[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13066-13080]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6169, PATHWAY TO JOB CREATION 
     THROUGH A SIMPLER, FAIRER TAX CODE ACT OF 2012; PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8, JOB PROTECTION AND RECESSION PREVENTION ACT OF 
2012; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS FROM AUGUST 3, 2012, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 
 7, 2012; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES; 
  AND WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House

[[Page 13067]]

Resolution 747 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
                              H. Res. 747
       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     6169) to provide for expedited consideration of a bill 
     providing for comprehensive tax reform. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) two hours of debate on the subject of 
     reforming the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means; (3) the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 
     by Representative Slaughter of New York or her 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 (4) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8) to extend 
     certain tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and on any 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 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part B of 
     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.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     August 3, 2012, through September 7, 2012,--
       (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved;
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment; and
       (c) bills and resolutions introduced during the period 
     addressed by this section shall be numbered, listed in the 
     Congressional Record, and when printed shall bear the date of 
     introduction, but may be referred by the Speaker at a later 
     time.
       Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 5.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 6.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
       Sec. 7.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or 
     legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.
       Sec. 8.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of August 2, 2012, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV.
       Sec. 9.  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 August 2, 2012.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), 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. SCOTT of South Carolina. 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 South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. House Resolution 747 provides for a 
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 8, a bill to extend the 
current tax rates for all Americans for 1 year; a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 6169, which provides a legislative path for true 
tax reform; and for other tools allowing the House to finish its 
business and continue to operate during the August district work 
period.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, why are we here today? My friends on the left will 
tell you that we are here today to discuss the issue of fairness in our 
Tax Code. I would agree. America is the land of opportunity. We believe 
that the worst possible thing you can do during a fragile recovery--
that feels like a recession to me--is to increase taxes. Why? Because 
by increasing taxes, we jeopardize another 710,000 jobs, according to 
the experts, 710,000 jobs.
  One of those jobs could be held by one of my constituents, a friend 
of mine named Joe Stringer. Joe Stringer is a middle class American, 62 
years old. His wife is 67 years old and on Medicare. Joe doesn't make 
$250,000, Joe doesn't make $200,000, not even $150,000 or $100,000, but 
Joe does have dividend income, like 9 million seniors around this 
Nation who have dividend income.
  And here is the interesting fact, Madam Speaker, when we hear the 
left talk about taxing the millionaires and the billionaires, here is 
the new definition: of those 9 million seniors who have dividend 
income, 68 percent of them have an income of less than $100,000, 40 
percent have an income of less than $50,000. But my friends on the left 
would categorize these folks as a member of the rich, with their tax 
cuts being expired at the end of this year.
  We are looking at an increase in the dividend tax rate of 185 percent 
for millions of Americans who are on fixed incomes. These folks aren't 
rich. They depend on their dividend income, and yes, with the actions 
of the left, we would see their dividend income tax responsibility and 
burden go up by 185 percent. This is definitely not right. It is 
definitely wrong.
  Now this is on top of all the new taxes that we find as a part of the 
Affordable Care Act, another $804 billion of new taxes on Americans 
throughout this Nation. And in addition to that, Madam Speaker, under 
their proposal, we see the death tax going from 35 percent with a $5 
million elimination to 55 percent. And for farmers, folks in 
agriculture, and for small businessowners, their wealth is not liquid. 
You would have to sell your land to pay these taxes. It's what we call 
a ``fire sale.''
  So my friends on the left would punish people who work all their 
lives and come up with wealth to pass on to the next generation. But in 
this instance the taxes would go up significantly. And that's wrong.

                              {time}  1240

  In spite of the results of all the surveys--yesterday we had a survey 
done in my district that said that 61 percent of folks would like to 
see the 2001 and 2003--and, oh, by the way, 85 Members of the Democrats 
voted for these exact same tax cuts to stay in place in 2010. It was 
good in 2010; it's still good right now. Sixty-one percent of folks say 
let's extend these tax cuts for all Americans, and let's keep those 
710,000 Americans who would lose their jobs employed.
  But in addition to that, the environment that we're working in right 
now matters; it matters significantly. Because we have over 41 months--
over 41 months, Madam Speaker--of unemployment over 8 percent. It's 
devastating. It's devastating, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will come together here 
today and realize that the time for political points should be over; 
that my colleagues would come together today and

[[Page 13068]]

realize that the time for trying to divide Americans is over; that we 
would come together today, Madam Speaker, and realize that the time for 
punishing success is over.
  In many ways, Madam Speaker, in many ways this debate today is about 
the very soul of who we are as Americans: Are we going to lift everyone 
up as one Nation, or are we going to push some down to bring everyone 
somewhere in the fuzzy middle in some misguided attempt to redefine 
fairness? Are we going to let the foundation of this Nation continue to 
crack, or are we going to strengthen it for another 200 years?
  We encourage--I encourage--success in this Nation. We have to ensure 
our children can learn about America the same way all of us learned 
about the land of opportunity. That's fairness that I believe in.
  Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
the rule, ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, under the rule before us today, we will choose between 
two starkly different visions for America. My Democratic colleagues and 
I are proposing a simple and fair tax cut for the middle class. This 
proposal has already passed the Senate. If passed by the House, the 
legislation could quickly become law. Our tax cut is based upon a 
simple premise--that it is time for the wealthy and corporations to pay 
their fair share--no more. Their fair share.
  Unfortunately, despite agreeing with the tax cuts proposed in our 
bill, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are standing in the 
way of the tax cut becoming law. Instead of passing a commonsense tax 
cut, the majority is demanding that any tax cut for the middle class be 
accompanied by an additional tax cut for the richest 2 percent. Their 
proposal is based upon the disproved theory of trickle-down economics--
a failed economic theory that has led to record inequality and a broken 
Tax Code that is riddled with loopholes and giveaways to the wealthy.
  For decades, our tax system has been tilted in favor of the wealthy 
and big corporations--a rigged system that isn't working for most 
Americans. As just one example, between 2008 and 2010, 30 profitable 
Fortune 500 companies paid absolutely nothing in Federal taxes, and 
many more companies and wealthy individuals avoid paying taxes by 
sheltering the money in bank accounts overseas.
  This stands in sharp contrast to other moments in American history. 
In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s--a 30-year period that saw the creation of 
the middle class and the realization of the American Dream--top income 
tax rates often reached levels we wouldn't even dream of today. But 
despite these tax rates, we saw incredible economic growth and the 
creation of the strongest middle class on Earth.
  The middle class grew, in part, because we did not allow the most 
successful members of our society to dodge their responsibility as 
American taxpayers. In years since, we've witnessed a purposeful and 
concerted effort by some to undermine the notion of shared 
responsibility, which this government was based on. In years since, 
we've witnessed a purposeful and concerted effort to undermine that. 
Starting with Reaganomics in the 1980s, a new theory pervaded American 
politics--a belief that our focus should really be on helping 
corporations and the wealthy in hopes that they might in return help 
some of us.
  Many on the other side of the aisle subscribed to this idea and 
believed that by providing for the powerful interests first, success 
would trickle down onto the middle class. What we now know is the 
theory is simply not true. Today, America is increasingly unequal, 
millions of jobs have been shipped overseas, and the middle class has 
been gutted. These results are strong evidence that trickle-down 
economics have completely and utterly failed.
  In 2001, President Bush proposed a series of unpaid-for tax cuts that 
exploded our deficit and put millions of dollars directly into the 
pockets of the richest families in America, and that's where we are 
today. At the same time, President Bush claimed that these tax cuts 
would create jobs. And Vice President Cheney told us not to worry about 
the cost to our Nation because ``deficits don't matter.'' A decade 
later, we can see that President Bush and Vice President Cheney 
couldn't have been more wrong.
  Under President Bush, our deficit exploded to record levels; and 
according to FactCheck.org, he created only 1.1 million jobs. In 
contrast, President Clinton erased our deficit through a balanced tax 
plan and created 23 million jobs--quite a difference--which brings us 
back to the legislation that we are considering today.
  Today, the majority proposes that we continue failed policies by 
extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2 percent. Doing so, Madam 
Speaker, would cost us nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years, it 
would force us to continue borrowing billions of dollars from China, 
and would force us to make cuts in vital programs like Medicare and 
student loans.
  To continue the failed status quo is a disservice to the American 
people that we represent. It is high time that we start making our Tax 
Code fair for those who work hard and play by the rules--not just the 
wealthy who lobby hard and rewrite the rules. We can do that by passing 
a simple and fair tax cut for the middle class today.
  Unlike the proposal from the majority, the Democratic proposal to cut 
taxes for the middle class is something that both sides already agree 
on. The majority's strategy of holding middle class tax cuts hostage in 
exchange for tax cuts for the top 2 percent is outrageous, and it must 
end.
  Far too often, the majority has pursued a partisan and zero-sum 
ideology that has led this Congress down dead-end roads. We've seen it 
over and over again, whether it's the majority's proposal to end 
Medicare as we know it, or their inability to avoid a downgrade--the 
first in our Nation's history--in our credit. Unfortunately, their 
proposal today is yet another partisan piece of legislation that will 
never become law. Indeed, the President has already said that he will 
veto the majority's proposal if it ever reaches his desk.
  When faced with these two starkly different proposals--one, a 
noncontroversial and commonsense tax cut for the middle class; the 
other, a partisan tax cut to benefit the richest 2 percent--it's clear 
what we should do.
  I urge my colleagues to provide a fair and simple tax cut to all 
Americans--because the rich will benefit too--while standing up for the 
financial security and prosperity of the middle class. Why would we 
continue a program we know has failed?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure 
that I note once again, reinforce the fact, that this 1-year extension 
that we are suggesting on the right is in fact an extension of not only 
the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, but also the tax cuts that passed this 
House in 2010 in a bipartisan fashion.
  There is no doubt that an action not to extend these tax cuts is 
actually increasing taxes on many people in this Nation.

                              {time}  1250

  And, in fact, if we do extend these tax cuts, what we are actually 
doing is allowing current tax law to stay in place. But if we don't do 
that we are talking about 9 million seniors, 68 percent of whom make 
less than $100,000, seeing their dividend income go up in taxation by 
185 percent. That's the middle class.
  We're talking about how the marriage penalty will place a $591 higher 
tax on over 88 million families. That's the middle class. We're talking 
about a reduction in the child tax credit that will pose a $1,028 tax 
hike on 31 million families. This looks like to me that my friends on 
the left are willing to tax the middle class and the poor.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina, Mr. Trey Gowdy.

[[Page 13069]]


  Mr. GOWDY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and 
colleague, Tim Scott. And I was in rapt attention when he was talking. 
It was almost as if he stole my thoughts. But I don't mind because he's 
a member of the freshman class.
  And many of us in the freshman class, Madam Speaker, we weren't here 
in December of 2010 when this body last decided to extend the tax cuts 
for all Americans, not some of them, but all Americans, 18 months ago. 
So you can imagine, Madam Speaker, how intrigued we are by the debate 
on the other side.
  We're also intrigued at the number of our colleagues who, not 18 
months ago, decided it would be bad economics to raise taxes on any 
American, which leads me to wonder, were the rules not fair 18 months 
ago? I know that's the campaign slogan, that everybody has to play by 
the rules and everybody should pay their fair share.
  Were the rules not fair 18 months ago? Was everybody not paying their 
fair share 18 months ago? Because heaven knows they voted for it 18 
months ago. Which got me wondering, Madam Speaker, what's different 
today than it was 18 months ago?
  Well, maybe the economy's better off. Maybe that's the explanation. 
And then I saw, well, gas prices are higher and milk prices are higher 
and bread prices are higher and inflation is higher, which is the most 
insidious of all taxes, and people's purchasing power is down. So, no, 
that couldn't be why they changed their minds. It can't be because 
people are better off, because they're not.
  So then I thought, Madam Speaker, well, maybe it's because government 
has become a better steward of the tax dollars that we do give them. 
Maybe government's spending the money better. And then I thought, well, 
no, we've had Solyndra and we've had Abound, and we've had a failed 
stimulus plan, and we've had a GSA scandal, so no, it couldn't possibly 
be that we're spending the money wiser.
  So why in the world, Madam Speaker, would so many of our colleagues 
who just 18 months ago thought the rules were just fine and that 35 
percent was enough to pay, why in the world would they change their 
mind in the course of just 18 months?
  And then it dawned on me, Madam Speaker. It dawned on me while I was 
listening to the President tell our fellow Americans you didn't build 
that, and promising more flexibility in a second term, that we're in 
the middle of a reelection campaign. It dawned on me, no, the economy's 
not better, and no, government's not spending its money better, but I 
have to have something to run on, so I'm going to pit one group of 
Americans against another group of Americans, because God knows I can't 
run on my record.
  So let's try the politics of bringing people down and perpetuating 
this myth that somehow pulling other people down makes me taller. Let's 
pit one group of Americans against another group.
  Madam Speaker, the economy is still struggling. Heavens knows it is. 
People are suffering.
  If you want economic growth, why in the world are you talking about 
taking more money from people, even if you don't think they built it?
  What has changed in the last 18 months other than the vicissitudes of 
a political cycle, Madam Speaker?
  And then I got to thinking, while Congressman Scott was talking, 
let's assume for the sake of argument, Madam Speaker, that we do what 
they want us to do. Go ahead and raise it to 39 percent. It may be 39 
this time. How about 50? If you didn't build it, how about take half of 
it?
  What about 60 percent, Madam Speaker? If you didn't build it, take 60 
percent of it. Where does it stop?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. GOWDY. What the Democrats want to do, Madam Speaker, is bad 
citizenship. It is bad economics. It is bad for our fellow Americans. 
It remains to be seen if it's good electioneering or not. That remains 
to be seen.
  But duplicity is duplicity, no matter what the calendar says.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I would just like to remind the previous speaker that 18 
months ago there was a Republican majority in this House that made a 
determination to bring this Nation to its knees and to shut down the 
government because they would not raise a debt ceiling and were holding 
the government hostage and the Nation hostage.
  And quite frankly, that's what they're doing again today. And this 
time, it is about tax relief for working families and for middle class 
families. The duplicity is on the other side of the aisle, which always 
is trying to bring this body and this country to the precipice.
  I rise in opposition to the House majority's tax plan. What it would 
do is raise taxes on 25 million middle class and working families, 
people with incomes below $250,000. Their taxes would go up by $1,000 
each.
  Why? In order to give another tax break to the rich.
  The New York Times article just a few days ago said the Republicans 
will press to extend tax cuts for affluent families scheduled to expire 
on January 1. But the same Republican tax plan would allow a series of 
tax cuts for the working poor and for the middle class to end next 
year.
  The Washington Post said, and I quote, ``Republicans want to raise 
taxes on the poor. Why?''
  Why indeed. In order to pay for an over $160,000 tax break for 
millionaires. The plan would slash the Child Tax Credit, taking an 
average of $854 away from nearly 9 million families, pushing 2 million 
children back into poverty.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman another minute.
  Ms. DeLAURO. It weakens the Earned Income Tax Credit, which kept 8.3 
million people out of poverty last year--this as poverty rates head 
towards the highest levels in nearly half a century.
  We all know there's a better way forward. The Senate has passed a 
plan, supported by the President, which cuts taxes for 98 percent of 
Americans, 97 percent of small businesses in the country. Rather than 
holding tax relief for the vast majority of American families and small 
businesses hostage to more tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent, let 
us take up that Senate bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and this Republican 
Reverse Robin Hood tax plan, and support tax relief for the middle 
class.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure 
that we remember the facts as they are. There's no reason for us to so 
quickly revise history to meet our political objectives.
  In 2010, this House, controlled by the Democrats, the Senate, 
controlled by the Democrats, and the White House, controlled by the 
Democrats, passed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. So what we're 
talking about is a bipartisan piece of legislation that would continue 
the current tax law because the previous Congress, in a bipartisan 
fashion, decided that tax cuts were good for all Americans. And now we 
find ourselves, as Mr. Gowdy said, in the midst of a political season.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Rich Nugent, the sheriff.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and fellow 
Rules Committee member Tim Scott for allowing me to speak on this very 
important issue.
  This rule does something that is decades overdue. It puts the Nation 
on a path to comprehensive tax reform. Achieving a fairer, simpler Tax 
Code isn't an easy goal, which is why we are considering today and 
tomorrow a multi-step process. First, we need to extend the current tax 
rate. This extension gives us a bridge, the time we need, to dig into 
the Tax Code and find a way to make it work for all Americans, not just 
some. Perhaps even more

[[Page 13070]]

importantly, it stops the largest tax hike in history. It's worth 
repeating: the largest tax hike in history.
  Madam Speaker, this tax increase would threaten more than 700,000 
American jobs, and for those folks lucky enough not to lose their jobs, 
it could very well lead to lower wages for them. If we don't act, the 
Democrats' tax increase will hit 53 percent--more than half--of all 
American small business income.
  When I brought these small businesses up at the Rules Committee last 
night, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle responded to me and 
my questions by coming back with statistics, things that don't really 
matter much to anybody. Yet, when I talked about small businesses in my 
district--those folks making over $200,000 who are going to be impacted 
by this increase on taxes--it related to actual jobs, what they can 
create and what they may have to cut back on. These are real people, 
not some statistics that somebody in some Washington think tank came up 
with. These are real people, real job creators in America. We are 
talking now about stifling that at a time when job growth in America is 
anemic at best.
  My fellow speakers earlier talked about just that issue in regards to 
what has changed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. NUGENT. What has changed in America since that increase, or the 
2001-2003 tax decrease, was passed by the democratically-controlled 
Congress in 2010? What has changed?
  You heard from my good friend Mr. Gowdy that nothing has changed. Now 
we are going to look at those job creators--and let's slap them again. 
Let's take away the certainty for the people. We have almost 11 percent 
unemployment in my district, so now we are going to crush them again by 
taxing those job creators and by putting jobs out of the reach of real 
Americans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman another 30 
seconds.
  Mr. NUGENT. I thank my friend.
  H.R. 8 will prevent real hardworking Americans from getting hit with 
history's largest tax increase. We have an obligation to make sure that 
we do this. If we extend it for a year, it gives us the opportunity. It 
has been decades since we have had real tax reform. The Ways and Means 
Committee, through regular order, has the opportunity to have input 
from both Democrats and Republicans alike--experts in the field--to 
talk about how we craft tax policies that are going to carry us through 
the next decade.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman another minute.
  Mr. NUGENT. This is such an important issue, Madam Speaker. This is 
about the future of America. This is about how we move forward.
  Ways and Means has had 20 committee hearings already on this issue. 
One of my favorites was on the Fair Tax, which is what we are talking 
about as we move forward--the ability of the American people to hear 
debate on this floor and in committee sessions through an open process 
in which we can amend laws or legislation that is going to come forward 
to this House. It is also the ability to get input from all of us--
Democrats and Republicans alike--because it really is about where we 
are heading as a Nation.
  We talk about job creation. This is about job creation. This is about 
sustaining the current jobs that we have and about allowing American 
businesses and entrepreneurs to create more jobs. It's not some crazy 
idea. This is real America. These are businesses in my district.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. The real issue here today is: Are we going to continue 
something that we know utterly failed? More than 10 years ago, this 
deal was made with corporations that we would cut the tax rate and that 
they would produce jobs. We didn't get the jobs. Half of it didn't 
work. Why would a country as intelligent as ours want to continue that 
failed policy? We are at a critical crossroads here, and we had better 
this time get it right.
  In that regard, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy.
  She had it exactly right. We've gone down this path. We had an 
opportunity for us to see how effective the Bush tax cuts were in 
creating employment in America versus those high rates in the Clinton 
era, a couple of percentage points higher. Look at the job creation: 22 
million jobs in the Clinton years when we were actually balancing the 
budget for 4 years in a row, reducing the deficit, versus anemic job 
creation in the Bush administration that was less than 5 percent of 
that.
  We've tried it their way.
  With all due respect, it's really hard to characterize what happened 
in 2010 as bipartisan legislation. The Republicans in the Senate 
refused to legislate. It was going to be that all the tax relief 
expired. A consensus was reached. A compromise was made to extend it. 
Hopefully, we could have worked things out, but we didn't. We're now 
right back in the same spot.
  I would respectfully suggest that what we are looking at now with my 
Republican colleagues, when they talk about the largest tax increase in 
American history, is when you put the Republican-Romney bill in effect. 
If you are going to have that massive cut for the wealthiest of 
Americans, the only way you can make that deficit-neutral is by raising 
taxes on the other 95 percent. And you can quibble with some of the 
assumptions of the various independent experts, but they all agree: if 
you're going to give people who make over $1 million an average of more 
than $100,000 in annual relief, you are going to be raising taxes on 
the 95 percent of the rest of America.
  That's not right. It's not necessary. There are better alternatives, 
and you're going to hear it in the form of the Democratic alternative 
that's going to come forth later this afternoon.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia and my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Rob Woodall.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my colleague from South Carolina for yielding me 
the time.
  I don't actually have the words for this debate, so I had to bring 
something with me, Madam Speaker. What I brought are the very words 
that President Obama spoke from right here behind me in his State of 
the Union address in 2011. As you'll remember, we had just done this 
thing that we had all agreed on. I say ``we.'' My colleague from South 
Carolina and I were not in Congress at the time. ``You.'' This thing 
that you agreed on with the President and with the Senate to not raise 
taxes on job creators, why did you agree on that? Let's look and see 
what the President said.
  He said:

       We measure progress by the success of our people--by the 
     jobs they can find and the quality of the jobs they can find. 
     Opportunities for a better life that we pass on to our 
     children, that's a project the American people want us to 
     work on together. We did that in December.

  He was talking about when we came together to prevent the largest tax 
increase in American history from impacting Americans and the jobs they 
were seeking.
  Here is what he said:

       We did that in December. Thanks to the tax cuts that we 
     passed, Americans' paychecks are bigger today. Businesses can 
     write off the full cost of investments, and these steps taken 
     by Democrats and Republicans will grow the economy and add 
     more than 1 million private sector jobs.

  That's why Ernst & Young says doing what the Democrats propose to do 
is going to kill 700,000 jobs. It's because, as the President said, 
doing what we all agreed on--doing what we are proposing to do here 
today--added 1 million jobs. That was from the President's address in 
2011.
  He went on. He talked about the parade of lobbyists who have rigged 
the

[[Page 13071]]

Tax Code to benefit particular companies and industries.
  He says:

       Those with accountants and lawyers can work the system and 
     pay no taxes at all, but the rest are hit with one of the 
     highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, 
     and it has to change.

  He's right, but the proposal that my friends on the Democratic side 
are bringing to the floor raises taxes on these small businesses that 
create jobs. The President knows that's not fair. He goes on.

                              {time}  1310

  He says, ``Tonight, I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify 
the system. Get rid of the loopholes,'' he says, ``level the playing 
field,'' he says, ``and use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate 
for the first time in 25 years without adding to the deficit.''
  That's what the President called on us all to do. That's what this 
rule that my friend from South Carolina allows us to do. That's what, 
if we're willing to put politics aside in this election year, we can do 
together as you did in 2010.
  Madam Speaker, I will close with this. That was his 2011 address, and 
maybe you think that was just the enthusiasm of our cooperation there 
at the end of 2010, but it wasn't.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. Standing right here in this Chamber 10 feet behind me 
this year, the President said this:

       We have an opportunity at this moment to bring 
     manufacturing back, but we have to seize it. We should start 
     with our Tax Code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for 
     moving jobs and profits overseas; meanwhile, companies that 
     choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax 
     rates in the world. It makes no sense and everyone knows it. 
     So let's change it.

  What you do does not change it. What you do dooms our small business 
owners to continue to operate at one of the highest tax rates in the 
world. We can do better. We have the bill to do better. Together we 
will do better.
  With that, I thank my friend from South Carolina.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I think I must say that 97 percent of small businesses 
in America will not be affected at all.
  With that, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, Americans who served on the school board or a parents 
council or the board of trustees, their fire company, that have ever 
had a dispute about what to do know that one of the ways to resolve the 
dispute is to say, Listen, let's take the things that we agree on and 
do them, and set aside the things in which we disagree and argue about 
them later. But let's agree on the things we can do and get them done.
  I think virtually every Member of this Chamber agrees that if a 
family makes less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, their 
taxes should not go up. Let's pass a bill that says that and then move 
on to the things on which we disagree.
  Here is one of the things that we disagree on: The majority's bill 
that's on the floor raises taxes on 25 million Americans, and they are 
some of the Americans who least merit and deserve a tax increase. For 
example, an E4 corporal in the Marine Corps with 4 years of service, 
married and with two children sees his taxes go up by $448 a year under 
the Republican bill. Under the Democratic bill, that Marine's taxes do 
not go up. A military police sergeant, an E5 in the Air Force, who has 
8 years of service, with a spouse and three young children would see a 
tax increase of $1,118 a year.
  How could this be?
  In 2009, President Obama increased the earned income tax credit, 
which helps low-income people who work for a living, and he increased 
the child care credit, which is working people with children. We pay 
our marines, our Air Force, our Army, and our sailors a lot less than 
we should. They're very underpaid, and they take advantage of these tax 
breaks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will be happy to yield an additional 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. The Democratic bill preserves these tax rules for 
working families, including members of the military; the Republican 
bill does not.
  So I would urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to do the 
following: Let's oppose the rule that's on the floor, which gives us a 
chance to amend the bill. When we amend the bill, let's cancel out the 
tax increase on the Air Force sergeant of $1,118 and let's cancel out 
the tax increase on the Marine corporal of $448.
  Vote ``no.''

         [From the Center for American Progress, Aug. 1, 2012]

     House Republican Tax Bill Leaves Some Military Families Behind


 Military Families with Modest Incomes Could Lose Important Tax Credits

                            (By Seth Hanlon)

       The House of Representatives today is scheduled to vote on 
     a House Republican proposal (H.R. 8) that purportedly extends 
     all tax cuts but actually raises taxes on about 25 million 
     families by reducing certain tax credits. The 25 million 
     families include middle-class families and students who 
     currently benefit from a tax credit for college expenses. 
     Others are parents raising children on modest incomes who are 
     helped by the child tax credit and earned income tax credit. 
     Some, as illustrated below, are members of the U.S. military 
     and their families.
       The competing Democratic proposal, which has already passed 
     the Senate (S. 3412/H.R. 15), extends all income tax cuts for 
     the 98 percent of families with incomes under $250,000 
     ($200,000 for singles), including these tax credits in their 
     current forms.
       Below are three illustrative examples of military families 
     whose tax bill would rise next year under H.R. 8, the House 
     Republican tax bill.
       A corporal (E4) in the Marines with four years of service, 
     who is married and has two children would see a tax increase 
     of $448 under H.R. 8.
       In 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law 
     improvements to the earned income tax credit--an important 
     tax credit that boosts the earnings of low- and moderate-
     income workers. In 2009, 211,000 military families benefitted 
     from the earned income tax credit.[1] One of the 2009 
     improvements reduced the tax credit's so-called marriage 
     penalty (phasing out the credit at higher income levels for 
     families that file joint tax returns). H.R. 8 would let that 
     provision expire, increasing the marriage penalty and thus 
     reducing the EITC for married couples in the phaseout range.
       With military basic pay of $27,660[2] (and assuming no 
     other household income), this Marine Corporal's family is 
     affected by the worsened marriage penalty under H.R. 8. As a 
     result, the family's tax credit would be reduced by $448 
     under H.R. 8 compared to the current tax rules, the Senate-
     passed bill, and the House Democratic alternative. Here are 
     the details:
       Marine corporal (E4), four years' service, married with two 
     children;
       Military basic pay: $27,660
       Earned income tax credit under current tax policy and 
     Democratic plan: $4,326
       Earned income tax credit under H.R. 8: $3,878
       Tax increase under H.R. 8: $448
       A military police sergeant (E5) in the Air Force with eight 
     years' service, with a spouse and three young children at 
     home, would see a tax increase of $1,118 under H.R. 8.
       Another provision enacted in 2009 boosted the value of the 
     earned income tax credit for families with three or more 
     children, reflecting the fact that these families have a 
     higher cost of living. H.R. 8 would let this provision 
     expire, so that families with three or more children get the 
     same-sized tax credit as families with two children.
       With basic pay of $34,723, this sergeant's family would be 
     affected by both the earned income tax credit's worsened 
     marriage penalty under H.R. 8 and the reduced credit for 
     families with three or more children. In total, the family's 
     earned income tax credit would be reduced by $1,118 under 
     H.R. 8. Under the Senate-passed bill and the House Democratic 
     alternative, it would not be cut. Here are the details:
       Air Force sergeant (E5), eight years' service, married with 
     three children:
       Basic pay: $34,723
       Earned income tax credit under current tax policy and 
     Democratic plan: $3,508
       Earned income tax credit under H.R. 8: $2,390
       Tax increase under H.R. 8: $1,118
       A private in the U.S. Army (El) in his first year of 
     service, who is married with an infant child, would see a 
     $273 tax increase under the Republican plan.
       The child tax credit generally provides a $1,000 credit per 
     child. But the credit is only

[[Page 13072]]

     partially ``refundable'' for families who do not have federal 
     income tax liability in a given year. H.R. 8 would reduce the 
     ability of some low-income families to claim the credit. That 
     is because the credit's refundability is based on the level 
     of a family's earnings above a certain threshold--and H.R. 8 
     would raise that threshold.
       With basic pay of an estimated $18,196 in 2013, the Army 
     private's family's income is too low to owe federal income 
     tax because of the standard deduction and personal 
     exemptions. Under H.R. 8, the family would only be able to 
     claim a partial child tax credit, limited to $727. In 
     contrast, under the Senate-passed bill and the House 
     Democratic alternative, the family could claim the full 
     $1,000 credit for its child. Here are the details:
       U.S. Army private (El), first year of service, married with 
     one child:
       Basic pay: $18,196
       Child tax credit under current tax policy and Democratic 
     plan: $1,000
       Child tax credit under H.R. 8: $727
       Tax increase: $273
       These are just three typical military families who face a 
     tax increase from H.R. 8's failure to extend important tax 
     benefits for working families. Many families with similar 
     incomes, military and nonmilitary, would face similar tax 
     increases because of H.R. 8's failure to extend the child tax 
     credit and earned income tax credit improvements. H.R. 8 also 
     fails to extend the American opportunity tax credit for 
     families and students paying for college.
       In all, the House Republican plan raises taxes on about 25 
     million families, including 18 million families with children 
     (constituting 37 percent of all families with children).[3] 
     By contrast, all 98 percent of families with incomes under 
     $250,000 ($200,000 for singles) would see no tax increase 
     under the Democratic bill, and the 2 percent of Americans 
     with higher incomes will keep tax cuts on their income up to 
     those amounts.
       Seth Hanlon is Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for 
     American Progress.

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. At this time, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady.
  Madam Speaker, let's first of all define what these two bills are.
  Number one, the Democratic bill would provide tax relief to 100 
percent of Americans: 98 percent would get tax relief on every dollar 
of income; 2 percent would get tax relief on up to $250,000 of income. 
Above that, they would be going back to the Clinton rates.
  The Republican bill would provide 100 percent of Americans tax 
relief, including those top 2 percent. At what cost? A trillion dollars 
added to the debt, number one. Number two, higher taxes on military 
folks and low-income folks who would be hammered by the tax increases 
in the Republican bill.
  Why is that? There's two reasons:
  One, the underlying philosophy behind the Republican bill is that 
trickle-down economics works. It is a proposition that says that the 
tax cuts that go to the 2 percent, the highest-income Americans--who 
don't need them--will benefit 98 percent of Americans who don't get 
them. There's absolutely no evidence to back that up. Secondly, there's 
a total doubling down on supply-side economics, trickle-down economics.
  Our bill basically has two propositions:
  Number one, if we're going to work ourselves out of the biggest 
recession that we've had since the Great Depression, we have to 
increase employment and we have to increase demand. That's why we've 
got to give purchasing power to the vast majority of low-income and 
middle Americans. That's why we sustain the tax breaks that we've had 
in place since the Bush tax cuts were passed.
  Number two, we have to pay down on the debt and have money to invest 
in things like infrastructure, science, and education. That's a 
trillion dollars that would be made available by going with the 
Democratic approach.
  We've been here before, trickle-down economics versus middle class 
commitment.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from North Carolina, Mrs. Renee Ellmers.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me to 
speak on this very important issue today.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 8, which will ensure that we will not 
raise taxes on our Nation's job creators and harm our recovery.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to speak about one sector of the economy 
that will be the greatest harmed, and that is our farmers. Our farmers 
provide for our Nation and deserve our gratitude and protection from 
unnecessary harm. In my district, thousands of farmers and their 
families wait in fear that their homes and businesses will be destroyed 
by the devastating tax increases on the horizon. And yes, I am 
including the inheritance tax, or the estate tax, or, which I like to 
refer to as, the ``death tax,'' which I think, all in all, needs to be 
repealed in full.
  Let's just talk today about what will happen if we do not pass H.R. 
8.
  Our farmers will be forced to lay off workers, and they will be 
forced to sell off equipment and land because that is where their 
investment is.
  They will not be able to pass along to their families the 
accomplishments that they and their ancestors put forward because most 
farms are family-owned businesses. What I am speaking of is the 
inheritance tax going up. It will increase to--total asset income of $1 
million, increase to 55 percent, currently at $5 million at 35 percent. 
You can see that that would be devastating.
  As Steve Mitchell of Mitchell Farms in my district noted:

       It will be very hard for our son to carry on. We have paid 
     taxes all our lives, and now they want to tax us when we die. 
     With the value of our farm equipment these days, it wouldn't 
     take long for a family farm to run up against this limit.

  We are here today because our economy and job creators continue to 
wait anxiously for real solutions. H.R. 8 will ensure that our family 
farmers, job creators will be protected.

                              {time}  1320

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank my New York colleague and friend.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 8, which 
should be more appropriately named the Job Prevention and Recession 
Protection Act.
  We always hear talk about tax reform, but the only solution my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have to offer is an extension 
of the failed policies that skyrocketed the debt and contributed to the 
current state of the economy. My Republican colleagues say their plan 
will create jobs. If that's true, why didn't it work during the Bush 
administration when we lost millions of jobs? The Republican philosophy 
always seems to be to help the wealthy and give the back hand to the 
middle class.
  So let's put this in perspective: at the same time the majority 
demands we give the wealthiest a break, they cut Medicaid and Medicare, 
early education programs, title X family planning, and food stamps. The 
list goes on and on. Madam Speaker, I would laugh if this weren't so 
tragic.
  Our government should be about giving everyone a fair chance and 
making sure that we help the middle class and working people. 
Unfortunately, the current Republican philosophy seems to make it 
easier for those who are already ahead and more difficult for everyone 
else. The Republican proposal would give our military soldiers a tax 
increase while giving millionaires and billionaires a huge tax break.
  That's why I strongly support the Democratic substitute introduced by 
Congressman Levin. Our substitute is in stark contrast to the billion-
dollar boondoggle proposed by the majority. Our proposal continues the 
tax cuts for the middle class and requires the wealthiest to pay their 
fair share, as well they should. Until we can have a meaningful debate 
about actual tax reform, the Democratic proposal is the only one worth 
supporting.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 8 and to support 
the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, this week there was some disturbing news

[[Page 13073]]

about Members of the House. One of our finest, longest-serving Members, 
Mr. LaTourette of Ohio, a Republican, announced he wasn't going to run 
for reelection. He said he couldn't run for reelection because of the 
gridlock and the difficulty getting things done.
  He was for income, revenue--not for Grover Norquist's pledge that 
most of the Republicans have signed. And because he was for revenue, 
which is what the Democrat plan is, in taxing the wealthiest and most 
financially blessed in this country, he gave up because he said, you 
couldn't get things done. That's a shame.
  People ask, why is there partisan gridlock? This is a perfect 
example. The two sides agree that people making $200,000 a year or 
married couples making $250,000 a year should get continued tax breaks. 
We should pass that, as the Senate did. We know that can become law and 
guarantee those tax breaks. The difference that we have is whether 
people making over $200,000 single and $250,000 married get tax breaks. 
They will get tax breaks on that amount of income but not on the income 
over that.
  I have been blessed in my life, and I have had sufficient monies to 
do the things I want. But I have never made $250,000 a year. I consider 
that a lot of money.
  On the Democratic side, we call that middle class tax cuts. The 
reality is, in my perspective, it's upper-middle class tax cuts and 
middle class tax cuts. The only people at the top who are having to pay 
a little more are the very wealthy and predominantly millionaires.
  When I grew up, a millionaire was somebody who had a net worth of $1 
million. Today it's somebody who makes $1 million--rock stars, business 
tycoons, bankers. They can afford to pay it. They're not spending that 
money. We need Americans who spend their money to stimulate our 
economy. We need purchasers.
  So that's why I am against the Republican plan and for the Democratic 
plan. It will activate our economy.
  I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
South Carolina that he has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentlewoman from New York has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from Kansas, Ms. Lynn Jenkins.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, stopping the tax hike is not just about 
taxes; it's about jobs. Small businesses have been responsible for 
about two-thirds of the new jobs created. Raising taxes on the so-
called ``rich'' will hit nearly 1 million of these businesses and in 
this weak economy will risk destroying 700,000 jobs.
  Is it worth it? Raising taxes simply allows Washington to spend more. 
If we want to have a serious discussion about reining in our out-of-
control spending, I welcome that debate. But first we should do no harm 
to our fragile economy.
  Extending current rates gives us time to pass our plan for 
comprehensive tax reform without risking thousands of jobs and another 
recession. CBO estimates that action will produce 2 million jobs next 
year alone.
  The choice is clear. Let's stop the tax hikes and create jobs.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, although I have great 
affection for the gentleman from South Carolina, I am so enthusiastic 
that Ranking Member Slaughter is managing this bill.
  I rise in great opposition to H.R. 8, but in enthusiastic support for 
H.R. 15. This is a gift to America's women, working women, mothers.
  And let me give you the role: every taxpayer will get tax relief on 
$250,000. That, by the evidence of this letter from small businesses, 
will be 97, 98 percent of small businesses. And they are women--most of 
them, many of them--women who are in their homes having a one-person 
small business, women who have hired people in a five-person small 
business, women who are thinking of getting ready to start their small 
businesses.
  Then, of course, the child tax credit. What a boon for working 
mothers and others who need that desperate relief. And then, of course, 
the marriage tax relief. EITC, if you come from the gulf region, we 
were saved by the earned income tax credit for Hurricane Katrina 
victims. They were able to get some minimal relief to carry them 
through. The higher education tax credit. The adoption tax credit. And 
as I indicated, the child care tax credit. A tax credit, as well, for 
expensing in small businesses.
  What are my colleagues and my friends on the other side talking 
about? A job-killing, economy-killing, deficit-busting H.R. 8 is not 
the way to go.
  So I am enthusiastically here to tell the women of America that this 
is a vote for you today. Those women who get up every day, who design a 
way to make a living when there is no job--these women, along with men, 
who have come into understanding what small business can do for 
America.
  I'm excited because I consider the 18th Congressional District to be 
a host of small businesses. Everywhere I go, individuals are talking 
about their small businesses.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I will submit into the Record, Madam 
Speaker, a letter from small businesses of the Main Street Alliance 
opposing H.R. 8 and supporting this legislation the Democrats are 
offering.
  This is a celebration for women. This vote today will enhance 
opportunities for women, small businesses, and families across America.
  Madam Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8 and H.R. 6169, 
and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together in 
support of regular order for any proposed tax legislation, whether it 
comes to the House Floor today, tomorrow, or next year. The Rule before 
us is structured and I note that is titled H. Res. 747, but unlike the 
jetliners that we Americans use every day, this bill and the Rule are 
not yet ready for take-off.
  House Republicans released a proposal, H.R. 6169, that would relax 
some of Congress's normal procedural rules in order to enact an 
overhaul of the tax code--so long as the tax overhaul meets the 
objectives laid out in the House budget plan authored by House Budget 
Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.
  Their proposal states:
  ``The United States tax code is far too complex and bloated. It 
forces American citizens and small business owners to focus on filling 
out tax forms instead of tending to their families and businesses. It 
is clear to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle that real, fundamental 
reforms to our tax code are long overdue. In fact, our revenue laws 
have not been substantially reformed in 50 years,'' Chairman Dreier 
said.
  I couldn't agree more with Chairman Dreier but by putting a 
stranglehold on the tax reform process before we even begin is 
tantamount to forcing debate on any tax reform bill while potentially 
limiting input.
  H.R. 6169 lays out several components that the tax overhaul 
legislation must have in order to be passed through the easier 
legislative procedure.
  All of these components seem identical to those laid out in the Ryan 
Plan that we witnessed in the Spring--it's like a bad B movie rerun.
  The required components of the tax overhaul include:
  replacing the personal income tax rates with just two rates, 10 
percent and 25 percent (or less)
  repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT
  reducing the statutory corporate income tax rate to 25 percent (or 
less)
  adoption of a ``territorial'' tax system (exempting offshore profits 
of corporations from U.S. taxes)
  collecting revenue equal to between 18 and 19 percent of GDP
  The ``findings'' section of the bill states that revenue will ``rise 
to 21.2 percent of GDP under current law,'' meaning its proposed 
revenue target of between 18 and 19 percent of GDP is an explicit cut 
in revenue.
  Like the Republican Plan, the bill introduced by my colleagues Ways 
and Means Chairman Camp and Rules Committee Chair Dreier, does not say 
which tax loopholes and tax subsidies should be closed to ensure that 
the tax system still collects revenue equaling between

[[Page 13074]]

18 and 19 percent of GDP even after the plan's steep rate reductions 
and the repeal of the AMT are in effect.
  My sense is that even if those with incomes exceeding $1 million were 
forced to give up all the tax expenditures Ryan could possibly want to 
take away from them--all their itemized deductions, tax credits, the 
exclusion for employer-provided health insurance and the deduction for 
health insurance for the self-employed--even then the net result for 
these taxpayers would be an average income tax cut of $187,000 in 2014.
  That's because the income tax rate reductions Ryan proposed are so 
deep that they would far outweigh the loss of all these tax loopholes 
and tax subsidies.
  I have consistently supported and voted for middle class tax cuts, as 
I did two years ago when I voted for the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 
2010, and the extension of unemployment benefits.
  I am deeply saddened that the fate of unemployed, low and middle 
income Americans has been held hostage by the insistence by Republicans 
that this legislation include a giveaway to the wealthiest 2 percent of 
Americans that is going to irresponsibly expand the already large 
deficit.
  I have spoken to and heard from many fine, patriotic, hardworking 
middle income Americans from Houston, from the great state of Texas, 
and all across the nation. Middle class American families and small 
businesses are deeply concerned about our troubled economy, the 
skyrocketing national deficit, high unemployment rates, job creation, 
and sorely needed extension of the tax relief and unemployment benefits 
set to expire at the end of this month.
  The Republican bill temporarily extends for one year, through 2013, 
all the reduced tax rates and other tax benefits enacted in 2001 and 
2003 that are scheduled to expire on Dec. 31. The measure maintains the 
maximum estate tax rate of 35 percent while retaining the exemption 
amount of $5 million, provides a two-year ``patch'' to prevent the 
alternative minimum tax, AMT, from hitting over 27 million taxpayers 
and allows small businesses to deduct an increased amount of their 
capital expenditures for another year.
  I feel like we have been down this path before and I recall many of 
my colleagues staking a claim to fiscal responsibility. Well, I ask in 
all sincerity, which bill is more fiscally responsible: H.R. 8, which 
blows a hole in the deficit, or H.R. 15, the Democratic alternative 
which keeps the Bush Tax rates in place for the people who truly need 
tax relief.
  This is the same Republican Congress which has asked for a balanced 
budget amendment. It has codified the Joint Select Committee on Deficit 
Reduction, which is possibly unconstitutional, and has had no impact on 
jobs and the unemployment problem. Yet today they want us to vote on a 
tax increase for the top 2 percent. This illustrates what happens when 
Congress does not work together in a bipartisan manner, laboring for 
the American people. We must work together and compromise.
  The Senate gave us a layup by producing a bill last week which is 
virtually identical to the Democratic Substitute. All we have to do is 
act like Olympians and pass it.
  The American people are asking the President and Members of Congress 
to move swiftly and take decisive action to help restore our economy in 
a fiscally responsible manner. I am disappointed that Republicans have 
insisted on holding tax cuts for working and middle class families' 
hostage in order to benefit the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.
  I would like to thank President Obama for his determined leadership, 
support and commitment to protecting important tax relief issues for 
middle-income Americans and the nation's small businesses and farmers 
during these challenging economic times. I would also like to thank all 
the Members and their staff who worked diligently to bring this 
essential legislation to the House floor today in an attempt to do all 
that we can to protect the American people and move this nation toward 
fiscally responsible economic recovery.
  I support those provisions of H.R. 8 which provide relief for middle-
class families and small businesses who will see their taxes go down 
and get much needed certainty. But I cannot in good conscience support 
tax relief for millionaires and billionaires at a time when others need 
help just to make ends meet.
  Unlike those provisions of H.R. 8 which benefit America's struggling 
middle class, I do not support the provisions of this legislation which 
condition that desperately needed relief upon the unconscionably high 
cost of providing an unnecessary, expensive giveaway to the wealthiest 
Americans by providing a 2-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the 
wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while keeping their estate tax rate 
at 35 percent on estates valued at more than $5 million for individuals 
and more than $10 million for couples.
  These giveaways to the wealthiest Americans during these dire 
economic times needlessly add billions of dollars to our skyrocketing 
deficit yet create no value for our ailing economy since these tax cuts 
are not tied to job creation and preservation.


                          ESTATE TAX AMENDMENT

  I offered an amendment that would have set the Estate Tax at 
reasonable levels. My amendment would have allowed estates valued at 
$3.5 million or less to pay 35 percent, estates valued between $3.5 
million and $10 million to pay a 45 percent rate, and estates over $10 
million to pay a 55 percent rate. This commonsense amendment would have 
restored a sense of fairness to H.R. 8.
  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the 2009 
estate tax rules already are extremely generous, tilting in favor of 
the wealthy. The Tax Policy Center estimates that if policymakers 
reinstated the 2009 rules:
  The estates of 99.7 percent of Americans who die would owe no estate 
tax at all in 2013. Only the estates of the wealthiest 0.29 percent of 
Americans who die--about 7,450 people nationwide in 2013--would owe any 
tax.
  Moreover, under the 2009 rules, the small number of estates that were 
taxable would face an average effective tax rate of 19.1 percent, far 
below the statutory estate-tax rate of 45 percent. In other words, 81 
percent of the value of these estates would remain after the tax, on 
average. An estate tax that exempts the estates of 997 of every 1,000 
people who die and leaves in place an average of 81 percent of the very 
wealthiest estates is hardly a confiscatory or oppressive tax.
  Moreover, only 60 small farm and business estates in the entire 
country would owe any estate tax in 2013, under a reinstatement of the 
2009 rules, and these estates would face an average effective tax rate 
of just 11.6 percent. Failing to tie tax cuts to job creation is 
irresponsible since it exacerbates our growing deficit without 
bolstering job creation.
  My amendment does not address the step-up in basis. The exemption 
level and rate are consistent with parts of the estate tax proposal 
included in the President's FY2010 and FY2011 Budgets and H.R. 16, the 
intelligent estate tax proposal being put forth by my colleague Mr. 
Levin of the Ways and Means Committee.


                 CLASSROOM EXPENSE DEDUCTION AMENDMENT

  My second amendment would have provided tax relief to school teachers 
by providing them a deduction for qualified out-of-pocket classroom 
expenses of $250 dollars, whether or not they itemize their deductions. 
You may recall Mr. Speaker that the President included this proposal in 
his Budget for Fiscal Year 2013.
  I understand the tremendous personal costs incurred by educators with 
little or no classroom budget. According to a 2006 National School 
Supply and Equipment Association Retail Awareness Study, teachers spend 
an average of $493 out of pocket on school supplies for their own 
classrooms.
  Seven percent of teachers surveyed said they plan to spend more than 
$1,000 of their personal finances on supplies. As education budgets 
face major shortfalls in the recession, that amount is expected to 
increase significantly.
  Beginning in 2002 the IRS allowed for an above-the-line deduction for 
classroom expenses of up to $250. The educator expense deduction allows 
teachers to write off some expenses that they incur to provide books, 
supplies, and other equipment and materials for their classrooms. I 
introduced this amendment and would like to acknowledge the work of my 
colleagues who have put forth legislation advocating this deduction. 
America's teachers from Texas to Maine to Florida to Washington deserve 
our renewed appreciation for their commitment to educating future 
generations.
  Our children should not have to suffer because our teachers are given 
a Hobson's Choice, forced to choose between using their own finances to 
effectively teach a class or forced to cut corners due to budgetary 
restrictions. We promote an increased quality of education by lessening 
the financial burden on them when they are trying to go above and 
beyond their responsibilities is certainly warranted.
  While I am opposed to the portions of H.R. 8 that amount to an 
expensive giveaway to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, I want to 
emphasize that I fully support job-creation and job creators. I also 
support President Obama's vision for change. I share his commitment to 
fighting for low- and middle-income Americans who are the backbone of 
this country and our economy.
  However, this legislation, H.R. 8, especially as it pertains to tax 
cuts for the top 2 percent

[[Page 13075]]

of Americans and estate tax provisions that are regressive and inflate 
the deficit, does not comport with this vision. I have serious 
misgivings about extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the 
expense of our deficit, especially if these tax cuts are not targeted 
towards job creation.


                          DEFICIT AND TAXATION

  You may recall that in the Budget, the Administration calls for 
individual tax reform that: cuts the deficit by $1.5 trillion, 
including the expiration of the high-income 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. As 
a matter of sound fiscal policy, I am supportive of this effort. I 
recognize the putative economic benefits that many attribute to the 
Bush Tax Cuts, but we must ask ourselves are they affordable? There is 
no amount of dynamic scoring that will help penetrate the deficit.
  The President's budget also eliminated inefficient and unfair tax 
breaks for millionaires while making all tax breaks at least as good 
for the middle class as for the wealthy; and observes the Buffett Rule 
that no household making more than $1 million a year pays less than 30 
percent of their income in taxes.
  The individual income tax is a hodgepodge of deductions, exemptions, 
and credits that provide special benefits to selected groups of 
taxpayers and favored forms of consumption and investment. These tax 
preferences make the income tax unfair because they can impose 
radically different burdens on two different taxpayers with the same 
income. In essence, Congress has been picking winners and losers.
  There is absolutely no justification for huge tax cuts. The 
wealthiest tax brackets should not profit at the expense of programs 
keeping struggling families from poverty.
  Bear in mind, the Republican's 2012 budget cut $2 trillion dollars 
more than President Obama's Debt Commission advised, and those cuts 
come from vital social services and safety nets for low-income 
families, children and seniors.
  Tax expenditures also reduce the economy's productivity because 
decisions on earning, spending, and investment are driven by tax 
considerations rather than the price signals that a well-balanced, and 
fair free market economy produces. These expenditures, whether for 
individuals or corporations, are really no different than the much 
ballyhooed entitlement programs, but they have cute names and fancy 
lobbyists.
  Moreover, tax expenditures make the tax system excessively complex 
for honest taxpayers who are trying to comply with the law while 
seeking the benefits to which they are legally entitled.
  The system is so complex that most taxpayers--even those with low 
incomes--now use either a professional tax preparer or tax software. A 
one-page form shouldn't require a tax preparer who earns a percentage 
of the return, or a fee.
  It is not justifiable, especially when some commentators like to 
point out that a number of taxpayers pay no tax--well they somehow 
conveniently forget to mention that these tax scofflaws making $30,000 
dollars a year more than make up for it with a long list of regressive 
taxes at the state and local level.
  The alternative minimum tax, or AMT, was initially designed to ensure 
that all high-income taxpayers paid some income tax, has become the 
poster child for the tax system's failure, requiring Congress to enact 
increasingly expensive temporary patches to prevent the AMT from 
encroaching on millions of middle class households particularly those 
with children, in a web of pointless high tax rates, complexity, and 
unfairness.
  On the deficit reduction front it is important to remember the 
economic crisis that the President inherited. I remember back in 2008 
and 2009, when we experienced the worst recession since the Great 
Depression. The economy actually contracted, it shrunk, at a rate of 
almost 9 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008.
  We lost 800,000 private-sector jobs in January of 2009 alone, and 
unemployment was surging. Those are the conditions the President 
inherited--the car was swerving into the ditch. He was not the driver, 
but he was asked to come in on literally his first day of office, roll-
up his sleeves and figure out how to prevent the car from rolling 
farther down the hill. If you'll recall we also faced a housing market 
that was in crisis, and we faced a financial market crisis as well that 
threatened to set off a global financial collapse. We have come a long 
way since then yet there is more work to be done.
  The cloud looming over this Congress is an unintended ``triple-
witching hour'' of tax increases that will take effect at the beginning 
of 2013.
  The expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, the end of the recently extended 
Payroll Tax Cut, and increases in capital gains and dividends taxation 
will shock the conscience and wallets of the American people. That is 
why Congress needs to enact bi-partisan legislation that helps lower 
the deficit but does not wreck havoc on the financial soul of the 
middle class.
  But again, tax reform that lowers the rate, reduces the deficit, and 
does not pick winners and losers is not easy, but let's not forget, if 
President Reagan and then-Speaker Tip O'Neill could do it in 1986, 
anything is possible.
  The so-called ``99ers'' have been sincerely looking for work for a 
very long time and have run out of resources to provide for their 
families and pay their mortgages, pay their bills and buy food. They 
simply want and need a job to pay for these obligations. H.R. 8 
proposes to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, yet fails to 
provide for the so-called ``99ers.''
  H.R. 8 unfortunately is not ready for prime-time.

                                     The Main Street Alliance,

                                      Seattle, WA, August 1, 2012.
     To: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
     Re Small business support for ending the extra Bush tax cuts 
         for the top 2 percent.

       Dear Representative: As small business owners, we urge you 
     to end the special Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent of 
     income earners, or household income over $250,000 a year. 
     This is the right thing to do for small businesses, our local 
     economies, and America.
       The debate over the Bush tax cuts has been clouded by 
     claims that ending special breaks for the top 2 percent of 
     income earners would impact many small businesses. As small 
     business owners, we know these claims don't square with the 
     facts.
       In reality, only a tiny fraction--roughly 3 percent--of all 
     American taxpayers who report any form of business income on 
     their personal tax returns would be impacted by a change in 
     tax rates for income over $250,000. Even this small fraction 
     includes hedge fund managers, high-powered corporate lawyers, 
     and K Street lobbyists, so the number of real small 
     businesses affected is even fewer.
       Furthermore, the ``trickle down'' theory used to justify 
     extra tax cuts at the top simply doesn't work. When the 
     Congressional Budget Office examined close to a dozen options 
     to jumpstart economic activity and job creation in early 
     2010, it found that extending special tax breaks for the 
     richest Americans was the least effective of all 11 options 
     for creating jobs and boosting the economy.
       Finally, claims about how ending these special tax cuts 
     will impact job creation ignore the most basic fact about 
     what drives small business hiring. Customers drive small 
     business hiring, not tax cuts. We hire when we see 
     opportunities, when demand exceeds the capacity of our 
     current workforce, not because of a tax cut on our take-home 
     income.
       Small businesses need more customers. How do we get there? 
     Build roads and bridges, invest in education, hire teachers 
     and first responders--this will create local jobs, inject 
     money into local economies, and bring more customers into our 
     businesses. But we won't have the resources to do these 
     things if we take the nearly $1 trillion we would raise from 
     ending the extra tax cuts for income over $250,000 and hand 
     it right back in another giveaway to the top.
       We urge you to stand with real small businesses and end the 
     special Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent.
           Sincerely,
         Charles Carter, Boy Genius World Productions, Eureka 
           Springs, AR; William Wallin, Wallin Mental Medical, 
           Richmond, CA; Penny Shaw, Financial Affairs, Cooper 
           City, FL; Ron Dinsdale, Midvale Pinacotheca, Huxley, 
           IA; Laura Schlegel, Mario's Mondo Cafe, Chicago, IL; 
           Iris Marreck, Iris B. Branding & Communications, 
           Northfield, IL; Maude Varela, Kidutopia, New Orleans, 
           LA; Thomas Dougherty, Pancro Cinema Products, Grass 
           Valley, CA; Marian Gallagher, Nube de Helado Software, 
           Inc., San Diego, CA; Jena Schill, Hair stylist, Ames, 
           IA; James Berge, Berge Farms, Kensett, IA; Kristin 
           Aufmann, Aufmann Associates, Ltd., Mount Prospect, IL; 
           Kyle Schulz, Kar-Fre Flowers, Sycamore, IL; Brian 
           England, British American Auto Care Inc., Columbia, MD; 
           Timothy Larive, Larive Appraisal Services, Mount 
           Shasta, CA; Laurie Chadwick, Bed and Biscuits, Santa 
           Cruz, CA; Natalie Dinsdale, TaDah Salon, Ames, IA; 
           ReShonda Young, Alpha Express Inc, Waterloo, IA; David 
           Borris, Hel's Kitchen Catering, Northbrook, IL; Mary 
           Noel Black, The UPS Store @ Citiplace, Baton Rouge, LA; 
           Catherine Cretu, Anaconda Press, Inc., Forestville, MD.
         Jerry Alexandratos, Alexandratos Rental Properties, 
           Frederick, MD; Timothy Floyd, Floyd Consulting, 
           Augusta, ME; Halcyon Blake, Halcyon Yarn, Inc., Bath, 
           ME; Jerry Provencher, MRPS, Bath, ME; Beverly Evans 
           Messer, Electrolysis by Bev, Belfast, ME; Jim

[[Page 13076]]

           Riley, Black Dog Services, Berwick, ME; Alexander 
           Jackimovicz, Jackimovicz Electric, Boothbay, ME; Gloria 
           Coomer, Solarmarine LLC, Brooksville, ME; Steven 
           Klockow, Healing Relationships, Brunswick, ME; Amy 
           Smith, Social Insight, Arrowsic, ME; Gary Friedmann, 
           Bar Harbor Community Farm, Bar Harbor, ME; George 
           Waldman, MainePhotoJournalism.com, Bath, ME; William 
           Savedoff, Social Insight, Bath, ME; Dr Rebekka Freeman, 
           Partners for Change, Belfast, ME; Patricia Vigue, Music 
           Plus, Biddeford, ME; Joan Lee Hunter, Fifth House Lodge 
           Writers' Retreat, Bridgton, ME; Harold Roberts, Coryell 
           Clayworks, Brunswick, ME; Moreen Halmo, Psychologist, 
           Brunswick, ME; Bill Tibbetts, Brookside Auto Repair, 
           Augusta, ME; Emily Henry, Chickadee Hill Flowers, Bar 
           Harbor, ME; Michael Kelly, Michael Thorne Kelly, Inc., 
           Bath, ME; Susan Lubner, Yoga in Bath, Bath, ME; Carol 
           P. Gater, Wealthy Poor House B&B, Belfast, ME; Frank 
           Svatek, Photographer, Biddeford, ME; Ken Converse, 
           Quality Images, Bridgton, ME; Daniel Atkins, Fine Blade 
           Carpentry, Brunswick, ME; Robert Theberge, RC Theberge 
           GC, Inc., Brunswick, ME.
         Laurie Garrec, Westcon Mfg Inc, Brunswick, ME; Anna 
           Dembska, Publishing, Camden, ME; Mark Braun, Mark 
           Braun, MD, Cape Elizabeth, ME; David A. Woolsey, David 
           Woolsey Violinmaker, Ellsworth, ME; Melanie A. Collins, 
           Melanie's Home Childcare, Falmouth, ME; William 
           Berlinghoff, Oxton House Publishers, LLC, Farmington, 
           ME; Nancy Glista, Glista Jewelry, Franklin, ME; Carson 
           Lynch, The Gorham Grind, Gorham, ME; Steve Workman, 
           Workman Management Consulting, Kittery, ME; Jennifer 
           Porter, Honey Tree Films, Buxton, ME; Constance Jordan, 
           Behavioral Health Resources, Cape Elizabeth, ME; Mary 
           Ellen Serina, Paradise Studio, East Boothbay, ME; 
           Edward Grohoski, Ed's Electric Inc., Ellsworth, ME; Ned 
           Kitchel, Quaker Marine Supply Co, Falmouth, ME; Emery 
           Goff, The Old Barn Annex Antiques, Farmington, ME; 
           David Hutchinson, Checkout Convenience Stores, 
           Glenburn, ME; Doris Luther, Mediation & Conflict 
           Resolution Services, Hollis, ME; Edward Walworth, MD, 
           Retired Surgeon, Lewiston, ME; Mallory Hattie, Raising 
           Canine Maine Dog Training, Buxton, ME; Scott 
           Cronenweth, Freelance writer, Cape Elizabeth, ME; 
           Sandra Fayle, Faraway Antique Shop, East Millinocket, 
           ME; Kathryn Gannon, Gannon-Janelle Interiors, Falmouth, 
           ME; Sandra Stanton, Artist, Farmington, ME; Beth 
           Labaugh, Kennebec Therapeutics, Fayette, ME; Elizabeth 
           Beane, Clinical Social Worker, Private Practice, 
           Gorham, ME; Gary McGrane, GT McGrane Builders, Jay, ME; 
           Craig Saddlemire, Round Point Movies, Lewiston, ME.
         Mike Relac, Fox Hill Associates, Inc., Limington, ME; 
           Cheryl L. Wilder, Pine Street Redemption Center, 
           Madison, ME; John Sweet, Sweet Timber Frames, Mount 
           Desert, ME; Marla Bottesch, Snowbound Books, 
           Norridgewock, ME; Dotty Caldwell, Dorothy Caldwell, 
           LCPC, Penobscot, ME; Elizabeth Della Valle, Elizabeth A 
           Della Valle, AICP, Portland, ME; Joel Bolton, Internet 
           Island Web Development, Portland, ME; Jennifer Lunden, 
           The Center for Creative Healing, Portland, ME; Abi 
           Morrison, Red Bird Acupuncture, Rockland, ME; Scott 
           Gaiason, Bear Wood, Lisbon Falls, ME; Susan 
           D'Alessandro, Maine Nature & Nostalgia, Millinocket, 
           ME; Jessie Greenbaum, Therapeutic Massage, Mount 
           Desert, ME; Irja Frank, Frank Translations, Orono, ME; 
           Cynthia L. Cochran, Cynthia L Cochran, CPA, Portland, 
           ME; Martha Fenton, Freelance writer, Portland, ME; 
           Cecile Deroche-Cain, Musician, Portland, ME; Mary 
           Zarate, Z Fabrics, Portland, ME; Ginger Woods, Self-
           employed, Rumford, ME; Elizabeth Como, Winter Journeys, 
           Lovell, ME; John Ackerman, Residence, Mount Desert, ME; 
           Winston Mctague, Jr, Mctague Logging, Newport, ME; Geno 
           Scalzo, Shipwright, Owls Head, ME; Gary Ameika, Dune 
           Marketing, Portland, ME; Dr. Wendy Pollock, Inner 
           Shores, Portland, ME; Barbara McKim, Psychologist--
           Private Practice, Portland, ME; Joanne Dunlap, Mo's 
           Variety, Rangeley, ME; Susan Littlefield, Echo Farm 
           Pottery, Saco, ME.
         Mattthew B. Westerlund, Matt Westerlund Financial 
           Services, Sanford, ME; Shahzad Kirmani, VisionMaster, 
           Inc., Scarborough, ME; Frank Ridley, Different Drummer 
           Workshop, Solon, ME; Priscilla Skerry, Healing Routes, 
           South Portland, ME; Ann Breeden, Spring Woods Gallery, 
           Sullivan, ME; John H. Noyes, The Picture Framer, Inc., 
           Topsham, ME; Earl Morse, Waterford Design, Waterford, 
           ME; Bill Nave, Bill Nave Consulting, Winthrop, ME; Mary 
           Campbell, Everyday Wines, Ann Arbor, MI; Edwin Farrarr 
           AE Profit Solutions, Scarborough, ME; Joe Thompson, 
           Salt Pond Rowing, Sedgwick, ME; Bonnie Jackson, Bonnie 
           Jackson Remodeling, South Portland, ME; Artis Bernard, 
           Inleaf Press, South Portland, ME; Eileen Mielenhausen, 
           Healing & Expressive Arts Retreats of Maine, Surry, ME; 
           Seth Hall, S & J Llama LLC, Waldoboro, ME; John 
           O'Donnell, Tilton & O'Donnell Law Offices, Waterville, 
           ME; David Mercer, Mercer & Sons, Yarmouth, ME; Steve 
           Koch, Midnight Security & Communications Inc, Flint, 
           MI; Allegra Kirmani, Heart Art Studios, Inc, 
           Scarborough, ME; Pat Berger, The Pond, Sidney, ME; 
           Georgia Williamson, Georgia Deveres Studio, South 
           Portland, ME; William Clarke, CIMPAC INC, St George, 
           ME; David Hynd, Carpentry, Thomaston, ME; Mitch Kihn, 
           Mid-Maine Forestry, Warren, ME; Tori Stenbak, Stenbak 
           Law Offices, PA, Westbrook, ME; Chris Barbour, Barbour 
           Computing, York, ME; Mary Bridge, Hip Hoopla LLC, 
           Chesterfield, MO.
         James Hoffmann, Hoffmann/Morgan Architects, Missoula, MT; 
           Elizabeth Wood, Crossroads Veterinary Clinic, Cortland, 
           NY; Ann Stanley, Radiant Health Acupuncture and 
           Massage, LTD, Bend, OR; Michael O'Shea, Tiffany and 
           O'Shea, Inc, Happy Valley, OR; Karen Mccarthy, Madras 
           Garden Depot, Madras, OR; Vincent Alvarez, Peanuts on 
           the Half Shell, Milwaukie, OR; Thomas Karwaki, CAI, 
           Portland, OR; Michael Schulte, Joe's Garage, Portland, 
           OR; Steve Hanrahan, Mirador Community Store, Portland, 
           OR; Kent Watson, Kent Watson & Associates, Missoula, 
           MT; Freddy Castiblanco, Terraza 7, Elmhurst, NY; Kate 
           Lindburg, Animal Crackers Pet Supply, Corvallis, OR; 
           Peter Bluett, Pete Bluett Sculpture, Lake Oswego, OR; 
           Barbara Byram, Barbara Byram Consulting, Medford, OR; 
           Jim Gilbert, Northwoods Nursery, Molalla, OR; Sherry 
           Dirks, Gray Bear Construction Co., Portland, OR; Samuel 
           Pardue, Lensbaby, Portland, OR; Peter Rossing, Muse Art 
           and Design, Portland, OR; J. Kelly Conklin, Foley-Waite 
           Associates Inc, Bloomfield, NJ; Greg Nickle, Nickle & 
           Associates, Tulsa, OK; Brian McDonald, Gresham Music, 
           Gresham, OR; Karen Alexander-Brown, Wind Song at the 
           Sea Gypsy, Lincoln City, OR; Mark Kellenbeck, BrainJoy 
           LLC, Medford, OR; John Mullin, Amallegory Productions, 
           Oregon City, OR; Bruce Chaser, Hawthorne Wellness 
           Center, Portland, OR; Moses Ross, M. J. Ross Group, 
           Inc., Portland, OR; Deborah and John Field, Paperjam 
           Press, Portland, OR.
         Judith Wallace, Serenity Shop, Portland, OR; Brian 
           Setzler, CPA, TriLibrium, Portland, OR; Hank Keeton, 
           Keeton Corporation, Scotts Mills, OR; Aylene Geringer, 
           The Chocolate Box, Silverton, OR; Gary Mazzilli, 
           Outsource Estimating Inc., Hayes, VA; Chuck Robinson, 
           Village Books, Bellingham, WA; Robert Jekel, Parkade 
           Hobbies, Kennewick, WA; Diana Thompson, Harmony 
           SoapWorks, Ocean Park, WA; Dan Emerson, Summit View Pet 
           Clinic, Puyallup, WA; Tamara Maher, Tamara B Maher PC, 
           Portland, OR; Jack Coelho, Vital Body Studio, Portland, 
           OR; Victor Madge, Architecture, Silverton, OR; Terrell 
           McDaniel, Hughes McDaniel and Associates, 
           Hendersonville, TN; Diane Middaugh, Quik Tan, Bellevue, 
           WA; Dante Montoya, Dante Lee Montoya CPA, Kennewick, 
           WA; Allan Willis, Tri-City Music, Kennewick, WA; 
           Carolyne Hart, Olympia Frameworks, Olympia, WA; Laura 
           Waite, Jay's Professional Automotive, Renton, WA; KB 
           Mercer, Traveling Lantern, Portland, OR; Jose Gonzalez, 
           Tu Casa real Estate, Salem, OR; Jason Freilinger, 
           Freilinger Electronics, Inc., Silverton, OR; Martha 
           Eberle, WildWoods of Texas, Dripping Springs, TX; Ben 
           Knudsen, DIGS, Bellingham, WA; Rick Van Heel, Music 
           Machine, Kennewick, WA; Consuelo Gomez, Marty K Inc., 
           Mercer Island, WA; Randy Eakman, Finish Craft, Pasco, 
           WA; Sarah Stegner, Again and A Gain, Seattle, WA.
         Eli Reich, Alchemy Goods, Seattle, WA; Beth Sanders, 
           Athena Video Arts, Seattle, WA; Dan McComb, BizNik, 
           Seattle, WA; Jody Hall, Cupcake Royale, Seattle, WA; 
           Laureen Kelly, Einstein Signs, Seattle, WA; Frank 
           Taylor, Frank's Barber/Salon, Seattle, WA; Kathryn 
           Hooks, J.O.Y Unlimited, Seattle, WA; Tarek Gelate, Lucy 
           Ethiopian Restaurant, Seattle, WA; Beckie Lindley, 
           Merry Tails & Dog Alley, Seattle, WA; Valeriy 
           Arrymanon, Alliuan, Inc, Seattle, WA; Ed Whitfield, BBQ 
           Pit, Seattle, WA; Nicole Miller, Blackbird, Seattle, 
           WA; Keith Gormezano, Dr. Quick Books, Inc., Seattle, 
           WA; Peter Aaron, Elliott Bay

[[Page 13077]]

           Book Company, Seattle, WA; Eduardo Revelo, Guaracos 
           Tacos, Seattle, WA; Yong Kim, Jackson Cleaners, 
           Seattle, WA; Malia Keene, Magpie, Seattle, WA; Mary 
           Clark, Merryweather Books, Seattle, WA; Annie Davis, 
           Annie's Nannies Inc, Seattle, WA; Joline El-Hai, Bella 
           Luz Studio, Seattle, WA; Joshua Huisenga, Chalkbox 
           Creative, LLC, Seattle, WA; Berhane Amanuel, East 
           African Imports, Seattle, WA; JK Burwell, Family 
           Heritage, Seattle, WA; Theo Martin, Island Soul, 
           Seattle, WA; Heather Caldwell, Kismet Salon, Seattle, 
           WA; Terry, Many Many Moons, Seattle, WA; Jack Burg, 
           Montlake Mousse, Seattle, WA; Dale Russ, Morning Dew 
           Productions, Seattle, WA; Mohammed Almatn, Professional 
           Copy/Print, Seattle, WA; Wasif Qadri, Shalimar Indian/
           Pakistani Cuisine, Seattle, WA.
         Brian Wells, Tougo Coffee, Seattle, WA; Anil Shrestha, 
           University Food & Deli, Seattle, WA; Mari Cook, Voyeur, 
           Seattle, WA; Steven Hall, MD, Steven M. Hall, MD, 
           Snoqualmie, WA; Eben Cole, Cole Music Co, Spokane, WA; 
           Jason Berg, Infinity Fitness, Spokane, WA; Carl 
           Medeiros, Panache Clothing, Seattle, WA; Eduardo Marlo, 
           Puerto Vallarta Mexican Restaurant, Seattle, WA; Jason 
           Grimes, Spin Cycle, Seattle, WA; Mohammed Toure, Toure 
           Apparel, Seattle, WA; Lois Ko, University Haagen Dais, 
           Seattle, WA; Park, Western Beauty Supply, Seattle, WA; 
           Mark Gerard, Advanced Radon, Spokane, WA; John Frian, 
           Frian Farms, Spokane, WA; Nate Coming, Mark's Guitar 
           Shop, Spokane, WA; Pirkko Karhunen, Pirkko, Seattle, 
           WA; Ben Jenkins, Shadowland, Seattle, WA; Ryan Calkins, 
           Statements, Seattle, WA; Kirk Strong, University Ave 
           Barber, Seattle, WA; Andrew Park, University Teriyaki, 
           Seattle, WA; Deborah Cziske, Cascade Industrial Supply, 
           Shoreline, WA; Michael Bonnes, Brooklyn Deli, Spokane, 
           WA; Rick Ericksen, Halpins, Spokane, WA; Larry Lent, 
           Mr. J's Take & Bake Pizza, Spokane, WA; Janine Vaughn, 
           Revival Lighting, Spokane, WA; Mollie Fenton, Fenton/
           Stahl Gallery, Walla Walla, WA; James Kytonen, Violin 
           Works, Spokane, WA; Wayne Chabre, Wayne Chabre 
           Sculptor, Walla Walla, WA; Rob Robinson, Building 
           Dynamics LLC, Walla Walla, WA.

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Steve King.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for 
yielding and for leading this reform debate for real tax reform.
  In the time I came to this Congress, I have made the pledge that I 
would push for tax reform. I believed at the time that the debate that 
had been taking place in this Congress over the preceding years would 
flow into the following years.
  I remember the inspiration that came when Billy Tauzin and Dick Armey 
went around the country and debated tax reform between the flat tax and 
the Fair Tax. I don't ever remember anyone debating in favor of the 
Fair Tax having lost that debate. But we had a real tax reform debate.
  And in this time--and I have pushed in my time in this Congress--I 
can think of only one time that we have had a serious debate on tax 
reform, and that was at a time when we had some debate, and I testified 
before the Ways and Means Committee in favor of a national sales tax.
  This rule that's before us expedites this debate. It expedites the 
consideration of a bill providing for comprehensive tax reform. And I 
look at the conditions that are in here. There are five conditions that 
are written in, and the Fair Tax meets all of those conditions, I 
think, by design.
  I am looking forward to an open debate that will take place at least 
within the Ways and Means Committee and hopefully come here to the 
floor. It says to me, as I look at this rule, that the legitimate 
proposals that would come for real tax reform will be in order before 
the Ways and Means Committee.
  So I encourage those committee members, as this expedited debate 
takes place, to bring your reforms to the Ways and Means Committee. 
Bring them in the form of amendment. Let's have a real debate. Let's 
put the Fair Tax up against everything else.

                              {time}  1330

  And I have done that now since about 1980. And even though I have 
lost a couple of debates with my wife and some with my family, and even 
one or two with my staff, I've never lost a debate on the fair tax 
because the American people understand this--right now, the Federal 
Government has a first lien on all productivity in America. If you 
punch a time clock on Monday morning, just imagine, Uncle Sam is 
standing there by that time clock. When it goes thunk, his hand goes 
out and he gets into his hand what he wants until he gets his share, 
and then he puts it in his pocket and you get to keep what's left.
  Let's change the tax from production to consumption. Let America 
grow, let America breathe, to quote the Congressman from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague 
if he has further speakers?
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I have one.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Speaker, I thank my freshman colleague from 
South Carolina.
  I rise today in support of this rule. America has waited long enough 
for the uncertainty over taxes to go away. This rule gives us the 
opportunity to avoid a huge tax increase and gives us the opportunity 
to have that debate about a fairer, flatter, simpler tax that the 
American people want and need and this economy wants and needs.
  You know, we shouldn't be having a big argument over these 
extensions. They passed on a bipartisan basis under Speaker Pelosi. 
They should pass on a bipartisan basis this time. We do not need the 
politics of envy and divisiveness. We need tax reform, and this puts us 
on the path to do it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time 
to close.
  Madam Speaker, we understand the majority intends to have a last-
minute change in the rule. The amendment would create a number of 
obstacles to middle class tax cuts. And under the last-minute change, 
the middle class taxes could not be cut until the Senate has approved 
the entire Republican tax reform agenda, and we certainly don't need 
that kind of obstacle and we don't need that kind of bill. We need 
quick action on tax cuts, so I hope we can get that today. But let me 
remind you that you need to vote against this rule, unless you want the 
Republican bill to pass automatically.
  The Senate-passed tax cuts are a simple and fair extension of tax 
cuts that will directly benefit the middle class. It was quite 
wonderful to see the Senate of the United States do the sensible thing 
and say that everyone making $250,000 and under would receive a tax 
cut. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
the only ones standing in the way of the tax cut becoming law.
  Their flawed alternative proposal demands that any middle class tax 
cut be accompanied by an additional tax cut for the richest 2 percent. 
Such a proposal would be and has been a fiscal disaster. It would 
explode the Nation's deficit, fail to create jobs, and perpetuate the 
record of inequality facing our Nation.
  The oft-repeated premise that we need to protect job creators--who 
haven't created new jobs--with lower corporate taxes and lower taxes 
for the wealthy should be put to bed. It has been thoroughly and 
convincingly disproven.
  Instead of protecting tax loopholes for corporations that ship jobs 
overseas and serving the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, we 
should be making the Tax Code more simple and fair and asking everyone 
just to pay their fair share. Our proposed middle class tax cut would 
be a great first step towards doing just that.
  In addition, Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to give the House a vote on H. Res. 
746, which would prohibit us from going home until the President signs 
middle class tax cuts into law. Otherwise, we will be

[[Page 13078]]

going home perhaps tomorrow with that undone.
  There is no excuse for Congress to go on summer vacation at the end 
of this week. No other American leaves work with a job half done, and 
neither should we. It is our duty to deliver results for the American 
people, and we should not leave this town until every middle class 
family has a tax cut in their hands.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to support the middle class tax 
cuts, to vote ``no'' on the rule and on ordering the previous question.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to put the amendment and other 
extraneous material in the Record immediately prior to the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I wonder what my friend 
from Texas would have said, if she was still here, to the 253,000 
women, small business owners, who will be impacted by higher taxes 
based on the actions of our friends on the left. I wonder, Madam 
Speaker, what my friends on the left would say to the 710,000 newly 
unemployed Americans because of their actions on the left? I wonder, 
Madam Speaker, what my friends on the left would say to the senior 
citizens who make less than $100,000, to the senior citizens who make 
less than $50,000 who would see a 185 percent increase on their taxes 
for their dividend income?
  Madam Speaker, my friends on the left have asked a very interesting 
and telling question when they asked: Who deserves a tax increase? 
Well, we on the right have a very clear answer to that question. We 
believe everybody deserves a tax decrease.
  Madam Speaker, with unemployment for the 41st month over 8 percent, 
with unemployment in south Atlanta over 9.4 percent, I would suggest, 
Madam Speaker, now is not the time to engineer fairness. Now is a time 
for us to keep taxes low.
  Madam Speaker, everyone in this room can agree we need to take steps 
to turn our economy around. But while one side of the room wants to 
divide our Nation to do so, we understand that punishing some Americans 
in the name of helping others is not the solution. We must lift 
everyone up; otherwise, we will all just end up in the squishy, 
nebulous middle. And America isn't about being mediocre. America is 
about being the best, the strongest, and the leader of the free world. 
Let's stay there as a Nation.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Scott of South Carolina

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I move to amend the 
resolution with the amendment I have placed at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Add the following new section:
       Sec. 10. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 8 the Clerk shall--
       (1) add the text of H.R. 6169, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 8;
       (2) conform the title of H.R. 8 to reflect the addition of 
     H.R. 6169, as passed by the House, to the engrossment;
       (3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (4) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       (b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 6169, as passed 
     by the House, to the engrossment of H.R. 8, H.R. 6169 shall 
     be laid on the table.

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, the amendment instructs 
the Clerk to add the text of H.R. 6169 as new matter at the end of H.R. 
8 before transmitting the bill to the Senate.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 747 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 10. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 746) prohibiting the consideration of a 
     concurrent resolution providing for adjournment or 
     adjournment sine die unless a law is enacted to provide for 
     the extension of certain expired or expiring tax provisions 
     that apply to middle-income taxpayers if called up by 
     Representative Slaughter of New York or her designee. All 
     points of order against the resolution and against its 
     consideration are waived.
                                  ____

       (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. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on 
the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time of any electronic vote on the 
question of adoption of the amendment, if ordered, and adoption of the 
resolution, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 183, not voting 7, as follows:

[[Page 13079]]



                             [Roll No. 540]

                               YEAS--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     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
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     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
     Paul
     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 (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
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--183

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     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
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     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
     Israel
     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
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     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
     Slaughter
     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--7

     Akin
     Cardoza
     Cravaack
     Dingell
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Sullivan

                              {time}  1404

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 238, 
noes 186, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 541]

                               AYES--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     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
     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
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     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
     Paul
     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 (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     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
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--186

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     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
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva

[[Page 13080]]


     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     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
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     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
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     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--6

     Akin
     Cardoza
     Dingell
     Eshoo
     Jackson (IL)
     Jordan


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1411

  Mr. BOREN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 184, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 542]

                               AYES--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     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
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     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 (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     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
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--184

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     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
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     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
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     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
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     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--6

     Akin
     Cardoza
     Dingell
     Gutierrez
     Jackson (IL)
     McKinley


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1420

  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.

                          ____________________