[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5633-5642]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4715, CLEAN ESTUARIES ACT OF 2010, 
    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
 CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 
                    OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on

[[Page 5634]]

Rules, I call up House Resolution 1248 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1248

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4715) to amend the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     bill shall be in order except those printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 
     9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. In the case of sundry amendments reported from the 
     Committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the 
     House en gros and without division of the question. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure or his designee. The 
     Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting 
     words of the bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 3.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of April 16, 2010, providing for 
     consideration of a measure relating to the extension of 
     unemployment insurance.
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of April 16, 2010, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating 
     to a measure addressing the extension of unemployment 
     insurance.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. 
All time yielded for consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous materials into the Congressional Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010. The rule 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except 
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI and provides that the 
bill should be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order 
against the bill itself.
  The rule makes in order the seven amendments printed in the Rules 
Committee report and waives all points of order against those 
amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. With 
respect to the amendments reported to the House, the question of their 
adoption shall be put en gros and without division of the question. The 
rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  The rule provides that the Chair may entertain a motion that the 
committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure or a designee. The Chair may not 
entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill.
  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote to 
consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is 
presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution 
reported through the legislative day of April 16, 2010, providing for 
consideration of a measure relating to an extension of unemployment 
insurance.
  Finally, it should be in order at any time through the legislative 
day of April 16, 2010, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the 
House suspend the rules relating to a measure addressing the extension 
of unemployment insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, many of the Nation's estuaries are in poor environmental 
health. An impaired estuary not only impacts commercial and 
recreational fishing, it also harms small businesses that rely on clean 
water and reduces the number of tourists coming to the State. Degraded 
coastal wetlands result in increased flooding, shoreline erosion, and 
damaged infrastructure.
  Estuaries are unique places where freshwater mixes with salt water 
from the oceans. The mixing water provides a productive and dynamic 
habitat for a wide variety of fish and wildlife. Lobsters, clams, and 
striped bass all depend on the estuaries as a habitat. They also 
provide critical habitat and breeding areas for hundreds of species of 
birds and other wildlife.
  We're here today to discuss a bill to help restore our Nation's 
estuaries by promoting comprehensive planning efforts in nationally 
significant estuaries such as Casco Bay and the Piscatisqua River 
Estuary on the Maine-New Hampshire border. Many of these estuaries are 
part of the National Estuary Program and provide an excellent example 
of how a stakeholder-driven, collaborative program can successfully 
address water quality problems.
  Estuaries provide habitat for 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fish 
catch and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fish catch. Estuaries 
and associated coastal areas help drive the Nation's economy. In my 
State alone in Casco Bay, the economic value in a good year of just one 
species of shellfish, the softshell clam, is estimated to be between 
$1.6 and $15.7 million annually. Without clean water, the men and women 
who depend on these resources lose their jobs. We cannot let that 
happen. We owe it to these hardworking individuals to invest in these 
precious areas.
  Investing in the National Estuary Program, the NEPs, is a good 
investment in our communities, and the NEPs make good use of their 
Federal funds. Between 2003 and 2009, NEPs leveraged $1.98 billion from 
$140 million in EPA grants.
  The Casco Bay Estuary Partnership is truly a partnership and they 
work with our local towns. The estuary partnership and Brunswick, West 
Bath, Phippsburg, and State and Federal agencies are working together 
in the New Meadows River Watershed Partnership. The partnership works 
on coastal protection, especially related to water quality and keeping 
clam flats open for harvesting. This effort has been largely funded by 
the estuary partnership.
  Beyond providing habitat and a place for commercial activities, 
estuaries are great places to kayak, boat, swim, or go bird watching. 
It is important to know that much of the value of estuaries declines if 
people, if the public, cannot access them.
  The underlying bill requires the consideration of sustainable 
commercial businesses and the management planning process, and it is 
important for the estuaries programs to explicitly recognize the role 
working waterfronts play in providing jobs and access to our estuaries. 
Without working waterfronts, we lose access to the estuary and the 
economic and cultural heart of many coastal communities.

[[Page 5635]]

  As an organization with strong ties to its community, the Casco Bay 
Estuary Partnership relies on the participation of a whole range of 
stakeholders, local governments, State and Federal agencies, 
environmental groups, businesses, schools, and local universities. 
These stakeholders come together to develop a comprehensive 
conservation and management plan. The management plan provides the 
framework for protecting and restoring the estuary and identifies 
discrete activities to address priority problems such as water quality, 
nutrient loading, and habitat restoration.
  The Casco Bay Estuary Partnership exemplifies the watershed focus, 
and the partnership works closely with the Portland Water District, 
local land trusts, and other organizations who all share the common 
interest of a healthy watershed. These partnerships pay off when the 
partners come together and tackle multiple issues with the same 
solution.
  The estuary partnership also helps to create good jobs through 
restoring the health of our estuaries. The Casco Bay Estuary 
Partnership is working closely with the town of Brunswick to replace an 
undersized culvert on Adams Road on the Thomas Cove salt marsh. The 
existing culvert is in need of replacement for purely engineering 
reasons. The partnership carried out local investigations and funded 
design work, developing a vision of how replacing a structure with a 
larger one would increase tidal flow and fish access to the salt marsh 
landward of Adams Road. The estuary partnership's work helped the town 
with a grant application to NOAA's Gulf of Maine Program restoration 
fund to raise additional money to support the effort. The success of 
these and other projects across the country show how much we can 
achieve by working together.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maine for yielding 
time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here very troubled with the legislation the 
Democrats in charge have chosen to bring forward today. While the goal 
of having good water quality in our Nation's estuaries indeed has its 
merits, I'm distraught that we are not debating something today which 
will address the dire challenges that are keeping my constituents up 
every night wondering how they will continue to feed their children and 
find work.
  I'm concerned that this legislation does not reflect the economic 
challenges confronting our Nation. Our national debt stands at $12.8 
trillion and is growing every day; yet this bill increases funding 
levels for the National Estuary Program under the EPA to $50 million 
per year, a 43 percent increase. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. 
Speaker, and this action suggests the Democrats in charge, at best, are 
in denial or, at worst, are simply indifferent to the economic 
situation our country is facing.
  At a time of record budget deficits, it's crucial that we hold the 
line on spending. The Obama administration likes to talk about fiscal 
restraint, but we have yet to see these words put into action. This 
bill is a classic example of legislation that could be trimmed back by 
keeping the authorization levels static rather than increasing them, 
but the Democrats refuse to allow such restraints and instead continue 
to appear to be oblivious of the fact that our Federal deficit is 
growing each day.
  This bill is also being brought forth today under a structured rule, 
adding to the record number of structured and closed rules the 
Democrats have arbitrarily used since they've been in the majority. 
Democrats have chosen to stifle and control the debate today presenting 
the Congress with another structured rule, eliminating both 
Republicans' and Democrats' ability to offer important amendments 
affecting their constituents.
  After promising to have the most open and honest Congress in history, 
why has the Speaker consistently gone back on her word? Why are 
Democrats in charge shutting off debate and silencing their colleagues 
from both sides of the aisle? Are they afraid of debate? Are they 
protecting their members from tough votes?
  Regardless of their motives, one thing is clear: The Democrats in 
charge are doing the American people an injustice by refusing to allow 
their Representatives to offer amendments on the floor of the people's 
House.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, according to ExpectMore.gov, a watchdog for 
Federal Government program performance, the National Estuary Program is 
only performing adequately. This performance rating indicates that the 
program needs to set more ambitious goals, achieve better results, 
improve accountability, and/or strengthen its management practices. As 
usual, the Democrats in charge have decided that the best way to fix a 
problem is simply to throw more money at it--money which we do not 
have, money which we have to borrow--and hope the program performs more 
effectively. This is a wrongheaded, fiscally irresponsible policy, and 
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and vote ``no.''
  And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the thoughts from my good friend from North Carolina, 
but I have to disagree with her.
  First, I want to remind her that we are here today to debate and talk 
about the rule for the National Estuary Program, and as someone from 
North Carolina who also represents a lot of coastal communities, I am 
sure that your fishermen and your tourism industry depend just as much 
on clean water and healthy estuaries as we do in the State of Maine. 
And I don't want to underestimate the importance to jobs, to job growth 
and to a healthy economy that the estuary program has in a coastal 
State.
  I also want to say that this merely increases the authorization for 
the funding. This isn't spending the money today, and decisions can be 
made down the line. But important decisions do need to be made to 
protect more estuaries in our country to make sure that these vibrant 
areas that produce much of our fishing stock and are critical to our 
tourism industry continue to thrive and are vibrant.
  Estuary counties only make up 13 percent of the Nation's land area 
but account for 49 percent of the GDP and support 28 million jobs. So 
if you want to talk about jobs and you're from a coastal State and 
you're going to neglect taking care of our estuaries, I think you need 
to go home and talk to the people of those coastal districts, 
commercial fishermen, people who depend on the tourism industry and 
know what a critical bill we're talking about today.
  But if you want to sidetrack the debate and you want to get into a 
debate about the deficit, I want to remind you that when my party left 
office, we had a surplus and we were comfortably moving ahead with the 
economy. But for 8 years, we had a tremendous amount of unpaid bills in 
this country. The majority of our deficit came from two wars that 
weren't paid for, of which we have people who disagree with our 
involvement in these wars today; tax cuts for some of the wealthiest 
people in this country who didn't need those tax cuts, but those tax 
cuts were not funded; a prescription drug program that was not paid 
for. And, in fact, when the Republicans passed that bill, they didn't 
even require that we negotiated with the pharmaceutical industry.

                              {time}  1045

  In fact, we pay the highest prices in the world, and you wonder why 
our economy and our deficit is in bad shape? I think you have to look 
at the last party in power when you are looking at where to place the 
blame.
  Look, people in my State are hurting. We have a tough economy. We 
have lost a lot of our manufacturing industry to jobs overseas, to a 
tremendous change in that economy, and I don't want to say for one 
minute that the people in my State are comfortable with the job 
situation. They are hurting, and they want more help.
  But, unlike the Republicans, the Democrats put forward the Recovery 
Act. Much of that money has come to

[[Page 5636]]

 my State and yours. And while we are not there yet, it's had an 
effect. It's helped us rebuild some of our roads and bridges. It helped 
keep teachers and firefighters and policemen in their jobs. It has 
funded research and development. It's gone to a whole host of necessary 
clean water infrastructure development. The list is long of how that 
money has been invested in our State.
  We have $35 million to extend our train service, which is very 
important. Extending Amtrak in the Northeast has been a great boon and 
will be very helpful to our economy.
  To say that the Democrats aren't, one, paying attention to the 
deficit and, two, doing all they can to assist in the job creation in 
this country is to neglect exactly what those facts are. I, again, will 
not say that we are where we want to be in this economy, but, last 
month, the U.S. economy gained more jobs than any other month over the 
last 3 years, an increase in 162,000 jobs. That is a sign that the 
labor market is at least moving in the right direction to stabilize.
  Let's remember, though, when President Obama took over when I was 
first elected as a freshmen, the economy was losing 700,000 jobs a 
month; and the previous President had already had to go in and bail out 
the banks because of the lack of oversight of our financial services 
industry. So we took over an economy in very tough shape, and at least 
it is moving in the right direction.
  There are other numbers that, while they don't give us all that we 
need, they are a positive sign. In the last month, the manufacturing 
industry added 17,000 jobs, retailers have added 15,000 jobs, and 
leisure and hospitality accounted for another 22,000 jobs. We are 
moving in the right direction.
  When I go home to my district, I ask the people who work in the 
tourism industry--tourism is now the largest industry in our State, and 
I am sure it is a big industry in North Carolina. I ask them how they 
are doing; and they say, well, we are getting some positive signs. We 
have more bookings, more people are coming in this spring. People are 
feeling a little bit more comfortable about the economy. And while 
that's not where we need to be, at least we have people moving in the 
right direction.
  We also have gained the confidence of people who say, thank goodness 
you passed some health care reform, health care reform that will cut 
the deficit in the long run, stabilize Medicare. And I can tell you 
from my small businesses what I hear more than anything else is from 
people who say how am I going to cover my employees, how am I going to 
cover myself as an individual? And I can now go back home to my State 
and say, if you have 25 employees or less, you will get a 35 percent 
tax credit this year. You are going to get real assistance in providing 
your employees with health care. And we are doing it with also cutting 
the deficit and cutting the instability in the Medicare system.
  I just want to say that, A, we are here to talk about estuaries, 
which, in my opinion and from my coastal State, is a very important job 
creator and revenue enhancer and critical to our fishing industry, 
which is very important in our State. I think you have to look at where 
you are laying the blame when you talk about this tough economy. Nobody 
likes the situation we are in, but nobody is working harder to change 
it than the Democrats.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am tempted to say, so much to say, so little time. I was going to 
ask my colleague to yield so she could clarify to me her comment that 
we are cutting the deficit.
  You know, this is a classic example of the Democrats saying one thing 
and doing another. It just happens over and over and over again. The 
American people, Mr. Speaker, are waking up to this issue.
  My colleague wants to talk about how, when President Obama came to 
office, what a sorry state the economy was in. She never, along with 
her other colleagues, ever acknowledged the fact that Democrats were in 
charge of the Congress for 2 years before President Obama came into 
office and put this economy on the skids. It's the Democrats who are in 
charge of Congress who have the fault laid directly at their feet.
  Before the Democrats took over the Congress, we had 54 straight 
months of job growth in this country under President Bush and with a 
Republican-led Congress. They bash. They talk about unpaid bills. They 
created the unpaid bills when they came in in January of 2007.
  They have increased spending in the past 2 years 84 percent. And what 
has it accomplished? More government jobs. Tout the 162,000 jobs all 
you want. Those are primarily government jobs, short-term jobs with the 
Census.
  My colleagues call things something that they are not. The Recovery 
Act? That is the bailout that occurred in February last year that was 
supposed to keep the trillion dollar spending, that was supposed to 
keep unemployment below 8 percent, that was supposed to create 3 
trillion jobs? Please.
  The American people aren't buying it anymore. They know that the 
Democrats are the ones who are in control, and they know that the 
Democrats are the ones who are responsible for the disaster that we are 
seeing in this economy.
  Unemployment is over 11 percent in my State. Yes, we want the 
estuaries to be protected. They are vital to many jobs in North 
Carolina. But spending more money is not the answer. Having the Federal 
Government live beyond its means is simply not the answer.
  This year, the Federal budget deficit is projected to be between $1.3 
and $1.5 trillion. And, again, my colleague mentioned cutting the 
deficit, when we hear even from President Obama's own appointees at the 
CBO and Chairman Bernanke that we cannot maintain our status as the 
greatest country in the world with this horrible debt and deficit that 
the Democrats are placing on our backs, on the backs of our children 
and our grandchildren.
  And I love the way my colleagues talk about this prescription drug 
program that was passed under a Republican President and the Republican 
Congress that was not ``paid for.'' They hate it. And yet what they are 
going to do in their health care bill, they are going to close the 
doughnut hole. Sure, they are going to add to the spending on the 
prescription drug plan, the one that they hate so much. They hate it on 
the floor here when they want to use it as an excuse, but then they 
love it when they want to put more money into it.
  Come on, folks, let's have a little consistency here in the approach 
that you take. Most of your consistency does involve putting the 
government in control of our lives and spending, spending, spending. 
The American people know that in these tough times they should save, 
not spend money.
  And last but not least, let me say my colleagues always say this is 
not spending, this is only authorizing. And then when it comes to the 
appropriations, they will say, well, we have to appropriate because 
this was already authorized. This is another gimmick that they put in 
place simply to spend more money. And, again, the American people are 
waking up. They understand it, and they don't like it anymore.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that this bill is a 
bill that's important because it creates jobs. My colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, along with the President, have done such a 
poor job of creating jobs in the past with all the spending that they 
have done, and yet everything that comes up is a jobs bill.
  I now want to quote from a March 3 Washington Times editorial: ``From 
immigration to clean energy to expanding the social safety net, there's 
no better way to grease the skids for new government programs in 
Washington nowadays than to declare them job-producing bills. Then 
watch supporters line up and potential opposition crumble.''
  Mr. Speaker, when I was home in North Carolina the past 2 weeks for 
our

[[Page 5637]]

Easter break, numerous constituents shared with me their concerns that 
the Federal Government is borrowing and spending too much. The American 
people know that in these tough economic times they should save, not 
spend money. But the Federal Government doesn't reflect the common 
sense that I see throughout the Fifth District of North Carolina. 
Instead, the Democrats in charge continue to borrow more and spend 
more, increasing our Federal deficit on the backs of our children and 
grandchildren.
  My colleagues can no long blame the deficit and economic difficulties 
today on the previous administration, although they continue to try. 
The Democrats in charge have shown they don't care about the deficit by 
continuing to dig America into a bigger and bigger hole with more 
reckless spending. All of this borrowed money is being spent by the 
ruling Democrats, while the unemployment rate continues to rise and the 
deficit continues to grow. I think my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle are so in love with their power that they believe that they 
can overrule the laws of economics.
  Since the Democrats took control of Congress, Mr. Speaker, in January 
of 2007, they have raised the debt limit five times and the national 
debt has increased by 42.4 percent, or $3.68 trillion.
  Democrats enacted a debt increase in February 2009, promising that 
borrowing another trillion dollars would create jobs immediately and 
unemployment would not rise above 8 percent. However, there were still 
85,000 job losses this past January, and unemployment has consistently 
been hovering around 10 percent in the country and much higher than 
that in many of our States.
  I have opposed all these efforts to raise the debt limit. According 
to the analysis by The Heritage Foundation, the White House projects 
$10.6 trillion in new deficits over the next decade. This is nearly 
$80,000 per household in new borrowing.
  It's beyond time to stop digging. The new budget estimates, including 
an estimated total national debt of $24.5 trillion in 2019 under 
President Obama's budget, are alarming and unsustainable. The result 
would be the highest level of spending and debt in American history.
  We hear now also that our colleagues across the aisle don't even want 
to present a new budget. And why don't they want to present a new 
budget? Because they would have to reveal again these really 
distressing numbers to the American people and have to respond to them.
  This is an irresponsible lack of fiscal restraint carried on the 
backs of our children and grandchildren. My constituents at home and 
Americans across the Nation are not operating their family budgets as 
recklessly as this Congress is spending taxpayer dollars. We have to 
point out all the time, this is not government money. This is money 
earned by hard-working taxpayers, more and more of whom are losing 
their jobs every day and losing the opportunity to work and pay their 
taxes, not money that's created by the government, except, of course, 
when they print it, which is going to result in inflation.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the distinguished gentlelady for yielding and for 
her outstanding leadership on behalf of taxpayers.
  I rise in opposition to the rule, to follow ordinary protocol, but 
it's impossible to come to the floor today and not talk about what 
hundreds of millions of Americans are thinking about today, some of 
whom will be driving late to the post office, heavy laden with an 
envelope that they hope they got right, to file their taxes. It is tax 
day in America, April 15; and it is a tough, tough day for working 
families, small businesses, and family farms.

                              {time}  1100

  You know, Will Rogers said famously the only difference between death 
and taxes is that death doesn't get worse when Congress is in session. 
And that has probably never been as true in my 10 years here on Capitol 
Hill as it has been in the last year and a half under this 
administration and this majority in Congress.
  Now, we heard a lot yesterday here on the floor of the Congress about 
tax cuts that have been passed into law. I rise this morning, Mr. 
Speaker, to really set the record straight because the American people 
have a choice to make this fall, and they deserve to know the facts.
  Yesterday, I enjoyed a number of speakers from the Democrat majority 
who came down boasting of having cut taxes by hundreds of billions of 
dollars. I think I even heard one speaker say that this Congress had 
cut taxes more than any Congress in American history. That one elicited 
a chuckle yesterday, and I can't help responding the same today. Here 
are the facts:
  First and foremost, this Congress has voted and this President has 
signed into law $670 billion in tax increases in the last year and a 
half, $670 billion. And the list includes 14 tax hikes signed into law, 
totaling $316 billion on middle class families in direct violation of 
the pledge that President Obama made not to raise taxes on individuals 
that make less than $200,000 a year or families filing jointly that 
make less than $250,000 a year. It really is astonishing. And thanks to 
the great work of the Committee on Ways and Means, the Republican 
minority there led by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, David 
Camp, people can go to the Web site, they can go to gop.gov, they can 
go to the Web site of the Ways and Means Committee and look at this 
full list.
  Under the health care bill, Public Law 111-148, new taxes on 
individuals who don't purchase government-approved health insurance, 
it's $17 billion over 10. A new tax on employers who fail to fully 
comply with government insurance mandates, $52 billion in tax 
increases. A new 40 percent excise tax on certain high-cost health 
plans, that's $32 billion in tax increases over 10, and on and on and 
on the list goes. But that's not where it ends.
  Under SCHIP, Public Law 113-3, tobacco tax increase and expanded 
enforcement authority, $65.515 billion in tax increases over 10. So-
called stimulus bill repealed guidance allowing certain taxpayers to 
claim losses of an acquired corporation, that's a $6.9 billion tax 
increase. And on the list goes. It is $670.341 billion and counting. 
And I say again, not only has this Congress increased taxes by $670 
billion since President Obama took office, but the list includes 14 tax 
increases totaling over $316 billion on middle class families.
  It is truly astonishing to think that arriving on the scene during 
the worst economy in 25 years that the response of this administration 
and this Congress has been to take what in my judgment was excessive 
spending under Republican control and put it on steroids and pay for it 
with hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes, and of course 
enacting more government.
  Now, taking directly on the assertion of my Democrat colleagues, in 
the time I have remaining, the suggestion that Democrats have passed 
the largest tax cuts in history, you know, the American people have got 
to be asking, Are they kidding? But no, they're not. In fact, the 
President, in remarks while signing the government takeover of health 
care with $570 billion in tax increases in it, actually said, ``And 
when this exchange is up and running, millions of people will get tax 
breaks to help them afford coverage, which represents the largest 
middle class tax cut for health care in history.''
  Now, I was on a television show right after the distinguished Senator 
from Illinois, Senator Dick Durbin, where he made the same assertion. 
And even PolitiFact, an independent and analytical organization online, 
took a look at what Senator Durbin said, suggesting that Obama Care was 
the largest middle class tax cut in history, and they gave it a false 
the next day.
  Here are the facts, and here is where the stretch comes from: it is 
the assertion, presumably, by Democrats that the $466 billion in 
subsidies paid directly to insurance companies in the health care 
takeover represents tax

[[Page 5638]]

cuts. Well, if I can just say for the record from my heart, paying 
insurance companies isn't a tax cut to me, okay. I mean, I was raised 
south of Highway 40, but I'm trying to keep--if this Congress ever 
wants to get around to actually cutting my taxes, writing checks to 
insurance companies that you're paying for with higher taxes, that's 
not a tax cut to me. A tax cut to me is reduce my taxes so I can keep 
more of my hard-earned money.
  There are other nickel and dime things in the stimulus bill, the 
refundable tax payments they're pointing to, but the biggest chunk of 
their claim of having cut taxes is $466 billion in subsidies paid 
directly to insurance companies in the health care takeover. I think 
that's why PolitiFact referred to Senator Durbin's assertion as false 
as an independent analysis and why independent observers have also 
rejected that.
  Look, it's a serious day in the life of the Nation. The truth is the 
American people are hurting. This government is running about a $1.3 
trillion deficit. We ought to get serious about fiscal discipline in 
Washington, D.C. and we ought to get real about giving the American 
people across-the-board tax relief. Only cutting taxes across the 
board--like John F. Kennedy did, like Ronald Reagan did, like George W. 
Bush did after the towers fell--only by cutting taxes across the board 
for working families, small businesses and family farms can we hope to 
ignite the entrepreneurial energy of this country to lift Americans and 
to create jobs once again.
  I appreciate the time the gentlelady has yielded. It is important to 
set the record straight. The American people deserve to know on tax day 
that this administration and this Congress have increased taxes by $670 
billion and counting, because in just a few months after Congress has 
made its decisions, the American people are going to get a chance to 
make theirs.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We can go back and forth all day about he said, she said, who has 
lowered taxes more, who has cut the deficit, who has done what, but 
let's just recall when the Republicans were in office. They cut taxes 
for the wealthiest people in this country, which contributed 
considerably to the deficit. And while the Republicans did not vote for 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, one-third of that and more 
is our tax cuts for the middle class. So if one of my colleagues was on 
the floor saying that this was the largest tax cut ever enacted, it may 
or may not have been, but I think it was the largest tax cut for the 
middle class and the group of working people in our country who need it 
more than anybody.
  I just want to read a quote here from Bruce Bartlett, the domestic 
policy adviser under President Reagan and Treasury Department economist 
under President George H.W. Bush. He said on 3/19/2010: ``Federal taxes 
are considerably lower by every measure since Obama became President.'' 
According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted 
with no Republican support, reduced Federal taxes by almost $100 
billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year.
  Let's just talk a little bit about what's in there because people 
love to talk about these abstract notions of did you or didn't you 
lower taxes. Well, here's what's in the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act, one-third of which was tax cuts. Congress has enacted 
more than $800 billion in tax cuts with another $285 billion working 
its way through Congress, and this Recovery Act had 25 different tax 
cuts for Americans in this country.
  The Making Work Pay tax cut provided immediate and sustained tax 
relief to about 95 percent of all American workers and their families. 
It's a refundable tax credit up to $400 per worker or $800 per couple 
filing jointly. That has already been enacted. Over 110 million working 
families, that's about 95 percent of Americans, now are getting the tax 
relief they need right now.
  The Child Tax Credit: I hear from so many people how difficult it is 
for working families to be able to afford the cost of childcare. 
Republicans decided to vote against the childcare tax credit, which cut 
the taxes of families of more than 16 million children through an 
expansion of the Child Tax Credit, a very important thing, I think, 
that we enacted this year.
  The Earned Income Tax Credit: expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, 
providing tax relief to families with three or more children and 
increasing the Marriage Penalty Relief. Now, again, that's for working-
class families. Those are tax cuts for the wealthiest in this country, 
which is what the Republicans did during their time, making sure the 
rich got richer. No, we went for the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  The American Opportunity College Tax Credits: how often do we hear 
from working class families today struggling to provide for tuition for 
their kids' college? That helps more than 4 million additional students 
attend college with a new $2,500 tax credit for families, which is 
partially refundable, already been enacted.
  The Alternative Minimum Tax Relief, protecting 26 million middle 
class families who are being hit by the alternative minimum tax.
  And we all know about the First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit which 
allowed the first-time homebuyer $8,000, moved it up from $7,500. That 
has been extended. Now, maybe you don't hear this in your district; but 
you wouldn't be listening if you didn't hear from real estate agents 
who talk about how beneficial that has been in moving the stagnant 
housing market. I hear about it all the time. I hear about it from them 
to want to make sure that we continue to extend that tax credit that 
went directly to working families, to those people who needed the 
benefit, who wanted to invest in a new home, who wanted to have that 
opportunity. And I know I hear all the time about what a great benefit 
that has been.
  Incentives to buy new cars were in there, to provide a tax deduction 
for State and local sales taxes and excise taxes paid on the purchase 
of new cars. We all know we had to do everything we could to get 
Detroit working again to help American manufacturing.
  Now, that is just what individuals benefited from. Let me just talk 
about a few of the business tax incentives to create jobs. That was $10 
billion over 10 years, supported by the Chamber of Commerce and the 
National Association of Manufacturers. That was in the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act that was voted for by the Democrats and 
opposed by the Republicans. And I'm sorry to see that, because this was 
an important issue for the Chamber of Commerce, certainly important for 
our businesses. That included bonus depreciation, helping businesses to 
quickly recover the costs of new capital investments by extending the 
increased bonus depreciation for businesses making investments in new 
plants and equipment in 2009. I don't know about you, but we're anxious 
to have new capital investments in our plants and equipment, and so I 
was very proud to stand behind that.
  Small business expensing: spurring small business investment by 
extending small business expensing, doubling the amount that small 
businesses can immediately write off on their taxes for capital 
investments and purchases of new equipment. The write-off has helped 
many of the businesses in all of our districts.
  Buying back debt: providing assistance to companies looking to reduce 
their debt burdens by delaying the tax on businesses that have a 
discharged indebtedness which will help those companies strengthen 
their balance sheets so they can invest in job creation.
  Small business loss carrybacks, which increase the cash flow for 
small businesses by providing a 5-year carryback of net operating 
losses. I know I hear about this frequently and was proud to support it 
and help those businesses in my district who felt this was essential. 
Sorry to see that the Republicans didn't want to vote for yet another 
small business and business tax investment.
  We had the small business investments, spurring investments by small 
businesses by cutting capital gains tax on investors in small business 
who buy

[[Page 5639]]

stock in the next 2 years and hold it more than 5 years.
  We had a tax credit for jobs, for recently discharged, unemployed 
veterans and disconnected youth. How often do we hear about those 
people who served our country, many of whom are unemployed? How 
important is that to make sure that we give more jobs to recently 
discharged, unemployed veterans? Those are just a few of the tax 
measures that were enacted under the Recovery Act.
  For a party, the Republicans, who say they want to cut taxes, they 
seem to only want to do it on the wealthiest people in this country. Or 
big corporations who ship jobs offshore, I guess it's okay to cut taxes 
there; but when it comes to the middle class, when it comes to helping 
people with tuition, when it comes to childcare tax credits, the very 
difficult price that working moms and working families pay to keep 
their children in childcare--which we know is a growing expense for 
young families--giving them a tax credit, that's where I think our tax 
credits should go.
  And what about the renewable energy and energy efficiency tax 
incentives to spur energy savings and create jobs? I don't know how 
people feel in your district, but I know in mine they want to end their 
dependence on foreign oil. They want to invest in making their homes 
more efficient, and those energy-efficient tax credits have been very 
helpful in my State. I meet up with people all the time who say, I'm so 
glad I had the opportunity to invest in winterizing my home. I know it 
doesn't get as cold in North Carolina, but in Maine we're a cold State. 
We're about the most dependent State in the country on oil.

                              {time}  1115

  So for those of us in Maine, in New England, we actually may have the 
oldest stock in the Nation as we are 38th in per capita income and as 
we have the greatest percentage of seniors in this country, so we have 
a perfect storm. We have a lot of very old people without much income 
who are living in very old houses. Our State is basically 80 percent 
dependent on oil. So, when the costs of oil rise, people are left 
struggling in their homes, unable to pay those bills. Many of them have 
to decide whether to heat their homes, to buy their prescription drugs, 
or to put food on their tables. For them, having energy-efficient home 
tax credits has been great. It has allowed a lot of people to put on 
new storm windows, to add that layer of insulation in order to tighten 
up the home, to really find ways to reduce the costs of getting through 
the winter, and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  We have the plug-in hybrid tax credit, which spurs the next 
generation of cars by providing tax credits for people who purchase 
plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles. What more could you ask for 
in this country but to spur on innovation and new technology and to 
help out our ailing automobile and manufacturing industries.
  There are tax credits for renewable energy, easing the credit crunch 
for renewable energy. I am in a State that wants to develop our wind 
power capacity, that wants to have more solar power, and that wants to 
have tidal energy. These very tax credits are helping our individuals 
and businesses to do it, and this is just the beginning. Then, as we 
talked about earlier, we also enacted health insurance reform.
  So I think this is the party which is thinking first of the middle 
class, of small businesses and which is very worried about how people 
get through Tax Day. This party has done a variety of things to help 
that along, and I hope that we can find some Republican votes to do 
more in the future in order to continue to spur on job creation and to 
cut taxes for our middle class.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Maine failed to mention her own State 
and what it is doing, and I find it very interesting. I have an article 
from June 24, 2009, from The Wall Street Journal, entitled ``Maine 
Miracle.'' I will just quote a couple of things from the article.
  ``At last, there's a place in America where tax cutting to promote 
growth and attract jobs is back in fashion. Who would have thought it 
would be Maine?
  ``This month, the Democratic legislature and Governor John Baldacci 
broke with Obamanomics and enacted a sweeping tax reform that is 
almost, but not quite, a flat tax.'' This is a big income tax cut, 
especially given that so many other States in the Northeast have been 
increasing rates.
  At the end, it says, ``One question is how Democrats in Augusta were 
able to withstand the cries by interest groups of `tax cuts for the 
rich?' Mr. Baldacci's snappy reply: `Without employers, you don't have 
employees.' He adds: `The best social services program is a job.' Wise 
and timely advice for both Democrats and Republicans as the recession 
rolls on and budgets get squeezed.''
  My colleague leaves out so cleverly the fact that her own State has 
gone against the grain of the Federal Government. I want to say that I 
am quite, quite interested in hearing her list all of these supposed 
tax cuts that are being made, but she never mentions the tax increases 
that are going into effect which offset these tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, there is an arrogance across the aisle that is almost 
palpable. It is that the Federal Government should be picking winners 
and losers in this country. What I was struck by was the very targeted 
tax cuts that my colleague has been bragging about. As my colleague 
from Indiana said, what we should be having in this country is an 
across-the-board tax cut. That's what Republicans believe in. We 
believe the money that hardworking Americans earn is their money, not 
the government's money. It is not our right to decide how they spend 
their money.
  As to what Republicans did, yes, we cut taxes for wealthy 
individuals, but we cut taxes for everyone. What the Democrats do over 
and over and over again--and again, it comes from an arrogance, a 
hubris, which says we are smarter than the American people, which says 
we know how to spend your money better than you know how to spend your 
money. Therefore, we are going to tell you where you can get tax cuts.
  If these tax cuts by George Bush were so horrible, why is it that 
President Obama is going to continue some of those? He is going to let 
some expire, but he is going to continue some. So my colleagues across 
the aisle obviously are bashing their own President when they say these 
were horrible, horrible tax cuts that were put into effect by the Bush 
administration.
  The motto of the State of North Carolina is to be rather than to 
seem, and that hits me so often when we are on the floor, when I'm 
listening to my colleagues across the aisle, because they are always 
trying to seem rather than to be. They are trying to say to the 
American people, Look at the wonderful things we're doing for you. The 
American people have had about all they can stand of the good things 
that the Democrats are trying to do for them, and I think today is a 
great example of that.
  It is ironic that this is Tax Day. There are probably going to be a 
million or so people out on The Mall this afternoon near the Washington 
Monument. These are folks who have said, I've had it up to here with 
the Federal Government. These people are involved with the tea party 
movement. I welcome them to Washington, and I welcome the fact that 
they are everywhere today, all over the country, having these meetings 
where they're saying, It's time for us to take back our country. It's 
time for us to tell the Federal Government, We've just about had enough 
of you in terms of your taking away our money and deciding where to 
spend it.
  I think it's a wonderful movement and that we should encourage it at 
every opportunity, because this is what this country is about. The 
first three words of the Constitution are written larger than the rest 
of the words, and they are ``We the People.''

[[Page 5640]]

  We need to be honoring those people who are coming here and who are 
demonstrating all over the country that they've had it with the 
Democratic Party, that they've had it with government spending, that 
they've had it with debt. I want to encourage them to do more and more 
and more and to send the message to our colleagues that they don't care 
for the way they're being treated by the Democrats in charge of this 
government right now. They've had enough of it, and they want us to cut 
spending and to cut taxes across the board, not to decide who are the 
winners and the losers.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009]

                             Maine Miracle

       At last, there's a place in America where tax cutting to 
     promote growth and attract jobs is back in fashion. Who would 
     have thought it would be Maine?
       This month the Democratic legislature and Governor John 
     Baldacci broke with Obamanomics and enacted a sweeping tax 
     reform that is almost, but not quite, a flat tax. The new law 
     junks the state's graduated income tax structure with a top 
     rate of 8.5% and replaces it with a simple 6.5% flat rate tax 
     on almost everyone. Those with earnings above $250,000 will 
     pay a surtax rate of 0.35%, for a 6.85% rate. Maine's tax 
     rate will fall to 20th from seventh highest among the states. 
     To offset the lower rates and a larger family deduction, the 
     plan cuts the state budget by some $300 million to $5.8 
     billion, closes tax loopholes and expands the 5% state sales 
     tax to services that have been exempt, such as ski lift 
     tickets.
       This is a big income tax cut, especially given that so many 
     other states in the Northeast and East--Maryland, 
     Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York--have been increasing 
     rates. ``We're definitely going against the grain here,'' Mr. 
     Baldacci tells us. ``We hope these lower tax rates will 
     encourage and reward work, and that the lower capital gains 
     tax [of 6.85%] brings more investment into the state.''
       These changes alone are hardly going to earn the Pine Tree 
     State the reputation of ``pro-business.'' Neighboring New 
     Hampshire still has no income or sales tax. And last year 
     Maine was ranked as having the third worst business climate 
     for states by the Small Business Survival Committee. Still, 
     no state has improved its economic attractiveness more than 
     Maine has this year.
       One question is how Democrats in Augusta were able to 
     withstand the cries by interest groups of ``tax cuts for the 
     rich?'' Mr. Baldacci's snappy reply: ``Without employers, you 
     don't have employees.'' He adds: ``The best social services 
     program is a job.'' Wise and timely advice for both Democrats 
     and Republicans as the recession rolls on and budgets get 
     squeezed.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague 
on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I want 
to associate myself with her remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends talk about fiscal responsibility, 
and they talk about how we need to focus on the economy. Let's review 
the record here.
  George Bush inherited from Bill Clinton a sound economy and a 
surplus. The Republicans came in. They basically eliminated the 
surplus, and they drove this economy into a ditch. What President Obama 
inherited was the worst economy since the Great Depression. That is 
what they did.
  My friend from North Carolina wants to talk about arrogance. What 
about the arrogance of creating this enormous debt, of taking this 
surplus that they've inherited and just frittering it away and creating 
an all-time high, historic national debt? Where is the arrogance of 
that?
  Tax cuts for rich people that weren't paid for. That went onto our 
debt.
  Two wars we are fighting. None of it paid for and trillions of 
dollars onto our debt.
  When they were voting for all of this stuff, there was no mention of 
the implications to average families.
  A prescription drug bill not paid for. Hundreds of billions of 
dollars added to our debt.
  Do you want to talk about arrogance? That's arrogance. That's what 
they gave us. They gave us the worst economy since the Great 
Depression. They drove this economy into the ditch, and now they're 
complaining about the size of the tow truck.
  It is Tax Day. At this moment in our history, we have to clean up a 
mess. It's easy. It's fun to create a mess. When we were kids, it was 
always fun to mess things up. It wasn't so fun when our mothers told 
us, You've got to clean things up. We are cleaning things up. We are 
cleaning up their mess. I wish we didn't have to, but that's what they 
left us.
  In terms of tax relief, we have the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act. It had tax cuts for average working families, tax 
incentives for businesses to create jobs by increasing bonus 
depreciation, by allowing small businesses to immediately write off new 
equipment purchases, and by providing a 5-year carryback for net 
operating losses. They had an opportunity to vote for that, and they 
voted ``no.'' They voted ``no.''
  On health reform, there are tax credits to help families pay for 
health care coverage. The cost of health care has become obscene. There 
are tax credits for small businesses to help them offer coverage to 
their employees. What did they do? They voted ``no.''
  There have been hiring incentives to restore employment, the so-
called HIRE Act. There has been a payroll tax holiday for businesses 
that hire unemployed workers and retain them. How did they vote? 
``No.'' They voted ``no'' on that.
  The Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Act provides tax 
incentives to help spur investments in small businesses. They all talk 
about small businesses. How did they vote on that? ``No.''
  There has been permanent estate tax relief that ensures that nearly 
all estates--99.8 percent--are exempt from taxes. How did they vote? 
``No.'' On every measure that provides relief to average working 
families, they voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am sorry. I say to my Republican friends that we are 
not trying to accommodate the Donald Trumps of the world and that we 
are not interested in providing more and more tax breaks, you know, to 
big corporations and to big financial institutions that created this 
mess on Wall Street. We have a different set of priorities, which is to 
help average working families get through this economic crisis that 
they created, and we are going to do that with or without their help.
  So I am proud to stand with the President and with the leadership in 
this Congress to focus on working families.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded that remarks in debate 
are properly directed to the Chair and should not be addressed in the 
second person.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again, I constantly find it amazing how our 
colleagues want to rewrite history and how they assume that nobody is 
going to check up on what they are saying. That's not happening these 
days.
  I want to remind my colleagues that, when the Democrats took over the 
Congress in January 2007, President Bush was still in office. The 
deficit was less than $400 billion. Since President Obama's 
inauguration, the U.S. has had an average monthly deficit of $122.6 
billion. By comparison from the year 2000 to 2008, the average annual 
deficit was $196 billion. Again, they can try to rewrite history, but 
the numbers are out there.
  I also want to point out that my colleague was talking about the 
child tax credit. I was really confused about that, so I double-
checked. The child tax credit is going to drop from $1,000 to $500 in 
January 2011 as a result of the Bush tax cuts being changed by our 
Democrat friends. It seems they don't have quite the concern for 
children and married couples that Republicans have.
  In an article today in Congress Daily, entitled ``Credit Check'' by 
Peter Cohn, I read, ``In a quirk of the law's drafting--'' this is 
about the tax credit for first-time home buyers ``--each spouse must 
meet the same test. A married couple would have had to have lived in 
the same home for 5 years to get the long-time resident credit or each 
would

[[Page 5641]]

have to be a first-time buyer to get the higher credit.''
  There is a real antipathy towards married couples in the policies 
that our Democratic colleagues continue to pass. Again, they are always 
picking winners and losers instead of allowing the American people to 
do with their money what they would like to do.
  My colleagues talk about these rich people all the time. It appears 
that they simply never want to see another rich person in this country. 
They have such antipathy for the rich. What Republicans want is for 
every American to be able to be rich. Why is that not a wonderful goal 
to have?

                  [From CongressDaily, Apr. 15, 2010]

                              Credit Check

                            (By Peter Cohn)

       Democrats this week have been touting the middle-class tax 
     cuts they've doled out, such as a new credit for home 
     purchases, as Americans face today's filing deadline.
       But they haven't mentioned an unhappy little accident of 
     the November law that extended and expanded the credit In 
     many cases newlyweds are out of luck, even if they would have 
     qualified before they were married. (Full disclosure: This 
     column's author recently discovered this ``marriage penalty'' 
     applied to him and his wife.)
       The November law extended an $8,000 tax credit for first-
     time buyers--defined as someone who had not owned a home in 
     the last three years--through April 30, provided the 
     settlement occurs before June 30. The law also created a 
     $6,500 credit for buyers who had owned their previous home 
     for five of the past eight years.
       In a quirk of the law's drafting, each spouse must meet the 
     same test. A married couple would have to have lived in the 
     same home for five years to get the long-time resident 
     credit, or each would have to be a first-time buyer to get 
     the higher credit.
       That freezes out married couples who would have met the 
     different requirements individually (as in the author's 
     case), but now don't get a penny. The same goes for newlyweds 
     who had previously been longtime owners of separate homes. 
     Now take unmarried couples purchasing a home: say one is a 
     first-time buyer and the other a long-time homeowner, 
     according to the IRS, they get to split the more generous 
     credit of $8,000.
       Despite protests, the Treasury Department and IRS had to 
     interpret the law based on its wording, a Treasury 
     spokeswoman said.
       Even as they trumpeted the credits' benefit this week, 
     lawmakers have no plans to extend them. They are expensive--
     $12.6 billion worth had been approved for 1.8 million 
     taxpayers as of Feb. 20, according to Treasury. And fatigue 
     has set in after relentless lobbying by groups like the 
     National Association of Realtors and National Association of 
     Home Builders, who have promised to hold their powder this 
     time.
       Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., a lead sponsor of the credit, 
     said he pledged ``to not come back to the well, and I'm not 
     going to.'' He said he hadn't heard of the marriage penalty, 
     however, and few lawmakers have been stirred to action as the 
     credit eligibility period winds down.
       Tonya Rutherford, a nurse in Milwaukee, brought the issue 
     to the attention of Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis. Rutherford had 
     owned her home for 11 years, thus on her own would have 
     qualified for the $6,500 credit. But since she recently got 
     married to a man who had not lived with her for at least five 
     years, the couple is ineligible.
       Moore has introduced legislation to change the law so that 
     only one spouse has to qualify. She has three co-sponsors: 
     Reps. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and 
     Joe Sestak, D-Pa., who is challenging Sen. Arlen Specter, D-
     Pa., for his party's nomination this fall.
       Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., introduced separate legislation 
     to allow a couple to claim the reduced credit if both would 
     have qualified before they were married, or if one spouse 
     would have qualified for the first-time buyer credit and the 
     other would ordinarily get the longtime resident credit. 
     Engel also has three co-sponsors: Reps. John Hall, D-N.Y., 
     Steve Kagen, D-Wis., and Mary Jo Kilroy, D-Ohio, who signed 
     on Tuesday.
       ``I do not believe Congress wanted to exclude couples based 
     on technicalities: Engel said. ``By fixing this so-called 
     `marriage penalty,' Congress will provide a further boost to 
     the recovering real estate economy and reflect the importance 
     of marriage as a cornerstone to our society.''
       Joseph Rand, managing partner of Better Homes & Gardens 
     Rand Realty in New York's Hudson Valley, brought the problem 
     up with Engel after coming across it when putting together an 
     eligibility calculator for clients in December. Rand began 
     blogging on the subject and set up a Web site where 
     homebuyers could share stories about being locked out of the 
     credit because of marital status.
       ``This is the kind of thing that should pass 400-5. People 
     should be lining up in front of microphones to stand up for 
     marriage,'' Rand said. ``But I've been mostly shouting in the 
     dark about it.''
       Engel's bill has been endorsed by a small Realtors' group 
     that only represents buyers, the National Association of 
     Exclusive Buyers Agents. But the larger and more powerful 
     Realtors' lobby has stayed away from the issue. A spokesman 
     could not be reached for comment by presstime.
       The homebuilders' lobby noticed the problem early on, said 
     NAHB economist Robert Dietz, raising the issue with Treasury. 
     They argued for a more liberal reading of the law allowing 
     married couples to benefit. ``Unfortunately, we lost in 
     making that argument,'' Dietz said. ``I can tell you that 
     I've fielded a number of angry e-mails and phone calls about 
     this,'' he said.
       Rand said he thought part of the reason there has been so 
     little attention is because Congress has been swamped with 
     other issues and because many taxpayers have waited until the 
     last minute to file their returns and are only now 
     discovering the problem. ``You're going to see so many angry 
     people popping up this week'' he said. (Full disclosure: The 
     author was planning on a new home purchase anyway, but that 
     tax credit wouldn't have hurt.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this discussion has gotten a little bit away 
from this bill about trying to preserve Americans' estuaries so 
Americans can go fishing with their kids. It's kind of gotten a little 
far away from estuaries.
  I will note that, painful as it is to pay our taxes, some of my 
constituents don't think it is a bad idea to be able to go fishing with 
their kids and to keep estuaries. That is a legitimate purpose, and 
this bill is going to help it along the way.

                              {time}  1130

  But my Republican colleague from North Carolina has tried to turn 
estuaries into the discussion about taxes because it is April 15, and I 
think it's appropriate to address a couple of facts about that issue, 
and I thought I might inject a couple facts into this discussion.
  There is always a disagreement between sides of the aisle on what 
reality is. I thought I might turn to a fellow that might have an 
interesting viewpoint about this. His name is Bruce Bartlett. He is the 
former Domestic Policy Adviser under President Ronald Reagan and 
Treasury Department economist under President George H.W. Bush.
  On March 19, 2010, here is what this former Reagan and Bush 
administration official said, and my friend from North Carolina might 
be interested in this from this former staffer under Republican 
Presidents. He said, and I quote, ``Federal taxes are very considerably 
lower by every measure since Obama became President. According to the 
JCT,'' the Joint Committee on Taxes, ``last year's $787 billion 
stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced Federal 
taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $220 billion this 
year.''
  Now, that is not some Democrat Member of Congress saying it. This is 
the official under Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush.
  Now, what does that mean in the State of North Carolina? My colleague 
from North Carolina has been down there suggesting that there has been 
a horrendous event on taxes. Let's look at what the Citizens for Tax 
Justice say the result of these tax cuts under President Obama are. 
Because I want to make sure people understand what they mean in the 
real world.
  According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, in the State of North 
Carolina, the State that my colleague is now attacking the President 
from, the lowest 20 percent of her fellow citizens in North Carolina 
have received average tax cuts, average tax cuts, of $612. That's an 
average. The next 20 percent, average tax cuts of $792; the next 20 
percent, average tax cuts of $646; the fourth 20 percent, average tax 
cuts of $711.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I am glad to yield the gentleman an additional 
30 seconds.
  Mr. INSLEE. The next 15 percent, $1,900; the next 4 percent, $4,600; 
and the next 1 percent, $3,019.
  In fact, my colleague, who is today on a bill about estuaries trying 
to fan

[[Page 5642]]

April 15 into a jihad against supporting Uncle Sam, every single one of 
the quartiles that you represent has had their taxes cut under this 
President and you voted against--excuse me, Mr. Speaker--the speaker 
voted against every single one of those tax cuts. Those are the facts.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded that remarks in debate 
are properly directed to the Chair and should not be addressed in the 
second person.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the need, again, to protect water and to 
protect estuaries. We all understand that. I grew up carrying water to 
my home, so I understand the value of water about as much as anybody 
here. But while we're increasing spending to protect estuaries, my 
constituents can't afford the bait and tackle to go fishing because 
they are out of work, they have lost their jobs, and there's no 
prospect for them to get jobs.
  I can't be responsible for ill-informed Republicans who have said 
things that my colleagues have quoted. And I want to say I don't vote 
against tax cuts, but every bill that they have put in that has had tax 
cuts have had tax increases in them. Republicans are voting against tax 
increases.
  What we have to be aware of here is that we should be dealing with 
the real problems that the American people are facing, and they have to 
do with the economy.
  In 2009, the budget deficit was $1.4 trillion, the first time in 
history the deficit exceeded $1 trillion and the first time the deficit 
exceeded 10 percent of gross domestic product since World War II. The 
consequences of this reckless spending are worth highlighting. But 
today the cost of the national debt is $41,398 for every man, woman, 
and child in the U.S. According to the March, 2010, monthly Treasure 
report, the Federal Government is projected to spend $425.127 billion 
paying interest alone on the national debt. We should be dealing with 
that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say that 
this bill, the bill we started talking about, about estuaries, which is 
very important for economic development in my State, will also help the 
NEPs keep their management plans current by requiring them to be 
periodically reviewed and updated. This will make them more dynamic, 
more responsive to changing conditions in the estuaries. Updating the 
plans will include identifying estuary vulnerability, climate change 
impact, preparing adaptation responses, as well as working to educate 
the public on estuary health issues.
  One such issue that is emerging as an important issue nationally is 
the role of toxins from plastics like flame retardants like Deca. Deca 
is found in increasing amounts in many coastal estuaries. While this 
legislation does not require the NEPs to address toxins like Deca, it 
does provide them with the opportunity to further consider the impacts 
and any actions, including education, that the NEP might take.
  I am proud of the good work being done in Maine and across the Nation 
to protect and restore our estuaries. I urge my colleagues to support 
the rule and the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' on the previous 
question and the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________