[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13111-13131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          JOB PROTECTION AND RECESSION PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 747, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 8) to extend certain tax relief provisions enacted in 
2001 and 2003, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 747, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                 H.R. 8

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Job Protection and Recession 
     Prevention Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF 2001 AND 2003 TAX RELIEF.

       (a) Extension of 2001 Tax Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 2012'' both places it appears and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2013''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.
       (b) Extension of 2003 Tax Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Section 303 of the Jobs and Growth Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 2012'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Jobs 
     and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF INCREASED SMALL BUSINESS EXPENSING.

       (a) Dollar Limitation.--Section 179(b)(1) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C), by 
     redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E), and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) $100,000 in the case of taxable years beginning in 
     2013, and'', and
       (2) by striking ``2012'' in subparagraph (E) (as 
     redesignated by paragraph (1)) and inserting ``2013''.
       (b) Reduction in Limitation.--Section 179(b)(2) of such 
     Code is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C), by 
     redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E), and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) $400,000 in the case of taxable years beginning in 
     2013, and'', and
       (2) by striking ``2012'' in subparagraph (E) (as 
     redesignated by paragraph (1)) and inserting ``2013''.
       (c) Application of Inflation Adjustment.--Section 
     179(b)(6)(A) of such Code is amended--
       (1) by striking ``calendar year 2012, the $125,000 and 
     $500,000 amounts in paragraphs (1)(C) and (2)(C)'' in the 
     matter preceding clause (i) and inserting ``calendar year 
     2013, the $100,000 and $400,000 amounts in paragraphs (1)(D) 
     and (2)(D)'', and
       (2) by striking ``calendar year 2006'' in clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``calendar year 2002''.
       (d) Computer Software.--Section 179(d)(1)(A)(ii) of such 
     Code is amended by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2014''.
       (e) Special Rule for Revocation of Elections.--Section 
     179(c)(2) of such Code is amended by striking ``2013'' and 
     inserting ``2014''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2012.

     SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR 
                   INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Extension of Increased Alternative Minimum Tax 
     Exemption Amount.--Section 55(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$72,450'' and all that follows through 
     ``2011'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting ``$78,750 in the 
     case of taxable years beginning in 2012 and $79,850 in the 
     case of taxable years beginning in 2013'', and
       (2) by striking ``$47,450'' and all that follows through 
     ``2011'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting ``$50,600 in the 
     case of taxable years beginning in 2012 and $51,150 in the 
     case of taxable years beginning in 2013''.
       (b) Extension of Alternative Minimum Tax Relief for 
     Nonrefundable Personal Credits.--Section 26(a)(2) of such 
     Code is amended--
       (1) by striking ``during 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 
     2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2011'' and inserting 
     ``after 1999 and before 2014'', and
       (2) by striking ``2011'' in the heading thereof and 
     inserting ``2013''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2011.

     SEC. 5. TREATMENT FOR PAYGO PURPOSES.

       The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on 
     either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of 
     the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in part B of House Report 112-641, if offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) or his designee, which shall be considered 
read and shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 8.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession 
Prevention Act. In doing so, I and my fellow Republican House 
colleagues have made an important choice--the choice to focus on job 
creation. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
who oppose this important piece of legislation have made a different 
choice--the choice to focus on tax hikes that destroy jobs.
  The Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act stops the tax hike we 
face at the end of the year and provides a 1-year extension of the low 
tax policies originally enacted in 2001 and 2003 and then extended 
again in 2010. The 2010 bill was supported by 85 current House 
Democrats, 40 current Senate Democrats, and President Obama.
  Importantly, this legislation allows Congress time to pass and enact 
comprehensive tax reform without causing undue harm to our fragile 
economy. Economists have noted that comprehensive tax reform, when 
paired

[[Page 13112]]

with appropriate government spending cuts, could lead to the creation 
of 1 million American jobs in the first year alone.
  The choice Republicans have made is to pass this bill, work toward 
comprehensive tax reform, and create jobs. In contrast, my Democrat 
colleagues have proposed raising taxes. They claim the tax hike will 
only affect the rich. What they don't want to tell you is that, in 
reality, this tax hike will hit nearly 1 million small businesses and 
53 percent of small business income. A study conducted by Ernst & Young 
concluded that the Democrat tax hike could lead to the loss of over 
700,000 jobs. That is the choice the Democrats have made--to raise 
taxes on families and small businesses and to destroy jobs.
  As this chart illustrates, America is at a crossroads. The question 
is: Which path will our country take? The Democrats' path includes tax 
hikes that will cause small businesses to lose 700,000 jobs. The 
Republicans' tax reform path will make the Tax Code simpler and fairer, 
and it will lead to the creation of more than 1 million jobs in the 
first year.
  What is even worse is that, in their quest to raise taxes on the so-
called ``wealthy,'' several of my Democrat colleagues have made it 
clear that they are willing to hold low- and middle-income Americans 
hostage by threatening to let all income tax rates rise as scheduled at 
the end of the year if they don't get their way. These massive and 
imminent tax hikes are part of the fiscal cliff, or ``jobs cliff'' as I 
often refer to it, that we face at the end of this year. The 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that going over the 
fiscal cliff could cost America 2 million to 3 million jobs. This would 
be a devastating blow to almost 13 million Americans who are 
unemployed, as well as to middle class Americans who have been 
struggling in the Obama economy.
  Mr. Speaker, the choice, to me, is obvious. Let's pass this bill. 
Let's work toward comprehensive tax reform that creates a simpler, 
fairer Tax Code for all Americans and, most importantly, that creates 
the jobs that we so badly need.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider 
their choice to increase taxes and destroy over 700,000 jobs. Now is 
not the time to dig the hole we are in any deeper. Instead, Democrats 
should take the advice of people like President Bill Clinton and former 
economic adviser to President Obama, Larry Summers, and join 
Republicans to stop the tax hike, work to strengthen our economy, and 
get our country back on track.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There is a choice to be made here, and it isn't what the chairman has 
put forth for one second. Everyone in this body agrees that we should 
extend the middle class tax cut. The Senate passed a bill that does 
just that. The President is ready to sign it this week.

                              {time}  1530

  The middle class families of this country need certainty, not some 
vague promises about something to be done in the future. The question 
is: If everybody agrees that we should continue the middle class tax 
cut, why don't we come together? The answer is this: The Senate bill 
continues all of the tax cuts for every American household on their 
first $250,000 of income; 114 million families would see their tax cuts 
extended in full; 97 percent of small businesses would keep all of 
their tax cuts, according to the Joint Taxation Committee. Why don't 
the Republicans join us in acting?
  I think the answer is clear. This chart shows it. They're insistent. 
Their priority is cutting taxes for the very wealthy. They want to give 
households that earn more than $1 million a year a tax cut on average 
of $160,000. This chart shows it. What we have here for middle class 
families, $2,200; for the very wealthy, $160,000. That's over 70 times 
more of a tax cut for millionaires than for typical families. What 
makes it worse, if possible, is it would add $49 billion to the 
deficit.
  This Republican bill also would raise taxes on 25 million families. 
Those who benefited from the EITC, the child tax credit, and a higher 
education tax credit, that they would eliminate altogether. It's still 
worse. The bill we're going to discuss tomorrow, the so-called ``tax 
reform,'' essentially would provide someone earning more than $1 
million a $331,000 tax cut.
  This debate is not about tax reform. It's about whether or not we 
protect the very wealthy at all costs--at all costs at the expense of 
middle-income families, and everybody except the very wealthy. This 
talk about 700,000 jobs being lost, that study was financed by special 
interest friends, and it's been discredited by every fact checker.
  They're talking about 70 times more for the millionaire than for 
middle-income families on average, when in 2010, 93 percent of income 
growth went to the top 1 percent of wealthy households. And they come 
here and say that their first priority is protecting the very wealthy.
  This isn't about tax reform. We need to work on this. This is about 
whether the first priority of the Republicans is protecting the very 
wealthy, holding hostage middle-income families. Let the middle-income 
family hostages be released. Join together for what everybody says 
they're for. Let's pass today our substitute and give a middle-income 
tax cut to everybody, including 97 percent of small businesses.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, this House must act to stop the midnight tax 
hike that threatens to hit all American taxpayers on December 31. This 
midnight menace includes a 50 percent cut in the value of the child tax 
credit, higher taxes on dividends for seniors living on fixed incomes, 
the return of the infamous marriage penalty for working families, and 
the alternative minimum tax, ensnaring middle-income taxpayers.
  An average family of four with an income of $50,000 could see a tax 
increase of almost $2,200 a year. The President says he wants to stop 
the midnight tax hike for some taxpayers, but not all. He claims that 
he merely wants the wealthy to pay more. The truth is that his tax 
increase proposal would especially hit small business owners. As 
someone who comes from a small business background myself, I understand 
that many small businesses pay taxes as individuals. Their income 
includes money that they reinvest in the business to expand and hire 
more workers. A big tax increase could harm the very businesses we are 
relying on to create more jobs. In fact, a new study by Ernst & Young 
suggests that the President's tax proposal would cost more than 700,000 
American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, what lane will you choose? I urge the House to pass H.R. 
8 and prevent a tax hike for all Americans.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  When you look at Mr. Herger's district, he's standing up to protect 
180 people who have income over $1 million, sacrificing a middle-income 
tax cut for 285,000.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished former chairman and a 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I've never been so fortunate in this House 
to have the Republicans state the argument as clearly as they have this 
afternoon, and I think Wally Herger said it. It is possible that we're 
not talking about a tax cut. People working every day trying to make 
ends meet, they don't know the wonderful tax cut that they are 
enjoying, but you bet your life if we don't come together, if we don't 
reach agreement, they'll understand what a tax hike is. That's exactly 
what's going to happen to 98 percent of the tax-paying people of this 
great country.
  Taxpayers, who work every day, who raise their families, who buy from 
the local merchants that keep small business alive, are going to find 
out, probably too late, that the Republican Party says you don't 
deserve the lower tax rate. Then they may ask: What's holding this up 
if everyone agrees that they should have it?

[[Page 13113]]

  We're going to have to explain to the middle class what the 
Republicans are explaining to us: that somehow we are to believe that 
less than 2 percent of the population is creating the jobs and really 
supporting the economy. I don't know where they've been or how they're 
going to come back, but they haven't been creating jobs, and they 
haven't been spending and investing money. Even if there was a 
controversy, why the heck are we holding hostage 98 percent of the 
people?
  If Republicans agree and Democrats agree and liberals and 
conservatives and even Tea Party people agree that these people who 
work hard every day should continue to have this tax cut, then why the 
heck don't we agree to give it to them? If it ever becomes that we're 
in a political debate, and it's only about less than 2 percent of 100 
percent, then let's fight like the devil over that and see who 
prevails. But it's not going to be hard for us to explain this. If you 
do this to the hardworking American people, shame on you.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Roskam), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to pause and just listen and think through a couple of 
the arguments that we've been hearing over the past couple of weeks 
from our friends on the other side of the aisle and from the President 
of the United States, and one is that people should pay their fair 
share. Now, that's an interesting argument, Mr. Speaker, and let's look 
at that a little bit closer.
  So, if the President's will were to prevail on this, in other words, 
if this tax hike goes into place, then the top tax rate for some small 
businesses would be over 44 percent. Now, contrast that to the top tax 
rate that President Obama is proposing, which would be 28 percent.
  All afternoon you are going to hear a lot of things go back and 
forth, but you won't hear anyone contradict those numbers and that 
disparity, Mr. Speaker, because they are true. There is no sense in 
telling corporations, You get a 28 percent rate, and the top rate for 
small business is 44 percent. There's nothing fair about that.
  All right. Well, let's look at another argument.
  Another argument is that this somehow closes a budget gap and this is 
deficit reduction, and we're all about deficit reduction and let's have 
at it. Well, a little secret on the deficit reduction is, at best, the 
most generous estimate is this would take care of--what?--maybe 7, 8, 
9, 10 days of spending, maybe. But who would pay the cost for that? 
I'll tell you who pays the cost for that. The job creators and the 
people that are looking for jobs right now, Mr. Speaker, according to 
Ernst & Young and others that have looked at this. Some estimates are 
that it would cost 700,000 jobs.
  Now, I know nobody that is willing to say, You know what? We've just 
got too many jobs. Let's just thin the herd. There are too many people 
working. Let's thin the herd. There are too many people working. And 
let's do it because of Democratic dogma.
  We have got leading Democrats on the other side of the rotunda who 
have said, Let's embrace the fiscal cliff. Let's just grab onto the 
dogma and go right off the cliff, regardless of the outcome.
  Well, you know what? That's ridiculous.
  And we have an opportunity here to make some certainty to move to the 
next year--not to move to the next year just for the sake of another 
year, but to move to next year to fundamentally reform our tax system, 
to create a more competitive Tax Code that is broad and fair and wise 
and well thought out and that does what--that creates the most 
competitive Tax Code in the world right here in the United States. Mr. 
Speaker, it could be great. We could have a great Tax Code, but what 
we've got to do is create a year of certainty to move forward.
  I urge passage of this.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  You know, it's ironical that the gentleman from Illinois minimizes 
adding $50 billion to the deficit over 10 years, if continued, which is 
your policy, continued the high income. A trillion dollars, that's 
something you just shrug your shoulders at?
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, Earl Blumenauer, 
another distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is an interesting question: Which lane are we 
going to choose?
  The study that has been offered by our friends on the other side of 
the aisle is bogus, and I invite people to actually look at it and look 
at the critiques that have been offered up.
  But we've had a real-life experiment because these tax rates that are 
being talked about were exactly what we had in the Clinton years, at 
which time some of our good friends on the other side of the aisle 
predicted calamity, job loss, and that the economy would crash. What, 
in fact, happened is that we created 22 million jobs.
  What has happened is that, when they had a chance to experiment with 
their vision in the Bush years, where they put in place these tax 
reductions, if they would have worked, what would have happened? Did 
employment even match what happened in the Clinton years? No. In fact, 
it was less than 5 percent of what happened in the 8 years of Bill 
Clinton.
  In fact, the Obama administration--after the first few months when it 
was in office and could be credited with responsibility for the 
economy--has produced more private sector jobs than the entire Bush 
administration in 8 years. The job loss that's gone negative has been 
slashing in the public sector, primarily teachers and firefighters and 
police officers at the State and local levels.
  Mr. Speaker, the strategy here is to continue punting. My Republican 
friends are punting on the farm bill. My Republican friends are punting 
on SGR. They are now proposing a budget solution that gets us past the 
election because they can't face up to their own Tea Party extremists, 
and they're split.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. That's what is at stake here.
  I would suggest that we take what we ought to be able to agree on, 
the 98 percent of this tax reduction, agree on that, not punt, give 
some real certainty, and then have an honest debate about their 
proposal to increase taxes on the middle class at the expense of being 
able to provide for the richest of Americans. Let's have that debate. 
Let's not hold people hostage in the short term.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the distinguished chairman of the 
Trade Subcommittee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Chairman Camp's 
leadership on this important jobs issue.
  For America, this recovery is the weakest since World War II. It's 
dead last. Millions of Americans can't find work. Millions of Americans 
have given up looking for work. Businesses along Main Street are 
struggling. Business confidence is down. Consumer confidence is down. 
This economy is not working, but yet the President has a plan. He gave 
it to us a couple of weeks ago. He said, I want to raise taxes on small 
businesses and professionals.
  But here is the cost in real terms for our economy: 700,000 more 
Americans will be kicked to the unemployment line; the economy will 
grow slower, in fact, it will shrink; paychecks will shrink; there will 
be less investment in America.
  What kind of plan is that for a recovery?
  And also, seniors are going to write more checks in capital gains and 
dividends to Uncle Sam, the dividends they live on. Small businesses 
will be able to expand less often because of this.
  Republicans think there is a different choice for America's economy. 
We want to stop the tax hikes. We want to grow this economy by 1 
million new

[[Page 13114]]

jobs. We want to make sure that when you, as a senior, save your whole 
life, you invest in dividends in a home and land, that you keep it to 
survive in your retirement years. We want to make sure the death tax 
doesn't come back to life.
  Think about this: You work your whole life to build a family-owned 
farm or business, and when you die, Uncle Sam swoops in and takes more 
than half of everything you've worked a lifetime to earn.
  That's the choice between the Republican plan to stop the tax hikes 
and grow this economy and the President's plan to raise taxes and hurt 
this economy. It is a clear choice. The House is going to act. And more 
importantly, we're going to make sure America has the best tax system 
in the world again so that we can compete and win so that our kids and 
grandkids have the opportunity for the strongest economy in the world. 
It's a clear choice.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great 
State of New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another member of our committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill makes it as clear as day just what the 
priorities of the majority are. Instead of working with us to shift the 
tax burden away from the middle class--who haven't gotten a raise in a 
long time--and small businesses, this bill does the exact opposite.
  And for you to continue to say that this is going to be a burden 
across the board on small businesses is delusional. Ninety-seven 
percent of small businesses won't be affected by our bill.
  To the antitax crusaders, this bill will raise taxes on the middle 
class--your bill--and working poor--your bill--by an average of $1,000. 
In New Jersey, this bill will make 3.2 million middle class and working 
poor families pay more taxes so that 231,400 millionaires can get a 
bigger tax cut.

                              {time}  1550

  It's as simple as that. You can shake your head all you want; those 
are the facts. This bill would add almost $1 trillion more to the 
deficit than the Democratic bill. My Lord, I don't hear you talk about 
that. I don't hear you say that. I wonder why? Just so that 0.3 percent 
of the taxpayers can get an average tax cut of over $74,000?
  At least the last time the Republicans took this shortsighted, 
trickle-down approach, we had a $5.6 trillion surplus, thanks to Bill 
Clinton. In 2008, we were $11 trillion, over $11 trillion in debt. We 
quite simply can't afford to gives millionaires another tax break and 
make our children and our grandchildren foot the bill.
  The proof is in the pudding. In 2000, when we first tried this supply 
side voodoo, unemployment was 4.2 percent. By 2008, it had doubled.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. To those Members concerned with tax fairness: today, 
wealth concentrated with the top 1 percent is at the same level as the 
period immediately preceding the Great Depression. So you shrunk the 
middle class with your great economic ideas between 2001 and 2008, and 
what you did was made the rich richer. I salute you if that's what you 
think America is about. We are all job creators, not just the rich.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the 
House.
  Mr. BOEHNER. I thank my friend for yielding, and remind my colleagues 
that for the last 18 months when we've been in the majority, we have 
focused on jobs. Now, the American people are still asking the 
question: where are the jobs? And that's why we've got over 30 jobs 
bills now pending over in the United States Senate. And after today, 
we'll have another bill sitting over in the Senate that will help 
create more jobs in America.
  Two years ago, the President said we shouldn't raise taxes in this 
time of a slow economy. I agreed with the President. The Congress 
agreed with the President. All of the Republicans and 119 Democrats 
voted to extend all of the current tax rates. And here we are some 18 
months later, economic growth is actually slower than it was when 
President Obama made those remarks, and yet the President wants to go 
out and raise the taxes on the so-called rich.
  Well, let me tell you who the so-called rich are. About a million of 
those people who you want to increase taxes on are small business 
owners, small business owners who pay their business taxes through 
their personal tax return. I know all about this. I used to be one of 
them. I had a subchapter S corporation, and whatever the company's so-
called profits were, I had to pay taxes on those, whether I actually 
got the money or not.
  So when you look at what the President wants to do, you want to tax a 
million small business owners. Ernst & Young has come out and made it 
clear that if you do this, 750,000 jobs are going to be destroyed, at a 
time when the American people are asking: where are the jobs?
  It's time to put the rhetoric aside. It's time to put the politics 
aside. I know we're in an election year, but my goodness, raising taxes 
at this point in this economy is a very big mistake. Extend all of the 
current tax rates, which our bill does, for 1 year, so we've got time 
to revise our Tax Code. Lower rates, fairer rates for all Americans, 
which is what needs to happen if we're truly going to make America more 
competitive. Put more Americans back to work. And bring some of those 
jobs that have been shipped overseas back home. We all know that we 
need to revise our Tax Code and reform it from top to bottom. But 
that's not going to happen overnight. So extending all of these rates 
for 1 year will provide certainty. Certainty for whom? Certainty for 
small business owners, people who can make decisions about what they 
want to invest in terms of new plant, new equipment, whether they want 
to hire new employees. This is the most commonsense thing that we can 
do, and there's no reason that we shouldn't.
  When we look at the proposal coming from our colleagues across the 
aisle, it raises taxes on dividends. Probably not a smart thing to do. 
When you look at senior citizens, many of them who depend on their 
dividend income, they're going to get whacked by your proposal. And 
under your proposal, not only do we tax small business people, but, oh, 
yeah, the death tax comes back in full force because it fails to 
address one of the most penalizing parts of our Tax Code.
  I believe that the proposal that my colleague Mr. Camp and his 
committee have brought forward is a reasonable, responsible approach, 
and I would urge its passage.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Look, no one here should distort the facts. From Joint Tax: 97 
percent of small business people would keep all of their tax cuts. And 
in the Speaker's district, there are 144 people with income over a 
million, compared to the 300,000-plus. He's sacrificing the middle 
class for a few with over a million dollars.
  I now have the pleasure of yielding 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin for yielding me this 
time, and for his leadership on this very important issue, and I rise 
in strong opposition to this legislation.
  South Carolina, my home State, is home to many military 
installations--Fort Jackson in Columbia; Shaw Air Force Base and the 
3rd Army Headquarters in Sumter; the Joint Air Base in Charleston; 
Parris Island; and the Marine Air Station in Beaufort. I proudly work 
to represent these military communities, and I oppose H.R. 8 because of 
the hurt it would visit upon middle-income and military families.
  A new report out today by the Center for American Progress documents 
the harsh impact that H.R. 8 would have on many military families. For 
example, a private in the United States Army in his first year of 
service who is married with an infant child would have a $273 increase 
under H.R. 8. That's real money to a young soldier.

[[Page 13115]]

  A marine corporal with 4 years of service who is married with two 
children would see a tax increase of $448 under H.R. 8. That family is 
already struggling to make ends meet.
  And finally, Mr. Speaker, a military police sergeant in the Air Force 
with 8 years service, a spouse, and three young children would get a 
whopping tax increase of $1,118 under H.R. 8.
  Mr. Speaker, these are just three examples of how the Republican bill 
would negatively impact our military families. The Senate has passed a 
middle class tax cut, and the President has told us he will sign it. 
The only thing standing between the middle income and their tax cut is 
the Republican leadership in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time that we come together and extend to the 
middle class in this society an income tax cut that is fair, that will 
create jobs, that will offer security to families and stability to 
communities. I urge a vote against this bill.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I would just say that the gentleman's remarks refer to the stimulus 
bill, a failed stimulus bill that was promised to create unemployment 
of under 8 percent. Frankly, it's never been there. For 40 months, 
we've been over 8 percent. These are spending items that were failed, 
that failed in the stimulus program. That program did not work.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very important 
legislation.
  The administration and congressional Democrats seek to raise taxes on 
America's families, small businesses, and job creators. There's a very 
clear choice here: either we can let small business owners, the job 
creators, America's entrepreneurs, create jobs, or we can follow the 
path they're advocating over here and tax small businesses.
  I stand in strong support of creating American jobs. Over 940,000 
business owners will see higher taxes if the President and Washington 
Democrats are allowed to raise the top two rates. This means over 
half--over half--of our Nation's small businesses will see higher taxes 
at a cost of over 700,000 fewer jobs for Americans--over 700,000 fewer 
jobs for Americans.
  Allowing these tax cuts to expire will hurt middle class families. If 
we pass this, the average taxpayer in my State of Louisiana will see 
tax relief of almost, on the average, about $1,800. The average family 
of four earning $50,000 per year can face tax increases of over $2,200 
per family if these cuts expire. A single parent earning $36,000 per 
year could see tax increases of $1,100 if these provisions expire.
  Mr. Speaker, this administration continues its assault on the 
American family and American businesses with its tax-and-spend 
policies. Our country can't afford it. Certainly, America's families 
and businesses can't afford it.
  What we need is this: a 1-year extension to allow us to move forward 
with a real comprehensive approach to tax reform.
  We have a real opportunity to do what's right for America, to promote 
American competitiveness. This is the moment. Let's seize it. Let's do 
it. We need to take this step today to get us where we can move to that 
next step, that next point.
  So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's quit dilly-
dallying around with this. Let's show some leadership for the American 
people. They want us to step up and be leaders and solve these 
problems. Let's step up and be leaders. Let's extend these provisions 
and move forward with a 21st century Tax Code.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished member of 
our committee, Mr. Crowley, from the great State of New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my good friend from Michigan for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8. The reason I oppose this bill 
is because this bill will impose taxes on hundreds of thousands of U.S. 
military families, our heroes. That's right, of the millions facing a 
tax hike, hundreds of thousands are U.S. military families. Let's call 
this bill what it is, the ``Republicans' Tax Hike on Our Heroes Act.''
  Now, I know those on the other side of the aisle will come down here 
one by one and claim they are extending tax cuts for everyone, but 
you're extending cuts for people earning over $1 million a year and 
raising taxes on families earning under $45,000 a year. This bill 
scales back tax breaks put in place by President Obama and directly 
aimed at benefiting working families.
  Let's take a moment to put a face on the 25 million Americans whose 
taxes will go up, including hundreds of thousands of U.S. military 
families.
  If you're an Air Force Staff Sergeant with 8 years of service, a 
spouse and three young children here stateside at home, the 
Republicans' Tax Hike on Our Heroes Act will raise their taxes by 
$1,100. A new recruit, a private in the U.S. Army in their first year 
of service earning a little over $18,000 a year--$18,000 a year, men 
and women on the front line defending our freedom--if they're married 
with an infant child at home, they will see an increase under this bill 
of $273, a tax increase under the Republicans' Tax Hike on Our Heroes 
Act.
  It begs the question, how are my colleagues who represent Fort 
Hamilton in Brooklyn going to vote on the Republicans' Tax Hike on Our 
Heroes Act? Are you going to stand with your military family 
constituents or with the 2 percent?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. CROWLEY. How are my colleagues who represent Fort Dix in New 
Jersey going to vote on the Republicans' Tax on Our Heroes Act? My 
colleagues who represent Fort Bragg in North Carolina? Fort Detrick in 
Maryland? Fort Monroe in Virginia? Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois? 
Beale Air Force Base in California?
  Today, the choice is clear. Stand with Democrats and the President 
who have put forward a plan that simply asks America's wealthiest to 
support this great land.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Paulsen).
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, I took part in a roundtable conversation in 
my district with over 20 small business leaders. They discussed the 
devastating impact that these looming tax hikes would have on job 
creation, not only across the country, but in Minnesota.
  The sentiment that was echoed throughout that entire conversation was 
that Washington should not be raising taxes when our economy is still 
struggling to recover.
  These job creators understand all too well what our country is facing 
as we approach, on January 1, this tax cliff, this fiscal cliff and 
this jobs cliff. The message from all of these entrepreneurs was 
simple: Job creators and business leaders alike were saying, very 
directly, stop the tax hike.
  Studies have shown that this looming tax hike would negatively impact 
half of all small business income, a loss of 700,000 jobs, potentially, 
and 14,500 of those jobs are in my home State of Minnesota, Mr. 
Speaker. But if we extend these rates and we move toward tax reform, we 
can have a positive impact on our economy of 1 million new jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear. With the national unemployment rate 
of over 8 percent for 41 consecutive months, we must stop the tax hike.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Look, I want to repeat, Joint Tax says 97 percent of small businesses 
would keep all of their tax cuts. And in Mr. Paulsen's district, there 
are 1,345 people with income over 1 million compared with over 325,000 
households. That's the equation at stake here. That's the equation.
  I now have a real pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the very active 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

[[Page 13116]]


  Mr. NEAL. There's one indisputable fact in this debate today, and 
that is that the Bush tax cuts used borrowed money.
  How much sense did that make to borrow the money to give tax cuts to 
the wealthiest people in America, the top 2 percent? The argument at 
the time was simple, that we should give tax cuts to the people at the 
top because they create jobs for the people in the middle and at the 
bottom. Fact: the slowest economic growth at any time since Herbert 
Hoover was President of the United States.
  The argument, or the assault on the Clinton Presidency was that he 
raised taxes of the top bracket, 39.6 percent--22 million jobs; the 
greatest economic growth spurt in the history of America; a reminder to 
our friends, an unemployment rate of 3.8 percent.
  So borrow the money during the Bush years for tax cuts so that we can 
give the wealthy--and, my goodness, what a ride they've had for these 
12 years. It is unbelievable when you look at what those rate cuts did 
to people at the top.
  We have a responsibility here to protect the middle class from a big 
tax hike next year. Last week, the Senate passed a bill that would 
extend tax cuts for 98 percent of the American people, the middle 
class, and now it's up to the House to provide some certainty to the 
middle class that their taxes are not going to go up next year. But 
instead of doing so, what are we doing today, once again? We are having 
an argument about what to do for that top 2 percent of income earners 
in America whom our Republican friends can never seem to do quite 
enough for.
  Even more troubling, this tax package ends President Obama's tax cuts 
that make college more affordable and help working families with 
children. So not only are we attempting, with their package today and 
proposal, to hold the middle class hostage to extending tax cuts for 
the wealthiest, but they want to raise taxes on 25 million families, 
with an average increase of $1,000.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. NEAL. We need to extend the child tax credit and the earned 
income tax credit, and that's what we should be doing today for middle 
income Americans and provide them with some sense of security and 
support.
  And, my God, can we do any more to help the wealthy in America than 
what our Republican friends have done?

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant).
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Job 
Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012.
  Businesses in my district in Texas and across the country are 
reluctant to hire and make investments due to an uncertain economy and 
an impasse over taxes. This bill is a thoughtful step to bolster our 
economy and bridge the gap to tax simplification. This bill provides a 
serious game plan and a timetable that shows the American economy how 
to move forward.
  If we don't act, the looming tax hike could destroy an estimated 
700,000 jobs, according to an Ernst & Young study. And it's no 
surprise, then, that the Institute of International Finance said there 
was a strong case to extend lower Bush-era taxes due to expire at the 
end of the year in order to avert a fiscal cliff.
  I'm proud to support--and urge my colleagues to support--this bill 
that helps U.S. job creators and gives businesses more confidence to 
put Americans and Texans back to work.
  Mr. LEVIN. Could the Speaker indicate how much time there is on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
11 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 13\3/
4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the bill that 
we are facing here today. It's been an interesting debate that we've 
had now for some time.
  I learn a lot traveling around my district, but it was especially 
compelling when I was at a manufacturing plant, less than 40 employees, 
and they told me--unprovoked--they said the estate tax going up to 55 
percent would devastate their business. Those were their words, 
``devastate their business.'' It's not just farmers and ranchers that 
would pay the estate tax, it would also be small businesses--and very 
thriving small businesses who put people to work, who provide benefits, 
health care, and otherwise.
  Truly, the 35 percent rate is a compromise. I would prefer to see no 
estate tax, given the fact that it is double taxation--and certainly 55 
percent is what many folks would consider confiscatory in nature. So I 
rise in favor of the bill that we are debating here today. I think that 
it is better policy--certainly better for our economy that we would not 
raise taxes on the American people.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of 
our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, when the Wall Street banking crisis of 2008 
hit, causing the worst recession since the Great Depression, it was the 
middle class that took it on the chin. More than 8 million Americans 
lost their job through no fault of their own. And as millions of 
Americans were losing their jobs and their homes, the big banks 
received bailouts and CEOs continued to receive million-dollar payouts.
  While too many middle class Americans are still out looking for work, 
this Congress is voting again to give over $160,000 a year in tax 
breaks to the richest 2 percent of Americans while the average American 
will be lucky to get about one-100th or maybe two-100ths of that. Can 
anyone in this Chamber blame the middle class for thinking the system 
is rigged against them?
  Mr. Speaker, we all admire financial success, but when we give away 
trillions in tax cuts that we cannot afford to those who need them the 
least, it's the middle class who has to make up the difference. To pay 
for these tax cuts, our Republican colleagues have voted to end 
Medicare and would force seniors to pay $6,400 more for their own care. 
On top of that, Republicans propose changing Social Security, slashing 
its budget by over $800 million. It's an ideological agenda that 
chooses millionaires over the middle class. Regular folks pay more so 
that folks like Donald Trump and Mitt Romney can get yet another tax 
break.
  Einstein is credited with saying that the definition of insanity is 
doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different 
results. Eleven years after the Bush tax breaks became law and drove us 
deeper into deficits, let's not repeat these mistakes. Rather than 
having these debates about whether the richest 2 percent of Americans 
deserve extra breaks, we should stand with the middle class.
  Mr. Speaker, this should be an all-hands-on-deck moment. America 
works best when the middle class in America is working. Let's start 
talking about how we can get all Americans back to work and strengthen 
our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and support the Democratic 
alternative, which is focused on the middle class.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield myself 15 seconds.
  We have a note here from Stan's Two from Rowland Heights, California, 
a small business. They were asked: How would increased taxes impact 
your business? ``Less hiring, more struggle to pay for expenses and 
payroll.'' If rates were allowed to increase, would that affect your 
ability to hire new employees? ``Absolutely. We've done nothing except 
cut staff for 4 years now. A tax increase could spell disaster.''
  At this time I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways 
and

[[Page 13117]]

Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, most Americans think that the economy is moving in the 
wrong direction. And most of them think it's Congress' fault, and that 
we've not done enough to help them take care of their families and give 
them financial security. They don't want political rhetoric today. They 
don't care who's wrong or who's right. They want to know what we're 
doing now, what we're doing today to make buying groceries and gas and 
paying the electric bill affordable.
  Mr. Speaker, if we don't act, a family of four that earns $50,000 a 
year will have an increase in their taxes of $2,200 every year. That's 
real money, Mr. Speaker. That's the difference between buying an extra 
box of Cheerios and paying the gas bill and saving for college. And for 
the job creators, the mood is even worse.
  We all know that small businesses create jobs--every one of us in 
this House knows small businesses create jobs--but the Democrats would 
raise taxes on them, killing 700,000 jobs. I refuse to raise taxes on 
small businesses while they struggle to bring our country out of this 
recession. I refuse to destroy over 700,000 jobs that support families 
who need and want breadwinners, not handouts.
  We must ask ourselves every day: What else can we do for these 
families? We can offer them some long-term security so that when they 
die, their families, their farms, and their small businesses will 
survive and thrive. But tax increases don't even stop when you die. If 
we do nothing, the death tax increases to 55 percent. We pay tax when 
we earn the income; we pay when we invest our income; and we pay again 
when we leave it to our kids. You want to talk about a fair Tax Code, 
Mr. Speaker? So today, I'm voting for a clear path forward.
  After 41 months of unemployment above 8 percent, we must stop the tax 
hike. I'm committed to tax reform that will create jobs, grow our 
economy, and support families. I am voting today for working families, 
for small businesses, for entrepreneurs, and for family farms, Mr. 
Speaker. This bill puts America back on the right track.
  Mr. LEVIN. Could you tell us, please, again how much time there is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 9\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to another active member of our 
committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Now is not the time to let the Republicans raise taxes 
on thousands of Texas families in order to provide more tax breaks for 
a privileged few. Republicans would hike the taxes by almost $500 for a 
married marine corporal with 4 years of service and two children living 
in Schertz.

                              {time}  1620

  That's wrong. Nor is this the time for Republicans to tax 
opportunity. A single mom, working as a nurse, helping a daughter 
attend the Alamo Colleges or Texas State or ACC, would be denied the 
$2,500 higher education tax credit that I authored, all of this, in the 
very same bill that would give a Republican who earns $1 million a tax 
cut that is larger than that marine or that nurse will earn in an 
entire year.
  If there were an Olympic medal out there for protecting those sitting 
atop the economic ladder at the expense of those trying to get a 
foothold on one of the first rungs, these Republicans would have no 
competition for going for the gold.
  Nor has this trickle-down Republican approach grown our jobs and our 
economy. Extending tax breaks for those at the very top, it was done in 
2010, over my objection; it hasn't grown jobs in the past year anymore 
than it helped to avoid the Bush/Cheney recession.
  And as for this much ballyhooed Ernst & Young report, it was bought 
and paid for by the same millionaires that would get a tax break bigger 
than what the nurse or the marine earns all of next year, along with a 
few large corporations who paid for the report. It is not credible.
  It is not just to see many Americans pay higher taxes in order to 
help the few gain even more tax breaks.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Black), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee,
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, you know, when nearly 23 million Americans 
are struggling to find full-time employment, President Obama and his 
Democrat allies seem to think that now is the time to raise taxes on 
small businesses.
  And the President may be satisfied with an 8 percent or more 
unemployment rate for 41 straight months, but I'm not and, more 
importantly, the American people are not. The American people don't 
need to settle for a country with fewer and fewer opportunities and a 
diminished future.
  So the House today will vote to stop the tax hike for all taxpayers, 
and tomorrow we will vote to move forward with a comprehensive tax 
reform. This is a critical step in providing the certainty that our 
small businesses desperately need to grow and create jobs.
  Now, the Democrats' proposal to raise taxes on nearly 1 million small 
businesses will cost more than 700,000 jobs, and they have not even 
offered a plan on tax reform. This is more of the same failed 
leadership that has given us the weakest economic recovery since the 
Great Depression.
  Democrats think that we are just one more tax increase away from 
prosperity. But when has a nation ever taxed its way to prosperity? 
Prosperity is built by the American people, not the government. 
American entrepreneurs and small business owners are the lifeblood of 
our American Dream, and they're the backbone of our economy.
  It is clear that we must stop this tax hike and reform our broken Tax 
Code to revive our struggling economy and keep the American Dream 
alive.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), our ranking member on the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it's very important everyone understand 
the choice that's facing the House today. The Democrats will offer an 
amendment that will immediately extend tax relief to 100 percent of 
American people. The Senate has already passed that proposal; and if 
our Republican colleagues vote for it today, we can send it down to the 
White House, the President will sign it today.
  Someone asked what we're going to do today. We could provide 
immediate tax relief to 98 percent of the American people.
  Now, let's be clear. The Democratic proposal provides tax relief to 
everybody up to $250,000. What our Republican colleagues are saying is 
they will deny tax relief to 98 percent of the American people, unless 
people making over $250,000 get a bonus, an extra tax cut. In other 
words, unless the top 2 percent get an extra tax cut, nobody else gets 
anything.
  It gets worse. We've heard a lot of talk here about small businesses, 
that we need to adopt the Republican plan in order to support small 
businesses. It's just not true.
  The Democratic proposal, according to the nonpartisan Independent 
Joint Tax Committee, provides tax relief to 97 percent of the 
businesses that we're talking about here. In fact, they point out that 
the other 3 percent of businesses include about 20,000 pass-through 
businesses that make over $50 million a year.
  Now, they may be good businesses, but these are not mom-and-pop 
businesses. The language we're hearing from our Republican colleagues 
would use small businesses as a cover to providing breaks for firms 
like Fortune 100 Pipeline Company Enterprise Products Partners; 
PricewaterhouseCoopers, good business, not a mom-and-pop; KKR 
Investment Banking; and guess what, Bain Capital, Bain Capital, the 
kind of small business that our Republican colleagues are trying to 
protect.
  This is all really in service to the trickle-down ideology. We tried 
it in

[[Page 13118]]

the Bush administration. At the end of 8 years we actually saw a net 
job loss.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We tried trickle-down. We lived it; we saw a net job 
loss. But who picked up the tab? The rest of the country because it 
drove a huge hole in our deficit; and in order to deal with that, if we 
don't ask folks at the top to pay a little bit more, the rest of the 
country ends up picking up the tab. That's just not right, and it 
doesn't help the economy.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I would just say that my friend's proposals just aren't bold enough. 
The economy isn't growing. Unemployment is still above 8 percent for 40 
consecutive months.
  We need to get on a plan for comprehensive reform, not just raising 
taxes on a segment, not just pitting one group of Americans against 
another. But let's get a comprehensive reform so we can get certainty, 
we can get job growth, we can get economic prosperity and get Americans 
back to work.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reed), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the proposed 
legislation to make sure that we do not increase taxes on any Americans 
come the end of this year. I think it's prudent, it's responsible, and 
it's the right message to send to America, that we are going to stand 
with every American and every small business owner across the country 
and say, end of the year, no tax increases.
  And I appreciate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and 
their passion and their commitment to raising taxes. They get to choose 
which threshold, 200, $250,000 or more. But it's clear to me that 
there's a clear distinction that the American people will have an 
opportunity to decide come this November between my Democratic 
colleagues across the aisle and this side of the aisle.
  My Democratic colleagues across the aisle raise taxes as part of the 
solution going forward. This side of the aisle, I'm proud to stand, Mr. 
Speaker, to say ``no'' to raising taxes on any American moving forward.
  Now, the gentleman had recognized and said that some of these tax 
increases that we're talking about in regards to businesses are not the 
mom-and-pop shop.
  Well, I'll tell you something. I just had a conversation with Dick 
Clark from my district, an owner of Villager Construction. That's a 
mom-and-pop shop. Sterilator Company out of Cuba, New York, in my 
district. That's a mom-and-pop shop. Those are people that have told me 
that one of their greatest concerns as small business owners is the tax 
burden that they're going to face next year.
  Let's not stand for rhetoric. Let's do the responsible, prudent thing 
and say ``no'' to tax increases. And I leave it up to the American 
people who I believe are hardworking taxpayers who are not stupid. They 
know what the distinction will be by the end of this year and next year 
when they come to the voting booth in November, that we stand for no 
tax increases, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
going down the path of let's raise taxes.
  Now is not the time to raise taxes in an economic climate when people 
are struggling and we're trying to have the job creators have the 
capital so that they can put people back to work for today and 
tomorrow.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez), who is the ranking member on the Committee on Small 
Business and who has toiled in the vineyards and beyond on behalf of 
the small businesses of this country.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Ranking Member, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today.
  Republicans love to focus on small businesses when it's convenient 
for them. They claim it is imperative to pass today's bill because, if 
we don't, small firms will be harmed. However, today's bill is only 
good for millionaires and billionaires, not the Nation's job creators.
  The argument that a partial extension of tax cuts hinders small 
business hiring relies on distorted facts. Republicans are using a 
warped definition of a ``small firm'' that counts Mitt Romney as a 
small business owner. I don't think the average person considers 237 
people whose incomes average more than $200 million as small business 
owners.
  Contrary to Republican claims, this is not what the American 
taxpayers think of when they hear ``small business.'' When most people 
think of entrepreneurs, they envision small manufacturers, architects, 
Main Street restaurants, and hardware stores--those Americans who risk 
their savings to create jobs in our communities. Tax cuts should go to 
real small businesses that are creating jobs, not to people who are 
simply moving money around for their own profits.
  Instead of addressing the top concern of small business owners--a 
lack of demand for their goods and services--this bill simply gives 
more tax cuts to the very rich. The numbers don't lie. Over 80 percent 
of the value of these cuts goes to millionaires. That is an average tax 
cut of $164,000.
  Let's call this bill what it really is--a tax cut for the rich, not 
for small businesses. That is not what our economy needs. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Dold).
  Mr. DOLD. I certainly thank the chairman for his leadership on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm confused. I think my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle haven't read what H.R. 8 is. They keep talking about how my 
colleagues and I are looking to try to raise taxes on a segment of the 
population. Actually, what this does is extend current tax rates for 
everyone--for every single American. I can tell you that, for people 
all across the country right now, foreclosures are up. They're 
concerned about how they will send their kids to school. We've got 
energy prices that are on the rise. We want to make sure that the 
government is not taking more from them.
  I have to tell you that I think what we're talking about right now is 
trying to empower the American people. We want to make sure that we 
have upward mobility. We want to try to create growth in our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the President of the United States came before 
the American public and said that our economy was too fragile. The 
President said that our economy is fragile and that we should extend 
these tax rates. That's when the economy was growing at 3\1/2\ percent, 
Mr. Speaker. The Commerce Department just came out with statistics that 
we are growing at 1\1/2\ percent today. There is no way in the world 
that we should be taking more out of the pockets of the American 
public. It's just not feasible.
  Two-thirds of all net new jobs are created by small businesses, but 
this isn't just for small businesses--this is for every single 
American. We're running the experiment today. If you want to talk about 
higher taxes--more taking in the State of Illinois--if you want to take 
a look at what's going on in the State of Illinois, we are dead last in 
too many categories. We are not creating jobs. Jobs are picking up and 
they're going to neighboring States. They're leaving because we've 
decided to take more from hardworking taxpayers in the State of 
Illinois.
  What we want to do is to make sure that we extend these for an 
additional year so that we can have real tax reform. That's what this 
is about. We want to talk about pro-growth tax policies so that we can 
get the American public back to work. This is about jobs and the 
economy.
  Frankly, I tip my hat to my colleagues because, when I talk to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle,

[[Page 13119]]

they also indicate to me that the number one issue is jobs and the 
economy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. DOLD. Let's come together. Let's not talk about how we want to 
raise taxes on the middle class because, frankly, that's just 
inaccurate, not true. We are looking to try to make sure these get 
extended for an additional year so that we can talk about pro-growth 
tax reform and get people off of the unemployment lines and back to 
work.
  So I applaud you for trying to get up there and plead your political 
point, but we need to come together. We need to make this happen for 
the American public.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time is left on this bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
2\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 
3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. We have one more speaker on this.
  Mr. Camp, do you have more than one?
  Mr. CAMP. I have one more speaker and then myself.
  Mr. LEVIN. Why don't you call on the one, and then Mr. Hoyer is going 
to wrap up on this bill.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. There has been a tremendous amount of rhetoric and 
hyperbole in the conversation today--all this energy about how we are 
trying to raise taxes on different groups. Let's clear this up.
  This is about keeping the rates the same for another year for all 
Americans. Really, this debate is not about tax rates. What my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to identify as the 
problem is that some people in America have too much money and that the 
solution to fix this problem is for people to go down the street and 
find someone with a bigger house and take some of their stuff and bring 
it to the other house. Then the problems in America would be solved. 
Things would be fair.
  The issue is not whether we should tax one group more and then 
distribute that to another group. That doesn't create more jobs, and 
that doesn't create more stability. That doesn't pull us out of a 
recession. That only makes one group feel better that they took money 
from another group and gave it to another.
  There are really two philosophies that are at work here. We want to 
make this debate about taxes, but it's really a philosophical issue. 
One group says that the purpose of taxation is to take from one group 
and redistribute to another one to make America fair. The other group, 
that of the Republicans, says the purpose of taxation is to collect as 
little as possible in order to efficiently run the government so that 
individuals are able to keep their money. We became the most powerful, 
prosperous nation on Earth because Americans were able to keep what 
they earned, were able to invest it into other things and were able to 
grow it.
  Here is the real proposal: one, keep tax rates the same for another 
year; two, fix the broken Code.
  There are 70,000 pages--3.8 million words--in this Tax Code. It needs 
to be fixed. It's miserably complicated. No Americans feel confident 
that when they file their taxes they got it all right. We've got to fix 
this Code and be able to simplify it dramatically. It's going to take 
time to do that. So let's extend rates for another year, and then let's 
spend next year fixing the Code. Let's get this right for all 
Americans, not just for some.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield the balance of my time on this bill to the 
distinguished whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for the remaining 2\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Designed to fail. That's what this bill is. It is designed 
to fail. Very frankly, you made sure that it was going to fail when you 
passed the amendment that added the reform bill and this bill together.
  Designed to fail. How sad.
  I don't think you want to raise taxes on anybody. I understand that. 
I'll accept that premise. What we ought to do is to make sure, in the 
agreement that we have with the Senate and the House, that at least the 
98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 have no increase in 
their taxes. At least we ought to do that. America knows we have 
agreement on that. They're wondering why, when you have agreement, you 
don't take that agreement and give the assurance and certainty to 98 
percent of the American working people that they won't have an increase 
in their taxes so that they'll have the confidence that they'll have 
that money in their pockets to, perhaps, purchase that refrigerator 
that they need or that oven that they need or perhaps a new car or so 
that they can help their kids go to college.
  Why don't we give them that confidence, I say to my friends. Mr. 
Speaker, I wish we would do so.
  Today, we could embrace the agreement that the Senate has come to and 
tell the 98 percent, ``You're safe.'' In addition to that, by rejecting 
this bill, we will reject taking money out of 25 million people's 
pockets that they rely on to support themselves and their children.

                              {time}  1640

  That's what the Senate bill does. It protects the wealthiest in 
America while telling some of the poorest in America, the least well-
off in America, you're going to pay more, you're going to get less. How 
perverse. How undermining of our economy. How undermining of the 
confidence of our people. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we're 
better than this.
  Newt Gingrich talked some years ago in 1998 about the ``Perfectionist 
Caucus.'' Mr. Speaker, he said embrace agreement. He was agreeing with 
President Clinton and Newt Gingrich at that point in time on a budget 
which adopted PAYGO one more time, which is one of the reasons why we 
balanced the budget 4 years in a row. The House Ways and Means bill 
leaves 98 percent of our people at risk, while our bill gives 100 
percent of the people a tax cut.
  Let us reject the House bill. Let us adopt the substitute. Let us 
send it to the Senate and make it law. The President will sign it, and 
it can become law and give confidence and help to those 98 percent of 
Americans.
  This Republican proposal, is not the straight-forward tax cut 
extension middle-class families and small business owners are asking 
for.
  Instead it extends tax cuts to even the highest incomes, a plan 
already rejected by the Senate and which the President has said he 
would veto.
  Moving forward with this legislation will only prolong the 
uncertainty the American people have asked us to end.
  What we ought to do--before the August district work period--is pass 
the extension where we have agreement--for earnings under $250,000, 
which is a tax cut for 100 percent of Americans.
  Ninety eight percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses 
will see no change to their taxes.
  Let's pass what we agree on now and afterward debate what we disagree 
on.
  Instead, we've seen Republicans insist on an all or nothing approach, 
which has held middle-class tax relief hostage to tax cuts for the top 
2 percent.
  Now, they are doing so once again, with a rule on this bill that 
makes it harder for us to reach an agreement to prevent a tax hike on 
the middle class.
  This is not the regular order or open process Speaker Boehner and 
Republicans campaigned on and pledged to uphold in this House.
  At the same time, this bill would impose an average tax hike of 
$1,000 on 25 million working families by allowing the expanded Child 
Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit to expire while eliminating the 
American Opportunity Tax Credit.
  That lies in stark contrast to the $160,000 tax cut this bill would 
deliver to the average millionaire, according to the National Economic 
Council.
  Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this bill, 
and I call on Republicans to work with us to pass the tax cut extension 
for the middle class on which we all agree.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page 13120]]

  I would just say this isn't just about taxes. I would agree with my 
friend from Maryland, Republicans do not want to raise taxes on small 
businesses, job creators, or investors because it's also about the 
economy.
  This has been a dismal recovery, the worst since the Great 
Depression; and unemployment has been above 8 percent for 40 
consecutive months. Their answer is to raise taxes on the small 
business sector, the area where we need to have those jobs to begin to 
be created. What we're saying is let's keep the law the same for 1 
year. We're the only Nation in the world that has all of these tax 
provisions expiring year in and year out. Let's leave this the same for 
1 year, then let's move and adopt comprehensive tax reform in an 
expedited procedure to do that so we can finish that next year.
  If we go down their path of raising taxes on small businesses, 
700,000 jobs will be lost. If we go down our path of extending current 
law for a year, bringing certainty, extending that law for a year, 
moving forward on comprehensive reform, addressing some spending 
problems we know this Nation has had, 3 years of trillion-dollar 
deficits, if we do that, we create a million jobs.
  Vote for H.R. 8.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012. In August 
of 2009, President Obama told NBC News, ``You don't raise taxes in a 
recession.'' Quite frankly, I agree with the President and would take 
it a step further. We should never raise taxes at all, period.
  Unfortunately, if we do nothing before the end of the year, we risk 
raising taxes on Americans by $384 billion over the next ten years 
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. For my home State of 
Georgia alone, this would represent a tax increase of $3,010 per tax 
return. At a time when we have had 41 straight months of unemployment, 
it would be irresponsible to place an additional burden on working 
families and job creators, particularly when Ernst & Young recently 
released a study stating that this tax increase would destroy 700,000 
jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have a simple solution. H.R. 8 will 
prevent this looming tax increase on all Americans, especially the 1 
million small business entrepreneurs that would likely feel the pain 
the most.
  To all of my colleagues, we have a clear choice today. You can either 
support H.R. 8 to prevent a $384 billion tax increase, or you could 
oppose this legislation, endorse these tax increases and destroy 
700,000 jobs in the process. The choice is yours.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican tax proposal. Their plan will give more tax breaks for the 
richest 2 percent, providing $160,000 for the average millionaire--on 
top of the $1 million that they received over the last 9 years.
  A hundred and sixty thousand dollars means different things to 
different people. For 464 Rhode Island veterans, it means access to 
employment and job training services; for 2,340 Rhode Island parents, 
it means immunizations for their children against Measles, Mumps, and 
the flu; and for Rhode Island's youth, it means 25 more students get a 
leg up through Head Start. But for millionaires, $160,000 simply 
represents the additional gift they receive under the Republican tax 
proposal.
  A hundred and sixty thousand dollars is a lot of money, and it can go 
a long way towards improving the lives and opportunities of Rhode 
Islanders. While every program I mentioned is on the chopping block, 
Republicans seem complacent to mortgage our children and 
grandchildren's future to preserve these tax cuts for the wealthiest 
top two percent at a cost of $1 trillion. These are tax cuts we simply 
cannot afford. In fact, if we want to talk about responsible deficit 
reduction, this would be an excellent place to start.
  Democrats and Republicans do agree on one thing;--the need to extend 
tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses, which is exactly 
what the Democratic proposal will do. Under the Democratic plan, every 
single taxpayer will receive a tax cut on income earned up to $200,000 
if you are single, and $250,000 if you are married.
  For our middle class families, this translates to an extra $2,200 in 
their pockets. And even high-income households will continue to receive 
a tax cut averaging more than $10,000 on their first $250,000 of 
income.
  No one thinks raising taxes on the middle class is a good idea. Right 
now, my top priority is giving middle-class families and our small 
businesses the security and certainty they deserve by extending tax 
cuts they desperately need. This should be an issue where Republicans 
and Democrats can work together to do what is right for hard-working 
Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican plan that continues 
down the same fiscally irresponsible path. Give our small businesses 
and working families the certainty they deserve, and support the 
Democratic plan to cut taxes for everyone and help move the economy 
forward.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8. I cannot 
support legislation that prioritizes millionaires over middle class 
families. By bringing this legislation to the floor, Republicans hold 
hostage the middle class tax cuts in order to help those who need it 
least. If enacted, this bill would give millionaires an average tax cut 
of $160,000 next year. Hedge fund managers and corporate CEOs who make 
up the wealthiest 2 percent of this country do not need a massive tax 
break. The Republican tax plan on the floor today not only favors 
millionaires, it takes away tax programs that help working families. 
Under this legislation, 25 million families and college students in 
this country will lose as much as $1,000 because of cuts to the Earned 
Income Tax Credits, the Child Tax Credit, and the American Opportunity 
Tax Credit. It is these lower and middle income families that deserve 
our help. It is time to start creating a tax code that reflects our 
values by ensuring that every individual pays their fair share.
  I stand with the House Democrats, the Senate and the President in 
supporting an extension of the middle class tax cuts. Working Americans 
are facing high unemployment and stagnant wages. They should have the 
certainty to know that they will not face a tax increase next year. 
Extending the middle class tax cuts means helping 114 million middle 
class families, including 13.2 million in California. If the House 
extends the middle class tax cuts--already passed by the Senate--these 
families will save an average of $2,200 on next year's taxes.
  This country cannot afford to keep giving out tax breaks to the 
wealthy and large corporations. This Republican bill adds another $50 
billion to our deficit in just one year. This is the wrong approach and 
is just plain irresponsible. We need to strengthen the middle class, 
put people back to work, and grow our economy. The first step is 
introducing fairness to our tax code and helping the middle class 
Americans who work hard and play by the rules. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting against the Republican giveaway to the most wealthy 
and to instead support the Democratic substitute which protects the 
middle class.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of extending tax 
cuts for middle class families and small businesses.
  I support a plan that allows generous tax cuts for the wealthiest two 
percent to expire, while also ensuring taxes do not go up on those that 
can least afford it. This is the plan that passed the Senate last week. 
And this is the plan that President Obama said he is ready and eager to 
sign should it pass the House.
  Unfortunately, however, this is not the plan being offered by the 
Majority on the floor here today. The Majority's proposal, H.R. 8, 
preserves tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent at the expense of 
middle class families and small businesses.
  It gives, on average, an extra $160,000 tax cut to millionaires while 
raising taxes on 25 million middle class families by an average of 
$1,000 by restricting or eliminating crucial tax credits that middle 
class families depend on to pay their bills and send their kids to 
college, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and 
American Opportunity Tax Credit.
  This is not the balanced, equitable solution my constituents on the 
Central Coast and the American people are asking for, which is why I 
strongly oppose H.R. 8 and will vote against it.
  I will instead be voting for the substitute amendment, which is 
identical to the legislation the Senate passed last week.
  It extends for one year the current tax rates on income, capital 
gains and dividends for taxable income up to $200,000 for individuals 
and $250,000 for couples. Under this plan, all taxpayers will benefit 
from the tax breaks on income up to these thresholds, and 98 percent of 
Americans and 97 percent of small businesses will see no tax increase 
at all.
  This proposal also fixes the Alternative Minimum Tax for 2012 and 
extends several other important tax provisions that middle class 
families and small businesses depend on, including marriage penalty 
relief, expanded child and earned income tax credits, education tax 
incentives, and small business expensing.
  This is a reasonable, responsible plan that should have bipartisan 
support.

[[Page 13121]]

  Democrats and Republicans agree on the need to extend the tax cuts 
for middle class families and small businesses, and this plan does 
exactly that. The substitute reflects this consensus and gives middle 
class families certainty that their taxes will not go up next year.
  We should move forward with what we already agree on instead of 
holding hostage those who can least afford it for the benefit of the 
wealthiest among us.
  We simply cannot afford to continue the tax cuts for the richest two 
percent and leave middle class families with the bill. We have a 
serious deficit problem that requires a balanced solution to ensure 
everyone bears a fair share of the burden. Letting tax rates on the 
richest in our society simply return to where they were in the 1990s, 
when our economy was booming, is one common sense step in that process.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this balanced approach 
and voting yes on the substitute.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8, the Job 
Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012. I oppose this bill 
because it extends the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to millionaires who 
do not need it, have not requested it, and at a time when the nation 
cannot afford it.
  The extension of this 2001 tax policy would keep the rates of all tax 
brackets at a reduced level. While this reduced level would keep more 
funds in the hands of American families, it provides for a 
disproportionate distribution of the tax burden on different income 
levels. These reduced rates give a greater break to the incredibly 
wealthy, placing unfair monetary responsibility on the middle class.
  The extension of this tax policy also maintains a lower rate on 
capital gains, and taxes dividends at the same rate as capital gains 
instead of as ordinary income. In addition, this extension lowers the 
estate tax. Lower rates on such incomes further burden the middle 
class, as they further relieve the incredibly wealthy from their duty 
to give back to this country. As a result of these policies, the 
average income tax cut for households making more than $1 million a 
year would be over $74,000 in 2013.
  Concurrently, as a result of H.R. 8, some of the tax cuts for working 
families which were adopted in 2009 would be allowed to expire, and 
eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit 
will be reduced. This bill also ends the American Opportunity Tax 
Credit, 85 percent of the benefactors of which made less than $100,000 
a year. These actions will effectively raise taxes on 25 million 
middle- and low-income households by an average of $1000.
  The conversation surrounding our nation's tax policies has focused on 
ensuring that tax cuts for the middle class are extended. It has been 
made clear, on both sides of the aisle, that this is imperative not 
only to helping American families get back on their feet, but also to 
the continuing recovery of the United States economy.
  Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are determined to use these 
middle class tax cuts as leverage to make sure that the Bush-era tax 
cuts for the wealthy are extended. They use top-down economics as the 
argument for the validity of these cuts--that they help to restore our 
economy and reduce the unemployment rate, because the individuals 
earning incomes in the top two percent are ``job creators.'' Contrary 
to this claim, the facts demonstrate that fewer than 35 percent of 
small business owners make over $250,000 a year. Allowing the Bush tax 
cuts for the upper class to expire would not affect the vast majority 
of ``job creators'' in the American economy, but it would help relieve 
the tax burden of working families.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 8 not only because the policies included 
within it would inflict an unbalanced tax burden on working families, 
but also because it will prevent this Congress from helping to reduce 
America's budget deficit. My colleagues across the aisle consistently 
claim they are committed to reducing our deficit, yet they have fought 
to pass this bill, extending Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. If we 
were to let these cuts expire, our deficit could be reduced by $50 
billion in 2013 alone. Simply stated, the tax plan laid out in H.R. 8 
will not raise adequate revenue to fund our national priorities or 
repay our debt.
  Instead of arguing over tax cuts for those individuals who don't need 
our help, this Congress should be working across the aisle to create a 
fair, comprehensive tax reform that unburdens our working families. The 
conversation should be focused on continuing to rebuild our economy and 
reduce our deficit, not give handouts to the wealthy few. When a bill 
that outlines real, fair tax reform comes up for consideration on the 
Floor, I will support it.
  Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to 
join me in opposing H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention 
Act of 2012.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 8, 
which should be called the Protecting America's Wealthiest 2 Percent 
Act of 2012.
  Our main priority in the House of Representatives must be to support 
middle class families. It should not be to protect the wealthiest 2 
percent of Americans by extending the so-called Bush tax cuts for them. 
As a body, we should work together to make our nation's tax system more 
equitable while continuing to support the middle class.
  I opposed the so-called Bush tax cut plans in 2001 and 2003. In the 
aftermath of these cuts, federal revenue fell, real GDP grew at a rate 
less than 2 percent and the cumulative deficit grew to $6 trillion. 
Today, I rise in support of the Democratic Substitute to H.R. 8 which 
extends all income tax cuts for the 98 percent of Americans and asks 
the richest households to contribute to deficit reduction by reverting 
back to the 1990s rates--a decade in which the workforce grew by 22 
million jobs and saw the largest budget surplus in recent history.
  My colleagues across the aisle have shown that their priority is to 
protect only privileged Americans by giving away tax breaks to the 
wealthiest in this country and continuing to ignore the needs of middle 
class families. Republicans are holding tax cuts for 98 percent of 
Americans and 97 percent of small businesses hostage to deficit-busting 
tax breaks for the top 2 percent, while rewarding Big Oil, special 
interests, and corporations that outsource American jobs.
  H.R. 8 would raise taxes on 25 million American families by an 
average $1,000 by ending vital expansions of the Earned Income Tax 
Credit and the Child Tax Credit and end the American Opportunity Tax 
Credit entirely. These 25 million families are earning the least and 
who rely on these credits to put more wages in their pockets, increase 
access to child care services, and make college more affordable. It 
would add to the deficit by extending tax breaks for the highest-
earning households, giving millionaires a tax break savings of $160,000 
annually. Republicans are holding the middle class hostage by demanding 
tax cut extensions for the richest 2 percent and by adding $50 billion 
to the deficit. What is even more egregious is that H.R. 8 would 
disproportionately affect those military families who sacrifice every 
day to protect our freedoms. The American middle class, including our 
military families, would see a tax increase on January 1, 2013 if we 
fail to come to an agreement on taxes for the top 2 percent.
  I want to protect hard working Americans, including our military 
families. I support making sure everyone, especially the wealthiest 
Americans and large corporations, pays their fair share. That is why I 
am an original cosponsor of the Democratic Substitute to H.R. 8, which 
is identical to The Middle Class Tax Cut Act which passed the Senate 
last week. The Middle Class Tax Cut Act would preserve the current tax 
rates for 98 percent of Americans and only increase taxes on the 
richest 2 percent who earn the most and have seen the largest tax 
breaks over the last ten years. We can act now. If we pass The Middle 
Class Tax Cut Act today we can keep taxes low for the 98 percent of 
Americans who rely on the tax breaks and credits extended in this bill. 
Then we can separately debate the issue of extending the so-called Bush 
tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. Instead, the majority will 
adjourn today until September having done nothing to protect the middle 
class or to make sure everyone pays their fair share.
  Under the Republicans' plan, 30.5 percent of tax cuts going to my 
home state, New Jersey, would go to the richest 1 percent, and 45.8 
percent would go to the richest 5 percent. That is 76.3 percent of tax 
cuts going to the top 6 percent of state residents, leaving 23.7 
percent of cuts for the remaining 94 percent of New Jerseyans.
  I strongly support The Middle Class Tax Cut Act and the Democratic 
Substitute to H.R. 8. We can no longer afford to continue giving the 
biggest breaks to those who need them the least. It's time to put money 
back into the pockets of hard working Americans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). All time for 
debate has expired.


      Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Levin

  Mr. LEVIN. I now call up the substitute amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

[[Page 13122]]



     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.

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

       Sec. 1. Short title; etc.

               TITLE I--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF TAX RELIEF

       Sec. 101. Temporary extension of 2001 tax relief.
       Sec. 102. Temporary extension of 2003 tax relief.
       Sec. 103. Temporary extension of 2010 tax relief.
       Sec. 104. Temporary extension of election to expense 
           certain depreciable business assets.

                TITLE II--ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF

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

                TITLE III--TREATMENT FOR PAYGO PURPOSES

       Sec. 301. Treatment for PAYGO purposes.

               TITLE I--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF TAX RELIEF

     SEC. 101. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2001 TAX RELIEF.

       (a) Temporary Extension.--
       (1) In general.--Section 901(a)(1) of the Economic Growth 
     and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 2012'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2013''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.
       (b) Application to Certain High-Income Taxpayers.--
       (1) Income tax rates.--
       (A) Treatment of 25- and 28-percent rate brackets.--
     Paragraph (2) of section 1(i) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) 25- and 28-percent rate brackets.--The tables under 
     subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) shall be applied--
       ``(A) by substituting `25%' for `28%' each place it appears 
     (before the application of subparagraph (B)), and
       ``(B) by substituting `28%' for `31%' each place it 
     appears.''.
       (B) 33-percent rate bracket.--Subsection (i) of section 1 
     is amended by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) 
     and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) 33-percent rate bracket.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2012--
       ``(i) the rate of tax under subsections (a), (b), (c), and 
     (d) on a taxpayer's taxable income in the fourth rate bracket 
     shall be 33 percent to the extent such income does not exceed 
     an amount equal to the excess of--

       ``(I) the applicable amount, over
       ``(II) the dollar amount at which such bracket begins, and

       ``(ii) the 36 percent rate of tax under such subsections 
     shall apply only to the taxpayer's taxable income in such 
     bracket in excess of the amount to which clause (i) applies.
       ``(B) Applicable amount.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `applicable amount' means the excess of--
       ``(i) the applicable threshold, over
       ``(ii) the sum of the following amounts in effect for the 
     taxable year:

       ``(I) the basic standard deduction (within the meaning of 
     section 63(c)(2)), and
       ``(II) the exemption amount (within the meaning of section 
     151(d)(1) (or, in the case of subsection (a), 2 such 
     exemption amounts).

       ``(C) Applicable threshold.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `applicable threshold' means--
       ``(i) $250,000 in the case of subsection (a),
       ``(ii) $225,000 in the case of subsection (b),
       ``(iii) $200,000 in the case of subsections (c), and
       ``(iv) \1/2\ the amount applicable under clause (i) (after 
     adjustment, if any, under subparagraph (E)) in the case of 
     subsection (d).
       ``(D) Fourth rate bracket.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `fourth rate bracket' means the bracket which would 
     (determined without regard to this paragraph) be the 36-
     percent rate bracket.
       ``(E) Inflation adjustment.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, with respect to taxable years beginning in 
     calendar years after 2012, each of the dollar amounts under 
     clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (C) shall be 
     adjusted in the same manner as under paragraph (1)(C), except 
     that subsection (f)(3)(B) shall be applied by substituting 
     `2008' for `1992'.''.
       (2) Phaseout of personal exemptions and itemized 
     deductions.--
       (A) Overall limitation on itemized deductions.--Section 68 
     is amended--
       (i) by striking ``the applicable amount'' the first place 
     it appears in subsection (a) and inserting ``the applicable 
     threshold in effect under section 1(i)(3)'',
       (ii) by striking ``the applicable amount'' in subsection 
     (a)(1) and inserting ``such applicable threshold'',
       (iii) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (b), (c), and 
     (d), respectively, and
       (iv) by striking subsections (f) and (g).
       (B) Phaseout of deductions for personal exemptions.--
       (i) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 151(d) is 
     amended--

       (I) by striking ``the threshold amount'' in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B) and inserting ``the applicable threshold in 
     effect under section 1(i)(3)'',
       (II) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating 
     subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C), and
       (III) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F).

       (ii) Conforming amendments.--Paragraph (4) of section 
     151(d) is amended--

       (I) by striking subparagraph (B),
       (II) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph 
     (A) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and by 
     indenting such subparagraphs (as so redesignated) 
     accordingly, and
       (III) by striking all that precedes ``in a calendar year 
     after 1989,'' and inserting the following:

       ``(4) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning''.
       (c) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided, the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2012.
       (d) Application of EGTRRA Sunset.--Each amendment made by 
     subsection (b) shall be subject to title IX of the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to the same 
     extent and in the same manner as if such amendment was 
     included in title I of such Act.

     SEC. 102. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2003 TAX RELIEF.

       (a) Extension.--
       (1) In general.--Section 303 of the Jobs and Growth Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 2012'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Jobs 
     and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
       (b) 20-Percent Capital Gains Rate for Certain High Income 
     Individuals.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 1(h) is amended 
     by striking subparagraph (C), by redesignating subparagraphs 
     (D) and (E) as subparagraphs (E) and (F) and by inserting 
     after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(C) 15 percent of the lesser of--
       ``(i) so much of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if 
     less, taxable income) as exceeds the amount on which a tax is 
     determined under subparagraph (B), or
       ``(ii) the excess (if any) of--

       ``(I) the amount of taxable income which would (without 
     regard to this paragraph) be taxed at a rate below 36 
     percent, over
       ``(II) the sum of the amounts on which a tax is determined 
     under subparagraphs (A) and (B),

       ``(D) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if 
     less, taxable income) in excess of the sum of the amounts on 
     which tax is determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C),''.
       (2) Minimum tax.--Section 55 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) 20-percent Capital Gains Rate for Certain High Income 
     Individuals.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any individual, if the 
     taxpayer's taxable income for the taxable year exceeds the 
     applicable amount determined under section 1(i) with respect 
     to such taxpayer for such taxable year, the amount determined 
     under paragraph (2) shall be substituted for the amount 
     determined under subsection (b)(3)(C) for purposes of 
     determining the taxpayer's tentative minimum tax for such 
     taxable year.
       ``(2) Determination of 20-percent capital gains rate.--The 
     amount determined under this paragraph is the sum of--
       ``(A) 15 percent of the lesser of--
       ``(i) so much of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if 
     less, taxable excess) as exceeds the amount on which tax is 
     determined under subsection (b)(3)(B), or
       ``(ii) the excess described in section 1(h)(1)(C)(ii), plus
       ``(B) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if 
     less, taxable excess) in excess of the sum of the amounts on 
     which tax is determined under subparagraph (A) and subsection 
     (b)(3)(B).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The following provisions are each amended by striking 
     ``15 percent'' and inserting ``20 percent'':
       (A) Section 531.
       (B) Section 541.
       (C) Section 1445(e)(1).
       (D) The second sentence of section 7518(g)(6)(A).
       (E) Section 53511(f)(2) of title 46, United States Code.

[[Page 13123]]

       (2) Section 1445(e)(6) is amended by striking ``15 percent 
     (20 percent in the case of taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2010)'' and inserting ``20 percent''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided, the 
     amendments made by subsections (b) and (c) shall apply to 
     taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012.
       (2) Withholding.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1)(C) 
     and (2) of subsection (c) shall apply to amounts paid on or 
     after January 1, 2013.
       (e) Application of JGTRRA Sunset.--Each amendment made by 
     subsections (b) and (c) shall be subject to section 303 of 
     the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 to 
     the same extent and in the same manner as if such amendment 
     was included in title III of such Act.

     SEC. 103. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2010 TAX RELIEF.

       (a) American Opportunity Tax Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 25A(i) is amended by striking ``or 
     2012'' and inserting ``2012, or 2013''.
       (2) Treatment of possessions.--Section 1004(c)(1) of 
     division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act 
     of 2009 is amended by striking ``and 2012'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``2012, and 2013''.
       (b) Child Tax Credit.--Section 24(d)(4) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and 2012'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``2012, and 2013'', and
       (2) by striking ``or 2012'' and inserting ``2012, or 
     2013''.
       (c) Earned Income Tax Credit.--Section 32(b)(3) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and 2012'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``2012, and 2013'', and
       (2) by striking ``or 2012'' and inserting ``2012, or 
     2013''.
       (d) Temporary Extension of Rule Disregarding Refunds in the 
     Administration of Federal Programs and Federally Assisted 
     Programs.--Subsection (b) of section 6409 is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 2012'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2013''.
       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2012.
       (2) Rule disregarding refunds in the administration of 
     certain programs.--The amendment made by subsection (d) shall 
     apply to amounts received after December 31, 2012.

     SEC. 104. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF ELECTION TO EXPENSE CERTAIN 
                   DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Dollar limitation.--Section 179(b)(1) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C),
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E),
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) $250,000 in the case of taxable years beginning in 
     2013, and'', and
       (D) in subparagraph (E), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``2012'' and inserting ``2013''.
       (2) Reduction in limitation.--Section 179(b)(2) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C),
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E),
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) $800,000 in the case of taxable years beginning in 
     2013, and'', and
       (D) in subparagraph (E), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``2012'' and inserting ``2013''.
       (b) Computer Software.--Section 179(d)(1)(A)(ii) is amended 
     by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2014''.
       (c) Election.--Section 179(c)(2) is amended by striking 
     ``2013'' and inserting ``2014''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2012.

                TITLE II--ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF

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

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``$72,450'' and all that follows through 
     ``2011'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting ``$78,750 in the 
     case of taxable years beginning in 2012'', and
       (2) by striking ``$47,450'' and all that follows through 
     ``2011'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting ``$50,600 in the 
     case of taxable years beginning in 2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2011.

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

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or 2011'' and inserting ``2011, or 
     2012'', and
       (2) by striking ``2011'' in the heading thereof and 
     inserting ``2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2011.

                TITLE III--TREATMENT FOR PAYGO PURPOSES

     SEC. 301. TREATMENT FOR PAYGO PURPOSES.

       The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on 
     either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of 
     the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 747, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  Mr. LEVIN. Could the Chair be clear as to who has the right to close 
on this amendment?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 
the right to close.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to another Member of our committee, 
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Levin for yielding.
  After 2 years of talking about spending cuts and deficit reduction, 
Republicans somehow believe it is wise to fill the pockets of each and 
every millionaire in America with an additional $160,000 tax cut. We've 
been here before. This is the same picture. Mr. Speaker, we all know 
what this is about. This is about two competing visions of America. The 
Democratic vision is opportunity for all Americans to prosper, while 
the Republican vision reserves prosperity for the select few.
  That is not right, Mr. Speaker. That is not fair. That is not just. 
American hardworking families need tax relief, and they need it now. 
Not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, not next year, but now. If 
you believe in a strong, solid middle class, vote ``no'' on this bill. 
If you believe in American opportunity, vote ``no'' on this bill. If 
you're serious about reducing the deficit, vote ``no'' on this bill. I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and to vote 
``yes'' on the Levin amendment. It is simply the right thing to do.
  We can do much better by voting for the Levin amendment. It is the 
right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. It is the just thing to 
do. We should do it and do it now.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say that this substitute increases taxes, and it 
increases taxes on small businesses, the very sector that we need to be 
growing to bring us out of this recession. It does not include tax 
reform. There's no path to tax reform. Our Tax Code has had 5,000 
changes in the last decade. The complexity is making it difficult for 
Americans to know what their responsibilities are. They suspect others 
get a better deal under the Tax Code because of the complexity. If we 
can take that away and move to a system that has a lower rate, revenue 
neutral, that closes off some of these 5,000 changes that have been 
made in the last few years, we can create a million jobs in the first 
year alone.
  One of the things that led us into this recession is the housing 
crisis. Here we have a letter from the National Association of Home 
Builders saying that housing can be a key engine of job growth that 
this country needs. However, the recovery we're seeing remains fragile. 
As the rest of the economy is experiencing softening conditions, now 
would be the worst time to raise taxes.
  The National Association of Home Builders believes that lower rates, 
simplification, and a fair system will spur economic growth and 
increase competitiveness. That's good for housing, because housing not 
only equals jobs, but jobs mean more demand for housing. This is just 
one area that if we raise taxes, as this substitute attempts to do, 
we're going to really close off what little recovery we've been seeing, 
and obviously it's been very anemic. Economic growth is just over 1 
percent.
  We need to be the best country in the world. We need to have the 
strongest country in the world. We need to have the best Tax Code in 
the world. Raising taxes on one segment, one group of Americans against 
another is not the way to get America's greatness back.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 13124]]


  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic 
substitute on this tax provision.
  I have tremendous respect for Chairman Camp and the members of the 
Ways and Means Committee, but I would like to note that not a single 
one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuted what I 
spoke about before, about the fact that if the Republican tax bill were 
to pass, as opposed to the Democratic tax bill, there would be an 
increase in taxes on 225,000 military men and women, many of whom are 
in Active Duty overseas as we speak.
  I mentioned in my remarks that under the Democratic bill, the EITC 
rate, the earned income tax credit under the bill would afford a 
sergeant in our Army today with 8 years of service, married and with 
three children, and has a basic pay of $34,723, would receive under the 
Democratic plan an EITC benefit of $3,508.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I want to be very clear about this, Mr. Speaker. The 
earned income tax credit under the Republican bill would only be 
$2,390. Now when I do the math, that means that under the Republican 
bill, that sergeant and his or her family would have a $1,118 tax 
increase. You can't get around it. Those are the facts. Those are the 
numbers. They speak loud and clear. And not a single one of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuted that.
  We have refuted the $250,000 issue as it pertains to small business 
owners. The reality is, the men and women on the front lines defending 
this democracy, defending our freedom, defending our way of life, 
allowing for small businessmen and -women to prosper in this country, 
they're not worth a tax break.
  Your bill increases taxes on our military men and women. There's no 
getting around it. A vote for the Republican bill is a vote to increase 
taxes on military men and women. A vote for the Democratic substitute 
is a tax cut for our military men and women.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I don't have to refute what the Member from New York said because the 
nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has already done that. They've 
said the matters the gentleman is talking about are not tax increases. 
Those are spending through the Tax Code. That spending was put into the 
stimulus bill. We know how unsuccessful that was in lowering our 
unemployment rate below 8 percent, as was promised.
  So at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Reed).
  Mr. REED. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the substitute amendment that we're debating 
here, Mr. Speaker. The reason why is, it's clear the Democratic 
substitute amendment that we're discussing is a further expansion of 
tax increases that the Senate passed recently. I'm opposed to those tax 
increases.
  We're dealing with a situation where the proposed amendment will 
raise the estate tax and take 55 percent of our hardworking Americans' 
assets when they pass away. They are raising taxes on dividends and 
capital gains at a time when senior citizens rely on those most in 
these dire economic times. They also seek to raise taxes on those 
making $200,000 to $250,000 and above. Raising taxes on those 
individuals goes right to the heart of our small businesses across 
America, coast to coast, North to South.
  In this dire economic time, I actually agree with President Obama 
when he signed the tax rates in December 2010, when he said, In dire 
economic times, we don't raise taxes on Americans.
  I just ask my colleagues to join me and say, Reject this substitute, 
freeze the Tax Code, and deal with the issue of comprehensive tax 
reform over the next 12 months, and put no Americans in harm in having 
their tax bill increased at the end of this year.
  Mr. LEVIN. It's now my real pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) who is the chair of our caucus 
and an active member of our committee.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the distinguished ranking member.
  This debate today is extraordinarily informative. This isn't about 
Democrats or Republicans. This is about saving and preserving our 
middle class.
  Lauren Mishkin from Connecticut, a mother who recently came up to 
talk to me about student loans, said,``When only the rich can follow 
their dreams, we have a problem.''
  So here today, we face a very clear choice that I think all Americans 
understand. We should be able to come together as Democrats and 
Republicans and provide a tax break for everyone up to $250,000. Lauren 
was right: we have a problem.
  A constituent of mine said, ``How is it that the Congress doesn't 
understand that what they're doing is throwing all of us into the deep 
abyss of uncertainty?'' It's that deep abyss of uncertainty that all 
Americans are concerned about. And what they want is for us to come 
together.
  We know that we have a bill that has passed the Senate, a bill that 
the President will sign, a bill that we virtually agree on on both 
sides of the aisle. So what really frustrates the American citizens and 
the people in my district is that we can't come together.
  I implore my colleagues on the other side, don't plunge us further 
into this dark abyss. Do the things that the wealthy amongst us have 
more than the ability to shoulder and make sure that we all come 
together, as Americans, and do the right thing on behalf of our 
constituents. That's what the Lauren Mishkins want, that's the kind of 
dream that we need to provide for all American citizens, and that's 
what this country desperately needs--a Congress that will take 
leadership.
  There are times when you need to step aside, and there are times when 
you need to step up. We need to step up as a Congress and pass this 
Democratic substitute.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Black), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, as I have been back in the district talking 
to my constituents and visiting many of the businesses and the job 
creators in the district, I have continued to hear from them that if we 
place one more tax increase on them, they're just not sure that they 
can survive.
  Now these are good people that I go to the grocery store with, that I 
go to church with. I know how hard they're working, and I know how hard 
their families are working in order to keep businesses going within our 
community. And when we know that two out of every three jobs are 
created by a small businessman or -woman, we impact those very folks 
who are creating the jobs for so many people in the district.
  I hear this over and over again. And they look at me and say, Diane, 
please go back to Congress and please relay this to the Members of 
Congress, that we need to make sure that we have the certainty and that 
we don't impact them and their businesses so that they have to close 
down and, once again, increase the amount of unemployment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. BLACK. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not have 
a plan. Their plan is to increase the taxes on this group of people.
  Second to that are those who continue to say to me--especially those 
who are looking at planning for their families for the future, of what 
they're going to leave for them--they're not going to be able to leave 
those things that they've worked so hard for because the estate taxes 
are going to go up.
  We cannot do this to the people in my district. I'm going to be here 
to fight for that.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would ask my colleague from Michigan how many further 
requests for time do you have left?

[[Page 13125]]


  Mr. CAMP. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. LEVIN. It's now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady 
from California, our distinguished leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank him for 
his legislation on the floor today, to strengthen the backbone of our 
democracy, the great American middle class.
  Today we can do just that by passing President Obama's middle-income 
tax cut, which is on the floor today as the Levin substitute. It has 
already passed the Senate and could be signed into law by the President 
before the weekend.
  We have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to give a tax cut to 
100 percent of the American people. We have an opportunity to relieve 
some of the uncertainty that exists in our economy as to how we are 
going to pay the bills and how America's working families are going to 
pay the bills.
  We have an opportunity for fairness, which is an all-American value, 
for fairness for our families, for our businesses, and for our budget. 
We must not--as some people always accuse Congress of doing--miss an 
opportunity.

                              {time}  1700

  We have to take advantage of the opportunity that is here today. The 
bill provides for fairness for the middle class and certainty, as I 
mentioned.
  The Republican alternative says not only do we want to give 100 
percent of the American people a tax cut; we want to give a bigger and 
better tax cut to people making over $250,000 a year, 2 percent of the 
American people. In order to do that, we greatly increase the deficit 
which would incur borrowing from other countries, including China. And 
to top it all off, in order to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people 
in our country, we have to increase taxes for the middle class in order 
to pay for that. If you make over $1 million a year, the Republican tax 
proposal will give you a tax cut of $160,000 on average. And on 
average, America's middle-income families would have to pay $1,000 more 
in taxes.
  You know, we work for the American people. You are our bosses. So as 
our bosses, what would you instruct us to do when it comes to reducing 
the deficit, giving a tax cut to 100 percent of the American people, 
which will inject demand into the economy and therefore create jobs. So 
we are reducing the deficit. We're creating jobs, and we're having 
fairness as a principle as to how we go forward.
  Make no mistake, by refusing to vote for the Senate-passed bill, 
House Republicans are giving more tax breaks to the richest 2 percent, 
tax breaks they don't need and we can't afford. At the same time they 
cut taxes for the rich, as I said, they would raise an average of 
$1,000 on 25 million American families, families who rely on that money 
for day-to-day needs to pay their bills. That isn't fair, and Democrats 
will fight to prevent these tax increases on middle-income families in 
order to give a tax break to the wealthiest people in our country.
  Today is a day when we can end some uncertainty. People talk about 
the cliff. We are going to go over the cliff come January. Let's not 
even go anywhere near the edge of that cliff. Let's pass this bill 
today. It will save just under $1 trillion because we're not giving 
those tax cuts to the high end. That is almost all the money that is 
needed to avoid the sequestration come January. So again, we are 
addressing the uncertainty not only in the lives of the American 
people, but in the life of our economy.
  Or today is the day that Republicans will continue to hold the middle 
class hostage to tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country.
  I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Levin, join the President of the 
United States, join all of us. There isn't a person in this room, in 
this body, I think, who doesn't support tax cuts for the middle class. 
Why can't we just do that, do what we can agree upon right now, tax cut 
by the weekend, alleviating uncertainty for our economy as we go 
forward, and then we can have a debate about what a Tax Code should 
look like that has fairness, simplification, and again keeps us 
competitive, innovative, and, number one, allows the private sector to 
create jobs. Again, jobs, jobs, jobs.
  We will reduce that deficit by having additional revenue, by creating 
growth, by addressing spending so we are investing in those initiatives 
that grow our economy. Pretty soon when we end this debate, it will be 
around the time when America's families will sit down for dinner at the 
kitchen table or wherever, and they will have these discussions about 
how they pay the bills, the bills to stay in their home or their 
apartment, wherever. Discussions on how they will pay for their 
children's education, how their pensions are affected by all of this. 
The list goes on and on.
  With one vote, we can alleviate that uncertainty. We're not going to 
eliminate it, but we can lessen it. We have that responsibility. Let's 
not miss an opportunity to do just that.
  So I thank you, Mr. Levin, for your leadership and members of the 
committee for all of your hard work.
  Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  There are a few undisputed facts. Small business--97 percent of small 
businesses will receive all of their tax cut. Don't listen to the 
propaganda to the contrary. Everyone will receive their tax cuts up to 
$250,000 of income. Don't listen to propaganda that says otherwise. And 
income over $1 million, for those who have that, would receive under 
the Republican bill 70 times more than the typical family. And when the 
two bills are combined, 150 times more than the typical family.
  Let me say just a word about tax reform, which I favor. It's being 
used as an argument for inaction. But, look, let's be realistic. No 
matter who controls the Congress next year, there won't be tax reform 
until maybe the spring or the summer. So are you going to use that same 
argument for tax reform, say, in a lame duck against middle-income tax 
cuts? Or in January, are you going to use the same argument? Are you 
going to use tax reform as a shield to protect the high-income 
taxpayer? In a word, the Republican bill is a path to nowhere for 
middle-income taxpayers.
  Our substitute is a sure path. Pass it. The Senate already has. The 
President will sign it. Act now. Vote for the substitute.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I travel around Michigan and my district, the Fourth 
Congressional District of Michigan, I often hear from many families 
that they think America is at a crossroads. They really question is the 
American Dream, is that dream that their children and grandchildren are 
going to have the opportunities that they had, is that dream still 
alive for their kids and their grandkids? The reason they ask that is 
because we've been on the economic path that the majority has 
established for the last 3 years, and we've seen the slowest recovery 
from any recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment is still 
too high. I think maybe being from Michigan, I'm particularly sensitive 
to that because we've had tough times for more than a decade. We need 
to get people back to work. We need to get jobs growing in this 
country.
  There's really a choice: Which path are we going to be on? Which road 
are we going to take? Which lane are we going to be in? Are we going to 
be in the lane where we just simply raise taxes? No matter what segment 
it is, I don't care, just name the segment, but one that we know will 
cost us 700,000 jobs?
  Or will we go down a path where we extend current law for 1 year, as 
many bipartisan experts have called for. Even President Bill Clinton 
has called for it. The President's former economic adviser, Larry 
Summers, has said let's extend current law for a year. Let's take the 
uncertainty out. And in the 20 hearings we've had on tax reform this 
year in the Ways and Means Committee, so many employers, so many tax 
experts, so many independent groups have come forward and said the 
uncertainty of all of this expiring tax policy is causing a huge 
problem.

[[Page 13126]]

  And my friends would say, well, if only we'd raise taxes on people 
and small businesses and others who make $250,000, that'll solve our 
problems. Well, it won't. It's just a piece of it. The Tax Code is so 
complex, with 5,000 changes over the last decade. I often say it's 10 
times larger than the Bible, with none of the good news.
  The burden that this Tax Code is placing on our economy, it's a huge 
wet blanket. Our GDP growth is just barely over 1 percent, the gross 
domestic product. Our economy is not growing enough; and if we don't 
grow our economy, we can't create the jobs that we need so desperately.

                              {time}  1710

  Let's work together. Let's pass this 1-year extension. Tomorrow, we 
have a package that will lay out our principles for comprehensive tax 
reform that will also lay out a process to expedite this next year in 
the House and Senate. We've been working with the Senate to establish 
these procedures. They will go through regular committee in an open and 
transparent way, not just roll a bill out on the floor and say, oh, if 
we only ding that one segment, things will be okay. Let's do this the 
right way.
  This is the greatest country in the world. Let's make this the 
greatest economic power in the world. Let's reform our Tax Code for the 
first time in 26 years. Let's make it a pro-growth, modern code that 
lets our U.S. companies compete around the world, lowers its rates and 
makes it simpler for people to file their taxes, lessens that burden, 
lessens that uncertainty and creates 1 million jobs in the first year 
alone.
  It's very clear which path we need to choose. Reject this substitute. 
Support H.R. 8. Get on the right path. Get on the path to job creation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 15, and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come 
together in support of H.R. 15, the Democratic alternative offered by 
our colleague from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.
  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.
  The intelligent Democratic substitute offered by my Ways and Means 
colleague temporarily extends for one year, through 2013, the reduced 
tax rates and other tax benefits enacted in 2001 and 2003 that expire 
on Dec. 31--but only for income levels below $250,000 for joint tax 
returns and $200,000 for individuals. This is smart tax policy which 
acknowledges the deficit problem but does not squelch tax benefits for 
those most in need.
  It also extends the expanded education tax credit, child tax credit 
and earned income tax credit benefits that were included in the 2009 
stimulus law and extended in the 2010 tax extension law; those 
provisions unfortunately are not included in H.R. 8.
  On the other hand, the Democratic proposal does the following:


                   TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF TAX RELIEF

  One-year extension of marginal individual income tax rate reductions 
for middle-class taxpayers.
  One-year extension of repeal of the overall limitation on itemized 
deductions (``Pease'') and the personal exemption phase-out (``PEP'') 
for middle-class taxpayers.
  One-year extension of EGTRRA and ARRA improvements to child tax 
credit.
  One-year extension of marriage penalty relief for middle-class 
taxpayers.
  One-year extension of earned income tax credit simplification and 
increase.
  One-year extension of education tax incentives.
  One-year extension of tax benefits for families and children.
  One-year extension of reduced maximum rate for capital gains and 
qualified dividend income for middle-class taxpayers.
  One-year extension of the American Opportunity Tax Credit (``AOTC''). 
One-year extension of enhanced small business expensing.
  The measure provides a one-year ``patch'' to prevent the alternative 
minimum tax (AMT) from affecting millions of additional taxpayers and 
allows small businesses to deduct an increased amount of their capital 
expenditures for another year. It does not extend current estate tax 
provisions, which set a maximum estate tax rate of 35% with an 
exemption amount of $5 million.
  I am deeply saddened that the fate of unemployed, low and middle 
income Americans has been held hostage by the insistence by Republicans 
that this legislation include a giveaway to the wealthiest 2% of 
Americans that is going to irresponsibly expand the already large 
deficit.
  I have spoken to and heard from many fine, patriotic, hardworking 
middle income Americans from Houston, from the great state of Texas, 
and all across the nation. Middle class American families and small 
businesses are deeply concerned about our troubled economy, the 
skyrocketing national deficit, high unemployment rates, job creation, 
and sorely needed extension of the tax relief and unemployment benefits 
set to expire at the end of this month.
  The 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% 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% 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 two year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for 
the wealthiest 2% of Americans while keeping their estate tax rate at 
35% on estates valued at more than $5 million for individuals and more 
than $10 million for couples.
  These giveaways to the wealthiest Americans during these dire 
economic times needlessly add billions of dollars to our skyrocketing 
deficit yet create no value for our ailing economy since these tax cuts 
are not tied to job creation and preservation.


                          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:

[[Page 13127]]

  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.
  7 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% 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% 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 and Sequestration measures 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 wreak 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. Let us come 
together for the American

[[Page 13128]]

people and pass the Levin Substitute--a bill which has already passed 
in the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill 
and on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 170, 
nays 257, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 543]

                               YEAS--170

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     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)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     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
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--257

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     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
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     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)
     Kissell
     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
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akin
     Cardoza
     Jackson (IL)

                              {time}  1737

  Messrs. JONES and JOHNSON of Ohio changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Ms. EDWARDS, Ms. HAHN, Mrs. DAVIS of California, and Messrs. ELLISON, 
HINCHEY, and MORAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Yes, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. DeFazio moves to recommit the bill H.R. 8 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end of the bill the following:

     SEC. 6. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Section 2 of this Act (H.R. 8) extends tax cuts for 
     millionaires instead of helping small businesses with tax 
     cuts to invest in the future and create jobs.
       (2) Small businesses would be better served by ending tax 
     breaks for millionaires and instead using that revenue to 
     expand the small business expensing provision, which fosters 
     investment in new plants and equipment.
       (3) This Act (H.R. 8) fails to extend expansions to the 
     Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, and it 
     fails to extend altogether the American Opportunity Tax 
     Credit. This tax relief encourages work, has lifted millions 
     of Americans into the middle class, and helps middle class 
     families pay for the costs of higher education.

     SEC. 7. APPLICATION OF EXTENSION OF 2001 AND 2003 TAX RELIEF 
                   TO CERTAIN HIGH-INCOME TAXPAYERS.

       (a) Application of Extension of 2001 Tax Relief.--
       (1) Treatment of 25-, 28-, and 33-percent rate brackets.--
     Paragraph (2) of section 1(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) 25-, 28-, and 33-percent rate brackets.--The tables 
     under subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) shall be 
     applied--
       ``(A) by substituting `25%' for `28%' each place it appears 
     (before the application of subparagraph (B)),
       ``(B) by substituting `28%' for `31%' each place it 
     appears, and
       ``(C) by substituting `33%' for `36%' each place it 
     appears.''.
       (2) 35-percent rate bracket.--Subsection (i) of section 1 
     of such Code is amended by redesignating paragraph (3) as 
     paragraph (4) and by inserting after paragraph (2) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) 35-percent rate bracket.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2012--
       ``(i) the rate of tax under subsections (a), (b), (c), and 
     (d) on a taxpayer's taxable income in the highest rate 
     bracket shall be 35 percent to the extent such income does 
     not exceed an amount equal to the excess of--

       ``(I) the applicable amount, over
       ``(II) the dollar amount at which such bracket begins, and

[[Page 13129]]

       ``(ii) the 39.6 percent rate of tax under such subsections 
     shall apply only to the taxpayer's taxable income in such 
     bracket in excess of the amount to which clause (i) applies.
       ``(B) Applicable amount.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `applicable amount' means the excess of--
       ``(i) the applicable threshold, over
       ``(ii) the sum of the following amounts in effect for the 
     taxable year:

       ``(I) the basic standard deduction (within the meaning of 
     section 63(c)(2)), and
       ``(II) the exemption amount (within the meaning of section 
     151(d)(1) (or, in the case of subsection (a), 2 such 
     exemption amounts).

       ``(C) Applicable threshold.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `applicable threshold' means--
       ``(i) $1,000,000 in the case of subsection (a), (b), and 
     (c), and
       ``(ii) \1/2\ the amount applicable under clause (i) (after 
     adjustment, if any, under subparagraph (E)) in the case of 
     subsection (d).
       ``(D) Highest rate bracket.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `highest rate bracket' means the bracket 
     which would (determined without regard to this paragraph) be 
     the 39.6-percent rate bracket.
       ``(E) Inflation adjustment.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, with respect to taxable years beginning in 
     calendar years after 2012, the dollar amount in subparagraph 
     (C)(i) shall be adjusted in the same manner as under 
     paragraph (1)(C), except that subsection (f)(3)(B) shall be 
     applied by substituting `2008' for `1992'.''.
       (3) Overall limitation on itemized deductions.--Section 68 
     of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the applicable amount'' the first place 
     it appears in subsection (a) and inserting ``the applicable 
     threshold in effect under section 1(i)(3)'',
       (B) by striking ``the applicable amount'' in subsection 
     (a)(1) and inserting ``such applicable threshold'',
       (C) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (b), (c), and 
     (d), respectively, and
       (D) by striking subsections (f) and (g).
       (4) Phaseout of deductions for personal exemptions.--
       (A) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 151(d) of such 
     Code is amended--
       (i) by striking ``the threshold amount'' in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B) and inserting ``the applicable threshold in 
     effect under section 1(i)(3)'',
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating 
     subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C), and
       (iii) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F).
       (B) Conforming amendments.--Paragraph (4) of section 151(d) 
     of such Code is amended--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (B),
       (ii) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph 
     (A) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and by 
     indenting such subparagraphs (as so redesignated) 
     accordingly, and
       (iii) by striking all that precedes ``in a calendar year 
     after 1989,'' and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning''.
       (b) Application of Extension of 2003 Tax Relief.--
       (1) 20-percent capital gains rate for certain high income 
     individuals.--Paragraph (1) of section 1(h) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subparagraph (C), 
     by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as subparagraphs 
     (E) and (F) and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the 
     following new subparagraphs:
       ``(C) 15 percent of the lesser of--
       ``(i) so much of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if 
     less, taxable income) as exceeds the amount on which a tax is 
     determined under subparagraph (B), or
       ``(ii) the excess (if any) of--

       ``(I) the amount of taxable income which would (without 
     regard to this paragraph) be taxed at a rate below 39.6 
     percent, over
       ``(II) the sum of the amounts on which a tax is determined 
     under subparagraphs (A) and (B),

       ``(D) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if 
     less, taxable income) in excess of the sum of the amounts on 
     which tax is determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C),''.
       (2) Minimum tax.--Section 55 of such Code is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) 20-percent Capital Gains Rate for Certain High Income 
     Individuals.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any individual, if the 
     taxpayer's taxable income for the taxable year exceeds the 
     applicable amount determined under section 1(i) with respect 
     to such taxpayer for such taxable year, the amount determined 
     under paragraph (2) shall be substituted for the amount 
     determined under subsection (b)(3)(C) for purposes of 
     determining the taxpayer's tentative minimum tax for such 
     taxable year.
       ``(2) Determination of 20-percent capital gains rate.--The 
     amount determined under this paragraph is the sum of--
       ``(A) 15 percent of the lesser of--
       ``(i) so much of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if 
     less, taxable excess) as exceeds the amount on which tax is 
     determined under subsection (b)(3)(B), or
       ``(ii) the excess described in section 1(h)(1)(C)(ii), plus
       ``(B) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if 
     less, taxable excess) in excess of the sum of the amounts on 
     which tax is determined under subparagraph (A) and subsection 
     (b)(3)(B).''.
       (3) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The following provisions are each amended by striking 
     ``15 percent'' and inserting ``20 percent'':
       (i) Section 531 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (ii) Section 541 of such Code.
       (iii) Section 1445(e)(1) of such Code.
       (iv) The second sentence of section 7518(g)(6)(A) of such 
     Code.
       (v) Section 53511(f)(2) of title 46, United States Code.
       (B) Section 1445(e)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended by striking ``15 percent (20 percent in the case 
     of taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010)'' and 
     inserting ``20 percent''.
       (c) Application of Sunsets.--
       (1) Application of egtrra sunset.--Each amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to title IX of the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to the same 
     extent and in the same manner as if such amendment was 
     included in title I of such Act.
       (2) Application of jgtrra sunset.--Each amendment made by 
     subsection (b) shall be subject to section 303 of the Jobs 
     and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 to the same 
     extent and in the same manner as if such amendment was 
     included in title III of such Act.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012.
       (2) Withholding.--The amendments made by subparagraphs 
     (A)(iii) and (B) of subsection (b)(3) shall apply to amounts 
     paid on or after January 1, 2013.

     SEC. 8. ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN SMALL BUSINESS EXPENSING.

       (a) In General.--Section 179(b) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, as amended by section 3, is further amended--
       (1) by striking ``$100,000'' in paragraph (1)(D) and 
     inserting ``$1,000,000'',
       (2) by striking ``$400,000'' in paragraph (2)(D) and 
     inserting ``$5,000,000'', and
       (3) by striking paragraph (6).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2012.

  Mr. DeFAZIO (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that reading of the motion be suspended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  Mr. CAMP. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. DeFAZIO (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that 
further reading be suspended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the reading is dispensed with.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. This is the final amendment to the bill. It won't kill 
the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will be 
immediately amended and will proceed to final passage.
  It's a pretty simple amendment. It would create a tax break for the 
real job creators in America, which are small businesses and middle-
income families. A middle-income person with a job or a small business 
and enough money to go out and invest and buy products made in America 
for his business--that's a key component of this--would be allowed an 
expensing.
  The Republican version of the bill would limit the expensing to small 
businesses to $100,000 a year for the purchases of new equipment made 
in America. If this amendment is adopted, those same small businesses 
would be allowed to expense up to $1 million to purchase products made 
in America, which would put people back to work.
  Now, I know we're going to hear of the millionaires and billionaires 
because this tax increase, or restoration of the Clinton era rates, 
would only apply to incomes over $1 million. So a millionaire still 
gets the break on the first $1 million. It's only on income over $1 
million that would go to the Clinton era rates.

[[Page 13130]]

  They'll say they're the job creators and that it would depress job 
creation. Let's think back to the Clinton administration. We had a 39.6 
percent top bracket on the millionaires and billionaires. We had 3.8 
percent unemployment in the United States of America, and we paid down 
debt for the first time since the Eisenhower administration. I'd like 
to go back to those bad old days.
  Now, we've been doing the Bush tax cuts for 12 years. Where are the 
jobs? Where are the jobs from cutting taxes on people's incomes of over 
$1 million? They aren't creating those jobs. Let me give you two quick 
examples from my district, and they're typical.

                              {time}  1750

  I have Palo Alto Software, a small business. They make software for 
business start-ups. We contacted them, and they said, Yes, we could 
invest way more both in new hardware, new software, and other things 
that would enhance our business than $100,000 if we were given this 
expensing privilege, and we would put more people back to work.
  Bulk Handling Systems, they make recycling systems in my district. 
They had the same answer: If you gave us a million dollars of 
expensing, we would spend every penny of that on products made in 
America and put people back to work.
  The bottom line is the Republicans want to limit these small 
businesses, these real job creators, to a $100,000 deduction when they 
could use a million dollars in expensing and put more people back to 
work, because their premise is that the millionaire, the person who got 
hundreds of millions or more in income, that having them not pay more 
taxes on their income over $1 million will create more jobs than the 
small business. I don't buy that. I don't think the American people buy 
that.
  There's no limit on what they can do with their huge tax breaks, 
their very expensive tax breaks. They can buy another vacation home in 
the Caribbean. They can buy a Lamborghini. Paris Hilton can go on a 
shopping spree in London or Paris.
  This bill limits the expensing and the purchase of equipment to 
products made in the United States of America. I want to see things 
made in this country again. I want to put Americans back to work, not 
people overseas.
  It's time that we admitted that we can't afford to continue the tax 
cuts over $1 million of income.
  It would also reduce the deficit over 10 years by $29 billion after 
we create jobs, after we give this expensing privilege to small 
businesses.
  The choice is yours. You can stick with those who have income over $1 
million or you can side with small businesses and American workers. You 
decide.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CAMP. It's clear that my friends on the other side are committed 
to raising taxes at any cost. Does anyone believe that they're going to 
use that to reduce the deficit? We'll just see more wasteful Washington 
spending. This isn't a solution. America is at a crossroad. We've had 
40 months of 8 percent unemployment. What do we get from them? Not a 
solution. We get a political ploy.
  I appreciate my friend from Oregon touting the benefits of the 
Clinton administration when we had a Republican Congress. Let me just 
say I've welcomed the advice of former President Bill Clinton. He said 
extend all of the current tax rates. Let me just say that this would 
gut tax reform.
  Say ``yes'' to tax reform. Say ``no'' to raising taxes. Say ``no'' to 
this motion to recommit.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 8, if ordered, and the motions to 
suspend with regard to House Resolution 750 and H.R. 4365.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 246, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 544]

                               AYES--181

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     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
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     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
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     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
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     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

                               NOES--246

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     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
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     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
     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

[[Page 13131]]


     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akin
     Cardoza
     Jackson (IL)

                              {time}  1811

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 256, 
noes 171, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 545]

                               AYES--256

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     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 (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     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)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--171

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     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
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akin
     Cardoza
     Jackson (IL)

                              {time}  1819

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

                          ____________________