District of Columbia Medicaid Reimbursement Act of 2009

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

This House--the people's House--has a simple choice today: raise taxes on families and small businesses or prevent a massive job-killing tax increase from going into effect a mere 16 days from now.

If you think our economy can handle higher taxes, if you think middle class families should lose roughly $100 per week out of their paychecks, then vote ``no'' today. Make no mistake about it, a ``no'' vote today is a vote for higher taxes, taxes that would devastate families and send shock waves throughout our economy.

If you believe we should stop this massive tax increase in its tracks, especially when unemployment is stuck at nearly 10 percent, then vote ``yes.'' If you want to be sure we don't extend the failed Making Work Pay policy from the failed stimulus law that has the IRS writing checks to people who pay no income or payroll taxes, then vote ``yes.'' If you are opposed to the Federal Government taking more than half of a family farm or business due to a death, then vote ``yes.'' And if you are interested in fundamental tax reform--getting rid of exemptions, deductions, and loopholes that complicate our Tax Code-- then vote ``yes'' because this bill gives us the time that we need to rewrite the Tax Code, cut spending next year, and get our economy back on track.

I know some of my friends want to wait until January when Republicans are back in the majority because they think that we can get a better deal. That is as misguided as it is politically callous. And let me be blunt. It's irresponsible to play a game of chicken with the Senate and the White House next year when middle class Americans are literally forced to pay $100 more a week in taxes and are forced to suffer even greater job losses. If this bill fails today, that's what will happen. Paychecks and jobs will burn while Washington fiddles.

If that's your stance, then I ask, What better deal could we get? People talk about making tax rates permanent. That's something I support. That's something every Republican in this House supports. But how does waiting until January, February, March, April, or May make that a reality?

The Senate voted yesterday on the DeMint amendment which would have made the rates permanent, and it failed 37-63. Last time I looked, we didn't pick up 23 seats in the United States Senate. And the President has flatly refused to sign such legislation into law. So again, tell me, how do we get a better deal by waiting? It makes no sense to gamble with the American people's jobs and the very paychecks they rely on to put food on the table and keep the house warm this winter.

Americans are suffering through the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression. This is not a time for political speeches or electoral posturing. This is a time to act responsibly, to do what is right, and to vote ``yes.'' Employers are begging us to pass this legislation. Small businesses and the National Federation of Independent Business are supporting the bill because they know they cannot afford a tax hike. The Business Roundtable which represents the largest employers in the country with over 12 million employees is supporting this bill because they know the economy cannot afford a tax hike.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is supporting this legislation because they know we cannot afford a tax hike. The National Association of Manufacturers is supporting this legislation. Economists across the spectrum, from the far left to the far right, are supporting this legislation, and so should the Members of this House.

By no means is this bill perfect. For example, I think we should have paid for the extension of unemployment insurance and, frankly, we will. I'm committed to producing legislation next year to revamp, reform, and pay for the Federal unemployment benefits our Nation provides. We should not have to choose between adding to the deficit and providing this important help, but we cannot allow that single concern to hold this bill up.

Time has run out. This is our only chance, and the harm to our economy and the hit families would suffer is far too great a risk.

And let's be clear, this bill is about taxes, longstanding tax policy, for that matter, and preventing a tax hike. It isn't about spending. Nearly 90 percent of this bill is tax policy, and that policy is aimed at preventing a tax hike for families and employers or providing direct tax relief to the American worker.

It also protects family farms, ranches and businesses from being hit by the destructive death tax. That will go as high as 55 percent next year if we do not act. Instead, this bill reduces that rate to 35 percent, while increasing the exemption amount from $1 million to $5 million.

Now, I know $1 million sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But think about the family farmers in your districts. Think about the costs of the big machinery it takes to operate and manage their land. Some of the combines I see every day in my district cost a quarter of a million each. That isn't cash in the bank. That's equipment in the field,

and the Federal Government has no right to take half of it when mom or dad passes on.

While I support a total repeal of the death tax, at least this bill makes significant improvements to the estate and gift taxes, and it deserves our support.

Members should also know, and the American people should know, that this bill does not contain new policy. New provisions were not snuck in late in the night or behind closed doors. We took a firm stand against new policy. We took a firm stand against policy that had not been renewed repeatedly and, as a result, more than 70 provisions, some of them my own, were excluded from the bill, well over $100 billion worth.

The most notable provisions of these we terminated were from the failed stimulus bill, like the refundable Making Work Pay credit, the Build America Bonds program, which simply subsidized State and local governments going deeper into debt, and grants in lieu of the low- income housing credit. None of that is in here, nor are there the usual Washington Christmas tree ornaments. This bill is narrowly focused on tax and unemployment policy.

Unlike the omnibus Democrats are preparing, there are no earmarks like the $2 million for an Ice Age National Scenic trail in Wisconsin. There isn't a $3.5 million study on subterranean termites in New Orleans, and there certainly isn't an extra $1 billion for the new job- killing health care law.

My friends, the election's over. Let's not start the next campaign here today. Let's make the right choice. Let's stop this tax hike from going into effect in 2 weeks. Let's put our constituents' jobs before our own. Let's show the American people we can govern and we can take yes for an answer.

So let's pass this bill with broad bipartisan support, as the Senate did yesterday by a vote of 81-19. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

I yield 4 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say, the gentleman from Arizona who spoke is a cosponsor of the legislation that would reduce the payroll tax that would give the so-called pay hike to Members of Congress. But let me just say, this payroll tax deduction applies to every working American, just as the rate reductions apply to every small business in America.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The majority party has had large bipartisan majorities in the Senate and the House and controlled the White House for the last 2 years. And as we know, in the House, the majority can pretty much do what they want, as was demonstrated with the trillion-dollar stimulus bill, as was demonstrated with ObamaCare.

There is some explaining to do.

Why wasn't this issue dealt with before the election? Why didn't the majority bring a bill to the floor before the election?

Now, as Americans face these tax increases, here we are just a few short days before the end of the year, and now, because there is a bipartisan compromise, which incidentally passed the Senate 81-19, I think there is a recognition that this is just no time to be playing games with our economy. The failure to block these tax increases would be a direct hit to families and small businesses and employers, and it would further delay our economic recovery.

For those reasons, I support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that we send this bill back to the drawing board, work with the President, so that we can really help the unemployed, the 99ers, and not just grow the deficit. Where are the good Samaritans?

We have voted over and over for tax cuts. I believe in them. The House voted for tax cuts 2 weeks ago, but this tax bill is a budget buster and just growing the deficit, the same deficit that we're going to be called upon to do something about.

I want America to thrive. So they cannot be giving tax cuts to billionaires who do not want them. We cannot cut into the Social Security, costing us $120 billion and impacting firefighters, teachers, and police who do not get a benefit from the payroll tax holiday. I want middle class tax cuts, but I want the Republicans to stop holding us hostage for hardworking Americans to get a dime from this country. They work hard.

I offered an amendment to ensure that the corporations that are getting the tax cuts really do save a job or hire the people who are unemployed. With billions being spent and trillions in the deficit, it is time now to work for middle class Americans.

Mr. Chair, I have deep reservations with portions of this bill, especially as it relates to the estate tax and tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Nevertheless, I do support portions of H.R. 4853, to extend vital tax cuts for America's middle and working class and extending unemployment insurance benefits that will otherwise expire at the end of this month. I have consistently supported and voted for middle class tax cuts, as I did two weeks ago when I voted for the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010, and the extension of unemployment benefits.

I am deeply saddened that the fate of unemployed, low and middle income Americans has been held hostage by the insistence by Republicans that this legislation include a giveaway to the wealthiest 2% of Americans that is going to irresponsibly expand the already large deficit. I have spoken to and heard from many fine, patriotic, hardworking middle income Americans from Houston, from the great State of Texas, and all across the nation. Middle class American families and small businesses are deeply concerned about our troubled economy, the skyrocketing national deficit, high unemployment rates, job creation, and sorely needed extension of the tax relief and unemployment benefits set to expire at the end of this month. The American people are asking the President and Members of Congress to move swiftly and take decisive action to help restore our economy in a fiscally responsible manner. I am disappointed that Republicans have insisted on holding unemployment benefits and tax cuts for working and middle class families' hostage in order to benefit the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

I also have some serious concerns that the temporary payroll tax cut included in this legislation could jeopardize Social Security. Although this is a temporary tax cut, there will inevitably be debate in the future about extending it before its expiration, which could create substantial shortfalls in Social Security's long term viability. Future extensions of this payroll tax at the expense of Social Security could force hard-earned retirement benefits to compete with other government programs for funding rather than remaining self-sufficient. Tax cuts must be instituted without compromising Social Security.

I would like to thank President Obama for his determined leadership, support and commitment to protecting important tax relief issues for middle-income Americans and the nation's small businesses and farmers during these challenging economic times. I would also like to thank all the Members and their staff who worked diligently to bring this essential legislation to the House floor today in an attempt to do all that we can to protect the American people and move this nation toward fiscally responsible economic recovery.

I support those provisions of H.R. 4853 as amended by Senate Amendment 4753 that provide necessary tax relief to struggling middle income Americans. Under the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act, Senate Amendment 4753, middle- class families and small businesses will see their taxes go down. This measure contains job-creating tax incentives, including incentives to create clean energy jobs, energy-efficient homes, and investments in renewable energy. It also ensures that millions of Americans still looking for work continue to have access to an emergency safety net to afford basic necessities, without extending the amount of time these benefits can be claimed for any given household.

The specific ways that this bill will benefit middle-class families and aid the economic recovery include the following:

It preserves the current income tax rate for middle-class families (2 years).

It reauthorizes the current emergency unemployment insurance program (13 months, or through the end of 2011).

It continues vital middle-class tax credits, including the American Opportunity Tax Credit to help families pay for college, the Child Tax Credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (two years).

It helps businesses by allowing them to deduct 100 percent of certain investments in 2011 and 50 percent in 2012.

It extends the state and local sales tax deduction, which is particularly important for states, like Texas, which have no state income tax (2 years).

It extends Alternative Minimum Tax relief through 2011 (2 years).

I have already voted for all of the above benefits.

Unlike those provisions of H.R. 4853 which benefit America's struggling middle class, I do not support the provisions of this legislation which condition that desperately needed relief upon the unconscionably high cost of providing an unnecessary, expensive giveaway to the wealthiest Americans by providing a two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans while lowering their estate tax rate to 35% on estates valued at more than $5 million for individuals and more than $10 million for couples. These giveaways to the wealthiest Americans during these dire economic times needlessly add billions of dollars to our skyrocketing deficit yet create no value for our ailing economy since these tax cuts are not tied to job creation and preservation.

I offered an amendment that would require all large businesses and corporations who received a tax benefit under this legislation to report how their tax savings are being used to create or save jobs. Tax cuts for America's largest corporations must be tied to job creation or preservation, which is why I offered my amendment. Failing to tie tax cuts to job creation is irresponsible since it exacerbates our growing deficit without bolstering job creation.

I would like to add my support for the Amendment to H.R. 4853 introduced by my colleague, Mr. Pomeroy of North Dakota. This amendment would strike Title III of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4583 and amend the bill to provide two years of estate tax relief at 2009 levels. In calendar years 2011 and 2012, the estate tax exemption amount would be $3.5 million ($7 million total for a married couple) and the maximum tax rate on estates would be 45%. Additionally, the amendment would provide estates from decedents in 2010 with the ability to elect to be treated under the 2009 levels or to be treated under current law for tax purposes. This election will allow estates to receive a step up in basis on inherited property rather than the 2010 carryover basis rules. The exemption level and rate are consistent with the estate tax proposal included in the President's FY2010 and FY2011 budgets.

While I am opposed to the portions of H.R. 4853 that amount to an expensive giveaway to the wealthiest 2% of Americans, I want to emphasize that I fully support President Obama's vision for change. I share his commitment to fighting for low and middle-income Americans who are the backbone of this country and our economy. However, this legislation, especially as it pertains to tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans and estate tax provisions that are regressive and inflate the deficit, does not comport with this vision. I have serious misgivings about extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of our deficit, especially if these tax cuts are not targeted towards job creation.

I strongly support the tax and unemployment insurance relief that H.R. 4853 provides to middle-income families, small businesses and farmers. But, my friends, I must express my concern that this legislation does not provide extension of unemployment benefits for those unfortunate unemployed Americans who have run up against a brick wall. These so-called ``99ers'' have been sincerely looking for work for a very long time and have run out of resources to provide for their families and pay their mortgages, pay their bills and buy food. They simply want and need a job to pay for these obligations. H.R. 4853 proposes to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, yet fails to provide for the so-called ``99ers.''

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Democratic majority in the House has made it crystal clear that we stand on the side of middle income families, of unemployed workers, of small businesses struggling in this difficult economy. The compromise before

us clearly requires painful choices. These choices relate to each of the three criteria for judging the merits of this package: Does it add to the deficit? Does it promote economic growth? And does it promote fairness?

For decades, Republicans have unwisely promoted a view that tax cuts pay for themselves. So while making deficit reduction their rhetoric, they never have had any intention of paying for tax cuts which add to the deficit, plain and simple. Adding to the deficit is defensible if the bill meets another criterion: Does it promote economic growth? Adding to the deficit in the short term as a tool to promote economic growth that will, in turn, help address the long-term deficit has been the basis of vital actions taken by the Democratic majority, actions to stem the financial crisis, jump-start the economy, and save the auto industry. These were necessary steps, sometimes unpopular ones, and steps unfortunately not effectively articulated at times by the administration.

This bill does include important provisions aimed at increasing economic growth and jobs: unemployment insurance for millions out of work who will spend money received to keep their families afloat; the middle income tax cut; the temporary reduction in payroll taxes; and business provisions like the R&D tax credit, the new markets credit, and full expensing of business investment for 1 year.

Unfortunately, in their zeal to undo the Recovery Act, Republicans have insisted that we not extend the successful 48C credit for advanced engineering manufacturing or the Build America Bond program, working to rebuild our economy. The Republicans have insisted on provisions that violate the third criterion, fairness for taxpayers.

In order for the administration to be able to include provisions that help lower and middle income families, it came at the price of assisting the very wealthy, the Republicans' priority. Their position has led to a package where the top six-tenths of 1 percent of the very wealthiest receive 20 percent of the benefits of the tax package. My amendment would strike a blow at this unfairness by replacing the highly irresponsible and unfair Kyl estate tax giveaway. The resulting $23 billion in additional borrowing won't go to create jobs. It will be used to provide an average tax cut of more than $1.5 million to the 6,600 wealthiest estates next year. This represents less than three- tenths of 1 percent of all estates.

I urge my colleagues to vote to change this egregious piece of the legislation so the American people can see clearly who puts the interests of the middle class ahead of the very wealthiest. And then the Republicans in the Senate will have a stark choice that might be painful for them. It would make it clear whose side they are on.

I will accept the remainder of the bill because after the approach taken by Republicans in the House and Senate these last weeks, obstructing and holding hostage everything until they get their way on the tax breaks for the very wealthy, I am not willing to put the fate of the middle class and the unemployed in the hands of the Republican majority next year. Especially when voiced by the Senate Republican leader that their main priority is the failure of our President.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from North Dakota, a member of our committee, Mr. Pomeroy.

I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), an active member of our committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of our committee.

(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 15 seconds to Mr. Welch of Vermont, followed by 3 minutes to Mr. Jackson of Illinois.

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an active member of our committee.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a very distinguished colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from the great State of Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to a distinguished Member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I now yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

It is now my real privilege to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a very active member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I now yield 2 minutes to another active, distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

It is now my real pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

(Mr. GARAMENDI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the active Member from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished Member from California (Ms. Eshoo).

It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to a member of our committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who has been working day and night on this issue.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

I am privileged to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

It is now a real pleasure to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

It is now my real pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a Member who has been very active on this issue, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on fairness for growing the economy, for reducing the deficit and for creating jobs, because that is some of what is done in this bill.

I think I want to use my time to make some distinctions here. President Obama and the Democrats have supported initiatives to protect the middle class. We are fighting for the middle class. We are wanting to grow the economy and to create jobs and reduce the deficit, so we must subject whatever legislation that comes before us as to how it meets those tests.

This legislation on the Democratic side of the ledger does create jobs and the demand that creating jobs injects into the economy helps reduce the deficit. For example, unemployment insurance provisions that are in the legislation economists across the board tell us return more money to the economy than almost any initiative you can name. People spend that money quickly. These are people who are looking for work, people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Their unemployment insurance is spent immediately, again injecting demand into the economy, creating jobs.

Low income tax credit, refundable.

Child tax credit; refundable. All of this placed in the hands of the working families in America, again, spent immediately, injecting demand, creating jobs. The college tuition tax credit, very important for America's working families and their children.

So here we are with a bill on one side of the ledger that benefits 155 million Americans. We have tax cuts for the middle class across the board. Everybody gets that tax cut. But in order for the middle class to get that tax cut, the Republicans insist that those who make the top 2 percent in our country get an extra tax cut, adding billions of dollars to the deficit and not creating any jobs. To add insult to injury, they have now added this estate tax provision--and, mind you, the Democratic side of the ledger benefits 155 million Americans. In order for the President to get those terms accepted, the Republicans insisted that $23 billion in benefits go to the 6,600 wealthiest families in America. 6,600 families holding up tax cuts for 155 million Americans. Is that fair? Does that meet any test of fairness that we have? Again, this $23 billion not creating jobs, this $23 billion increasing the deficit by 8 percent in the fiscal year.

Think of what we could do with that $23 billion. We could triple our research in cancer and diabetes. I think that means something to all Americans, including those 6,600 wealthiest families. We could give a $7,000 raise to every public school teacher in America. We could create, investing in new technology, 780,000 jobs--780,000 jobs. Instead, we're giving a bonanza to 6,600 of the wealthiest people in America who really don't need the help.

It's just amazing to hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about deficit reduction when everything on their side of the ledger increases the deficit and does not create jobs. Tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent; the most egregious of all, the estate tax provision that they have that benefits not 1 percent, not one-half of 1 percent, but one-quarter of 1 percent of the American people. We have to borrow that money from China and send the bill to our children and our grandchildren. And that is not good policy. It does not have a favorable impact on the deficit. It does not create jobs. It does not grow our economy. It does not stimulate growth in our country.

And so I hope that our colleagues will vote favorably for the Pomeroy amendment to bring some fairness and clarity to the estate tax issue. On that, 99.7 percent of all Americans are exempted. 99.7 percent of all Americans are exempted from paying estate tax under Pomeroy. But we had to get that upper 3 percent in this legislation in order to benefit 155 million Americans. These figures have to be engraved in our being-- 155 million. You can't have that unless 6,600. I've said it over and over.

And then, on top of all of that, on the Democratic side of the ledger we have the green initiative, 1603, that the Senate put in the bill. This is just a very positive provision for renewable energy--wind, solar, et cetera. But the Republicans said, That's the limit. We won't accept any more. And so all of the initiatives for innovation that have been passed the past few years that should have been extended, we said ``no'' to innovation, we said ``no'' to the future, we said ``no'' to keeping America number one for encouraging our competitiveness.

So if we're talking about growth, we have to talk about investments in the future. If we're talking about being number one, we have to have an innovation agenda to do it. The Republicans said ``no'' to that. They only

said ``yes'' to tax cuts to the wealthiest.

As Mr. Weiner said, we recognize success. We admire success. We all want to be part of it. God bless them for having the wealth that they have, whether it is inherited or earned. We recognize success and what wealth does to create jobs, et cetera. But we also want to reward work. We want to reward work. So in order to reward work in this legislation, we had to have a big payoff to the top one-quarter percent of America's wealthiest families.

So for my colleagues, as they review this, this is very difficult. Nobody wants taxes to go up for the great middle class. In fact, everybody gets a tax cut in this. We just don't see why we have to give an extra tax cut to the wealthiest and then an extra, extra estate tax benefit to the top one-quarter percent.

As Members have to make up their mind about this, I hope that they will vote for the Pomeroy amendment to this legislation. They'll have to make their own decisions as to whether it is necessary to be held hostage, to pay a king's ransom, in order to help the middle class. We absolutely cannot allow taxes to go up come January 1.

The previous speaker said we have to look to how we were forced to this precarious ledge. Yes, let us look to how we were forced to this precarious ledge. This situation, the recession that we were in--the deep recession that we were in--President Obama was a job creator from day one with the Recovery Act and pulled us back from that recession. The financial crisis that they created, President Obama pulled us back from that. And, oh, by the way, remember the financial crisis? Remember the banks that all that money went to and they didn't extend credit? Now those same people are giving out over $100 billion in Christmas bonuses. And these Republicans in this House of Representatives are saying, We don't want you to be taxed to the proper extent on that $100 billion. More money given in bonuses on Wall Street. Think of it. Over $100 billion dollars. And we want to give them a free ride in terms of paying their fair share.

So if it comes to creating jobs, growing the economy, reducing the deficit, investing in growth and competitiveness and innovation to keep America number one, I applaud President Obama for his side of the ledger. I'm sorry that the price that has to be paid for it is so high. At a time when everybody is preaching the gospel of deficit reduction, the Republicans come in with an increase in the deficit to the tune of over $100 billion dollars for people in our country who need it the least and, again, where it does not create jobs.

So Members will have to make up their minds as to how we go forward on the bill. But I hope that all of them in their consideration of it will vote for the Pomeroy amendment, which addresses the most egregious--with stiff competition, mind you, in this bill--the most egregious provision when it comes to fairness, reducing the deficit, and not creating jobs.

I, again, commend the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and all of our colleagues who have had to explain through all of the misrepresentations that have been made about what this legislation is about. And, again, I salute President Obama for getting in the bill what is in there. I'm sorry at the price that has to be paid by our children and grandchildren to the Chinese government to pay for the increase in the deficit that the Republicans insisted upon.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And, Mr. Chairman, I had not originally thought I would come here to speak. I must admit, I have been watching the debate in my office and have some amount of envy for my colleagues who bring such passion and certainty of their vote as they come to the floor.

As I look at this legislation and listen to my colleagues, I must admit I consider it to be a very successful negotiation because I am not sure I have heard anybody who really likes the bill. Perhaps that's a hallmark of a successful negotiation. As I look at the legislation, it is the classic challenge of, Is the glass half full or is it half empty? I, for one, have decided it to be half full.

Mr. Chairman, clearly there are items in this legislation that I find not just empty but, frankly, atrocious. Yes, there is tax pork in this legislation. There is an unpaid-for extension of unemployment benefits. Mr. Chairman, at some point, I would hope the majority--soon to be minority in this institution--would realize that we have got to concentrate on the paychecks. Americans want paychecks, not unemployment checks. And if we're going to have them, they need to be paid for. And worst of all, what's happening to Social Security, with the payroll tax without putting any fundamental reform on the table. And what I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, It is you who brought that to the table.

Mr. Chairman, I made a pledge to my constituents. I told them I would fight any tax increases. I told them I would try to bring certainty to this economy because that is what businesses need. Trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines, waiting to come into this economy; but yet the party who has been in control of Congress for 4 years, had the White House for 2 years waits until almost Christmas Eve, and we still don't know what tax rates are. There's no certainty.

The only thing I am certain of is that if we don't pass this legislation, there's about to be a $3.9 trillion tax increase on the American people, on school teachers, on farmers, on single mothers, on small businesses, on job creators, and, yes, even the vilified wealthy.

Mr. Chairman, we've heard the class warfare rhetoric for quite some time now; and look what it's got us, almost serial double digit unemployment and human suffering.

Mr. Chairman, I've held a lot of jobs in my life. I used to bus tables at the Holiday Inn in College Station, Texas. I used to work on a loading dock and load windows. I used to clean out chicken houses, which to some extent was sufficient training for the present occupation, but that's a subject for a different time.

But, you know what, Mr. Chairman? In all these jobs I've held, no poor person ever hired me. It was somebody who went out and risked capital and took a chance and built something. And yet the left and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to vilify this person, that somehow it's bad to go out and be successful and create jobs so that people can put roofs over their heads, put food on their table, send their kids to college. I don't get it.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle say well, this will add to the deficit. Well, why didn't I hear that argument during the $1.2 trillion failed stimulus? I didn't hear the great angst and anxiety from my friends on the other side of the aisle at that point when we passed an almost $400 billion omnibus spending bill. I really didn't hear it.

I didn't, Mr. Chairman, hear this angst and anxiety when my friends on the other side of the aisle not only brought us the first trillion dollar deficit in America's history, but backed it up with the second trillion dollar deficit in American history. I didn't hear all this concern. I only hear it now when we're talking about letting the American people keep what they earn.

We're not even talking about a tax cut here. We're talking about preventing a tax increase. So I don't quite understand all of a sudden this great angst and concern about the deficit.

And I might remind all of my colleagues, it is the deficit which is the symptom. It is spending which is the disease. We can clearly get rid of the deficit tonight. Let's increase taxes 60 percent, 60 percent on all Americans. Let's more than double taxes on our children and destroy the American Dream. Sure, we can balance the budget. That doesn't take care of the fiscal insanity.

And so to avoid a further job meltdown--and let me make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, this is not any great economic growth package that is put before us. I don't believe that this is going to be the cornucopia of jobs. What we're trying to do here is avoid further damage to a crippled economy that, again, has almost double-digit unemployment on a serial basis. I wish we had at least 10 years of certainty of these tax rates. I'm sorry it's only two.

I would say to my friends on this side of the aisle who say, well, we could have gotten a better deal: well, I don't know. I wasn't in the room. I didn't negotiate the deal. Maybe their crystal ball is clearer than my crystal ball.

Here's what I see in my crystal ball. I'm absolutely for certain in my crystal ball that come January, Barack Obama is still going to be President of the United States. In my crystal ball, Harry Reid is still going to be Senate majority leader.

That's what I see in my crystal ball. So maybe the friends on my side of the aisle, maybe you're right. But you have a degree of certainty and clarity of the future I do not have. So, personally, I'm not willing to take the chance.

I'm going to cast the ``aye'' vote. I'm going to stop the job-killing tax increases. I'm going to add at least a modicum of certainty, 2 years of certainty to the Tax Code. And I'm going to fight to put this Nation back on the road to fiscal sanity because, in this legislation, I see the glass half full.