--is unconscionable.
  Economics shows this is a dead-end. History proves it would be 
disastrous. And basic morality dictates that our priorities should 
focus on making our economy work for EVERYONE--not just the wealthy 
few.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in standing against this proposal and 
its unacceptable price and yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, our economy is still very weak: 
over 75 percent of American workers are living paycheck-to-paycheck. 
The unemployment rate stands at 9.8 percent, and over eight million 
Americans are subsisting on unemployment insurance benefits while they 
search for work. In Georgia alone, the unemployment rate is over 10 
percent. 67,000 additional Georgians filed for unemployment insurance 
last month. Despite these sobering numbers, our nation is on a 
dangerous path toward the largest tax increase in over a decade if we 
do not approve this vital legislation before us today.
  We must not let this happen. We must change course. Our nation's 
workers, retirees, businesses, and job-seekers simply cannot afford the 
crushing burden of new taxes in today's economy. Raising taxes in this 
economic environment would stifle investment, slow down job creation, 
and put severe financial strain on businesses and individuals.
  This bipartisan legislation confronts this reality. It temporarily 
continues the Bush Tax Cuts for the benefit of all Americans. It 
provides a desperately needed extension of unemployment insurance 
benefits. It reduces the crushing burden of the estate tax on our 
nation's family farms and businesses. And it puts money back into the 
paychecks of America's workers.
  I urge my colleagues to take action and vote to send this legislation 
to the President's desk. Now is the time to act. We owe it to our 
constituents and to our nation not to let their taxes go up on New 
Year's Day.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, I will vote for this tax package that is 
before us tonight.
  While there is absolutely no reason to justify or defend the 
extension of the Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans, and the 
unconscionable tax treatment of wealthy estates--both of which were 
insisted upon by the Republicans--those egregious giveaways to those 
who need or deserve it least are, in fact, more than balanced by 
generous support for tens of millions of households across the country.
  I will vote for the Pomeroy amendment to restore the estate tax to 
sensible levels. There is no justification for massive estate tax 
relief for the Nation's 6,600 wealthiest families, at a cost of $25 
billion to America's taxpayers.
  Despite continuing the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 
per year, and despite the estate tax provisions, this initiative, 
forged by President Obama, does a lot of good.
  We are extending unemployment insurance for 13 more months. It is 
desperately needed by those who simply cannot find jobs after being out 
of work for months.
  We are providing continued income tax rate relief for two years for 
the middle class.
  The payroll tax holiday is an enormously progressive reform at a time 
when it is most needed to boost take home pay.
  The extension of the child tax credit and the tuition tax credit in 
particular will greatly assist income security for American families. 
The green energy tax provisions will help create jobs and promote clean 
energy technology.
  The bottom line is: This economy needs more jobs. We need to get 
unemployment down and growth up. Working Americans need more cash in 
their pockets. The economy needs a major jolt to go forward.
  This package delivers on these urgent needs.
  While I take no pride in any vote to give unearned financial rewards 
to the very wealthiest among us, I cannot in good conscience be party 
to legislative deadlock that means only one thing: millions of people 
cut off from unemployment insurance before Christmas, and a big tax hit 
on the middle class and working Americans as the new year begins. If we 
do not act, they will suffer grievously. That must not be permitted to 
happen.
  I must point out that the fact that the tax cuts last only two years 
and will not be permanently extended is a major plus for me. When our 
economy recovers, our high priority to reduce the deficit will require 
us to both cut spending and raise revenues. I am pleased the President 
has pledged that he will not further extend or make permanent the upper 
income tax cuts.
  I support the President's proposals, and urge my colleagues to join 
in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R 4853, 
legislation based on the agreement between the White House and 
Congressional Republican leaders that calls for borrowing nearly $1 
trillion over the next two years.
  Further, I am appalled that the unemployed are being held hostage in 
order to ram the flawed measure through Congress. And I have yet to 
find the equity in extending tax cuts for 24 months, but the solvency 
of the unemployment fund for 13 months.
  I oppose borrowing nearly 1 trillion over the next two years when we 
have a debt today of $13.8 trillion.
  I oppose borrowing nearly $1 trillion over the next two years when 
our projected deficit for Fiscal Year 2011 is $1.1 trillion.
  I oppose borrowing nearly $1 trillion over the next two years when we 
will pay $438 billion in interest on the national debt this year alone. 
I can't imagine what this figure will look like when interest rates 
inevitably head higher.
  I oppose borrowing nearly $1 trillion over the next two years for an 
agreement that fundamentally weakens Social Security through a payroll 
tax ``holiday.'' The holiday means we will be paying less money than 
anticipated into Social Security, thus reducing its solvency. In 
fairness, we're told that the government will ``find'' the money to 
make up the loss. Where?
  But what's the big deal if this is only temporary? If the debate 
around the expiration of the Bush tax cuts has taught us anything, it 
is that, fair or not, a so-called ``temporary'' tax cut can be quickly 
re-characterized as an impending tax hike.
  If Members of Congress and the President do not have the intestinal 
fortitude to make thoughtful, tough, permanent decisions today, do you 
think they will with Presidential and Congressional elections looming 
next December? I believe the decisions made this week will become 
permanent, fundamentally weakening our country.
  I oppose borrowing nearly $1 trillion over the next two years because 
we have a desperate need for investment in our nation's roads, bridges, 
ports, railroads, and water services. Just three months ago, the 
infrastructure in the state of Indiana received a grade of D+ from the 
Indiana section of the American Society of Civil Engineers in a report 
that identified a need for billions of dollars in safety and service 
upgrades. Next year, because of this agreement, we'll be told we just 
don't have any money left to invest.
  Not all the provisions in this agreement are bad. There are many good 
ones, including making a decision about estate taxes. But they are not 
all of equal merit. better approach would have been to examine each tax 
provision and approve those that encouraged savings and investment the 
most, then pay for them, and make them permanent.
  But no, let's hold the unemployed hostage. Let's borrow nearly $1 
trillion over the next 2 years. Let's reduce the solvency of Social 
Security. Let's further disinvest in our nation's intellectual and 
economic infrastructure.
  Robin Hood stole from the rich for others. We're stealing from our 
children for ourselves. My first grade teacher, Sister Marlene, would 
be ashamed.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I regret that I must rise in opposition to 
the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010. Today's legislation is 
fiscally irresponsible and recklessly extends Bush era tax cuts for the 
rich, the millionaires and billionaires, and establishes an extremely 
low estate tax rate. However, I am supportive of efforts to extend 
unemployment benefits.
  To add insult to injury, this bill includes not one, but two bailouts 
for the ultra wealthy. In addition to extending income tax cuts for the 
rich, this bill reduces the estate tax from 55 percent to 35 percent 
next year. This second bailout will give a gigantic tax giveaway to a 
few thousand of the richest families in the country and add hundreds of 
billions to the national debt.
  I was also dismayed an increase to the debt ceiling was not included 
in today's proposal. Congress will have to vote to increase the debt 
ceiling next year. Many in this body would like to hold the debt 
ceiling vote hostage and demand massive spending cuts and or make the 
Bush tax cuts permanent in exchange for their votes. We need to show 
the American people that tax cuts for the wealthy are not free and that 
they add huge amounts to the national debt.
  Just a few weeks ago, this chamber voted separately to extend both 
middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits to those who lost their 
jobs through no fault of their own. While I agree that we need to 
protect the most vulnerable, the unemployed and working families who 
need every cent during this time of economic malaise, it is 
irresponsible to continue Bush era tax rates for wealthy Americans, 
which are neither justified nor needed, for the next two years. 
Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence that tax cuts for rich

[[Page 22448]]

have helped the economy in any tangible way. The Act will steal 
hundreds of billions of dollars of needed revenue for America's fiscal 
future.
  This compromise bill also includes a two percent employee-side 
payroll tax cut that I fear will weaken the Social Security trust fund. 
Today's proposal would deny over $120 billion each year to the Social 
Security fund and make it easier for conservatives to weaken Social 
Security's revenue streams in the future. I support giving working 
Americans extra cash in their pay check, but it should not be taken 
away from the Social Security trust fund.
  Last week, I stated that this tax compromise was a fight for the 
heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Democrats have always stood for 
the workers, the disenfranchised, and those who are denied the 
opportunity to compete for the blessings of the American Dream because 
of their race, creed, religion, or class. I fear that passage of this 
bill tonight will tarnish this proud legacy of our party and cause the 
98 percent of Americans without estates or astronomical personal wealth 
to question which party will fight for them. If this bill passes, each 
and every member of this body should look themselves in the mirror and 
consider what we have lost in the name of compromise. I encourage my 
colleagues to reject this flawed bill.''
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, H.R. 4853 was negotiated in the dead of 
night, and I am outraged by the take-it-or-leave tactics employed to 
ram this legislation through the House, no less in a lame-duck session. 
This is not how good legislation is produced, and I am convinced we 
will feel the repercussions of this for years.
  In considering H.R. 4853, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010, 
members of the House of Representatives confront the tragic choice of 
extending unemployment benefits and current middle-class tax rates at 
the price of enormous tax give-aways to millionaires and fat cats on 
Wall Street. At a time when American corporations are making record 
earnings and giving million-dollar holiday bonuses, we are extending 
tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans for two years but 
extending unemployment insurance for only 13 months. This greatly 
frustrates me, and I believe we must do more to help working families. 
Equally distressing is the fact that this lop-sided agreement hides 
another, more insidious provision that could promise to do future 
violence to the federal program upon which millions of senior citizens 
in this country rely for their very existence, namely Social Security.
  I am somewhat comforted, however, that H.R. 4853 clearly mandates the 
shortfall in revenue to the Social Security Trust Fund caused by the 
bill's one-year payroll tax holiday be made whole with a transfer from 
the Treasury's General Fund. This measure is designed ostensibly to 
provide Americans with more take-home pay to spend or save as they see 
fit, but it earns only my hesitant backing for fear that Republicans 
will attempt to make this provision permanent when it expires next 
year. Such a move can only be seen as the first step leading to what my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle want most: privatizing Social 
Security.
  While I maintain my strong reservations about portions of this tax 
package that benefit only the wealthiest two percent of all Americans, 
my colleagues and I cannot in good conscience return to our districts 
without having secured an extension of unemployment benefits and 
existing tax rates for middle-class families so aggrieved by the 
current recession. The good people of the 15th District need the 
stability of assured unemployment benefits to help get them through 
this holiday season, giving them time until they find stable 
employment.
  Now is one of the times when it is ultimately better for our 
government leaders to come together on common ground where it can be 
found, instead of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. 
In this case, the government is taking real action to stimulate the 
economy and help those desperately in need. Democrats are making the 
choice to protect millions of Americans struggling to keep food on the 
table and keep the heat on while searching hard for a job. According to 
the Center for American Progress, the tax deal would save or create 2.2 
million jobs through 2012. In Michigan, the importance of the 
unemployment extension cannot be overstated. In November 2011, almost 
300,000 Michiganders will lose their unemployment benefits without 
federal action. These are real numbers, and this is real money that 
will have a positive impact on our economy at a time when it is 
desperately needed.
  Absent a better choice, I will vote in favor of H.R. 4853. I do so as 
Dean of this House and the proud son of a man who helped pass the 
Social Security Act but demand my colleagues' sacred vow that this 
bill's payroll tax holiday never again be extended. To do so would be 
an indefensible assault on the economic and social progress achieved by 
generations of working-class Americans. I assure you, Madam Speaker and 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I will do everything in 
power to make sure Social Security is protected from rascality and 
available for not only current recipients, but also their children and 
grandchildren.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chair, Americans spoke clearly on November 
second. Congress must get serious about reducing the deficit and become 
better stewards of their tax dollars. After endless talk throughout 
this session about fiscal responsibility, the looming threat of a 
growing deficit and forcing America's next generation into crushing 
debt to China--a so-called tax deal has been produced. Today this House 
will vote on a bill that will explode the deficit by $858 billion 
dollars.
  While this package includes several programs I have proudly 
supported, I cannot support the underlying bill. As recently as last 
week I voted to give every American a tax cut by making the middle 
class tax cuts permanent for the millions of American families, 
consumers and small business owners who drive our economy. I have 
consistently voted to extend unemployment insurance to assist the 
families struggling in this difficult recession. I have voted to extend 
the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit to assist our 
nation's low-income families who have a difficult enough time making 
ends meet as it is. I have consistently voted in for ethanol and 
biodiesel tax credits that sustain the growth of our nation's renewable 
energy industry and support the jobs of thousands of my constituents in 
Iowa.
  Those were some of the good things included in this deal. 
Unfortunately, the merits of these good things do not outweigh the bad 
things in this deal. I cannot justify mortgaging our children's futures 
to provide a Christmas bonanza to the privileged few. I refuse to 
support increasing the deficit by at least $81 billion to provide a tax 
break to the wealthiest persons in this country. I refuse to support a 
bill that would balloon the deficit by $23 billion to provide an 
average tax break of more than $1.5 million to only 6,600 families a 
year. And I unequivocally refuse to threaten the long-term viability of 
social security with a shell game to pay for diminished social security 
contributions.
  I'm voting ``no'' on this bad deal because we cannot keep kicking the 
can down the road when it comes to difficult decisions about the 
deficit, especially with a package that threatens the financial 
stability of our nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
``no.''
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my 
concerns regarding the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance 
Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010.
  The American economy is slowly recovering from the worst recession 
we've seen since the Great Depression. While there has been some 
improvement, the economy is still fragile, and we need to ensure that 
our tax policy for the near future supports job growth if we are to 
continue on this path of recovery.
  Unfortunately, the tax package that the Senate has sent us today does 
not support the creation of new jobs.
  The United States is quickly being surpassed by other countries in 
infrastructure and clean energy investments. Rather than supporting tax 
policies to reverse this trend, the Senate's tax package focuses on tax 
cuts for the wealthiest in our population and old energy sources that 
do not present great possibilities for our future.
  While the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) made 
important strides in closing that gap, this legislation is a step 
backwards. The Senate's tax package includes a one year extension of 
the Treasury Grant Program enacted in section 1603 of ARRA that allows 
renewable energy companies to receive a cash grant in lieu of either 
the production or investment tax credit. The Program was designed to 
allow renewable energy projects to continue while investor demands for 
tax credits lagged in a sluggish economy. Unfortunately, a one year 
extension is insufficient to ensure a steady stream of investment in 
renewable energy projects and may stall the momentum we've built in 
creating a strong, green economy.
  Further, the tax package fails to include the Advanced Energy 
Manufacturing Tax Credit from ARRA, a program that was immensely 
useful. The tax credit was created to expand domestic clean energy 
manufacturing. America needs to rebuild its manufacturing base to 
compete in the global marketplace. The Manufacturing Tax Credit is 
crucial to laying a foundation for the United States to be a leader in 
the clean energy manufacturing industry.

[[Page 22449]]

  The failure to extend these critical programs will have negative 
economic impact across the country and in my district in San Jose. As a 
Member from Silicon Valley, I represent many renewable energy and 
energy efficiency companies that are currently utilizing these credits 
to create jobs and stimulate the economy. By not including robust 
renewable energy programs as part of our tax policy, we are failing to 
invest in our economic future, and for that reason, I am unable to vote 
for the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job 
Creation Act of 2010.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chair, despite the clear message sent by the 
American people in November, the Obama Administration and the Pelosi 
Congress continue to borrow and spend like there is no tomorrow.
  In another attempt to bring some fiscal responsibility back to this 
Congress, I submitted an amendment yesterday in the House Rules 
Committee that would seek $149 billion in cuts to offset the $95 
billion in new spending in H.R. 4853, the so-called Middle Class Tax 
Relief Act of 2010.
  While I am glad to see this bill temporarily stop the Democrats from 
raising the income tax rates of every American, I am disappointed that 
it includes a massive increase in the estate tax that will hurt the 
families, farmers and small business owners in my district and across 
America.
  I am further disappointed that the new spending in this bill will add 
to the deficit, further burdening our children and grandchildren with 
debt that must be repaid. We cannot continue to grow our debt and by 
loading well-intentioned bills with billions of extra dollars in 
borrowing and spending.
  My amendment would do what the American people are demanding we do: 
stop the out-of-control federal spending! By returning non-defense 
appropriations spending to FY 2008 levels, we will realize an immediate 
savings of $80 billion. By repealing the remaining stimulus funds, we 
save another $69 billion.
  Tacking more spending on to bills is a hallmark of Washington 
politics. It has landed us in record-high debt. We must break away from 
this trap with a commitment to passing clean bills and eliminating 
excess waste.

       Add at the end of the bill the following:

     TITLE __--APPROPRIATIONS AT LOWER PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR LEVELS

        That the following sums are hereby appropriated, out of 
     any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out 
     of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and 
     funds, for the several departments, agencies, corporations, 
     and other organizational units of Government for fiscal year 
     2011, and for other purposes, namely:
       Sec. __. (a) The amounts provided in the appropriations 
     Acts for fiscal year 2008 referred to in section 101 of 
     division A of Public Law 110-329 and under the authority and 
     conditions provided in such Acts for projects or activities 
     (including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees) 
     that are not otherwise provided for, that were conducted in 
     fiscal years 2008 and 2010, and for which appropriations, 
     funds, or other authority were made available in such Acts.
       (b) If the amount provided for a project or activity by 
     subsection (a) would be higher than the amount provided in 
     appropriation Acts for fiscal year 2010, such project or 
     activity shall be funded at the lower such amount.
       Sec. __.  There is hereby enacted into law the provisions 
     of the following:
       (1) The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2011, as 
     reported in the 111th Congress by the Subcommittee on Defense 
     of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 
     2011, as reported in the 111th Congress by the Subcommittee 
     on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (3) The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011, as passed in the 
     111th Congress by the House of Representatives.
       Sec. __.  Appropriations made by section __ shall be 
     available to the extent and in the manner that would be 
     provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
       Sec. __.  Unless otherwise provided for in the applicable 
     appropriations Act, appropriations and funds made available 
     and authority granted pursuant to this joint resolution shall 
     be available through September 30, 2011.
       Sec. __.  For entitlements and other mandatory payments 
     whose budget authority was provided in appropriations Acts 
     for fiscal year 2010, and for activities under the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008, activities shall be continued at the 
     rate to maintain program levels under current law, under the 
     authority and conditions provided in the applicable 
     appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010, to be continued 
     through the date specified in section 104.
       Sec. __.  Funds appropriated by this joint resolution may 
     be obligated and expended notwithstanding section 10 of 
     Public Law 91-672 (22 U.S.C. 2412), section 15 of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2680), 
     section 313 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 6212), and section 
     504(a)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     414(a)(1)).
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this joint 
     resolution may be used to carry out any program under, 
     promulgate any regulation pursuant to, or defend against any 
     lawsuit challenging any provision of, Public Law 111-148 or 
     Public Law 111-152 or any amendment made by either such 
     Public Law.
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this joint 
     resolution may be used for a congressional earmark as defined 
     in clause 9(e) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives.
       Further, add at the end of the bill the following:

                 TITLE __--ARRA RESCISSION AND REPEALS

     SEC. __. ARRA RESCISSION AND REPEALS.

       (a) Rescission.--Of the discretionary appropriations made 
     available in division A of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), all unobligated 
     balances are rescinded.
       (b) Repeals.--Subtitles B and C of title II and titles III 
     through VII of division B of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) are repealed.

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose H.R. 4853, the Tax 
Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 
2010.
  Santa Claus is arriving early for a handful of wealthy individuals 
and industries this year. Wall Street should be throwing a parade 
today. They can certainly afford one after the President failed to 
uphold one of his signature campaign promises of letting tax breaks for 
the rich expire as planned.
  We hear a lot of hand wringing about the deficit, but this 
``compromise'' extends all of the Bush tax cuts for the next 2 years, 
adding hundreds of billions to the deficit so that millionaires won't 
have to pay their fair share of taxes. It also includes billions of 
deficit financed tax favors to special interests. No one who votes for 
this package has any credibility left when talking about the deficit.
  This bill is skewed toward the very wealthy. According to the Tax 
Policy Center, the biggest share of the tax cuts will go to the richest 
families, many with incomes of several million dollars. Households in 
the top 1 percent of income will see an average tax break that is 
higher than the annual income of nearly 80 percent of American 
families. The distribution of the tax savings is disproportionate and 
just unfair. The wealthiest 20 percent of taxpayers are going to get 60 
percent of the tax savings from this extension.
  The handouts to the ultra-rich will follow them to the grave. 
Thousands of millionaires will now be able to die with the confidence 
that their assets will not be impacted by the estate tax. Without 
Congressional action, the 44,000 wealthiest families would have paid 
the estate tax in 2011. Now that the administration has agreed to the 
most generous estate tax plan in recent history--a $5 million exemption 
and 35 percent rate--only the wealthiest 3,600 estates are expected to 
pay the estate tax in 2011. The theme here is clear: the rich will 
continue to hold more and more wealth and power in this country while 
the middle class is warned that it will have to accept cuts to Social 
Security and Medicare in order to balance the budget.
  Every business interest imaginable will get their piece of the pie. 
The corn ethanol industry, which is already guaranteed a robust market 
by the federal government, will continue to be showered with subsidies 
to the tune of $6 billion a year. You would be mistaken if you think 
this handout helps farmers. It is actually paid to the oil companies 
that blend the ethanol--BP claimed over $500 million from the credit in 
2008 alone. And the list goes on. Owners of NASCAR speedways will be 
able to accelerate their tax write-offs faster than other businesses, 
rum makers will get an extension of tariff rebates and Hollywood 
studios will get tax breaks when they produce movies and television 
shows.
  There are good things for working families in this agreement, but 
they pale in comparison to the gifts to the upper class. Extended 
Unemployment Insurance benefits will be continued for 13 months and 
spare millions of Americans from losing their income, allowing them to 
keep food on their tables and a roof over their heads. Extending 
improvements made to the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax 
Credit made by the Recovery Act also makes sense and will help many 
families.
  A payroll tax holiday will put money into the pockets of people who 
need it most, but I worry what this will mean for the future of Social 
Security. The provision also unfairly leaves out thousands of federal 
workers and teachers in my state of California. It is sad that we have 
to hand out several hundred billion

[[Page 22450]]

dollars worth of benefits for millionaires just to find the votes to 
help working families make ends meet.
  Two weeks ago I voted for the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 
that would have extended tax cuts for middle class Americans. I also 
voted to extend Unemployment Benefits for working people. Those are the 
bills we should be sending to the President. But the legislation before 
us today is a colossus, burying those benefits for Americans struggling 
to keep a roof over their heads underneath billions in blatant handouts 
to the wealthiest taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to defeat this 
legislation.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise in qualified support 
of this tax cut agreement. I do so only after carefully weighing its 
positive elements against its severe flaws and with a realistic sense 
of the dire consequences should the measure fail.
  This conclusion says as much about the gamesmanship of our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle--and, I'm afraid, about what we can 
expect in the next Congress--as it does about the contents of the 
legislation. No program or priority has been too sacred for House and 
Senate Republicans to hold hostage in their fervor to extend President 
Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, regardless of how many 
hard-working families have had to suffer in the process. Programs that 
have always enjoyed strong bipartisan support--such as unemployment 
insurance and small business tax credits--have suddenly become 
``Democratic'' priorities, fair game to be stonewalled by Republicans 
until they could squeeze every last concession out of this deal.
  The disconnect between what they say and what they do should be 
painfully obvious to the American people. How does their support for 
tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires square with their stated 
priorities of balancing the budget and growing the economy? Spending 
$130 billion over the next 2 years alone on tax cuts for the richest 2 
percent of Americans--without paying for a cent of it--is certainly a 
strange way to demonstrate their fiscal discipline. And it's also the 
least effective step we can take to spur the economy. If economic 
recovery were really the goal, they would have extended unemployment 
insurance the first chance they had, because nothing plows money back 
into the economy more effectively.
  If this is where the Republican Party's true priorities lie, then I 
have never been prouder to be a Democrat. I have never been prouder to 
stand up for hard-working Americans who have lost their jobs and cannot 
find a new one by assuring them that their unemployment insurance will 
not expire. I have never been prouder to stand up for middle-class 
families who have seen their savings depleted and cannot afford to have 
their taxes raised during an economic downturn. To stand up for small 
businesses by giving them the certainty and support they need to grow 
and prosper. And to stand up for future generations by allowing 
expensive tax cuts that benefit only the wealthiest while doing nothing 
to stimulate the economy to expire on schedule, so that we can finally 
get back on track toward a balanced budget.
  Two weeks ago, this House approved, with my strong support, a bill 
that would have done all of these things. This earlier version of the 
legislation before us today would have given all American families a 
permanent tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income, including 
capital gains and dividends; it would have extended AMT relief, the 
enhanced EITC, and the enhanced child tax credit; and it would have 
maintained critical expensing provisions to encourage small businesses 
to invest. Simply put, this bill would have provided tax relief to 
those who need it most, and with the maximum economic impact. Yet our 
Republican colleagues dismissed it as a ``symbolic'' vote.
  Since then, the measure has been amended substantially to reflect the 
negotiations that have occurred between the White House and 
Congressional leaders. The result is a much more expansive package that 
has many positive elements but also major negative ones. It is also an 
expensive package, adding over $850 billion to the deficit over the 
next decade. This cost is only justifiable to the extent that the 
legislation is both effective as an economic stimulus and equitable in 
its benefits, and each of its provisions should be subjected to these 
criteria.
  On the positive side, the measure will extend unemployment insurance 
through the end of next year. This is both a moral obligation and a 
sound economic decision: there is perhaps no greater return on our 
investment in the short run than to ensure that Americans who have lost 
their jobs and cannot find another one can continue to make ends meet. 
At the same time, they put almost all of this money back into the 
economy, maintaining aggregate demand for goods and services--in stark 
contrast to tax cuts for the wealthy.
  The agreement maintains the historically low tax rates that lower- 
and middle-income Americans have enjoyed for the past decade for 2 more 
years. While doing so will not be cheap, we cannot afford to raise 
taxes on working families during the current downturn, and the 
stimulative impact of these extensions will be significant. It also 
extends several tax credits targeted directly at lower- and middle-
income Americans, including the refundable child tax credit, the 
enhanced Earned Income Tax Credit, and important credits or deductions 
for child care, education, and other essential services. The fact that 
the child tax credit is refundable for low-income people whose income 
tax liability is limited will provide a particularly important boost to 
them and to our economic recovery.
  In addition, the package offers critical relief to small businesses, 
including an extension of the bonus depreciation provision included in 
the Recovery Act, a 2-year extension of the Research and Development 
tax credit so critical to the Research Triangle, and several important 
renewable energy incentives. These and other provisions will provide 
business owners with the stability and support they need to expand 
their operations, hire new workers, and continue the economic recovery.
  Finally, the legislation includes a payroll tax holiday that will 
result in a lower tax burden for all American workers next year. Some 
respected advocates, in North Carolina and elsewhere, have argued that 
this provision could in fact hurt lower-income workers, compared to the 
Making Work Pay tax credit that expires this year. Some have also 
claimed that this provision would threaten Social Security by 
temporarily reducing payments to the Social Security trust fund.
  To be clear, if I had my choice I would prefer to be voting for an 
extension of Making Work Pay instead of a payroll tax holiday--but that 
is not the choice we face today. The choice is between a payroll tax 
holiday and nothing, and the simple fact is that if we do nothing, then 
lower-income workers will be much worse off than they are now: their 
income taxes will be higher; they will lose the many other benefits 
this bill provides, such as enhanced EITC; and they won't receive any 
form of payroll tax relief. Moreover, because the benefits of a payroll 
tax holiday will be more broadly shared, the stimulative impact of a 
payroll tax holiday will be more broadly felt. And as for its impact on 
Social Security, both the President and the AARP have assured us that 
the diversion of funds will be both temporary and repaid in full. There 
are reasons to be concerned about threats to Social Security's future, 
but this should not be one of them.
  Now, these positive elements must be weighed carefully against the 
major concessions that were made to Republicans during the negotiations 
that produced this bill. I am referring, of course, to the extension of 
the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000, which will add over $100 
billion to the deficit over the next 2 years while doing almost nothing 
to stimulate the economy. This is not simply my personal opinion or the 
view of the Democratic Party: it is a fact confirmed by the 
Congressional Budget Office and any number of respected economists, and 
well understood by the American people. As I have already stated, the 
fact that the Republican leadership held this entire package hostage so 
that millionaires could get an average tax break of $100,000 per year 
tells us exactly where their true priorities lie: Tax cuts for the 
wealthy are clearly the ``holy grail'' of their economic policy, to 
which all other policy outcomes are subjugated.
  I am equally disappointed by the inclusion of an estate tax proposal 
that is little more than a gratuitous giveaway to some 6,600 wealthy 
families. We hear a lot of dire warnings about the impact of the estate 
tax on small farmers and business owners, but even to the extent that 
they would be affected, the compromise estate tax proposal passed by 
the House last December was more than sufficient to protect them. Now, 
we are considering a proposal that costs $23 billion more than the 2009 
proposal and will have no economic impact at all aside from letting a 
few thousand millionaires and billionaires keep even more of their 
inherited wealth--an average windfall of $3.5 million per family.
  As the details of these provisions have become known, I have actively 
engaged in discussions here and at home, doing everything within my 
power to oppose the inclusion of giveaways to the wealthiest Americans 
in the package. I have joined my colleagues in sending two separate 
letters to the House leadership opposing the inclusion of upper-income 
tax cuts and a third letter arguing against the gratuitous estate tax 
provision, and last week

[[Page 22451]]

I voted for the House's middle class tax cut package which omitted 
these giveaways. I have also signed several letters arguing for a more 
sensible package of energy incentives in the legislation, including a 
reduction of the ethanol credit that was added by the Senate at the 
last minute. I was a strong supporter of the 2009 estate tax compromise 
offered by Representative Earl Pomeroy, which unfortunately failed to 
pass the Senate, and I will be voting for it again tonight.
  While I am deeply disappointed that these efforts have not been more 
successful, we are now called upon to evaluate this package as it is, 
not as we would like it to be. The bottom line is that the positive 
impact of this package for working- and middle-class Americans and our 
economic recovery outweighs its negative impact on the deficit and its 
unjust giveaways to the wealthy.
  We must also consider the consequences of failing to enact this 
legislation today. Deferring action on these expiring tax provisions 
until next year would not only create chaos for American taxpayers; it 
would also likely result in a package that is nowhere near as generous 
or as equitable, given the extreme views of the incoming Republican 
majority on many of its provisions. Republicans leaders openly state 
that their chief concern in the 112th Congress is not economic 
recovery, not putting Americans back to work, but ensuring President 
Obama is a one-term President. While their stated goals may be grossly 
misguided and narrow, mine will not be. Scuttling this package would 
mean foregoing what will likely be our last opportunity to provide any 
stimulus to the economy, given that the Republicans have made clear 
their opposition to additional aid to states, infrastructure 
investments, and other countercyclical programs. The need to maintain 
demand and stimulate growth has not fully abated--this economy is not 
yet out of the woods. The question is not whether the package before us 
is the most effective one conceivable--it is not--but whether we will 
do anything to keep the recovery going before the next Congress shuts 
the door entirely.
  Under these circumstances, I support this legislation despite its 
flaws. I cannot in good conscience cast a ``no'' vote that, were it to 
prevail, would expose working Americans to tax increases and end the 
EITC and child credit provisions that have benefitted so many people. I 
cannot in good conscience cast a vote that would rip away the safety 
net for those not yet able to find work, and in the process hobble an 
economic recovery. We risk all of these if this bill fails. Our good 
conscience also causes us to question this bill's violations of tax 
fairness and fiscal prudence; I have worked and will continue to work 
to change these things. But tonight we must vote while we have the 
chance to do so, and on the only vehicle available to us, to protect 
the vast majority of our constituents and to bring this economy back to 
health.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in somewhat reluctant support of 
the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job 
Creation Act. I am supporting this bill because of the tremendous good 
it will do for middle class families in my district and throughout the 
country.
  This bill extends emergency unemployment benefits for 400,000 
Californians whose benefits have expired. Not only do these benefits 
help working families pay the bills and put food on their tables, they 
also stimulate economic growth, creating $1.63 in economic demand for 
every dollar in benefits.
  This bill also extends dozens of tax incentives that benefit middle 
class families like the college tuition deduction, child tax credit, 
marriage penalty relief, and the enhanced earned income tax credit. It 
helps small businesses expand and hire more workers by extending the 
R&D tax credit, zero percent capital gains tax on long term small 
business investments, and bonus depreciation for capital investments.
  And it also invests in a clean, renewable energy future by extending 
tax incentives for renewable fuels, energy-efficient appliances and 
home construction, and the successful Treasury Department grant program 
for renewable energy projects. These extensions will help local green 
businesses in my district like Clipper Wind, REC Solar, and CREE 
Lighting create quality green jobs that can't be shipped overseas. And 
it will stimulate our economy by expanding our use of cleaner, safer 
forms of energy.
  The bottom line is this bill will create jobs and spur economic 
growth, and these are provisions that I strongly support. However, this 
bill also continues to tilt our tax code in favor of the wealthiest 
three percent of our society. And I oppose those provisions in the 
strongest of terms.
  I support the permanent extension of current tax rates on income up 
to $250,000 and, in fact, representing an area with such a high cost of 
living, I would probably support extending that limit up to $500,000. 
But, Mr. Chair, I do not see why we should extend the reduced tax rates 
for incomes in excess of that.
  This proposal to extend the reduced tax rates that only go to 
millionaires and billionaires will cost taxpayers over $80 billion, 
simply adding to our deficit. To add insult to injury, this tax cut 
extension for the super-rich lasts for two years while emergency 
unemployment benefits last for only 13 months. And, Mr. Chair, 
according to virtually all economists these extensions will do 
virtually nothing to stimulate economic growth.
  Adding to the giveaways, Republicans insisted on ``fixing'' the 
estate tax to ensure that only 0.14 percent of estates are subject to 
the tax, adding another $68 billion to the deficit. I agree that the 
estate tax needs to be fixed, but this is not the solution. At a time 
when middle class families continue to struggle, continuing tax cuts 
that only go to millionaires and billionaires is irresponsible, 
wasteful and bad economics. These tax cuts for the super wealthy will 
add nearly $140 billion to the deficit in just two years.
  I am also very concerned that this bill includes a temporary two 
percent reduction in payroll taxes for all employees and self-employed 
individuals. While I strongly support additional tax relief to Middle 
Class families--which this achieves--the payroll tax reduction puts the 
Social Security Trust Fund at risk of losing its independent revenue 
stream. I believe we should extend the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, 
which gave targeted tax relief to those that needed it most without 
endangering the financial security of Social Security.
  Finally, the bill before us needlessly extends the excessive ethanol 
tax subsidy of 46 cents per gallon. Thanks in part to this harmful 
subsidy, the U.S. will divert nearly 40 percent of the domestic corn 
crop from food and feed to fuel this year, which will only exacerbate 
the growing problem of increasingly volatile and high commodity prices. 
Lowering this subsidy by just 10 cents per gallon would help reduce 
these harmful side effects, and save taxpayers roughly $1 billion next 
year.
  Mr. Chair, I am very disappointed that this important legislation to 
prevent a tax increase on everyday Americans has been loaded down with 
so many unnecessary and wasteful provisions. But I'm supporting this 
bill because the needs of middle class families and small businesses--
the backbone of our economy--are too important to be left to die in the 
hands of Republican leadership next Congress.
  This bill is a compromise. It's not the compromise I would have 
written. But it's the compromise that will get desperately needed help 
to the families that need it most. Time has run out and we must act now 
for the good of the American people.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4853, the 
Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act 
of 2010.
  It is fundamentally wrong to hold for ransom unemployment benefits to 
the most vulnerable individuals among us for tax cuts to billionaires. 
That's what happened here: 99.7 percent of us will not be affected by 
the estate tax, yet a $23 billion bribe to just 6,600 families across 
the entire country was needed to get those unemployment benefits in the 
bill. And, we then add the entire cost of the bill, all $860 billion, 
straight to the deficit.
  Surely, there are worthwhile provisions in this bill. However, these 
worthwhile provisions should not be held ransom for tax cuts to the 
richest taxpayers--$60 billion in tax cuts for them--some $24 billion 
more than the struggling middle class who've been the hardest hit by 
the economic downturn. I fully support extending such low and middle-
class tax relief such as the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, 
the dependent care credit, the earned income tax credit, the student 
loan interest deduction, and Alternative Minimum Tax relief, among 
others. But don't tell me I have to vote for giving tax cuts to 
billionaires for two years when we can't even give our seniors on 
Social Security $250 for one.
  Speaking of Social Security, this bill represents the single greatest 
threat to the program since President Bush wanted to privatize it. This 
bill requires a $111 billion infusion from general funds into the 
Social Security Trust Fund to make up the difference for cutting two 
percent from the employee payroll tax. Next year, if the economy hasn't 
recovered sufficiently, Congress will not have the stomach to let the 
tax holiday expire--no Member of Congress will want to ``raise'' 
payroll taxes by two percent. Any future extension of this tax holiday 
necessarily means that Social Security will compete with other federal 
programs, such as veterans, medical research, and defense, for its 
funding. This dangerous precedent means that Social Security's 
dedicated funding, payroll taxes, is under attack. This opens the door 
to means testing and benefit cuts for beneficiaries. Make no mistake, 
Social Security's

[[Page 22452]]

opponents will be enticed to move in for the kill by moving to 
privatize the program.
  I don't oppose extending the middle-class tax cuts for 98 percent or 
99 percent of taxpayers. In fact, before this compromise was struck, I 
supported raising the threshold from $250,000 to something more 
reasonable, such as $400,000, because where my constituents live there 
is a much higher cost of living than in other parts of the country. 
However, to hold extending those middle-class tax cuts hostage to pass 
a bill that will cost more than TARP, more than the stimulus, and add 
$860 billion to the national debt, is not acceptable.
  Mr. Chair, it's hard to climb the ladder of prosperity if the middle 
rungs are missing. This bill does nothing to restore those middle 
rungs; instead, by giving the most to those who need it the least, it 
perpetuates the failed thinking that somehow the rest of us will 
benefit. I for one won't pay this ransom--my vote--for a few crumbs 
when we should be getting what's fair for our constituents. I will vote 
no on the underlying bill and I ask my colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise to revise my remarks regarding 
the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to 
H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and 
Job Creation Act of 2010.
  I request the record reflect that Ms. Tammy Fisher is from West 
Texas, not East Texas.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this tax compromise 
with strong reservations. This bill contains some highly objectionable 
provisions like unnecessary tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent 
of Americans and an estate tax modification that will only benefit the 
richest 6,600 households across the country. These two items alone will 
cost $129 billion, which could alternatively be used for deficit 
reduction. However, I cannot in good conscience allow all of Rhode 
Island's businesses and families to suffer onerous tax increases at a 
time when jobs are scarce and people are pinching pennies just to put 
food on the table.
  Providing tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires is both 
financially unjust and fiscally irresponsible given our current 
budgetary challenges, but this compromise protects 98 percent of 
Americans from significant tax increases set to take effect January 1, 
2011, and has the potential to create the private sector jobs than can 
sustain an economic recovery.
  This legislation extends the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all income 
levels for two years, and prevents middle-income Rhode Islanders from 
being hit with higher tax rates under the Alternative Minimum Tax 
(AMT). It also contains several provisions that would assist families 
and stimulate our economic recovery, which has been frustratingly slow 
in Rhode Island as state unemployment has lingered at 12.5 percent.
  This compromise includes a 13 month extension of Unemployment 
Insurance for the thousands of Rhode Islanders who are unable to find 
work. I have spoken to countless constituents who want to work and are 
actively looking for employment, but they cannot find jobs. Cutting off 
their only means of support before the holidays would be an 
unconscionable dereliction of our responsibilities as members of 
Congress.
  Businesses stand to benefit from a two-year extension of the Research 
and Development Tax Credit, incentives for clean energy production, and 
a new accelerated depreciation provision, which will allow a 100 
percent write off of capital expenditures in 2011 and 50 percent in 
2012. These incentives will ease the tax burden on Rhode Island 
companies seeking to expand their operations and grow their business, 
providing an extra boost to our local economy.
  For Rhode Island families, this proposal includes a two-year increase 
of the full Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit. Together, 
these provisions will provide ongoing tax cuts to 12 million lower 
income families. In addition, it fully extends the American Opportunity 
Tax Credit for two years to ensure more people can afford higher 
education.
  Finally, this bill establishes a year-long tax holiday, providing 
$112 billion in relief by cutting the Social Security payroll tax by 
two percent. Hard working Rhode Islanders could use a little extra 
income in their pockets--money that will ultimately be spent and pumped 
back into the economy to create more jobs. This temporary measure will 
have no negative impact on Social Security. That said, I will not allow 
this measure to be used as a springboard toward a permanent reduction 
of Social Security tax revenues that threatens the program's solvency 
and breaks the promise we have made to our seniors, veterans and 
disabled Americans.
  Mr. Chair, this compromise is neither a perfect nor permanent 
solution to our economic challenges, but the cost of inaction is 
something I'm not willing to pass along to my constituents. If a better 
deal were possible, I would take it. In fact, I was proud to vote for 
middle class tax relief just two weeks ago, but my Republican 
colleagues rejected this common sense bill and it failed to pass the 
Senate. So now we are faced with a choice--accept this compromise or 
continue playing politics. The time for politics is over. We have less 
than two weeks before everybody's tax burden increases. I urge my 
colleagues to act before our time is up.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chair, although I support extending 
lower taxes for the working and middle class and reauthorizing 
unemployment benefits, I voted against the Tax Relief, Unemployment 
Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4853) 
because it pays too high a price in terms of tax cuts for the rich. The 
disconnect between the needs of the country and the wealth of a few was 
just too much for me to bear.
  As the economy recovers, I think it is important to make sure that 
the working people of America keep as much of their hard-earned dollars 
as possible. For that reason, I am very happy that this bill extended 
tax cuts targeted for the middle and working class. The bill helps 
families make ends meet and provides a tremendous boost to our economy.
  Similarly, reauthorizing unemployment benefits provides stability and 
certainty for those hardest hit by the recession. Moreover, the 
unemployed will spend their benefits, which spread throughout their 
communities and help the entire economy. Low-income tax credits, 
refundable child tax credits, and college tuition credits in this bill 
all have the same effect. They invest in our people and stimulate the 
economy.
  Unfortunately, the tax policies forced on us by Republicans will have 
the opposite effect. We have been there before. I vividly remember when 
the Bush administration slammed huge tax cuts through Congress. They 
promised the economy would grow and deficits would never appear. Of 
course, the opposite occurred. The working and middle class earned 
less, the wealthy took home more and the deficit exploded, erasing the 
surplus created under President Clinton.
  I categorically oppose a return to Republican tax policies that 
benefit only the rich at the expense of the Nation. The elections told 
us that Americans are tired of giveaways to Wall Street and CEOs. But 
that is exactly what these tax cuts represent. Under the bill passed 
last night, 40,000 of the wealthiest families in America will save $25 
billion on estate taxes compared to current law. Couples earning over 
$250,000 keep an extra $116 billion over two years. Each billion equals 
one thousand millions. Just think of all the deficit reduction and 
extended unemployment benefits that could pay for.
  When we are leaving millions of unemployed people empty handed a week 
before Christmas, it is outrageous to push our country further into 
debt just to give unnecessary tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. I 
simply could not support such a stark contrast in our priorities.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill 
H.R. 4853--Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job 
Creation Act of 2010.
  I believe it is important that we extend the so-called Bush tax cuts 
for everyone while our economy is still struggling to recover, and as 
long as we can pay for it. This bill as presented to the U.S. House 
does not meet that test. I am especially disappointed in the provision 
on the estate tax. I cannot in good conscience cast one of my last 
significant votes in Congress in favor of a bill that would add tens of 
millions of dollars to the Federal deficit to benefit the wealthiest 
few families in the country.
  The payroll tax holiday provision included in this package is also 
troublesome since for the first time in 75 years, the sacrosanct, 
dedicated revenue stream to provide Social Security benefits is 
diverted for other purposes. While we have fully protected the Social 
Security Trust Fund in the legislation and there will be no change in 
how much money is in the Trust Fund, I am concerned that proponents of 
private accounts will argue to continue this diversion of the payroll 
tax beyond one year--perhaps even putting the money into private 
accounts. At a time when we know that the long term solvency of Social 
Security will need either greater contributions or significant 
reductions in benefit, providing a payroll tax holiday is clearly a 
move in the wrong direction.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 4853, the 
Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job

[[Page 22453]]

Creation Act of 2010 for one simple reason. It includes an extension of 
federally-subsidized unemployment compensation benefits for thirteen 
additional months. The importance of extending unemployment benefits 
for my constituents back home cannot be overstated: these benefits are 
a critical lifeline for many in my district, as they are for millions 
of other Americans and their families. In October, the latest month for 
which data is available, there were 588,000 individuals in the State of 
Ohio who relied on this benefit to keep their heads and their families' 
heads above water. The Department of Labor reports that nearly 8.3 
million Americans were receiving unemployment compensation as of early 
November.
  Extending federal support for unemployment benefits is the least that 
we can do on behalf of the estimated 1.2 million people nationwide 
whose unemployment insurance either recently expired or will expire as 
they reach the last weeks of their available benefits. Cutting off 
unemployment benefits only adds to the shame and humiliation that 
people feel upon losing gainful employment through no fault of their 
own. For the residents of Ohio, this cutoff has been especially painful 
as the unemployment rate in Ohio is currently 9.9 percent. Through 
2009, of those who were unemployed in my state, nearly a third had been 
unemployed for 26 weeks or longer. This is the highest rate of long-
term unemployment seen in over 15 years. Ohio's economy was already 
struggling long before the current recession hit. According to the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Ohio lost approximately 430,000 
manufacturing jobs from 1990 through July of 2010.
  These staggering job losses have a spillover effect, touching every 
county and city in Ohio, as foreclosure rates have risen to a 
devastating level. Each year since 1995, the rate of new foreclosure 
filings in Ohio has grown, and from 1995 to 2009, the rate quadrupled. 
In 2009, there were a record 89,053 foreclosure filings--that is one 
foreclosure filing for every 56 housing units in the State of Ohio. In 
the City of Cleveland alone, there have been more than 38,000 new 
foreclosure filings since 2005. Because this crisis spread steadily to 
more middle-class and high-income suburban areas, non-urban areas now 
have the highest foreclosure rates in the state.
  The ripple effects continue. Ohioans are forced to live with others 
due to foreclosure. They face communities marked with vacant and 
abandoned properties. The State of Ohio tells us that there are around 
58,000 Ohioans who have exhausted the assistance they were getting from 
the state or federal government. But there are no official counts of 
the number of underemployed individuals, who are thankful for what they 
do have but cannot find opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. It 
is for these people that I cast a ``yea'' vote on this bill.
  The bill contains much more than the unemployment benefits. It 
provides for a two-year extension of the tax cut provisions passed in 
2001 and 2003 for individuals and couples at all income levels and 
extends the 10 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent and 35 
percent marginal tax brackets for two years. It temporarily repeals, 
for two years, the personal exemption phaseout, ``PEP'', as well as the 
itemized deduction limitation that taxpayers may claim on their income 
tax filings. It also continues enhanced child tax credits, and the 
maximum 15 percent rate on capital gains and dividends for taxpayers in 
the 25 percent tax bracket and above. It reduces the tax known as the 
``marriage penalty'' and it includes a two-year ``patch'' intended to 
prevent more than 25 million Americans from being subject to the 
alternative minimum tax, otherwise scheduled to take effect in the next 
calendar year. It also extends expensing rules for small businesses.
  However, I am gravely concerned that the inclusion of a provision to 
lower the employee portion of the payroll tax by two percentage points 
for one year threatens to reduce Social Security to a bargaining chip. 
This provision significantly weakens Social Security's revenue stream 
and makes it more vulnerable to the calls for cuts and privatization 
the program has faced for years. Advocates of this provision point out 
that Americans may use the money that will not be deducted from their 
paychecks to pay down the crushing level of personal debt that many are 
struggling with. But the cost to the Social Security trust fund of $112 
billion is dangerous because it cuts one-third of Social Security's 
funding this year alone. Worse, the act of temporarily lowering this 
contribution--normally an accepted deduction from every working 
American's paycheck--may become a political issue when time comes for 
this provision to sunset and the payroll tax to be reinstated. Social 
Security is a vital lifeline for our nation's seniors, and we tread 
into perilous waters when we tinker with its funding mechanism.
  Mr. Chair, this bill contains many provisions about which I have 
strong reservations, including the payroll tax ``holiday,'' the gutting 
of the estate tax, subsidies for ethanol and liquid coal, and the 
extension of low tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. But this bill 
contains a crucial provision--an extension of unemployment benefits 
which are critical for millions of Americans. I cannot in good 
conscience vote against it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I voted against a fiscally irresponsible 
$858 billion tax cut package. Every penny of this budget-busting bill 
will be borrowed--much of it from China--and the burden placed on the 
backs of our children and grandchildren.
  To keep the economic recovery on track and meet the needs of 
struggling American families, I do support extending middle class tax 
cuts and unemployment insurance. But Republicans in Congress held these 
priorities hostage until millionaires and billionaires were guaranteed 
tax cuts that they don't need. Tax breaks for the wealthy are a luxury 
Americans can't afford. This is simply wrong. With unemployment nearly 
at 10 percent, Members of Congress should be focused on getting all of 
America back to work, not padding the trust funds for a precious few.
  The tax package the House voted on last night was even worse than the 
one negotiated by the President and Republicans in Congress. The Senate 
got into the holiday spirit and sent the House a Christmas tree bill 
loaded down with special interest ``sweeteners.'' Why will NASCAR 
owners open their stockings this year to find a $40 million tax break 
from the American people? Why are Hollywood producers getting a $162 
million in special breaks paid for by the American people? Why do rum 
makers in Puerto Rico get $235 million? Middle class Americans 
shouldn't be forced to use the nation's credit card so the special 
interests receive everything on their wish lists.
  America needs honest and responsible policymaking. The federal budget 
is in crisis and tough decisions are necessary. This tax cut package 
makes no tough decisions. Instead, kicks the hard choices down the road 
and makes solving America's fiscal crisis much harder.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chair, Title VII of this legislation provides for the 
extension of a number of tax provisions that expired at the end of 
2009, or were set to expire at the end of 2010. I understand an effort 
was made to limit this title to what are known as the ``traditional'' 
tax extenders, with the general test being whether or not an expiring 
provision had been extended in the past. As a result of this decision, 
several provisions that expired for the first time at the end of 2009, 
and that had been included in previous drafts of tax extenders 
legislation, are not extended in this bill. One of these, the Section 
45 production tax credit for electricity produced at open-loop biomass 
facilities placed in service before October 22, 2004, is important to a 
number of energy producers in the district I represent. Under current 
law, these facilities were permitted to claim the production tax credit 
for 5 years, ending in 2009. Previous tax extension proposals included 
a 2-year extension of this credit period. As a matter of simple 
fairness, I believe it is only right that these biomass producers 
should be able to claim the production tax credit for the same 10-year 
period afforded to the other renewable electricity producers covered 
under Section 45.
  It is my understanding that no judgment was made on the policy merits 
of individual expiring tax provisions, and therefore no negative 
inference should be drawn against provisions that are not included in 
this legislation simply because they had not been extended in the past. 
I look forward to working with other members of the Ways and Means 
Committee in the 112th Congress to review these provisions and 
determine which ones are worthy of extension.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, it is with regret that I rise in opposition to 
this legislation. Less than two weeks ago, I joined a majority of this 
House in passing middle class tax relief that balanced the needs of 
working families with our nation's need to get its fiscal house in 
order. Unfortunately the Senate failed to pass this bill.
  The legislation we are considering today is deeply flawed. We should 
try to put money in the pockets of working families, and I do not fault 
President Obama and many of my colleagues who want to get something 
done on behalf of the millions of Americans who need help. But, this is 
the wrong way to do it.
  Yet, at a time when income inequality in the United States has risen 
to its highest level in decades, the bill under consideration would 
shift the burden of funding the federal government further onto middle-
class and working-class families. The bill would give away tax

[[Page 22454]]

breaks to the wealthiest two percent of households at a cost of more 
than $120 billion charged to the national debt.
  I am most concerned, however, that the bill undermines the very idea 
of Social Security. Social Security has been a pillar of our society 
for generations. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Frances Perkins, and 
others created Social Security in 1935, it was a political 
masterstroke. Social Security was created as an insurance program and 
has remained intact for 75 years because Americans have a real sense of 
ownership for the program.
  In good economic times and in bad, regardless of which political 
party is in power, this sense of ownership--that Americans will get out 
that which they put into the Social Security--has allowed it to survive 
despite the efforts of determined enemies.
  A provision in the bill would reduce an employee's contribution to 
Social Security from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent of salary. This could 
have a beneficial stimulative economic effect. The $112 billion cost to 
the Social Security trust fund of this payroll tax holiday is supposed 
to be replaced with money from the general treasury fund. But that is 
just the problem. In Social Security's history such a commingling of 
payroll taxes and money from the Treasury at this scale is 
unprecedented.
  This is not just about the financial health of Social Security, 
rather it is about Social Security's rationale that has worked well for 
generations. This bill places Social Security on the table with tax 
breaks for business expenses, tax breaks for the top two percent of 
Americans, the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax--essentially 
making it just another bargaining chip. If we allow Social Security to 
become a bargaining chip for dealing politicians, then it will not be 
long for this world. As much as we need economic stimulus now, we will 
need Social security for decades to come. Rather than taking money from 
Social Security, I would support a tax credit--similar to President 
Obama's Making Work Pay tax credit--that would give working families a 
sizeable tax break with money from general revenues.
  In a message to Congress on January 17, 1935, FDR insisted that 
Social Security should be self-sustaining and that funds for the 
payment of insurance benefits should not come from the process of 
general taxation. FDR's message is as correct today as it was 75 years 
ago.
  To be sure, the legislation before us today contains many good 
provisions that I would support on their own. The bill contains a one 
year extension of emergency unemployment benefits. According to the 
Labor Department, there are five job-seekers for every job opening in 
the U.S. Extending unemployment is the right thing to do morally and 
for the economy. The legislation would extend middle class tax relief 
for two years along with many family-friendly tax breaks such as the 
Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, Alternative Minimum Tax 
relief, and marriage penalty relief. The bill also would extend 
expanded transportation benefits for commuters and tax credits like the 
research and development tax credit to help businesses grow and create 
jobs.
  Congress needs to provide unemployment insurance for Americans 
searching for work, extend tax relief working families, and find 
solutions to our budget crisis. Yet these must not come at the expense 
of Social Security. It is too important to lose.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, it is with a great deal of regret that 
I will vote against H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance 
Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act.
  Reaching this decision has not been easy because President Obama 
fought for and succeeded in getting several provisions into this bill 
which I wholeheartedly support.
  Among those provisions is the extension of unemployment insurance for 
millions of American families who through no fault of their own have 
lost their jobs, the child tax credit, the middle class tax cuts, the 
earned income tax credit and tax breaks for small business. These were 
major victories for President Obama.
  My concern is that the provisions in the bill demanded by Republicans 
come at too high a price and impact the future well being of our 
country and our children. Based on the calls I have received, the 
majority of my constituents agree.
  According to economists the demands by Republicans to give the 6,600 
wealthiest Americans a tax break of $23 billion will do nothing to 
stimulate our economy or create one job.
  What this one provision alone will do, however, is increase our out 
of control deficit by another 8 percent. This is irresponsible and will 
make it even more difficult for our country to stop mortgaging our 
future to China; a mortgage which will ultimately fall on the backs of 
our children and our grandchildren in the years to come.
  I also have a deep concern about this bill's impact on Social 
Security. My fear has to do with the 2 percent reduction in employee 
contributions to Social Security which has the potential to destroy the 
guaranteed safety net which keeps millions of older and disabled 
Americans out of poverty.
  While this provision is intended to be temporary, I have learned in 
my 18 years in Washington that tax cuts are seldom temporary. It is 
always easier to cut taxes than it is to restore them as this very bill 
demonstrates.
  The Social Security payroll tax provides an independent revenue 
stream which keeps Social Security from contributing to our nation's 
budget deficit and outside of the budget process.
  If the payroll tax is not restored, which I believe is likely with a 
Republican majority in the House, Social Security would become 
dependent on the general fund for revenue.
  This would threaten the safety net for seniors and the disabled by 
making it vulnerable to budget cuts and competition with other 
essential programs like veterans benefits and safety net programs for 
children.
  By doing this, we could be sowing the seeds for the privatization of 
Social Security.
  Therefore, while this bill does provide short term relief, the 
potential long term suffering and negative impact of this bill are too 
high a price to pay.
  I cannot in good conscience support this bill with the potential long 
term negative impact on Social Security and the unnecessary increased 
burden the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will put on the 
shoulders of our children and grandchildren.
  I am saddened that my Republican colleagues demanded these 
irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in exchange for the 
very critical provisions of this bill supported by the President. While 
I am heartened that we are acting to extend unemployment insurance and 
protect those still struggling to find work, there is too much in this 
bill that only adds to our already uncontrollable deficit and does 
nothing to help our economy or create jobs.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the Senate amendment shall be considered for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The Clerk will designate the Senate amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment:
  In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tax 
     Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job 
     Creation Act of 2010''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; etc.

               TITLE I--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF TAX RELIEF

Sec. 101. Temporary extension of 2001 tax relief.
Sec. 102. Temporary extension of 2003 tax relief.
Sec. 103. Temporary extension of 2009 tax relief.

         TITLE II--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INDIVIDUAL AMT RELIEF

Sec. 201. Temporary extension of increased alternative minimum tax 
              exemption amount.
Sec. 202. Temporary extension of alternative minimum tax relief for 
              nonrefundable personal credits.

                 TITLE III--TEMPORARY ESTATE TAX RELIEF

Sec. 301. Reinstatement of estate tax; repeal of carryover basis.
Sec. 302. Modifications to estate, gift, and generation-skipping 
              transfer taxes.
Sec. 303. Applicable exclusion amount increased by unused exclusion 
              amount of deceased spouse.
Sec. 304. Application of EGTRRA sunset to this title.

         TITLE IV--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INVESTMENT INCENTIVES

Sec. 401. Extension of bonus depreciation; temporary 100 percent 
              expensing for certain business assets.
Sec. 402. Temporary extension of increased small business expensing.

  TITLE V--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

Sec. 501. Temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions.
Sec. 502. Temporary modification of indicators under the extended 
              benefit program.

[[Page 22455]]

Sec. 503. Technical amendment relating to collection of unemployment 
              compensation debts.
Sec. 504. Technical correction relating to repeal of continued dumping 
              and subsidy offset.
Sec. 505. Additional extended unemployment benefits under the Railroad 
              Unemployment Insurance Act.

              TITLE VI--TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PAYROLL TAX CUT

Sec. 601. Temporary employee payroll tax cut.

     TITLE VII--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF CERTAIN EXPIRING PROVISIONS

                           Subtitle A--Energy

Sec. 701. Incentives for biodiesel and renewable diesel.
Sec. 702. Credit for refined coal facilities.
Sec. 703. New energy efficient home credit.
Sec. 704. Excise tax credits and outlay payments for alternative fuel 
              and alternative fuel mixtures.
Sec. 705. Special rule for sales or dispositions to implement FERC or 
              State electric restructuring policy for qualified 
              electric utilities.
Sec. 706. Suspension of limitation on percentage depletion for oil and 
              gas from marginal wells.
Sec. 707. Extension of grants for specified energy property in lieu of 
              tax credits.
Sec. 708. Extension of provisions related to alcohol used as fuel.
Sec. 709. Energy efficient appliance credit.
Sec. 710. Credit for nonbusiness energy property.
Sec. 711. Alternative fuel vehicle refueling property.

                   Subtitle B--Individual Tax Relief

Sec. 721. Deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary 
              school teachers.
Sec. 722. Deduction of State and local sales taxes.
Sec. 723. Contributions of capital gain real property made for 
              conservation purposes.
Sec. 724. Above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition and related 
              expenses.
Sec. 725. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for 
              charitable purposes.
Sec. 726. Look-thru of certain regulated investment company stock in 
              determining gross estate of nonresidents.
Sec. 727. Parity for exclusion from income for employer-provided mass 
              transit and parking benefits.
Sec. 728. Refunds disregarded in the administration of Federal programs 
              and federally assisted programs.

                    Subtitle C--Business Tax Relief

Sec. 731. Research credit.
Sec. 732. Indian employment tax credit.
Sec. 733. New markets tax credit.
Sec. 734. Railroad track maintenance credit.
Sec. 735. Mine rescue team training credit.
Sec. 736. Employer wage credit for employees who are active duty 
              members of the uniformed services.
Sec. 737. 15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold 
              improvements, qualified restaurant buildings and 
              improvements, and qualified retail improvements.
Sec. 738. 7-year recovery period for motorsports entertainment 
              complexes.
Sec. 739. Accelerated depreciation for business property on an Indian 
              reservation.
Sec. 740. Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food 
              inventory.
Sec. 741. Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book 
              inventories to public schools.
Sec. 742. Enhanced charitable deduction for corporate contributions of 
              computer inventory for educational purposes.
Sec. 743. Election to expense mine safety equipment.
Sec. 744. Special expensing rules for certain film and television 
              productions.
Sec. 745. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Sec. 746. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to 
              domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 747. Modification of tax treatment of certain payments to 
              controlling exempt organizations.
Sec. 748. Treatment of certain dividends of regulated investment 
              companies.
Sec. 749. RIC qualified investment entity treatment under FIRPTA.
Sec. 750. Exceptions for active financing income.
Sec. 751. Look-thru treatment of payments between related controlled 
              foreign corporations under foreign personal holding 
              company rules.
Sec. 752. Basis adjustment to stock of S corps making charitable 
              contributions of property.
Sec. 753. Empowerment zone tax incentives.
Sec. 754. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 755. Temporary increase in limit on cover over of rum excise taxes 
              to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 756. American Samoa economic development credit.
Sec. 757. Work opportunity credit.
Sec. 758. Qualified zone academy bonds.
Sec. 759. Mortgage insurance premiums.
Sec. 760. Temporary exclusion of 100 percent of gain on certain small 
              business stock.

            Subtitle D--Temporary Disaster Relief Provisions

                    subpart a--new york liberty zone

Sec. 761. Tax-exempt bond financing.

                           subpart b--go zone

Sec. 762. Increase in rehabilitation credit.
Sec. 763. Low-income housing credit rules for buildings in GO zones.
Sec. 764. Tax-exempt bond financing.
Sec. 765. Bonus depreciation deduction applicable to the GO Zone.

                    TITLE VIII--BUDGETARY PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. Determination of budgetary effects.
Sec. 802. Emergency designations.

               TITLE I--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF TAX RELIEF

     SEC. 101. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2001 TAX RELIEF.

       (a) Temporary Extension.--
       (1) In general.--Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 2010'' both places it appears and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2012''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.
       (b) Separate Sunset for Expansion of Adoption Benefits 
     Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 10909 of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(c) Sunset Provision.--Each provision of law amended by 
     this section is amended to read as such provision would read 
     if this section had never been enacted. The amendments made 
     by the preceding sentence shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2011.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (d) of section 10909 
     of such Act is amended by striking ``The amendments'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (c), the 
     amendments''.

     SEC. 102. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2003 TAX RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--Section 303 of the Jobs and Growth Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting ``December 31, 2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Jobs 
     and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

     SEC. 103. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2009 TAX RELIEF.

       (a) American Opportunity Tax Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 25A(i) is amended by striking ``or 
     2010'' and inserting ``, 2010, 2011, or 2012''.
       (2) Treatment of possessions.--Section 1004(c)(1) of the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 is amended 
     by striking ``and 2010'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``, 2010, 2011, and 2012''.
       (b) Child Tax Credit.--Section 24(d)(4) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2009 and 2010'' in the heading and 
     inserting ``2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012'', and
       (2) by striking ``or 2010'' and inserting ``, 2010, 2011, 
     or 2012''.
       (c) Earned Income Tax Credit.--Section 32(b)(3) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``2009 and 2010'' in the heading and 
     inserting ``2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012'', and
       (2) by striking ``or 2010'' and inserting ``, 2010, 2011, 
     or 2012''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2010.

         TITLE II--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INDIVIDUAL AMT RELIEF

     SEC. 201. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE 
                   MINIMUM TAX EXEMPTION AMOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``$70,950'' and all that follows through 
     ``2009'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting ``$72,450 in the 
     case of taxable years beginning in 2010 and $74,450 in the 
     case of taxable years beginning in 2011'', and
       (2) by striking ``$46,700'' and all that follows through 
     ``2009'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting ``$47,450 in the 
     case of taxable years beginning in 2010 and $48,450 in the 
     case of taxable years beginning in 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.
       (c) Repeal of EGTRRA Sunset.--Title IX of the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to 
     sunset of provisions of such Act) shall not apply to title 
     VII of such Act (relating to alternative minimum tax).

     SEC. 202. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX 
                   RELIEF FOR NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or 2009'' and inserting ``2009, 2010, or 
     2011'', and
       (2) by striking ``2009'' in the heading thereof and 
     inserting ``2011''.
       (b)  Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

[[Page 22456]]



                 TITLE III--TEMPORARY ESTATE TAX RELIEF

     SEC. 301. REINSTATEMENT OF ESTATE TAX; REPEAL OF CARRYOVER 
                   BASIS.

       (a) In General.--Each provision of law amended by subtitle 
     A or E of title V of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended to read as such 
     provision would read if such subtitle had never been enacted.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--On and after January 1, 2011, 
     paragraph (1) of section 2505(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended to read as such paragraph would read if 
     section 521(b)(2) of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 had never been enacted.
       (c) Special Election With Respect to Estates of Decedents 
     Dying in 2010.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), in the case 
     of an estate of a decedent dying after December 31, 2009, and 
     before January 1, 2011, the executor (within the meaning of 
     section 2203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) may elect 
     to apply such Code as though the amendments made by 
     subsection (a) do not apply with respect to chapter 11 of 
     such Code and with respect to property acquired or passing 
     from such decedent (within the meaning of section 1014(b) of 
     such Code).  Such election shall be made at such time and in 
     such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury or the 
     Secretary's delegate shall provide. Such an election once 
     made shall be revocable only with the consent of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate. For 
     purposes of section 2652(a)(1) of such Code, the 
     determination of whether any property is subject to the tax 
     imposed by such chapter 11 shall be made without regard to 
     any election made under this subsection.
       (d) Extension of Time for Performing Certain Acts.--
       (1) Estate tax.--In the case of the estate of a decedent 
     dying after December 31, 2009, and before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the due date for--
       (A) filing any return under section 6018 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (including any election required to be 
     made on such a return) as such section is in effect after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act without regard to any 
     election under subsection (c),
       (B) making any payment of tax under chapter 11 of such 
     Code, and
       (C) making any disclaimer described in section 2518(b) of 
     such Code of an interest in property passing by reason of the 
     death of such decedent,
     shall not be earlier than the date which is 9 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Generation-skipping tax.--In the case of any 
     generation-skipping transfer made after December 31, 2009, 
     and before the date of the enactment of this Act, the due 
     date for filing any return under section 2662 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (including any election required to be 
     made on such a return) shall not be earlier than the date 
     which is 9 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (e) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, the amendments made by this section shall apply to 
     estates of decedents dying, and transfers made, after 
     December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 302. MODIFICATIONS TO ESTATE, GIFT, AND GENERATION-
                   SKIPPING TRANSFER TAXES.

       (a) Modifications to Estate Tax.--
       (1) $5,000,000 applicable exclusion amount.--Subsection (c) 
     of section 2010 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Applicable Credit Amount.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
     applicable credit amount is the amount of the tentative tax 
     which would be determined under section 2001(c) if the amount 
     with respect to which such tentative tax is to be computed 
     were equal to the applicable exclusion amount.
       ``(2) Applicable exclusion amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     applicable exclusion amount is $5,000,000.
       ``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any decedent 
     dying in a calendar year after 2011, the dollar amount in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting 
     `calendar year 2010' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph 
     (B) thereof.
     If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not 
     a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $10,000.''.
       (2) Maximum estate tax rate equal to 35 percent.--
     Subsection (c) of section 2001 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Over $500,000'' and all that follows in 
     the table contained in paragraph (1) and inserting the 
     following:


``Over $500,000...........................  $155,800, plus 35 percent of
                                             the excess of such amount
                                             over $500,000.'',
 

       (B) by striking ``(1) In general.--'', and
       (C) by striking paragraph (2).
       (b) Modifications to Gift Tax.--
       (1) Restoration of unified credit against gift tax.--
       (A) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 2505(a), after 
     the application of section 301(b), is amended by striking 
     ``(determined as if the applicable exclusion amount were 
     $1,000,000)''.
       (B) Effective date.--The amendment made by this paragraph 
     shall apply to gifts made after December 31, 2010.
       (2) Modification of gift tax rate.--On and after January 1, 
     2011, subsection (a) of section 2502 is amended to read as 
     such subsection would read if section 511(d) of the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 had never 
     been enacted.
       (c) Modification of Generation-skipping Transfer Tax.--In 
     the case of any generation-skipping transfer made after 
     December 31, 2009, and before January 1, 2011, the applicable 
     rate determined under section 2641(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 shall be zero.
       (d) Modifications of Estate and Gift Taxes to Reflect 
     Differences in Credit Resulting From Different Tax Rates.--
       (1) Estate tax.--
       (A) In general.--Section 2001(b)(2) is amended by striking 
     ``if the provisions of subsection (c) (as in effect at the 
     decedent's death)'' and inserting ``if the modifications 
     described in subsection (g)''.
       (B) Modifications.--Section 2001 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Modifications to Gift Tax Payable to Reflect 
     Different Tax Rates.--For purposes of applying subsection 
     (b)(2) with respect to 1 or more gifts, the rates of tax 
     under subsection (c) in effect at the decedent's death shall, 
     in lieu of the rates of tax in effect at the time of such 
     gifts, be used both to compute--
       ``(1) the tax imposed by chapter 12 with respect to such 
     gifts, and
       ``(2) the credit allowed against such tax under section 
     2505, including in computing--
       ``(A) the applicable credit amount under section 
     2505(a)(1), and
       ``(B) the sum of the amounts allowed as a credit for all 
     preceding periods under section 2505(a)(2).''.
       (2) Gift tax.--Section 2505(a) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new flush sentence:
     ``For purposes of applying paragraph (2) for any calendar 
     year, the rates of tax in effect under section 2502(a)(2) for 
     such calendar year shall, in lieu of the rates of tax in 
     effect for preceding calendar periods, be used in determining 
     the amounts allowable as a credit under this section for all 
     preceding calendar periods.''.
       (e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2511 is amended by 
     striking subsection (c).
       (f) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to estates of decedents dying, generation-skipping transfers, 
     and gifts made, after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 303. APPLICABLE EXCLUSION AMOUNT INCREASED BY UNUSED 
                   EXCLUSION AMOUNT OF DECEASED SPOUSE.

       (a) In General.--Section 2010(c), as amended by section 
     302(a), is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting 
     the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) Applicable exclusion amount.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the applicable exclusion amount is the sum of--
       ``(A) the basic exclusion amount, and
       ``(B) in the case of a surviving spouse, the deceased 
     spousal unused exclusion amount.
       ``(3) Basic exclusion amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     basic exclusion amount is $5,000,000.
       ``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any decedent 
     dying in a calendar year after 2011, the dollar amount in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting 
     `calendar year 2010' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph 
     (B) thereof.
     If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not 
     a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $10,000.
       ``(4) Deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, with respect to a surviving 
     spouse of a deceased spouse dying after December 31, 2010, 
     the term `deceased spousal unused exclusion amount' means the 
     lesser of--
       ``(A) the basic exclusion amount, or
       ``(B) the excess of--
       ``(i) the basic exclusion amount of the last such deceased 
     spouse of such surviving spouse, over
       ``(ii) the amount with respect to which the tentative tax 
     is determined under section 2001(b)(1) on the estate of such 
     deceased spouse.
       ``(5) Special rules.--
       ``(A) Election required.--A deceased spousal unused 
     exclusion amount may not be taken into account by a surviving 
     spouse under paragraph (2) unless the executor of the estate 
     of the deceased spouse files an estate tax return on which 
     such amount is computed and makes an election on such return 
     that such amount may be so taken into account. Such election, 
     once made, shall be irrevocable. No election may be made 
     under this subparagraph if such return is filed after the 
     time prescribed by law (including extensions) for filing such 
     return.
       ``(B) Examination of prior returns after expiration of 
     period of limitations with respect to deceased spousal unused 
     exclusion amount.--Notwithstanding any period of limitation 
     in section 6501, after the time has expired under section 
     6501 within which a tax may be assessed under chapter 11 or 
     12 with respect to a deceased spousal unused exclusion 
     amount, the Secretary may examine a return of the deceased 
     spouse to make determinations with respect to such amount for 
     purposes of carrying out this subsection.
       ``(6) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     this subsection.''.

[[Page 22457]]

       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Paragraph (1) of section 2505(a), as amended by section 
     302(b)(1), is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) the applicable credit amount in effect under section 
     2010(c) which would apply if the donor died as of the end of 
     the calendar year, reduced by''.
       (2) Section 2631(c) is amended by striking ``the applicable 
     exclusion amount'' and inserting ``the basic exclusion 
     amount''.
       (3) Section 6018(a)(1) is amended by striking ``applicable 
     exclusion amount'' and inserting ``basic exclusion amount''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to estates of 
     decedents dying and gifts made after December 31, 2010.
       (2) Conforming amendment relating to generation-skipping 
     transfers.--The amendment made by subsection (b)(2) shall 
     apply to generation-skipping transfers after December 31, 
     2010.

     SEC. 304. APPLICATION OF EGTRRA SUNSET TO THIS TITLE.

       Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall apply to the amendments made 
     by this title.

         TITLE IV--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INVESTMENT INCENTIVES

     SEC. 401. EXTENSION OF BONUS DEPRECIATION; TEMPORARY 100 
                   PERCENT EXPENSING FOR CERTAIN BUSINESS ASSETS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 168(k) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``January 1, 2012'' in subparagraph (A)(iv) 
     and inserting ``January 1, 2014'', and
       (2) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``January 1, 2013''.
       (b) Temporary 100 Percent Expensing.--Subsection (k) of 
     section 168 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Special rule for property acquired during certain 
     pre-2012 periods.--In the case of qualified property acquired 
     by the taxpayer (under rules similar to the rules of clauses 
     (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (2)(A)) after September 8, 2010, 
     and before January 1, 2012, and which is placed in service by 
     the taxpayer before January 1, 2012 (January 1, 2013, in the 
     case of property described in subparagraph (2)(B) or (2)(C)), 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall be applied by substituting `100 
     percent' for `50 percent'.''.
       (c) Extension of Election To Accelerate the AMT Credit in 
     Lieu of Bonus Depreciation.--
       (1) Extension.--Clause (iii) of section 168(k)(4)(D) is 
     amended by striking ``or production'' and all that follows 
     and inserting ``or production--

       ``(I) after March 31, 2008, and before January 1, 2010, and
       ``(II) after December 31, 2010, and before January 1, 2013,

     shall be taken into account under subparagraph (B)(ii) 
     thereof,''.
       (2) Rules for round 2 extension property.--Paragraph (4) of 
     section 168(k) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(I) Special rules for round 2 extension property.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of round 2 extension 
     property, this paragraph shall be applied without regard to--

       ``(I) the limitation described in subparagraph (B)(i) 
     thereof, and
       ``(II) the business credit increase amount under 
     subparagraph (E)(iii) thereof.

       ``(ii) Taxpayers previously electing acceleration.--In the 
     case of a taxpayer who made the election under subparagraph 
     (A) for its first taxable year ending after March 31, 2008, 
     or a taxpayer who made the election under subparagraph 
     (H)(ii) for its first taxable year ending after December 31, 
     2008--

       ``(I) the taxpayer may elect not to have this paragraph 
     apply to round 2 extension property, but
       ``(II) if the taxpayer does not make the election under 
     subclause (I), in applying this paragraph to the taxpayer the 
     bonus depreciation amount, maximum amount, and maximum 
     increase amount shall be computed and applied to eligible 
     qualified property which is round 2 extension property.

     The amounts described in subclause (II) shall be computed 
     separately from any amounts computed with respect to eligible 
     qualified property which is not round 2 extension property.
       ``(iii) Taxpayers not previously electing acceleration.--In 
     the case of a taxpayer who neither made the election under 
     subparagraph (A) for its first taxable year ending after 
     March 31, 2008, nor made the election under subparagraph 
     (H)(ii) for its first taxable year ending after December 31, 
     2008--

       ``(I) the taxpayer may elect to have this paragraph apply 
     to its first taxable year ending after December 31, 2010, and 
     each subsequent taxable year, and
       ``(II) if the taxpayer makes the election under subclause 
     (I), this paragraph shall only apply to eligible qualified 
     property which is round 2 extension property.

       ``(iv) Round 2 extension property.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `round 2 extension property' means 
     property which is eligible qualified property solely by 
     reason of the extension of the application of the special 
     allowance under paragraph (1) pursuant to the amendments made 
     by section 401(a) of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance 
     Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (and the 
     application of such extension to this paragraph pursuant to 
     the amendment made by section 401(c)(1) of such Act).''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The heading for subsection (k) of section 168 is 
     amended by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2013''.
       (2) The heading for clause (ii) of section 168(k)(2)(B) is 
     amended by striking ``pre-january 1, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``pre-january 1, 2013''.
       (3) Subparagraph (D) of section 168(k)(4) is amended--
       (A) by striking clauses (iv) and (v),
       (B) by inserting ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), and
       (C) by striking the comma at the end of clause (iii) and 
     inserting a period.
       (4) Paragraph (5) of section 168(l) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A),
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B), and
       (C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
       (5) Subparagraph (C) of section 168(n)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2013''.
       (6) Subparagraph (D) of section 1400L(b)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2013''.
       (7) Subparagraph (B) of section 1400N(d)(3) is amended by 
     striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2013''.
       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to property 
     placed in service after December 31, 2010, in taxable years 
     ending after such date.
       (2) Temporary 100 percent expensing.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (b) shall apply to property placed in service 
     after September 8, 2010, in taxable years ending after such 
     date.

     SEC. 402. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INCREASED SMALL BUSINESS 
                   EXPENSING.

       (a) Dollar Limitation.--Section 179(b)(1) is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B) and by 
     striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(C) $125,000 in the case of taxable years beginning in 
     2012, and
       ``(D) $25,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after 
     2012.''.
       (b) Reduction in Limitation.--Section 179(b)(2) is amended 
     by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B) and by 
     striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(C) $500,000 in the case of taxable years beginning in 
     2012, and
       ``(D) $200,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after 
     2012.''.
       (c) Inflation Adjustment.--Subsection (b) of section 179 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Inflation adjustment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning in calendar year 2012, the $125,000 and $500,000 
     amounts in paragraphs (1)(C) and (2)(C) shall each be 
     increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, by substituting `calendar year 2006' for 
     `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(B) Rounding.--
       ``(i) Dollar limitation.--If the amount in paragraph (1) as 
     increased under subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $1,000, 
     such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of 
     $1,000.
       ``(ii) Phaseout amount.--If the amount in paragraph (2) as 
     increased under subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of 
     $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple 
     of $10,000.''.
       (d) Computer Software.--Section 179(d)(1)(A)(ii) is amended 
     by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2013''.
       (e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 179(c)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2013''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2011.

  TITLE V--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

     SEC. 501. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 
                   PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``November 30, 2010'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``January 3, 2012'';
       (B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking 
     ``november 30, 2010'' and inserting ``january 3, 2012''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``April 30, 2011'' 
     and inserting ``June 9, 2012''.
       (2) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers 
     and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5 
     (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
       (A) by striking ``December 1, 2010'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``January 4, 2012''; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``May 1, 2011'' and 
     inserting ``June 11, 2012''.
       (3) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension 
     Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is 
     amended by striking ``April 30, 2011'' and inserting ``June 
     10, 2012''.

[[Page 22458]]

       (b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
       ``(G) the amendments made by section 501(a)(1) of the Tax 
     Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job 
     Creation Act of 2010; and''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 
     111-205).

     SEC. 502. TEMPORARY MODIFICATION OF INDICATORS UNDER THE 
                   EXTENDED BENEFIT PROGRAM.

       (a) Indicator.--Section 203(d) of the Federal-State 
     Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 
     3304 note) is amended, in the flush matter following 
     paragraph (2), by inserting after the first sentence the 
     following sentence: ``Effective with respect to compensation 
     for weeks of unemployment beginning after the date of 
     enactment of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance 
     Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (or, if later, 
     the date established pursuant to State law), and ending on or 
     before December 31, 2011, the State may by law provide that 
     the determination of whether there has been a state `on' or 
     `off' indicator beginning or ending any extended benefit 
     period shall be made under this subsection as if the word 
     `two' were `three' in subparagraph (1)(A).''.
       (b) Alternative Trigger.--Section 203(f) of the Federal-
     State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 
     U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Effective with respect to compensation for weeks of 
     unemployment beginning after the date of enactment of the Tax 
     Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job 
     Creation Act of 2010 (or, if later, the date established 
     pursuant to State law), and ending on or before December 31, 
     2011, the State may by law provide that the determination of 
     whether there has been a state `on' or `off' indicator 
     beginning or ending any extended benefit period shall be made 
     under this subsection as if the word `either' were `any', the 
     word ``both'' were `all', and the figure `2' were `3' in 
     clause (1)(A)(ii).''.

     SEC. 503. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT RELATING TO COLLECTION OF 
                   UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DEBTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6402(f)(3)(C), as amended by 
     section 801 of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, is amended 
     by striking ``is not a covered unemployment compensation 
     debt'' and inserting ``is a covered unemployment compensation 
     debt''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in section 801 of the Claims 
     Resolution Act of 2010.

     SEC. 504. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RELATING TO REPEAL OF 
                   CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET.

       (a) In General.--Section 822(2)(A) of the Claims Resolution 
     Act of 2010 is amended by striking ``or'' and inserting 
     ``and''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the provisions of the 
     Claims Resolution Act of 2010.

     SEC. 505. ADDITIONAL EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE 
                   RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT.

       (a) Extension.--Section 2(c)(2)(D)(iii) of the Railroad 
     Unemployment Insurance Act, as added by section 2006 of the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 
     111-5) and as amended by section 9 of the Worker, 
     Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 (Public 
     Law 111-92), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``June 30, 2010'' and inserting ``June 30, 
     2011''; and
       (2) by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Clarification on Authority To Use Funds.--Funds 
     appropriated under either the first or second sentence of 
     clause (iv) of section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Railroad 
     Unemployment Insurance Act shall be available to cover the 
     cost of additional extended unemployment benefits provided 
     under such section 2(c)(2)(D) by reason of the amendments 
     made by subsection (a) as well as to cover the cost of such 
     benefits provided under such section 2(c)(2)(D), as in effect 
     on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act.

              TITLE VI--TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PAYROLL TAX CUT

     SEC. 601. TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PAYROLL TAX CUT.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law--
       (1) with respect to any taxable year which begins in the 
     payroll tax holiday period, the rate of tax under section 
     1401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be 10.40 
     percent, and
       (2) with respect to remuneration received during the 
     payroll tax holiday period, the rate of tax under 3101(a) of 
     such Code shall be 4.2 percent (including for purposes of 
     determining the applicable percentage under sections 3201(a) 
     and 3211(a)(1) of such Code).
       (b) Coordination With Deductions for Employment Taxes.--
       (1) Deduction in computing net earnings from self-
     employment.--For purposes of applying section 1402(a)(12) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the rate of tax imposed by 
     subsection 1401(a) of such Code shall be determined without 
     regard to the reduction in such rate under this section.
       (2) Individual deduction.--In the case of the taxes imposed 
     by section 1401 of such Code for any taxable year which 
     begins in the payroll tax holiday period, the deduction under 
     section 164(f) with respect to such taxes shall be equal to 
     the sum of--
       (A) 59.6 percent of the portion of such taxes attributable 
     to the tax imposed by section 1401(a) (determined after the 
     application of this section), plus
       (B) one-half of the portion of such taxes attributable to 
     the tax imposed by section 1401(b).
       (c) Payroll Tax Holiday Period.--The term ``payroll tax 
     holiday period'' means calendar year 2011.
       (d) Employer Notification.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall notify employers of the payroll tax holiday period in 
     any manner the Secretary deems appropriate.
       (e) Transfers of Funds.--
       (1) Transfers to federal old-age and survivors insurance 
     trust fund.--There are hereby appropriated to the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the 
     reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the 
     application of subsection (a). Amounts appropriated by the 
     preceding sentence shall be transferred from the general fund 
     at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the 
     extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to 
     such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted.
       (2) Transfers to social security equivalent benefit 
     account.--There are hereby appropriated to the Social 
     Security Equivalent Benefit Account established under section 
     15A(a) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 
     231n-1(a)) amounts equal to the reduction in revenues to the 
     Treasury by reason of the application of subsection (a)(2). 
     Amounts appropriated by the preceding sentence shall be 
     transferred from the general fund at such times and in such 
     manner as to replicate to the extent possible the transfers 
     which would have occurred to such Account had such amendments 
     not been enacted.
       (3) Coordination with other federal laws.--For purposes of 
     applying any provision of Federal law other than the 
     provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the rate of 
     tax in effect under section 3101(a) of such Code shall be 
     determined without regard to the reduction in such rate under 
     this section.

     TITLE VII--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF CERTAIN EXPIRING PROVISIONS

                           Subtitle A--Energy

     SEC. 701. INCENTIVES FOR BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL.

       (a) Credits for Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel Used as 
     Fuel.--Subsection (g) of section 40A is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Excise Tax Credits and Outlay Payments for Biodiesel 
     and Renewable Diesel Fuel Mixtures.--
       (1) Paragraph (6) of section 6426(c) is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
       (2) Subparagraph (B) of section 6427(e)(6) is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2011''.
       (c) Special Rule for 2010.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, in the case of any biodiesel mixture credit 
     properly determined under section 6426(c) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 for periods during 2010, such credit 
     shall be allowed, and any refund or payment attributable to 
     such credit (including any payment under section 6427(e) of 
     such Code) shall be made, only in such manner as the 
     Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary's delegate) shall 
     provide. Such Secretary shall issue guidance within 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act providing for a 
     one-time submission of claims covering periods during 2010. 
     Such guidance shall provide for a 180-day period for the 
     submission of such claims (in such manner as prescribed by 
     such Secretary) to begin not later than 30 days after such 
     guidance is issued. Such claims shall be paid by such 
     Secretary not later than 60 days after receipt. If such 
     Secretary has not paid pursuant to a claim filed under this 
     subsection within 60 days after the date of the filing of 
     such claim, the claim shall be paid with interest from such 
     date determined by using the overpayment rate and method 
     under section 6621 of such Code.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to fuel sold or used after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 702. CREDIT FOR REFINED COAL FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 45(d)(8) is 
     amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to facilities placed in service after December 
     31, 2009.

     SEC. 703. NEW ENERGY EFFICIENT HOME CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 45L is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to homes acquired after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 704. EXCISE TAX CREDITS AND OUTLAY PAYMENTS FOR 
                   ALTERNATIVE FUEL AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL MIXTURES.

       (a) In General.--Sections 6426(d)(5), 6426(e)(3), and 
     6427(e)(6)(C) are each amended by striking ``December 31, 
     2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2011''.

[[Page 22459]]

       (b) Exclusion of Black Liquor From Credit Eligibility.--The 
     last sentence of section 6426(d)(2) is amended by striking 
     ``or biodiesel'' and inserting ``biodiesel, or any fuel 
     (including lignin, wood residues, or spent pulping liquors) 
     derived from the production of paper or pulp''.
       (c) Special Rule for 2010.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, in the case of any alternative fuel credit 
     or any alternative fuel mixture credit properly determined 
     under subsection (d) or (e) of section 6426 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 for periods during 2010, such credit 
     shall be allowed, and any refund or payment attributable to 
     such credit (including any payment under section 6427(e) of 
     such Code) shall be made, only in such manner as the 
     Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary's delegate) shall 
     provide. Such Secretary shall issue guidance within 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act providing for a 
     one-time submission of claims covering periods during 2010. 
     Such guidance shall provide for a 180-day period for the 
     submission of such claims (in such manner as prescribed by 
     such Secretary) to begin not later than 30 days after such 
     guidance is issued. Such claims shall be paid by such 
     Secretary not later than 60 days after receipt. If such 
     Secretary has not paid pursuant to a claim filed under this 
     subsection within 60 days after the date of the filing of 
     such claim, the claim shall be paid with interest from such 
     date determined by using the overpayment rate and method 
     under section 6621 of such Code.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to fuel sold or used after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 705. SPECIAL RULE FOR SALES OR DISPOSITIONS TO IMPLEMENT 
                   FERC OR STATE ELECTRIC RESTRUCTURING POLICY FOR 
                   QUALIFIED ELECTRIC UTILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 451(i) is amended 
     by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to dispositions after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 706. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON PERCENTAGE DEPLETION 
                   FOR OIL AND GAS FROM MARGINAL WELLS.

       (a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 613A(c)(6)(H) is 
     amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 707. EXTENSION OF GRANTS FOR SPECIFIED ENERGY PROPERTY 
                   IN LIEU OF TAX CREDITS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1603 of division 
     B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2009 or 2010'' and 
     inserting ``2009, 2010, or 2011'', and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``after 2010'' and inserting ``after 
     2011'', and
       (B) by striking ``2009 or 2010'' and inserting ``2009, 
     2010, or 2011''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (j) of section 1603 
     of division B of such Act is amended by striking ``2011'' and 
     inserting ``2012''.

     SEC. 708. EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOL USED AS 
                   FUEL.

       (a) Extension of Income Tax Credit for Alcohol Used as 
     Fuel.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 40(e) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``December 31, 2010'' in subparagraph (A) 
     and inserting ``December 31, 2011'', and
       (B) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2012''.
       (2) Reduced amount for ethanol blenders.--Subsection (h) of 
     section 40 is amended by striking ``2010'' both places it 
     appears and inserting ``2011''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to periods after December 31, 2010.
       (b) Extension of Excise Tax Credit for Alcohol Used as 
     Fuel.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (6) of section 6426(b) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to periods after December 31, 2010.
       (c) Extension of Payment for Alcohol Fuel Mixture.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6427(e)(6) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to sales and uses after December 31, 2010.
       (d) Extension of Additional Duties on Ethanol.--
       (1) In general.--Headings 9901.00.50 and 9901.00.52 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States are each 
     amended in the effective period column by striking ``1/1/
     2011'' and inserting ``1/1/2012''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2011.

     SEC. 709. ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCE CREDIT.

       (a) Dishwashers.--Paragraph (1) of section 45M(b) is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A), 
     by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting a comma, and by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(C) $25 in the case of a dishwasher which is manufactured 
     in calendar year 2011 and which uses no more than 307 
     kilowatt hours per year and 5.0 gallons per cycle (5.5 
     gallons per cycle for dishwashers designed for greater than 
     12 place settings),
       ``(D) $50 in the case of a dishwasher which is manufactured 
     in calendar year 2011 and which uses no more than 295 
     kilowatt hours per year and 4.25 gallons per cycle (4.75 
     gallons per cycle for dishwashers designed for greater than 
     12 place settings), and
       ``(E) $75 in the case of a dishwasher which is manufactured 
     in calendar year 2011 and which uses no more than 280 
     kilowatt hours per year and 4 gallons per cycle (4.5 gallons 
     per cycle for dishwashers designed for greater than 12 place 
     settings).''.
       (b) Clothes Washers.--Paragraph (2) of section 45M(b) is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C), 
     by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and 
     inserting a comma, and by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(E) $175 in the case of a top-loading clothes washer 
     manufactured in calendar year 2011 which meets or exceeds a 
     2.2 modified energy factor and does not exceed a 4.5 water 
     consumption factor, and
       ``(F) $225 in the case of a clothes washer manufactured in 
     calendar year 2011--
       ``(i) which is a top-loading clothes washer and which meets 
     or exceeds a 2.4 modified energy factor and does not exceed a 
     4.2 water consumption factor, or
       ``(ii) which is a front-loading clothes washer and which 
     meets or exceeds a 2.8 modified energy factor and does not 
     exceed a 3.5 water consumption factor.''.
       (c) Refrigerators.--Paragraph (3) of section 45M(b) is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C), 
     by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and 
     inserting a comma, and by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(E) $150 in the case of a refrigerator manufactured in 
     calendar year 2011 which consumes at least 30 percent less 
     energy than the 2001 energy conservation standards, and
       ``(F) $200 in the case of a refrigerator manufactured in 
     calendar year 2011 which consumes at least 35 percent less 
     energy than the 2001 energy conservation standards.''.
       (d) Rebasing of Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 45M(e) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``$75,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$25,000,000'', and
       (B) by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2010''.
       (2) Exception for certain refrigerators and clothes 
     washers.--Paragraph (2) of section 45M(e) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``subsection (b)(3)(D)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (b)(3)(F)'', and
       (B) by striking ``subsection (b)(2)(D)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (b)(2)(F)''.
       (3) Gross receipts limitation.--Paragraph (3) of section 
     45M(e) is amended by striking ``2 percent'' and inserting ``4 
     percent''.
       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by subsections (a), 
     (b), and (c) shall apply to appliances produced after 
     December 31, 2010.
       (2) Limitations.--The amendments made by subsection (d) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2010.

     SEC. 710. CREDIT FOR NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.

       (a) Extension.--Section 25C(g)(2) is amended by striking 
     ``2010'' and inserting ``2011''.
       (b) Return to Pre-ARRA Limitations and Standards.--
       (1) In general.--Subsections (a) and (b) of section 25C are 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the sum 
     of--
       ``(1) 10 percent of the amount paid or incurred by the 
     taxpayer for qualified energy efficiency improvements 
     installed during such taxable year, and
       ``(2) the amount of the residential energy property 
     expenditures paid or incurred by the taxpayer during such 
     taxable year.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Lifetime limitation.--The credit allowed under this 
     section with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year 
     shall not exceed the excess (if any) of $500 over the 
     aggregate credits allowed under this section with respect to 
     such taxpayer for all prior taxable years ending after 
     December 31, 2005.
       ``(2) Windows.--In the case of amounts paid or incurred for 
     components described in subsection (c)(2)(B) by any taxpayer 
     for any taxable year, the credit allowed under this section 
     with respect to such amounts for such year shall not exceed 
     the excess (if any) of $200 over the aggregate credits 
     allowed under this section with respect to such amounts for 
     all prior taxable years ending after December 31, 2005.
       ``(3) Limitation on residential energy property 
     expenditures.--The amount of the credit allowed under this 
     section by reason of subsection (a)(2) shall not exceed--
       ``(A) $50 for any advanced main air circulating fan,
       ``(B) $150 for any qualified natural gas, propane, or oil 
     furnace or hot water boiler, and
       ``(C) $300 for any item of energy-efficient building 
     property.''.
       (2) Modification of standards.--
       (A) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 25C(c) is amended 
     by striking ``2000'' and all that follows through ``this 
     section'' and inserting ``2009 International Energy 
     Conservation Code, as such Code (including supplements) is in 
     effect on the date of the enactment of the American Recovery 
     and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009''.

[[Page 22460]]

       (B) Wood stoves.--Subparagraph (E) of section 25C(d)(3) is 
     amended by striking ``, as measured using a lower heating 
     value''.
       (C)  Oil furnaces and hot water boilers.--
       (i) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 25C(d) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(4) Qualified natural gas, propane, or oil furnace or hot 
     water boiler.--The term `qualified natural gas, propane, or 
     oil furnace or hot water boiler' means a natural gas, 
     propane, or oil furnace or hot water boiler which achieves an 
     annual fuel utilization efficiency rate of not less than 
     95.''.
       (ii) Conforming amendment.--Clause (ii) of section 
     25C(d)(2)(A) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) a qualified natural gas, propane, or oil furnace or 
     hot water boiler, or''.
       (D) Exterior windows, doors, and skylights.--
       (i) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 25C is amended 
     by striking paragraph (4).
       (ii) Application of energy star standards.--Paragraph (1) 
     of section 25C(c) is amended by inserting ``an exterior 
     window, a skylight, an exterior door,'' after ``in the case 
     of'' in the matter preceding subparagraph (A).
       (E) Insulation.--Subparagraph (A) of section 25C(c)(2) is 
     amended by striking ``and meets the prescriptive criteria for 
     such material or system established by the 2009 International 
     Energy Conservation Code, as such Code (including 
     supplements) is in effect on the date of the enactment of the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009''.
       (3) Subsidized energy financing.--Subsection (e) of section 
     25C is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Property financed by subsidized energy financing.--
     For purposes of determining the amount of expenditures made 
     by any individual with respect to any property, there shall 
     not be taken into account expenditures which are made from 
     subsidized energy financing (as defined in section 
     48(a)(4)(C)).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2010.

     SEC. 711. ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REFUELING PROPERTY.

       (a) Extension of Credit.--Paragraph (2) of section 30C(g) 
     is amended by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2010.

                   Subtitle B--Individual Tax Relief

     SEC. 721. DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY AND 
                   SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 62(a)(2) is 
     amended by striking ``or 2009'' and inserting ``2009, 2010, 
     or 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 722. DEDUCTION OF STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) is 
     amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 723. CONTRIBUTIONS OF CAPITAL GAIN REAL PROPERTY MADE 
                   FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--Clause (vi) of section 170(b)(1)(E) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Contributions by Certain Corporate Farmers and 
     Ranchers.--Clause (iii) of section 170(b)(2)(B) is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2011''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 724. ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED TUITION AND 
                   RELATED EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 222 is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 725. TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT 
                   PLANS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (F) of section 408(d)(8) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date; Special Rule.--
       (1) Effective date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to distributions made in taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2009.
       (2) Special rule.--For purposes of subsections (a)(6), 
     (b)(3), and (d)(8) of section 408 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, at the election of the taxpayer (at such time 
     and in such manner as prescribed by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury) any qualified charitable distribution made after 
     December 31, 2010, and before February 1, 2011, shall be 
     deemed to have been made on December 31, 2010.

     SEC. 726. LOOK-THRU OF CERTAIN REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANY 
                   STOCK IN DETERMINING GROSS ESTATE OF 
                   NONRESIDENTS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 2105(d) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to estates of decedents dying after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 727. PARITY FOR EXCLUSION FROM INCOME FOR EMPLOYER-
                   PROVIDED MASS TRANSIT AND PARKING BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 132(f) is amended 
     by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to months after December 31, 2010.

     SEC. 728. REFUNDS DISREGARDED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF 
                   FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 65 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6409. REFUNDS DISREGARDED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF 
                   FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED 
                   PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any refund (or advance payment with respect to a 
     refundable credit) made to any individual under this title 
     shall not be taken into account as income, and shall not be 
     taken into account as resources for a period of 12 months 
     from receipt, for purposes of determining the eligibility of 
     such individual (or any other individual) for benefits or 
     assistance (or the amount or extent of benefits or 
     assistance) under any Federal program or under any State or 
     local program financed in whole or in part with Federal 
     funds.
       ``(b) Termination.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any 
     amount received after December 31, 2012.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     subchapter is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 6409. Refunds disregarded in the administration of Federal 
              programs and federally assisted programs.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts received after December 31, 2009.

                    Subtitle C--Business Tax Relief

     SEC. 731. RESEARCH CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 41(h)(1) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (D) of section 
     45C(b)(1) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 732. INDIAN EMPLOYMENT TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45A is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 733. NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 45D(f) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E),
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F), 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) $3,500,000,000 for 2010 and 2011.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (3) of section 45D(f) 
     is amended by striking ``2014'' and inserting ``2016''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to calendar years beginning after 2009.

     SEC. 734. RAILROAD TRACK MAINTENANCE CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45G is amended 
     by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 735. MINE RESCUE TEAM TRAINING CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 45N is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 736. EMPLOYER WAGE CREDIT FOR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ACTIVE 
                   DUTY MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45P is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 737. 15-YEAR STRAIGHT-LINE COST RECOVERY FOR QUALIFIED 
                   LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS, QUALIFIED RESTAURANT 
                   BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS, AND QUALIFIED 
                   RETAIL IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Clauses (iv), (v), and (ix) of section 
     168(e)(3)(E) are each amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' 
     and inserting ``January 1, 2012''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Clause (i) of section 168(e)(7)(A) is amended by 
     striking ``if such building is placed in service after 
     December 31, 2008, and before January 1, 2010,''.
       (2) Paragraph (8) of section 168(e) is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (E).
       (3) Section 179(f)(2) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(without regard to the dates specified in 
     subparagraph (A)(i) thereof)'' in subparagraph (B), and

[[Page 22461]]

       (B) by striking ``(without regard to subparagraph (E) 
     thereof)'' in subparagraph (C).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 738. 7-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD FOR MOTORSPORTS 
                   ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEXES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 168(i)(15) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 739. ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION FOR BUSINESS PROPERTY ON 
                   AN INDIAN RESERVATION.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 168(j) is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 740. ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF 
                   FOOD INVENTORY.

       (a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 170(e)(3)(C) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 741. ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF 
                   BOOK INVENTORIES TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

       (a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 170(e)(3)(D) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 742. ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CORPORATE 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS OF COMPUTER INVENTORY FOR 
                   EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (G) of section 170(e)(6) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 743. ELECTION TO EXPENSE MINE SAFETY EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 179E is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 744. SPECIAL EXPENSING RULES FOR CERTAIN FILM AND 
                   TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 181 is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to productions commencing after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 745. EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 198 is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred after December 
     31, 2009.

     SEC. 746. DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE WITH RESPECT TO INCOME 
                   ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES 
                   IN PUERTO RICO.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 199(d)(8) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``first 4 taxable years'' and inserting 
     ``first 6 taxable years''; and
       (2) by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 
     1, 2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 747. MODIFICATION OF TAX TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS 
                   TO CONTROLLING EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 512(b)(13)(E) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to payments received or accrued after December 
     31, 2009.

     SEC. 748. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DIVIDENDS OF REGULATED 
                   INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraphs (1)(C) and (2)(C) of section 
     871(k) are each amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 749. RIC QUALIFIED INVESTMENT ENTITY TREATMENT UNDER 
                   FIRPTA.

       (a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 897(h)(4)(A) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
     take effect on January 1, 2010. Notwithstanding the preceding 
     sentence, such amendment shall not apply with respect to the 
     withholding requirement under section 1445 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 for any payment made before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Amounts withheld on or before date of enactment.--In 
     the case of a regulated investment company--
       (A) which makes a distribution after December 31, 2009, and 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (B) which would (but for the second sentence of paragraph 
     (1)) have been required to withhold with respect to such 
     distribution under section 1445 of such Code,
     such investment company shall not be liable to any person to 
     whom such distribution was made for any amount so withheld 
     and paid over to the Secretary of the Treasury.

     SEC. 750. EXCEPTIONS FOR ACTIVE FINANCING INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Sections 953(e)(10) and 954(h)(9) are each 
     amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2012''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 953(e)(10) is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2011''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years of foreign corporations 
     beginning after December 31, 2009, and to taxable years of 
     United States shareholders with or within which any such 
     taxable year of such foreign corporation ends.

     SEC. 751. LOOK-THRU TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS BETWEEN RELATED 
                   CONTROLLED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS UNDER FOREIGN 
                   PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY RULES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 954(c)(6) is 
     amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years of foreign corporations 
     beginning after December 31, 2009, and to taxable years of 
     United States shareholders with or within which any such 
     taxable year of such foreign corporation ends.

     SEC. 752. BASIS ADJUSTMENT TO STOCK OF S CORPS MAKING 
                   CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 1367(a) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 753. EMPOWERMENT ZONE TAX INCENTIVES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1391 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``December 31, 2009'' in subsection 
     (d)(1)(A)(i) and inserting ``December 31, 2011''; and
       (2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (h)(2).
       (b) Increased Exclusion of Gain on Stock of Empowerment 
     Zone Businesses.--Subparagraph (C) of section 1202(a)(2) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``December 31, 2014'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2016''; and
       (2) by striking ``2014'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``2016''.
       (c) Treatment of Certain Termination Dates Specified in 
     Nominations.--In the case of a designation of an empowerment 
     zone the nomination for which included a termination date 
     which is contemporaneous with the date specified in 
     subparagraph (A)(i) of section 1391(d)(1) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect before the enactment of 
     this Act), subparagraph (B) of such section shall not apply 
     with respect to such designation if, after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, the entity which made such 
     nomination amends the nomination to provide for a new 
     termination date in such manner as the Secretary of the 
     Treasury (or the Secretary's designee) may provide.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to periods after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 754. TAX INCENTIVES FOR INVESTMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF 
                   COLUMBIA.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 1400 is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 2009'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Tax-exempt DC Empowerment Zone Bonds.--Subsection (b) 
     of section 1400A is amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' 
     and inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
       (c) Zero-percent Capital Gains Rate.--
       (1) Acquisition date.--Paragraphs (2)(A)(i), (3)(A), 
     (4)(A)(i), and (4)(B)(i)(I) of section 1400B(b) are each 
     amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2012''.
       (2) Limitation on period of gains.--
       (A) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 1400B(e) is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``December 31, 2014'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2016''; and
       (ii) by striking ``2014'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``2016''.
       (B) Partnerships and s-corps.--Paragraph (2) of section 
     1400B(g) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2014'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2016''.
       (d) First-time Homebuyer Credit.--Subsection (i) of section 
     1400C is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2012''.
       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to periods after December 31, 2009.
       (2) Tax-exempt dc empowerment zone bonds.--The amendment 
     made by subsection (b) shall apply to bonds issued after 
     December 31, 2009.
       (3) Acquisition dates for zero-percent capital gains 
     rate.--The amendments made by subsection (c) shall apply to 
     property acquired or substantially improved after December 
     31, 2009.
       (4) Homebuyer credit.--The amendment made by subsection (d) 
     shall apply to homes purchased after December 31, 2009.

[[Page 22462]]



     SEC. 755. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN LIMIT ON COVER OVER OF RUM 
                   EXCISE TAXES TO PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN 
                   ISLANDS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 7652(f) is 
     amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to distilled spirits brought into the United 
     States after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 756. AMERICAN SAMOA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 119 of division 
     A of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``first 4 taxable years'' and inserting 
     ``first 6 taxable years'', and
       (2) by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 
     1, 2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 757. WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 51(c)(4) is 
     amended by striking ``August 31, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 758. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 54E(c)(1) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2008 and'' and inserting ``2008,'', and
       (2) by inserting ``and $400,000,000 for 2011'' after 
     ``2010,''.
       (b) Repeal of Refundable Credit for QZABs.--Paragraph (3) 
     of section 6431(f) is amended by inserting ``determined 
     without regard to any allocation relating to the national 
     zone academy bond limitation for 2011 or any carryforward of 
     such allocation'' after ``54E)'' in subparagraph (A)(iii).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to obligations issued after December 31, 2010.

     SEC. 759. MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

       (a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 163(h)(3)(E) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or accrued after December 31, 
     2010.

     SEC. 760. TEMPORARY EXCLUSION OF 100 PERCENT OF GAIN ON 
                   CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS STOCK.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 1202(a) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``January 
     1, 2012'', and
       (2) by inserting ``and 2011'' after ``2010'' in the heading 
     thereof.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to stock acquired after December 31, 2010.

            Subtitle D--Temporary Disaster Relief Provisions

                                  PART

                    Subpart A--New York Liberty Zone

     SEC. 761. TAX-EXEMPT BOND FINANCING.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 1400L(d)(2) is 
     amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2009.

                           Subpart B--GO Zone

     SEC. 762. INCREASE IN REHABILITATION CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 1400N is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2011''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 763. LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT RULES FOR BUILDINGS IN GO 
                   ZONES.

       Section 1400N(c)(5) is amended by striking ``January 1, 
     2011'' and inserting ``January 1, 2012''.

     SEC. 764. TAX-EXEMPT BOND FINANCING.

       (a) In General.--Paragraphs (2)(D) and (7)(C) of section 
     1400N(a) are each amended by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2012''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Sections 702(d)(1) and 704(a) 
     of the Heartland Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008 are each 
     amended by striking ``January 1, 2011'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``January 1, 2012''.

     SEC. 765. BONUS DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION APPLICABLE TO THE GO 
                   ZONE.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (6) of section 1400N(d) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``December 31, 2010'' both places it 
     appears in subparagraph (B) and inserting ``December 31, 
     2011'', and
       (2) by striking ``January 1, 2010'' in the heading and the 
     text of subparagraph (D) and inserting ``January 1, 2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2009.

                    TITLE VIII--BUDGETARY PROVISIONS

     SEC. 801. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     jointly submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by 
     the Chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees, 
     provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
     vote on passage in the House acting first on this conference 
     report or amendment between the Houses.

     SEC. 802. EMERGENCY DESIGNATIONS.

       (a) Statutory Paygo.--This Act is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139; 2 
     U.S.C. 933(g)) except to the extent that the budgetary 
     effects of this Act are determined to be subject to the 
     current policy adjustments under sections 4(c) and 7 of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act.
       (b) Senate.--In the Senate, this Act is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. 
     Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2010.
       (c) House of Representatives.--In the House of 
     Representatives, every provision of this Act is expressly 
     designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go 
     principles except to the extent that any such provision is 
     subject to the current policy adjustments under section 4(c) 
     of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment is in order except the amendment 
printed in the report accompanying House Resolution 1766, which may be 
offered only by Representative Levin of Michigan or his designee and 
shall not be debatable.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Levin

  Mr. LEVIN. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment printed in House Report 111-682 offered by Mr. 
     Levin:
       Strike title III and insert the following:

                 TITLE III--TEMPORARY ESTATE TAX RELIEF

     SEC. 301. REINSTATEMENT OF ESTATE TAX; REPEAL OF CARRYOVER 
                   BASIS.

       (a) In General.--Each provision of law amended by subtitle 
     A or E of title V of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended to read as such 
     provision would read if such subtitle had never been enacted.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--On and after January 1, 2011, 
     paragraph (1) of section 2505(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended to read as such paragraph would read if 
     section 521(b)(2) of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 had never been enacted.
       (c) Special Election With Respect to Estates of Decedents 
     Dying in 2010.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), in the case 
     of an estate of a decedent dying after December 31, 2009, and 
     before January 1, 2011, the executor (within the meaning of 
     section 2203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) may elect 
     to apply such Code as though the amendments made by 
     subsection (a) do not apply with respect to chapter 11 of 
     such Code and with respect to property acquired or passing 
     from such decedent (within the meaning of section 1014(b) of 
     such Code).  Such election shall be made at such time and in 
     such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury or the 
     Secretary's delegate shall provide. Such an election once 
     made shall be revocable only with the consent of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate. For 
     purposes of section 2652(a)(1) of such Code, the 
     determination of whether any property is subject to the tax 
     imposed by such chapter 11 shall be made without regard to 
     any election made under this subsection.
       (d) Extension of Time for Performing Certain Acts.--
       (1) Estate tax.--In the case of the estate of a decedent 
     dying after December 31, 2009, and before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the due date for--
       (A) filing any return under section 6018 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (including any election required to be 
     made on such a return) as such section is in effect after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act without regard to any 
     election under subsection (c),
       (B) making any payment of tax under chapter 11 of such 
     Code, and
       (C) making any disclaimer described in section 2518(b) of 
     such Code of an interest in property passing by reason of the 
     death of such decedent,
     shall not be earlier than the date which is 9 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Generation-skipping tax.--In the case of any 
     generation-skipping transfer made after December 31, 2009, 
     and before the date of the enactment of this Act, the due 
     date for filing any return under section 2662 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (including any election required to be 
     made on such a return) shall not be earlier than the date 
     which is 9 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (e) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, the amendments made by this section shall apply to 
     estates of decedents dying, and transfers made, after 
     December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 302. MODIFICATIONS TO ESTATE, GIFT, AND GENERATION-
                   SKIPPING TRANSFER TAXES.

       (a) Modifications to Estate Tax.--

[[Page 22463]]

       (1) $3,500,000 applicable exclusion amount.--Subsection (c) 
     of section 2010 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Applicable Credit Amount.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
     applicable credit amount is the amount of the tentative tax 
     which would be determined under section 2001(c) if the amount 
     with respect to which such tentative tax is to be computed 
     were equal to the applicable exclusion amount.
       ``(2) Applicable exclusion amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     applicable exclusion amount is $3,500,000.
       ``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any decedent 
     dying in a calendar year after 2011, the dollar amount in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting 
     `calendar year 2010' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph 
     (B) thereof.
     If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not 
     a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $10,000.''.
       (2) Maximum estate tax rate equal to 45 percent.--
     Subsection (c) of section 2001 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Over $1,500,000'' and all that follows in 
     the table contained in paragraph (1) and inserting the 
     following:


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

       (B) by striking ``(1) In general.--'', and
       (C) by striking paragraph (2).
       (b) Modifications of Gift Tax Rate.--
       (1) In general.--On and after January 1, 2011, subsection 
     (a) of section 2502 is amended to read as such subsection 
     would read if section 511(d) of the Economic Growth and Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 had never been enacted.
       (2) Applicable exclusion amount for gift tax.--
       (A) Inflation adjustment.--Section 2505 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Inflation Adjustment.--In the case of any calendar 
     year after 2011, the dollar amount in subsection (a)(1) shall 
     be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(1) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting 
     `calendar year 2010' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph 
     (B) thereof.
     If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not 
     a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $10,000.''.
       (B) Effective date.--The amendment made by this paragraph 
     shall apply to calendar years beginning after 2011.
       (c) Modification of Generation-skipping Transfer Tax.--In 
     the case of any generation-skipping transfer made after 
     December 31, 2009, and before January 1, 2011, the applicable 
     rate determined under section 2641(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 shall be zero.
       (d) Modifications of Estate and Gift Taxes to Reflect 
     Differences in Credit Resulting From Different Tax Rates.--
       (1) Estate tax.--
       (A) In general.--Section 2001(b)(2) is amended by striking 
     ``if the provisions of subsection (c) (as in effect at the 
     decedent's death)'' and inserting ``if the modifications 
     described in subsection (g)''.
       (B) Modifications.--Section 2001 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Modifications to Gift Tax Payable to Reflect 
     Different Tax Rates.--For purposes of applying subsection 
     (b)(2) with respect to 1 or more gifts, the rates of tax 
     under subsection (c) in effect at the decedent's death shall, 
     in lieu of the rates of tax in effect at the time of such 
     gifts, be used both to compute--
       ``(1) the tax imposed by chapter 12 with respect to such 
     gifts, and
       ``(2) the credit allowed against such tax under section 
     2505, including in computing--
       ``(A) the applicable credit amount under section 
     2505(a)(1), and
       ``(B) the sum of the amounts allowed as a credit for all 
     preceding periods under section 2505(a)(2).''.
       (2) Gift tax.--Section 2505(a) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new flush sentence:
     ``For purposes of applying paragraph (2) for any calendar 
     year, the rates of tax in effect under section 2502(a)(2) for 
     such calendar year shall, in lieu of the rates of tax in 
     effect for preceding calendar periods, be used in determining 
     the amounts allowable as a credit under this section for all 
     preceding calendar periods.''.
       (e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2511 is amended by 
     striking subsection (c).
       (f) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, the amendments made by this section shall apply to 
     estates of decedents dying, generation-skipping transfers, 
     and gifts made, after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 303. APPLICATION OF EGTRRA SUNSET TO THIS TITLE.

       Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall apply to the amendments made 
     by this title.

  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is not debatable.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 233, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 646]

                               AYES--194

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Childers
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sablan
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--233

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Clay
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas

[[Page 22464]]


     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Space
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Walz
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Lipinski
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Berry
     Brown (SC)
     Gerlach
     Granger
     Johnson, E. B.
     Marchant
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pierluisi
     Ryan (OH)
     Wamp
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2341

  Messrs. BRIGHT and HARE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. BORDALLO, Mrs. NAPOLITANO and Mr. SMITH of Washington changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 644, 645, and 646, I was 
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendment in order, under 
the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Altmire) having assumed the chair, Mr. Schiff, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the Senate amendment to 
the House amendment to the Senate amendment to 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, and, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1766, reported the Senate amendment back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 
1766, pending is a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment 
to the House amendment to the Senate amendment.
  The question is on the motion.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment will be 
followed by a 5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules on House 
Resolution 20, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 277, 
noes 148, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 647]

                               AYES--277

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clay
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Delahunt
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Djou
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hodes
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey (CO)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Olson
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sutton
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--148

     Ackerman
     Bachmann
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Bilirakis
     Blumenauer
     Boyd
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lamborn
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Mack
     Markey (MA)
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Poe (TX)
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Berry
     Brown (SC)
     Granger
     Johnson, E. B.
     Marchant
     McCarthy (NY)
     Wamp
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  0000

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

[[Page 22465]]



                          ____________________