[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5211-5219]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0920
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 9, SMALL BUSINESS TAX CUT ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 620 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 620

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 9) 
     to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 
     deduction for domestic business income of qualified small 
     businesses. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     (2) the further amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, if offered by Representative Levin of 
     Michigan or his designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the 
resolution with an amendment I have placed at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 2, line 8 strike ``one hour'' and insert ``70 
     minutes''.
       Page 2, line 16 strike ``20'' and insert ``25''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Without objection, the resolution is amended.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 
30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and 
the underlying bill. House Resolution 620 provides a structured rule 
for H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act. The bill was introduced on 
March 21, 2012, by our leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Cantor), and was ordered reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on 
April 10.
  The rule provides for consideration of an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute as is standard practice for this legislation when dealing 
with tax policy.
  Madam Speaker, today we will be considering the underlying 
legislation, which will allow the House of Representatives yet another 
opportunity to ease the burden on small businesses across America by 
giving them the economic tools to create jobs and to help grow our 
economy. It would be an understatement not to recognize that this 
country, including small business, is under duress.
  We are under duress in this country. The economic circumstances, 
which abound across the entire country, are not only obvious to every 
one of our citizens but also to this body, and we are here doing our 
job today following through not just in regular order, but the process 
to make sure that we are talking about what Congress should be doing to 
aid small business. I believe

[[Page 5212]]

that by giving them the economic tools, the free enterprise system and 
entrepreneurs, men and women, will know exactly what to do because 
we're allowing them competitive advantages.
  Earlier this week, congressional Democrats and President Obama 
offered their competing plan, and their plan is to raise taxes on small 
businesses. We disagree with that.
  Today, the Republicans in the House of Representatives, under the 
great tutelage and leadership of our majority leader, Eric Cantor, 
offer a different vision for America. Despite their best effort, 
congressional Democrats think that we can tax our way to improving our 
economy. It's really simple logic. Increasing taxes on job creators 
will not help create jobs. It will place new impediments and roadblocks 
for not just job creation, but the opportunity for business and small 
business to be successful.
  Congressional Republicans, once again today, will stand with small 
businesses across the Nation as we demand less government intervention 
and more marketplace creativity and the opportunity for small business 
to get what it needs.
  Madam Speaker, as this Congress and the American people know, job 
creators are small businesses. They are the engine of our economy and, 
as a former chairman of the board for a small chamber of commerce in 
Dallas, Texas, the Greater East Dallas Chamber of Commerce, I saw 
firsthand entrepreneurship and the availability of talent that was 
necessary in small business. That same engine of our economy is what we 
are trying to restart and ignite today. Congressional Republicans will 
continue to promote job creation through robust economic growth because 
we must grow our economy by giving those job creators a chance to get 
that done.
  H.R. 9 will allow small businesses under 500 full-time employees to 
take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their domestic business 
income. So, no matter how they're organized under the Tax Code, under 
the bill the size of the tax cut is kept at 50 percent of W-2 wages 
paid, encouraging increasing hiring. I have been in touch with small 
businesses across Dallas, Texas, and across that area, and we do 
understand that small business wants to come and create more jobs to 
increase the amount of not just employment, but to help them grow their 
businesses. In return, what happens is that loyalty that comes from 
entrepreneurship to those employees and obviously, then, Uncle Sam, 
gets the advantage because taxes are being paid instead of paying for 
unemployment.
  Small business, we know, employs about half of our private sector 
workforce and generates 65 percent of our new jobs. What we are here on 
the floor talking about today supports ideas that come straight from 
these small business job creators, directly from men and women, many 
minorities, many moms who are in the marketplace who are trying to help 
their family to make sure that they can perhaps pay for their kids to 
go to college, ideas that they have.
  Entrepreneurship, the American Dream, is what we are talking about 
today, and we need to keep that dream alive. With an unemployment rate 
consistently over 8 percent for the past 3 years, it's time that we not 
only take aggressive action, but that we do the things that are being 
asked for that will create jobs.
  In my home State of Texas, the 14 million citizens who work for 
387,000 small businesses and 1.69 million sole proprietorships will see 
immediate benefits from this bill. They call that relief. They call 
that competitiveness, and we call it up here giving back to those job 
creators what they need by listening to them and then offering 
solutions. Those real Texans are struggling even in the midst of 
perhaps one of the best economies in this country. Texans are still 
struggling, and small business needs this opportunity today.
  Madam Speaker, just a few weeks ago, Congress and the President came 
together to pass what was known as the JOBS Act, a bill designed and 
designated to generate unique sources of new credit for small business. 
I was proud to manage that rule and for legislation that not only 
passed on a bipartisan effort, but has become law.
  This underlying bill today applies those very same principles. But 
instead of opening up new avenues of credit, this legislation before us 
enables the very same small businesses to keep more of what they have 
earned and to reinvest into their own business and to make sure that 
that capital that was difficult to achieve is now possible through 
their own success.
  Democrats, quite likely, as we have heard up in the Rules Committee 
and seen in the press, will oppose this novel concept because they 
really want Washington lawmakers and bureaucrats, not our hardworking 
constituents back home, to have the availability to get those dollars. 
I'm proud to tell the small businesses in the congressional district 
that I represent in Dallas, Irving, Addison, and Richardson, Texas, 
that with this bill those small businesses, not just in my 
congressional district that I am lucky to represent, but all across 
this country, will be able to see the potential, will be able to grow 
and succeed and, perhaps most of all, it is a group of people in 
Washington who are willing to listen to the needs of small business, 
men and women who are trying to create the avenues of success, not just 
for them and the American Dream, but also for more employees.

                              {time}  0930

  I encourage my colleagues to vote for this fair rule and the 
underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my friend for yielding the time.
  I would begin a little bit unusually by asking a few questions of my 
friend and then yielding to him for any response that he may have.
  A gentleman named Bruce Bartlett was the former Department economist 
for President Ronald Reagan. He makes this comment: The serious point 
here is that the term ``small business'' casts a very wide net.
  Indeed, since the only test for being a small business under the 
legislation, as my good friend proposes, is the number of employees, 
the ultimate beneficiaries of the Republican bill will be some large 
and profitable businesses that just happen to have few employees.
  What is my friend's response to that?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you for yielding me the time, and I hope that the 
substance that I provide back is of great measure to the gentleman's 
request.
  First of all, let me say I know Bruce Bartlett. I had a chance to 
work with Mr. Bartlett when I served as vice president of the National 
Center for Policy Analysis. Mr. Bartlett was a contributor not just to 
the NCPA, but of economic terms.
  I will completely agree with Mr. Bartlett that there are many out 
there who have successful businesses. Our point is we want them all to 
grow. Successful businesses are able to hire new people. Unsuccessful 
businesses struggle and cannot provide not only an increase in the 
amount of pay, but also the benefit issue becomes difficult. So we want 
people to be successful. And I think Mr. Bartlett is correct. It's a 
wide swath.
  I want small business, because of the size, not because of how 
successful they are, to be able to employ more people. And that's what 
Republicans are trying to do. Guilty as charged.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Then I ask my friend first to just listen, 
and then I will ask yet another question.
  Mr. Bartlett also said this:

       The Republican tax plan will do nothing whatsoever to 
     increase employment. It is nothing more than an election-year 
     giveaway to favored Republican constituencies and should not 
     be taken seriously.

  But I ask my friend, after hearing what Mr. Bartlett said, and 
listening to you, as well, saying that it's suggested that there will 
be jobs, is there a requirement in the legislation as is proposed that 
requires the creation of jobs?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Can you give me a ``yes'' or ``no''?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Here's what I can give. Mr. Bartlett is wrong, because 
I

[[Page 5213]]

know there will be at least one new net job created, and I know that 
because the testimony and information that I received last week as I 
was at the North Dallas Chamber, several people told me this is exactly 
what they need. They needed the jobs bill to get credit. They need this 
opportunity.
  And what's interesting is, on the reverse side, is where Illinois, in 
January, a full year ago, passed a bill which increased taxes, and they 
lost 58,000 jobs in Illinois quickly because of high taxes. We're 
trying to make it easier to grow small business. Mr. Bartlett seems 
like there will be no new job growth--there will be--and he knows 
better than that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Let me offer to my friend a complaint: the 
fact that this matter didn't go through regular order, did not have 
hearings. It did have one question period during the Ways and Means 
Committee markup, and the person that was being questioned on the 
Committee on Taxation was the chief of staff, Thomas Barthold. And when 
he was asked about the effects of H.R. 9--and the question was put to 
him by our colleague, Mr. Becerra: Is there a requirement that you 
create jobs? Mr. Barthold says: There's no requirement on the result of 
the tax relief.
  I go back to you and ask you again: Is there a requirement that jobs 
be created in the measure as offered?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The answer is no. And I would reply to the gentleman, I 
saw in this House of Representatives when former Speaker Pelosi 
increased the amount of money that we had in our Member reimbursement 
account, we went out and did more, and I hired an additional person at 
that rate.
  If given an opportunity, small business wants to grow and they want 
to add employees, and this is what nobody seems to understand in this 
town.
  We are for growing our economy. No one on our side would do something 
that wouldn't necessarily work. We are doing it because this is what 
people are asking for to grow the economy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. My friend says that no one would do anything 
that would not necessarily work. Well, why are we spending the time on 
this when my friend and I know that this measure is not going to become 
law for the reason, whether we like it or not, that the United States 
Senate is not going to pass it?
  Last week, contrary to what you said, in the United States Senate the 
President's plan and the Democrats' plan was offered where there would 
be an alternative minimum tax for people that pay a million dollars or 
more in taxes. It's been referred to as the Buffett rule. You said that 
it didn't pass. It had a majority. But it didn't come up because 
Republicans didn't allow for it to have a majority. Whereas, had it 
come up, it likely would have passed because some Republicans would 
have caused it to pass, also.
  You don't create jobs with your 20 percent. And now you need to 
answer for me: What if somebody, after they get the 20 percent, rather 
than hiring somebody, fires somebody; do they still get the tax cut?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you very much for yielding.
  As the gentleman knows quite well from the legislation and from the 
hearing which we had in the Rules Committee yesterday, that while these 
are great questions that you ask, the answer is we do not tell them 
what to do. There are no limitations in this bill that would say that 
you must or must not do these things. We don't do that.
  We try and encourage, on the Republican side, and believe that this 
is what small business is asking for. I think you will be shocked with 
not only the success, if we had testimony from these small businesses, 
but this is what they're asking for.
  Let's go to the worthiness of why would we possibly push an agenda 
that will never be held to the light of day with a vote in the United 
States Senate--for the same reason that the President will never get a 
tax increase from John Boehner. This Republican House will not increase 
taxes, and so I don't know why the President is doing what he's doing.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. All of what my friend says is most 
regrettable. One of the things that I'm sure Members in your Conference 
are concerned about is the fact that this is a 1-year measure.
  Am I correct about that?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I believe that would be correct.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Tell me then, how many times have we passed 
anything 1 year that's a tax something or another that cuts taxes? 
Let's take the Bush tax cuts that lasted 10 years that are soon to 
expire. How is it then that you expect that this is not going to go 
beyond 1 year? One year already is going to cost $46 billion.
  Now my friend is a deficit and a debt hawk, and I like to think that 
I'm conservative enough to feel that the deficit and the debt are 
matters that we should address in order to give Americans opportunity. 
Toward that end, what is a $46 billion measure going to do, other than 
blow a hole in the deficit, since it's not paid for?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate that and thank you so much for asking the 
question.
  The gentleman was here in 1997. The exact same arguments took place 
as we worked with President Clinton, and we were told on this floor a 
capital gains tax cut will result in $9 million not coming into the 
Treasury, and $554 million appeared quickly in that same tax year.
  I would say to the gentleman, if we encourage people to go do things, 
they will turn things into great opportunities.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, we can point back. I'm 
talking about what you're trying to do today. What you're trying to do 
today is blowing a $46 billion hole in the deficit, which will destroy 
opportunity.
  I thank my friend, and let me move on, now that I've had the 
opportunity to talk with you.

                              {time}  0940

  I rise in strong opposition to this rule and its opportunity-
destroying under the underlying bill. When it comes to small 
businesses, Congress should work to create chances for smart, savvy, 
small business owners to thrive so that hardworking Americans can get a 
fair shot at a good paying job for an honest day's work and thereby 
ensure that our economic recovery continues.
  Instead, the Republican bill creates only one opportunity, and that 
is the opportunity for those that are better off, including those of us 
in the United States Congress, to pay less than we could and can as our 
fair share in taxes.
  Make no mistake: H.R. 9, despite its name, is not going to level the 
playing field so that American businesses can create the kinds of 
opportunities that the average American needs. That's because House 
Republicans have made the benefits of this bill available to a wide 
range of enterprises owned by wealthy people, including lawyers. I'm 
one of the lawyers, not one of the wealthy. But when I was a lawyer and 
had three secretaries as a single practitioner, if you had given me a 
20 percent tax cut, I may have shared some of that with those three 
employees. I assure you I would not have hired anybody. Had you, when I 
was a lawyer, given me a 20 percent tax cut and required me to hire 
somebody, then I would have hired somebody, and it may have done some 
good. But other wealthy people--lobbyists, hedge funds, private equity 
fund managers, as well as many professional sports teams, without a 
single requirement to expand employment or invest in the United States.
  In fact, under this bill, a business owner could fire, as I asked my 
friend, U.S. workers, hire full-time workers in foreign countries and 
still be eligible for the full deduction.
  According to an analysis of the Tax Policy Center, approximately 49 
percent of the benefits of H.R. 9 would go to 0.3 percent of people 
with incomes exceeding $1 million in 2012--each receiving an average 
tax cut of more than $44,000.
  That's not creating an opportunity environment in which small 
businesses can create jobs. As I've said before and

[[Page 5214]]

will say again, I have no quarrel with millionaires and billionaires 
and the wealthiest of us in America. And like my friend from Texas, I 
want everybody to be able to have significant wealth if that were to be 
possible. I do, however, have a problem with legislation designed to 
tip the scales in favor of the best among us in this country 
masquerading as tax cuts for small businesses.
  Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the Republican justifications for this 
kind of ``trickle down'' tax policy are inaccurate and debunked by 
history. In actuality, tax rates have little bearing on economic 
productivity. Some of the fastest economic growth of the post-war 
period came in the 1950s, when the top tax rate was above 80 percent. 
The slowest growth came in the 2000s, when the top tax rate was 35 
percent--which I pay, and which some of you do not because you are in 
better circumstances than mine, but all of us in the House of 
Representatives are better off than the people we want to really help, 
other than those that are better off like us.
  Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the Republican justifications allow that 
this occurrence, that the change from the 1950s to the 2000s, is easy 
to explain. Businesses do not make decisions based on tax rates. They 
make decisions based on factors specific to their business, like their 
number of competitors and larger macro- and microeconomic factors.
  Bills such as the one before us today ignore this reality in favor of 
pushing Republican pet policies that ignore the actual difficulties 
facing hardworking small business owners. In the Rules Committee, I 
cited Betty's Restaurant in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where I eat 
breakfast and sometimes lunch or dinner. Betty's doesn't have more than 
nine employees. If we were to target our relief to 20 percent, Betty 
would be in better shape. But if Larry Flynt at ``Hustler'' is going to 
be in better shape because he has less than 500 employees, I'm taking 
Betty.
  I get my clothes cleaned at Spring Cleaners. They've been in business 
for over 25 years. The owner of that business, after he retired, left 
it with his daughter. They don't have more than 10 employees in 2 of 
their cleaning plants. This kind of measure, if targeted to her, would 
help her. But a law firm here in Washington or a lobbying firm with 49 
lawyers that's making $500 million a year will qualify for this tax 
cut, and I'm taking Spring Cleaners over those lawyers and lobbyists 
here in this town.
  Simply put, what we have before us is the exact opposite of a jobs 
bill. It's a boon for the rich, the very antithesis of smart tax 
reform, and does nothing to create opportunities for middle class, let 
alone, poor Americans. Instead of this misguided legislation before us 
today, Madam Speaker, we should pass policy initiatives that stimulate 
economic growth and job creation such as public-private partnerships.
  When compared to measures such as infrastructure spending, today's 
bill would have a relatively small effect on strengthening our economy 
and helping businesses create even more jobs. In comparison, for every 
$1 billion invested in infrastructure construction projects, 18,000 
jobs--and nobody controverts that, and if you do, say 15,000 jobs--are 
supported nationwide. And my Governor turned down a billion-plus 
dollars for a rail project that had been appropriated and that 
Republicans and Democrats had sought, and it would have created 18,000 
jobs. And yet we find ourselves in Florida, just like other places in 
this country, suffering job diminution. This wasn't money that did not 
go to Illinois, California, and the Northeast Corridor for rail; it 
just did not come to Florida.
  There are other circumstances. We yesterday passed a measure here to 
extend the transportation measure for 3 months. Cut me some slack. Jim 
Oberstar had been begging us before he left Congress to do a $400 
billion infrastructure bill that probably would have put us in the 
position of not having to have done the stimulus had we done it when he 
asked for it, and we need to do a better bill than the 3-month 
extension. This was the 10th extension of the transportation measure 
that we have done. We are better than that, and we could have done what 
the Senate offered, MAP-21, and we would kick-start this economy rather 
than kicking this can down the road.
  Let me tell you something about the can. It's getting ready to run up 
against a wall or a cliff, and there ain't going to be nowhere else to 
kick it. Some day, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and 
conservatives, are going to have to stand up and face the fact that we 
must address this in a significant way, and we can't have this 
gridlock, and we can't have this continuing standoff.
  This is supposed to be the ``land of opportunity,'' Madam Speaker. 
Let's make sure that it's the land of opportunity for rich people. 
Let's make sure that it's the land of opportunity for middle class and 
poor people. Let's make sure that it's the land of opportunity for 
small and large businesses. In short, opportunity for all Americans.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack) who is a 
freshman who serves on the Transportation, Homeland Security, and 
Science Committees, and a man who understands what people back home are 
asking for.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
bill, H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cuts Act.
  The fact is, Madam Speaker, American small businesses are drowning in 
red tape, and the National Federation of Independent Business has 
determined that tax compliance is one of the biggest costs.
  American small businesses now spend between 1.7 billion and 1.8 
billion hours on tax compliance, with a total estimated cost of between 
$15- to $16 billion annually. This wasted time and effort would be 
better invested in creating jobs and manufacturing products instead of 
handing over hard-earned capital to the government.
  I support efforts to reform the Tax Code and make it simpler to 
reduce those tax compliance costs, and I also support reducing the tax 
burden on American job creators. That's why I am glad to be cosponsor 
of H.R. 9, legislation that would reduce the burden faced by small 
businesses. Since 99.9 percent of all U.S. businesses employ less than 
500 people, small businesses are vital to the American economy.
  In the Eighth District, 8 out of 10 jobs are due to small businesses. 
When I return home, I repeatedly listen to the same concerns from small 
business people in the Eighth District. My constituents are hesitant to 
expand their businesses as a result of deficient access to capital, 
complex legal burdens, and Tax Code uncertainty.

                              {time}  0950

  The Small Business Tax Cut Act immediately creates access to capital 
by allowing productive employers to reinvest more of their hard-earned 
money into their businesses.
  The bill will have an immediate impact on every city and town in this 
country. In fact, more than 22 million small businesses will receive a 
much-needed infusion of capital.
  Several small business owners that I have personally spoken with in 
my district have already expressed strong support for this proposal. 
This includes businesses like RC Fabricators in Hibbing, Minnesota, 
which manufactures precision steel and aluminum construction equipment; 
Extreme Equipment Repairs in Harris, Minnesota, which specializes in 
large transport truck repair; and the London Road Rental Center in 
Duluth, Minnesota, which provides all kinds of equipment and party 
rentals for the Duluth area.
  For example, because of the recent success in northern Minnesota's 
mining and paper industries, RC Fabricators has been looking for ways 
to expand, but high taxes have prevented them from accumulating enough 
capital to grow. This bill will ease that tax burden and allow them to 
update machinery, hire workers, and provide high-quality products. 
These kinds of stories are repeated throughout the

[[Page 5215]]

country, and this legislation will help them.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 9 is a commonsense, pro-growth bill that will 
provide immediate assistance to employers and American workers as we 
labor to jump-start our economy and ease the burden felt by small 
businesses and American families.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule as well as the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous 
question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the 
House votes on the Buffett rule, which Representative Baldwin has 
introduced--and I'm a cosponsor of--as H.R. 3903, the Paying a Fair 
Share Act of 2012. This bill would ensure that people making over $1 
million a year do not pay a lower tax rate than middle class Americans. 
To discuss our amendment to this rule, I'm very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. 
Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for the time.
  I rise today on behalf of the hardworking middle class families in 
Wisconsin and across the country who have unfairly been paying at a 
higher tax rate than multi-millionaires and billionaires.
  Working Wisconsinites are struggling to find good-paying jobs, pay 
their mortgages, send their kids to college, and save for a secure 
retirement; meanwhile, the ultra-rich are reaping benefits unavailable 
to the rest of us. No wonder middle class Americans have long felt that 
our tax system is rigged against them. Frankly, it is.
  Middle class Americans deserve a Tax Code that is fair. Powerful 
special interests have manipulated our Tax Code to make sure that the 
wealthiest Americans don't have to pay their fair share. Loopholes and 
special provisions have made it so that billionaire Warren Buffett's 
secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. In fact, approximately 
one-quarter of all people who make over $1 million a year pay lower 
effective tax rates than middle class families.
  I introduced the Paying a Fair Share Act, which would make the 
Buffett rule law and ensure that middle class workers do not pay a 
higher tax rate than those making over $1 million a year. This is a 
commonsense solution that would address the disparity that Warren 
Buffett decried, and it would reduce the deficit by billions of dollars 
over the next decade.
  Now, let's be honest about what the Buffett rule is and what it is 
not. The Buffett rule is not a comprehensive tax reform bill, which I 
favor, by the way. The Buffett rule is not going to wipe our Nation's 
deficit away, something that I agree must be tackled. The Buffett rule 
is not a tax increase on small businesses. According to the 
Congressional Research Service, less than one-half of 1 percent of 
businesses may be impacted by the Buffett rule.
  Here is what the Buffett rule is really about: fairness. Plain and 
simple, this is about fairness. It's high time that we level the 
playing field between middle class taxpayers and those who make over $1 
million per year. The Paying a Fair Share Act will help restore 
people's faith that if you work hard and play by the rules, you'll have 
a chance to get ahead.
  It's up to Congress to fix this obvious injustice. According to a 
recent CNN poll, nearly three-quarters of Americans support the Buffett 
rule. Earlier this week, a bipartisan majority of Senators demonstrated 
their support for the Buffett rule to institute tax fairness for the 
middle class.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous question so that 
I may offer the Paying a Fair Share Act, also known as the Buffett 
rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we're hearing a lot of rhetoric today 
about all these millionaires that are out there. And I would be for 
their ideas if they worked, but the facts of the case are what they 
create is less opportunity.
  The IRS, on their Web site, shows that there were 37 percent fewer 
people who filed as millionaires one year over the next. That's the 
latest information we have on the IRS Web site--37 percent fewer people 
reported numbers of $1 million or more. That falls right in line with 
what's happening as America goes into bankruptcy. Because this is about 
fairness. Well, it shouldn't be about fairness. It should be about 
opportunities, creating more opportunities. That's the same reason why 
this same rhetoric, why 63 percent of our children move back in to our 
homes when they finish college--lack of opportunities. That's not fair. 
Fairness is opportunity and the chance for people to go make something 
better of their lives.
  What we're talking about today will help some 54,509 women-owned 
businesses in the State of Texas alone that account for 483,000 
individuals. That's what we're trying to help and save. This is the 
right thing. I'm very proud of it.
  I know what they want to do is raise taxes. I know what they want to 
do is call it fairness. All it simply does is cause further economic 
malaise and deficiencies all across this country of small business.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), the gentleman who sits on the 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to 
be here.
  Madam Speaker, we hear so much out here on the House floor. I support 
the rule and the underlying legislation because it gives the ability to 
small businesses to create jobs here in America. It allows people to go 
back to work. Those folks, when they go back to work, actually pay 
taxes. They start contributing as citizens of this great country.
  This small business group tax deduction affects small businesses that 
are minority-owned, that are women-owned, that are veteran-owned 
businesses. You hear all this talk about how it affects all these other 
folks, but this is really about creating jobs in America. It's about 
allowing people that are entrepreneurs to utilize the resources that 
they've worked hard for and their employees have worked hard for to 
create additional jobs.
  You've heard a whole lot of stuff down here about transportation. The 
transportation bill expired back in September of 2009. My good friend 
from Florida, I agree with you, we should have a long-term 
transportation bill. But what did you do since 2009? I got up here in 
2011. We're still talking about the lack of action by this Congress, by 
the Senate, and by this President since 2009 to get Americans back to 
work.
  When you talk to those that are small businesses that actually do the 
work on roads, they said if you do a 90-day, a 2-year extension, we're 
not going to add jobs. We're going to be able to keep the jobs that we 
have, but we're not going to add jobs. We're not going to be buying 
equipment from Caterpillar up in Peoria, Illinois, and putting people 
to work in Illinois. We've already canceled those jobs.
  So, Madam Speaker, this is about America. This is about actually 
looking people in the eye, those that actually create jobs. Remember, 
small businesses create over 70 percent of the new jobs in America. 
We're making them the villain in this instead of returning it back and 
saying, you know, small businesses and entrepreneurs, they're going to 
use the money to grow their business. That's why they're in it. That's 
why they get into this whole thing in regards to putting their risk, 
their money, and their reputations at stake.

                              {time}  1000

  You hear about class warfare. We heard it here today.
  And I agree about comprehensive tax reform. I'll give you the best 
comprehensive tax reform. Why don't we move to the fair tax?
  Why don't we move to the fact that we can encourage our small 
businesses and businesses in America that can compete globally instead 
of under a tax burden and debt that we have here in America?
  We have the ability to move forward and do the right thing. Let's not 
get caught up in the semantics and the political rhetoric. Let's really 
stand here

[[Page 5216]]

and do the right thing for small businesses to allow them, Madam 
Speaker, to create the jobs that we know they can. I have the utmost 
confidence in small businesses.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), 
my good friend.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank Judge Hastings, I thank him very 
much for telling us the story of America, from spring cleaners to 
families that have held their businesses for a long period of time.
  And I really wish I could join my friend. I know he's pleading for us 
to believe that any job will be created, but, frankly, the answer is 
that there is no requirement for jobs to be created under this tax 
bill.
  What this tax bill does is complicate any manner of tax reform which 
Americans are begging for. It adds to the already burgeoning, growing 
Bush tax cuts. Now this added burden, $6 trillion in the combination 
package of the existing tax cuts under the Bush administration. It adds 
to the deficit of human life.
  And let me just tell you about some young woman, a caretaker, a 
mother, maybe a mother who's at home and works at home, not only to 
take care of her children, but has a home business, or maybe a 
caretaker taking care of an elderly or disabled person. Let me tell you 
what these tax cuts will do. And this is what it equals.
  It equals almost $180 billion in cuts and food stamps, where 
soldiers' families cannot eat and the caretakers cannot provide for 
their families. It equals to the increase in the Stafford loans to 6.8 
percent in interest, where middle class families are priced out of 
higher education. It equals the cut in Medicaid to women who need 
access to health care.
  And I don't know why we haven't addressed our good friends in the 
restaurant industry. These are the people whose doors are open and 
truly could hire an additional staff, who has the smallest margin of 
profit.
  We're not doing anything for depreciation relief. No, we're sitting 
around giving the top 3 percent over one-half of this tax break, a big 
Christmas in the middle of April. 125,000 millionaires will get a check 
for $58,000, and then it'll cost a budget busting $46 billion.
  In my own State of Texas, there's an article that says we're pricing 
the middle class, Congressman Hastings, out of higher education. 
They're investing in research, but tuition is going up and there's no 
relief. And the loans that we give from the Federal Government, as I 
said, will be almost 7 percent in interest in just about 70 days. This 
is what this tax cut will do.
  I'm not afraid to stand up for small businesses, but you absolutely 
need to look at the framework. Five hundred employees. You could be a 
big law firm. You could be a big engineering firm. And God bless you; I 
want you to keep working. That's why I voted on the transportation 
bill. But what I need to have happen is that there is a requirement for 
jobs.
  The stimulus package created 3 million jobs because we had a mission 
of shovel-ready projects, and, in addition, we gave monies to people 
who put the money out on the street.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
  But not in this case. No requirement for jobs. You want to sit here 
and tell at-home moms, working moms like the young woman that I wanted 
to tell you about who gets up early morning, doesn't get into a car, 
gets onto a bus, rides that bus to get her child to the school, jumps 
off the bus, makes sure she can run to the front door of the school, 
drops the child before the bus turns around to get her back; on the bus 
to go across town to get a job or to go to her work, you're cutting her 
access to health care because you're taking $46 billion.
  Madam Speaker, all I can say to you: This is a budget buster on top 
of $6 trillion of which we are paying for the Bush cuts. We're doing 
nothing for restaurants, nothing for small businesses, and nothing for 
the working young woman that I've told you about this morning.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  By the way, President Obama even admitted that did not work, that 
shovel-ready proposition that he tried to sell across the country 
simply did not work. I would be for the President's ideas if they 
worked. What they're about is the supposed fairness, which diminishes 
the economic opportunity for this country to grow and have jobs and 
make small businesses grow.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me the time.
  I wanted to come down and talk today. I support the rule, but I 
really support H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut bill. This tax relief 
will go to 28,000 small businesses in West Virginia.
  I'm from a small State. Small businesses, I heard earlier, the 
statistics, create 70 percent of the jobs. In my State, it's probably 
90 percent of the jobs are small business owners. Entrepreneurship and 
small businesses are going to drive us to recovery, not more spending 
and more debt.
  I heard the gentlelady talk about restaurants. That's who this is 
aimed at. Our top three small businesses in West Virginia would be 
health care and the service industry and the food industry.
  I've spent the last 2 weeks traveling in my district and listening to 
the concerns of families and job creators. They're very frustrated, 
very frustrated by the high price of gasoline, rising health care 
costs, and new regulation upon new regulation. It's making it difficult 
for our job creators to operate and to grow the jobs.
  A recent study by the U.S. Chamber found that 80 percent of small 
businesses reported that taxation, regulation, and legislation from 
Washington make it harder for them, for their businesses, to hire more 
employees. This tax cut will have an immediate effect, I believe, on 
the economy and certainly in my State.
  Just several weeks ago the Senate, the House, and the White House, we 
worked together to pass the JOBS Act; and I've already gotten very 
positive feedback from several people that they're, number one, glad 
that we're looking at the real problem in this country, which is the 
lack of jobs and job creation and, number two, that we did something 
together, that we worked together to try to get ourselves out of this 
slow recovery that we're in right now.
  I hope we can work in the same bipartisan spirit and pass this tax 
cut to give our job creators the ability to hire somebody else, buy new 
equipment, expand their businesses, choose another location, all the 
things that I think this tax cut bill will provide.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would urge my friend from 
Texas that I'm going to be the last speaker, and I'm prepared to close 
if he has no further speakers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you very much. In fact, I would tell the 
gentleman we have no additional speakers other than myself, and I'll 
plan to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
the time.
  H.R. 9 is not about creating jobs or helping small businesses 
increase hiring. It is another in a long line of Republican proposals 
that benefit those of us, including those of us in the House of 
Representatives, that are the better-off Americans at the expense of 
the middle class.
  My Republican friends rejected an amendment offered by our colleague, 
Representative Crowley, which I offered in the Rules Committee in his 
stead, which would have prevented businesses from eliminating jobs in 
the United States while creating jobs overseas under this bill.
  Procedurally, it is also disconcerting that, contrary to my 
Republican colleagues' self-professed commitment to an open process, 
Democrats have been allowed only one substitute in an otherwise closed 
process. Nor was H.R. 9

[[Page 5217]]

the subject of any hearing before either the full Ways and Means 
Committee, or the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, with the 
exception of a brief question-and-answer session with Joint Committee 
on Taxation staff during the markup.
  Finally, instead of taking real steps to address the very real need 
to create opportunities for businesses to succeed in a still nascent 
economic recovery, House Republicans are more than willing to rush 
through another tax bill that could, if it were to pass--and it is not 
going to, and they know that--only help those of us that are better off 
in society, while sticking middle- and lower-income families with the 
bill and creating exactly zero jobs.

                              {time}  1010

  And you call this opportunity?
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment to the rule in the Record along with extraneous material 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this opportunity-destroying measure and to defeat the 
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida, not only for 
his vigorous defense of the Democrat position to increase taxes, but I 
would like to, if I can, state what really are the facts of the case 
and what is in this bill.
  The claim is that tax cuts will be available for small businesses 
even if they ship jobs overseas. Well, the fact is this legislation 
allows the 20 percent deduction for qualified domestic business income. 
Domestic. That's here. Domestic business. It would not be allowed to 
include money that was earned overseas. So I think that that is a good 
part of this bill. I think what Mr. Cantor did is understand that we 
are trying to grow American jobs.
  There have also been a lot of statements made by our friends, but I 
think the American people need to hear this about the bill and the 
substitute, which will be allowed and which was allowed in the Rules 
Committee, and that is, similar to H.R. 9, which is this bill, the 
Levin amendment, which would be the substitute, does not include any 
provision addressing companies that continue to make foreign 
investment. It's devoid of that. Both proposals do tie the small 
business tax deduction to domestic wages. Both bills do that exact same 
thing. So to accuse us of not doing something or something that would 
create or stop business from having jobs overseas, that's devoid of 
that in both bills. They are both consistent. It's about domestic 
works.
  Similar to H.R. 9, the Levin amendment does not require job creation 
to benefit from the tax deduction. No one says you have to go and 
create jobs. We understand enough about business to know this is what 
they're asking for so they can grow jobs.
  The Levin amendment does deviate from H.R. 9 in one very significant 
way, and that is the amount of money that would be available to small 
business so that they can expand the economy, grow jobs, and create 
opportunities for Americans. Obviously, what we're here today to do is 
to grow the economy.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to include in the Record an article which 
is from The Wall Street Journal, June of 2011. I would like to read 
just a little bit of this:

       This past January, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into 
     law a 67 percent increase in the State personal income tax 
     rate and a 45 percent increase in corporate taxes.

  By the way--and it's off what is here--this was done for fairness. It 
is the same proposal that Barack Obama, as our President who was just 
elected, was trying to push in the campaign. Illinois thought it 
sounded really, really great. So let's see what happened, what the 
fairness resulted in, and I go back to the article, that between its 
passage and June--6 months later--Illinois lost 56,223 jobs according 
to statistics released by their own departments there in the State of 
Illinois. But here is what's really amazing. It's not just that they 
lost the jobs, but it's the hysteria that ensued therein. I continue to 
read:

       To combat the job losses caused by the higher taxes on 
     businesses, the Illinois Department of Commerce ``has already 
     shelled out some $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep 
     more than two dozen companies from fleeing the State.''

  So they were not even going to get $230 million worth of additional 
revenue. They put this tax on, and now they're having to beg people to 
stay. Madam Speaker, I would be for what President Obama and our 
friends, the Democrats, are for if it worked the way they said it 
would. The facts of the case are simple.
  The Republicans understand business, but we understand the ability to 
listen and give small business what it's asking for. They'll do their 
job. I know small business and I know it well. They'll get their job 
done, and they'll do it quite well. They will add employment. They will 
hire their neighbors. They will hire more women and minorities who can 
come in. They will provide real dreams for people and give them not 
just that entrepreneurship angle but the angle to make sure that we're 
adding revenue in this country.
  Republicans get it and Democrats, too. We are for fairness in a 
different way. Fairness comes from a job and job creation and the 
American Dream, not losing jobs and explaining to people, I'm sorry, we 
just had to do this just to make things fair.
  Fairness and not having a job is not fairness. We're aiming for job 
creation and the development of that, and that's why we're asking 
people to make sure that we pass this bill today. I applaud Republican 
Majority Leader Eric Cantor for introducing this legislation. It comes 
from his listening to people across this country.
  I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

       Over the last few weeks, President Barack Obama has 
     adamantly supported raising taxes on corporations and small 
     businesses that employ millions of American workers as a 
     precondition for cutting our bloated federal spending.
       To see the real world effect of this proposal on jobs and 
     the economy, President Obama's home state provides a useful, 
     cautionary example.
       This past January, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into 
     law a 67 percent increase in the state personal income tax 
     rate and a 45 percent increase in corporate taxes. Between 
     its passage and June, Illinois lost 56,223 jobs according to 
     statistics released last week.
       To combat the job losses caused by the higher taxes on 
     businesses, the Illinois Department of Commerce ``has already 
     shelled out some $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep 
     more than two dozen companies from fleeing the state.''
       So not only is Illinois bleeding productive jobs, but it's 
     now allowing the government to pick winners (large, 
     politically-connected companies) and losers (everyone else).
       Extracting an ever-increasing toll from job creators is 
     simply the wrong answer for American jobs. Just ask the 
     56,000 Illinoisans who have lost their jobs since January. 
     Spreading this failure nationwide is simply not an option.
       We are in a debt crisis not because we tax too little, but 
     because Democrat-led Washington spends beyond its means. 
     House Republicans have been focused on encouraging and 
     providing certainty (not new burdens) to our job creators--
     and paying down our nation's debt for our children.
       The rest of America simply cannot afford more of the failed 
     policies of the President's home state, and House Republicans 
     will fight against tax hikes so that we may ensure a brighter 
     future for generations to come.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 620 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, 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. 
     3903) to reduce the deficit by imposing a minimum effective 
     tax rate for high-income taxpayers. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and

[[Page 5218]]

     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. 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. 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. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 620, if 
ordered; and agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 179, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 172]

                               YEAS--234

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--179

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell

[[Page 5219]]


     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bass (NH)
     Bishop (UT)
     Braley (IA)
     Burton (IN)
     Filner
     Flake
     Gosar
     Guinta
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Napolitano
     Paul
     Rangel
     Sewell
     Slaughter
     Walsh (IL)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1041

  Mr. PETERS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 172, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 172, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 19, 2012, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 172 due to a family medical emergency. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on Ordering the Previous 
Question to H. Res. 620, Providing for consideration of H.R. 9, Small 
Business Tax Cut Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234, 
noes 178, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 173]

                               AYES--234

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--178

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bass (NH)
     Bishop (UT)
     Braley (IA)
     Burton (IN)
     Filner
     Flake
     Gosar
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Napolitano
     Paul
     Rangel
     Schock
     Slaughter
     Walsh (IL)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1050

  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 173, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 19, 2012, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 173 due to a family medical emergency. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on agreeing to the 
resolution, as amended, to H. Res. 620, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 9, Small Business Tax Cut Act.

                          ____________________