Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

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

The unemployment rate in October, the latest data available, was 9.6 percent. That marked 15 consecutive months we are at or above 9.5 percent unemployment in this country, the longest period since the Great Depression. All told, 48 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the so-called $1 trillion stimulus bill and nearly 15 million Americans remain unemployed.

What's a Democrat's answer to the Great Recession? Increased taxes, but not just any taxes. Democrats in the bill before us today are targeting half of all small business income in the country. Democrats are targeting the very employers we need, hiring more workers, and buying more equipment, not paying more taxes.

Let's face it, this bill is as misguided as it is futile. This is the wrong policy at the wrong time and the majority is wrong to bring it to the floor today.

In fact, many of their own Members agree with me. I have here in my hand a letter signed by over 30 Democrat Members of the House and let me read what they wrote:

``In recent weeks we have heard from a diverse spectrum of economists, small business owners and families who have voiced their concerns that raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth. Given the continued fragility of our economy and slow pace of our recovery, we share their concerns.''

I want to repeat that: raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth.

Set aside for a minute the economists and the political rhetoric, and let's look at what small businesses say the impact of this tax-hiking legislation will be.

According to the National Federation of Independent Small Businesses, the businesses most likely to face a tax increase by raising the top two rates are businesses employing between 20 and 250 employees.

According to the U.S. Census data, businesses with between 20 and 299

workers employ more than 25 percent of the total workforce. Those who are most likely to be hit by these tax increases employ one out of every four workers in this Nation. This Democrat tax hike is putting a target on the back of every worker in every small business in America.

As for the futility of this exercise, it would be comical if it weren't so irresponsible. Democrats can barely muster the votes for this bill in the House. I'm told they had to whip the bill and hold a special caucus this morning just to move forward. Their position is so precarious, they won't even allow Republicans to offer amendments or any alternative. Why? Because Democrats know the Republican bill to extend the current rates for all taxpayers would pass with broad bipartisan support.

So, once again, House Democrats have closed down the amendment process in order to pass a bill that will never see the light of day in the Senate. Just yesterday, 42 Senators sent a letter to Majority Leader Reid and stated in no uncertain terms that they ``will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers.''

Clearly, this bill is going nowhere. Democrats are wasting time while Americans are looking for work. Democrats are playing games while Americans struggle to make ends meet. The American people did not send us here to posture. They sent us here to provide solutions. I had hoped that after the election, we would get down to working together to solve the serious problems Americans are facing. That's why I was encouraged the President agreed to have Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate Members, sit down with his administration to hammer out a deal on these expiring tax rates. I thought maybe we had turned a corner.

Instead of letting that process work itself out, instead of working with Republicans to prevent job-killing tax increases, House Democrats are back at it again, putting politics ahead of everything else. This is a time for serious negotiations and solutions, not political stunts. Far too much is at stake. Far too many families are out of work, and far too many families will soon see real and sizeable amounts of money taken out of their paychecks if the Democrats continue with these games.

I urge my colleagues to reject this Democratic tax hike, this job- killing tax hike.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, November 29, 2010.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader Reid: The Nation's unemployment level, stuck

near 10 percent, is unacceptable to Americans. Senate

Republicans have been urging Congress to make private-sector

job creation a priority all year. President Obama in his

first speech after the November election said ``we owe'' it

to the American people to ``focus on those issues that affect

their jobs.'' He went on to say that Americans ``want jobs to

come back faster.'' Our constituents have repeatedly asked us

to focus on creating an environment for private-sector job

growth; it is time that our constituents' priorities become

the Senate's priorities.

For that reason, we write to inform you that we will not

agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any

legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the

government and we have prevented the tax increase that is

currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time

left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling

should be focused on these critical priorities. While there

are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the

Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters

above the critical issues of funding the government and

preventing a job-killing tax hike.

Given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase

and providing economic certainty should be our top priority.

Without Congressional action by December 31, all American

taxpayers will be hit by an increase in their individual

income tax rates and investment income through the capital

gains and dividend rates. If Congress were to adopt the

President's tax proposal to prevent the tax increase for only

some Americans, small businesses would be targeted with a

job-killing tax increase at the worst possible time.

Specifically, more than 750,000 small businesses will see a

tax increase, which will affect 50 percent of small business

income and nearly 25 percent of the entire workforce. The

death tax rate will also climb from zero percent to 55

percent, which makes it the top concern for America's small

businesses. Republicans and Democrats agree that small

businesses create most new jobs, so we ought to be able to

agree that raising taxes on small businesses is the wrong

remedy in this economy. Finally, Congress still needs to act

on the ``tax extenders'' and the alternative minimum tax

``patch,'' all of which expired on December 31, 2009.

We look forward to continuing to work with you in a

constructive manner to keep the government operating and

provide the nation's small businesses with economic certainty

that the job-killing tax hike will be prevented.

Sincerely,

Mitch McConnell, Mitch McConnell,

Republican Leader.

Jon Kyl,

Republican Whip.

[40 additional signatures omitted]

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say and comment on my friend's remarks that this is not about giving anybody a tax cut. This is about preventing a tax increase in a time of great unemployment that has gone on, as I said in my remarks, for more than 15 months at 9\1/2\ percent.

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

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

I yield the gentleman from Nevada an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

At this time I reserve.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

And I would just say I listened very carefully to the majority leader's well-reasoned arguments. And if, in fact, this bill were going somewhere, they would have made a great deal of sense. But we know now that the Senate will not take up this bill. Forty-two Senators have signed a letter that they will not take up any legislation unless it is dealing with the potential tax increases on all Americans.

I also have a letter that was sent to the House of Representatives dated today from the National Association of Manufacturers. And there has probably been no State hit harder than Michigan, no sector hit harder in Michigan than manufacturing. And I want to quote from this letter that says, ``Manufacturers strongly support extending the 2001 and 2003 tax relief for all taxpayers. Over 70 percent of American manufacturers file as S corporations or some other pass-through entity and will be significantly impacted by these higher rates. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, fully extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would add between 600,000 and 1.4 million jobs between now and 2011 and between 900,000 and 2.7 million jobs in 2012.''

National Association of

Manufacturers,

December 2, 2010.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives: The National Association of

Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in

the United States, urges you to oppose H.R. 4853, the Middle

Class Tax Relief Act of 2010.

Tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003, which repealed the

estate tax and lowered both individual tax rates and tax

rates on investment income, helped spur economic growth. Now,

however, absent immediate congressional action, these lower

rates will expire, resulting in a top income tax rate of

nearly 40 percent, a 164 percent increase in the dividend tax

and the return of a 55 percent estate tax on family-held

companies.

Manufacturers strongly support extending the 2001 and 2003

tax relief for all taxpayers. Over 70 percent of American

manufacturers file as S-corporations or some other pass-

thru entity and will be significantly impacted by these

higher rates. According to the non-partisan Congressional

Budget Office, fully extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts

would add between 600,000 and 1.4 million jobs in 2011 and

between 900,000 and 2.7 million jobs in 2012.

We urge Congress to reject this legislation and move toward

extending all of the current tax rates.

The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that

votes on H.R. 4853, including potential procedural motions,

merit consideration for designation as Key Manufacturing

Votes in the 111th Congress.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jay Timmons,

Executive Vice President.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I thank the majority leader. And reclaiming my time, I think we would have a much better chance if the vehicle that was sent over to the Senate was actually one that dealt with the potential tax increases on all Americans.

But I know my time is very short, and I just wanted to say I also have a petition, a coalition letter sent to us by over 1,300 businesses, trades, and local Chambers of Commerce urging that we extend the current tax policy for all Americans and prevent a tax increase from going into effect.

Let me just say I think much of what has happened today is a charade, and I am glad it's coming to a close. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

December 1, 2010.

To The Members of The United States Congress: We, the

undersigned companies, chambers, and trade associations

strongly urge Congress to end the tax uncertainty plaguing

the business community by extending the expiring 2001 and

2003 marginal tax rates, as well as dividend and capital

gains tax rates, and the business tax provisions that expired

at the end of 2009.

A permanent extension of all current tax rates would, in

one bold stroke, boost investor, business, and consumer

confidence by taking the uncertainty of tax policy off the

table. It would leave hard-earned income in the hands of the

individuals and businesses that earned it and allow them to

spur investment, boost consumption, promote economic growth,

and create jobs. Further, without expeditious Congressional

action to extend current marginal tax rates, millions of

Americans will face greater withholding for taxes from their

hard-earned paychecks in six weeks.

Another major obstacle to recovery lurks. Thousands of U.S.

businesses and individual taxpayers currently face major tax

increases because tax provisions--such as the R&D credit,

active financing exception, and CFC look-thru rule--have

expired. An extension of these vital provisions would bring

more certainty in U.S. tax law, foster more effective

business decisions, and encourage investment. Moreover, the

Administration asked Congress to extend the tax provisions as

part of the President's 2010 budget request.

While we support the extension of all these provisions, we

believe that the extensions of current tax policy should not

be offset with permanent tax increases. No one should have

their taxes raised during a time of economic weakness--not

individuals, not small businesses, not large businesses. Job

creators are especially sensitive to tax rates and any tax

increase right now would only hinder the already too weak

recovery.

We urge Congress to act expeditiously to remove uncertainty

and address these looming tax increases with a long term

extension of all the expired and expiring tax provisions by

year end, and look forward to working with Congress to keep

the economy on the road to recovery.

Sincerely,

[1318 Organizations Omitted]

I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important bill, which includes a wide mix of policies recently sent to us by the Senate.

Portions of this bill make sense, including extending welfare programs and reducing erroneous unemployment insurance (UI) overpayments. Enacting policies to better prevent and recover unemployment benefit overpayments is good government, and save about $3 billion over 10 years. However, instead of using this money to strengthen UI programs or even paying for an extension of unemployment benefits, the majority instead uses this funding to offset unrelated spending.

Similarly, I am disappointed that the bill uses $2 billion of the funds in the Customs user fee account (about half of available funds) to offset some of the spending provisions in the bill. As a result, such funding would no longer be available for key job-creating trade initiatives, such as the pending free trade agreements or extending existing preference programs. I strongly believe that this offset should be reserved for trade priorities and should not be raided for non-trade provisions.

And that's really at the heart of the debate: instead of using the savings in this bill to reduce our Nation's staggering deficit or pay for extending UI benefits or promoting job-creating trade, the authors of this bill would use those savings for new, unrelated spending. This spending does nothing to help the unemployed, promote job creation, and only makes balancing the budget next year even harder.

The bottom line is that, while this legislation includes some good provisions, it also includes new spending we simply can't afford. To divert savings from UI and trade programs, especially while too many Americans are unemployed and more trade-related jobs are needed, is not the right answer.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1745 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1745 provides a closed rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of December 3, 2010. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to do the right thing and put

American workers ahead of millionaires and billionaires. This should be our priority and shouldn't be a tough choice to make. Today we can focus on economic growth to help those who are suffering from this recession and to provide permanent, equitable tax relief for the middle class.

These should not be controversial positions. They aren't and they shouldn't be. The economic growth that all Americans can share in ought to be a top priority for every elected official, and lowering the tax burden for working families shouldn't be any kind of a partisan fight.

After the last administration and the previous Congress spent billions of dollars starting two foreign wars and bailing out the big banks that ran roughshod over our economy, isn't it only fair that we do more to help out those who are struggling to find work and to make ends meet? Today we are simply voting on whether or not to protect the middle class and to make sure working families do not suffer needlessly as winter approaches. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is not political showmanship or a partisan game. We are doing the work the American people asked us to do. We are not voting on whether or not to extend tax cuts for the wealthy. We are only voting on extending tax cuts for the middle class, and this is something I sincerely believe we should all agree on.

One of the biggest pieces of misinformation about ending tax cuts for the wealthy is that it would hurt small businesses, which is simply not true. The bill we are talking about today extends tax cuts for incomes up to $250,000. That covers 97 percent of all small businesses in the United States. And let's be clear about another thing: For all small businesses, the cuts continue for their first $250,000 of profit.

If we really want to help small businesses, let's offer real direct benefits. Let's help them access funding to grow, offer larger tax deductions for purchasing equipment or create incentives to hire more workers.

I am glad many business owners in my State, the State of Maine, have been able to see through this misinformation. Jim Wellehan, who owns one of the largest shoe store chains in the State, has recently come out against tax cuts for the wealthy because they offer no benefit to his business or his employees. He recently said it makes no sense from any perspective to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country. It will just increase the wealth gap and create more of a social and economic problem.

Jim hits on a critical point. Over the last 30 years, the wealthiest have gotten richer and richer compared to everyone else. In 1980 the average income of the country's top .01 percent of earners was 180 times that of the bottom 90 percent. Today that number is 1,000 times. Meanwhile taxes for the rich have gone down dramatically. So as the wealthiest take a larger and larger piece of the pie, they have given less and less back to the public infrastructure, to our communities, and to the people who helped create that prosperity.

The truth about tax breaks for the ultra rich is that they are very, very expensive. Cutting taxes for those making over $250,000 will add $700 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years alone. That's about the cost of the entire stimulus bill, and most economists agree it would do very little to stimulate the economy.

In January of this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed 11 policy proposals and ranked them by how effective they would be in fueling economic recovery.

Number one on that list was extending benefits for the unemployed because those dollars go immediately into local economies and spur more spending. If only that was the bill we were voting on today.

What was number 11? Number 11 on that list was extending tax cuts for the wealthy. The benefit of those dollars going to the rich was marginal, because that money would be mostly saved, not spent. That's just not right.

I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me today in supporting this commonsense bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to one of my colleagues, I want to answer a couple of things that my good colleague from California mentioned. Soon his party will be in power, and I am confident he will be the chair of the Rules Committee and the Rules Committee will be very open perhaps at that time to have more open rules and to change the process. So I look forward to, as a sophomore Member, learning how a different process will be conducted by the other side of the aisle.

I do want to remind him that during 12 years when his party was in control, there was never a tax bill that came to the floor which allowed for amendments. I don't know if that process will change in the future. It certainly wasn't that way in the past.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Thank you for making that point. I think it is slightly different from the other point of saying that tax bills never were allowed to be amended in the last 12 years. But I look forward to modified open rules or open rules or whatever process we will be working with in the future. That isn't what we have before us today.

I do want to comment that while you were kind of referring to this as political theater, I also recall that you asked for 3 hours of debate on this; and if it is truly political theater, that would be tying up a lot of the people's time to have us conduct this debate for 3 hours if, in fact, you do not consider it serious debate. I mean, in my opinion, you and I just have a strong disagreement. Our two parties and many of our Members disagree on where the appropriate place to have tax cuts is.

We are putting this bill on the floor today because we believe it is important to extend tax cuts for the middle class, that that has the greatest benefit to our economy. And as the OMB and other studies have shown us, tax cuts for the wealthiest to the country just do not stimulate the economy. The money does not go where we think it needs to go to create more jobs, and it is not a good expenditure of $700 billion, which is what this will cost us over the next decade in a time when we are clamoring to find ways to reduce the deficit.

So I find it unfathomable that there would be any objection to taking a vote on what is clearly the most agreed upon part of our tax cuts here and then allowing for other debate on the rest of the package. So for me, this is a logical way to bring this to the floor. I am pleased that we have this opportunity here.

I am a little frustrated every time I hear this tried to be portrayed as the real argument is only about small businesses. You know, 2 percent of the small businesses in our country are the ones that will be affected by this.

I disagree with your statement that Democrats love employees and dislike employers. Many of us on this side of the aisle are employers. I am an employer. I have a small business, and I actually feel pretty good about myself.

I do appreciate that, and I am glad to know that dear Senator Tsongas' wife has corrected you on the appropriate way to use that quote. But either way, it was something that you brought to the floor to make the point that somehow you think this bill is put forward so that Democrats can show their disapproval of employers. And I can speak

personally that I work closely with employers in my district. I am an employer and think there are employers who will benefit under this as well. That is why I quoted, in my own remarks, Jim Wellehan who owns a chain of shoe stores in our State who said: I am not in favor of a bill that would give tax cuts to the wealthy because it doesn't do anything to help my employees or my business. And that, in fact, is what he is concerned about. You know, employers need customers, which are those employees, and that is why we consider it so critical to make sure that we do something to benefit those people who will be purchasing.

Just one other comment that I had in my notes here today from a small business owner in Lincoln, Nebraska. People talk about the $250,000 without talking about that as net profit. Here is how he described it: A lot of people don't understand how small business works. We reinvest in our business. We try to minimize the amount of taxable income we have. I went out and bought an $80,000 piece of equipment. I did it so I could reduce my taxes. The only people I can think of who could honestly call themselves small businesses that this would affect would be stock brokers and lawyers.

That is what Rick Poore, owner of a Lincoln, Nebraska, clothing firm who employs 30 people thinks about this.

Well, if in fact the 2 percent we are trying to help today are stock brokers and lawyers, I don't think the American public is clamoring for them to have another tax break, and I think people aren't explaining and displaying an understanding of how business works. This is about net profit for small businesses, which even reduces further the number of businesses who will be affected by this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would just say again that I think we have a difference of opinion on the semantics here.

You want to argue that, if we don't continue tax cuts/tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country that we are increasing taxes. I would say it is time we let those tax breaks end, those tax breaks that went on for too long and that did nothing, in my opinion, to stimulate the economy.

I also just want to add my own comment.

You know, there is a lot of interpretation about November 2. The voters cast their votes. Things changed dramatically. Many of us who have been in politics over time know that sometimes you're in the majority, sometimes you're in the minority; sometimes your ideas come out on top, and sometimes they don't.

But I have to say personally, in interpreting my own district, voters heard me say every day that I pledge to continue the tax breaks for the middle class but that I will not vote to extend them for the wealthiest in this country. I debated my opponent, and it was written about in the newspaper. There were endless interviews when I made it very clear as to what my point of view was and why I thought it was important. I come from a State where small business rules, where I am a small business owner, and where I said to people, You know, this isn't a small business issue; this is about helping the wealthiest people in this country.

I just have to say, when I go back and look at the November 2 election, oddly enough, I'm still here, and I intend to be here on January 5 and to be sworn in again. Somehow, the voters in my district said, Go for it. We don't want to see any more tax breaks for the wealthy. We, in fact, only want to see tax cuts for the middle class.

So I am interpreting November 2 to mean we are doing the right thing on the floor today. We are putting forward the one measure that allows us to make sure we can separate the tax cuts for the wealthiest from the tax cuts for the middle class. That is what we are doing here today.

Let me just close, Mr. Speaker.

Ten years ago, Congress passed a package of tax cuts with the lion's share of the benefits going to the wealthiest of the wealthy. The stated intent was to grow and secure our economy. Today, millions of families across this country are struggling. They are worried about finding work. They are barely covering their monthly expenses.

I have to ask my colleagues: Do your constituents feel more economically secure than they did 10 years ago?

Since these cuts took place, we have gone from a balanced Federal budget to troubling deficits. We have seen the middle class weaken, and we have experienced the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The billions we have given in handouts to the super rich have been major contributors to all of those realities.

Today, we have a historic opportunity to support the middle class, to show real Americans that we as Members of Congress are hearing their frustrations and their anger. We can stand up today and say that we are going to help the vast majority of Americans, that we care deeply about the economic security of the middle class and that, for once, Congress is going to act in the best interest of the middle class.

I strongly stand behind H.R. 4853, extending the tax cuts for middle class families and businesses who make up to $250,000. They need a break, and we should be doing even more for them. It is simply outrageous to suggest that we should hold these tax cuts hostage in order to continue a failed policy that has weakened our economy, has placed a bigger burden on working families and has only been effective in making the rich richer. I urge all of my colleagues to support middle class Americans and to vote for the underlying bill.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to express my appreciation to my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from North Haven, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the very thoughtful statement of my friend and Rules Committee colleague, I'm reminded of--and as I looked at news reports this morning, I guess I should say--as I listen to her statement and then look at the reports that we have this morning, I'm reminded of the 1992 Presidential campaign. And I would like to point to two very famous quotes from that 1992 Presidential campaign.

First, in the general election you will recall that Bill Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush and Ross Perot all ran against each other. I know the Speaker pro tempore understands very well, coming from Texas, that that was a fascinating campaign 18 years ago. And there was a very famous Vice-Presidential debate. And in that debate, the great, highly decorated Admiral James Stockdale, who I was happy before his passing to have as a good friend, famously began the debate by saying, Who am I, and why am I here?

Now, Mr. Speaker, we already have reports this morning that the negotiators have come together and decided there will be probably a 2- year extension of the effort to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans over the next 2 years. And in light of that, we are now resorting to a little more than a political ploy saying, well, we've all come together and agreed that we don't want increased taxes on middle income Americans, and so what we should do is let's vote for this and agree on it when, in fact, we're arguing that we should not increase taxes on any Americans.

Now to my second quote from the 1992 Presidential campaign. Senator Paul Tsongas, whose widow, Niki, serves very well here in the House, the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, said very famously, and I quoted him, and she corrected the quote when I told her that I quoted him widely, I quoted him as follows: Senator Tsongas in the 1992 Presidential campaign when he was challenging Bill Clinton in the primary said, The problem with my Democratic Party is that they love employees but they hate employers. And Mrs. Tsongas reminded me that he apparently said, You can't love employees without loving employers. Well, either way, it's very clear that when you look at where we are, it gets back to that famous Lincoln line: you can't lift up the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. And so all we're saying is that as we look at the challenges that we're facing today, focusing on job creation and economic growth is something that we should do.

And I believe that every Democrat and every Republican in this institution clearly wants to see our economy get back on track. They want to see us grow. They want to see us emerge. No one wants to see the United States of America diminished to the level that was predicted by Dave Cote, a member of the debt commission, the head of Honeywell, who in his statement yesterday said that at the rate we are going, the United States of America will become, in fact, a second-rate Nation. No one, no Democrat or Republican, wants that to happen. And so why don't we use empirical evidence that will prove that we can take a course that will get this economy back on track.

Now, my friend says that we have a cost of $700 billion. If we fail to increase taxes on those small businesses and those who are upper income wage earners, a $700 billion cost is what is claimed. In fact, if you talk to economist after economist, as I have, that is, in fact, not the case. Just yesterday a very prominent economist met with a number of Members of this body pointing to the fact that if you do, if you do, Mr. Speaker, actually keep those taxes low, we will actually see an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.

And I point to that again, as I have time and again here. I believe we should be utilizing the bipartisan--the bipartisan model, put forward first by a great Democratic President. We will

mark the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's inaugural address. He was elected 50 years ago. On January 20, there is going to be a great celebration here in this Capitol marking the 50th anniversary of the great inaugural speech, which many of us have been quoting since we were children, of John F. Kennedy.

And we should be utilizing the model put forward by Ronald Reagan, who on February 6 of next year will mark his 100th birthday. And that economic model is one which says that making sure that we reduce marginal tax rates will actually grow the economy and create an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.

So, Mr. Speaker, as we look at where we are today, you have economists from even on the left who will say--even Keynesian economists--that the notion in a down economy--and we all know we have a 9\1/2\ percent unemployment rate and we heard the sad news about housing sales that came out this morning--we all know that in a down economy, even the Keynesian economists will say that increasing taxes is a prescription for failure. It actually undermines the potential for economic growth.

Now, we had quite a meeting in the Rules Committee last night, Mr. Speaker, when we brought this measure up, and the distinguished ranking member soon-to-be chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Houston, Mr. Brady, referred to what was going on here as political theater. I said that I believe that to be very generous. This is sleight of hand, a political ploy. There are all kinds of pejoratives that can be used to describe the process that we have here.

We have a closed rule, as my friend said, and I argued that I'm for an open rule, which is what I'm often arguing for, and we hope to be able to have that in the 112th Congress as often as possible, but I argued for a modified closed rule, a modified closed rule for consideration of this measure.

Now, what would that mean, Mr. Speaker? If we were to have a modified closed rule, it would mean that we would simply allow this House to have a vote, which is under the present structure before us going to be denied, a vote that has been requested by 31 Democrats and all Republicans. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we could, in fact, have a strong bipartisan vote in this House to extend, to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans at this time. And this rule would allow that.

I offered an amendment that would simply say, okay, let's just provide the ranking member, Mr. Camp, of the Ways and Means Committee, a chance to offer one substitute which would basically mean we are not going to increase taxes on small businesses, and we are not going to increase taxes on any Americans. I offered that amendment, and on a party-line vote it was rejected.

It was fascinating, Mr. Speaker, to hear the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, my very good friend, Sandy Levin, say that making sure we don't increase taxes on middle income Americans is something we can all agree on. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, we can agree on that. But I think it is very evident that this House could, with a majority vote, ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans during these very troubling, difficult economic times.

So I would argue that I think it's very important for us, as an institution, to realize that it's really a joke that has been put before us, tragically, during a time when the American people are hurting. I have an unemployment rate in part of the area I'm privileged to represent in Southern California, Mr. Speaker, that is in excess of 15 percent. We have a statewide unemployment rate in the largest State of the Union, the largest, most important State of the Union, the State of California, we have a 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate. People are hurting. And so to do anything other than ensure that we don't increase taxes on the people who are struggling to create jobs for our fellow Americans is something that we have a responsibility to do.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and allow us to let the House work its will and have what I am totally convinced would be a strong, strong vote in favor of ensuring that we don't increase taxes on any Americans.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield on that point?

I will tell you about the 12 years we were in the majority, we did often provide substitutes. So all we are asking for, as I said, all I asked for on this measure is not an open rule, a modified closed rule, which would have provided simply one bite at the apple, one alternative, which is out of respect to the Democrats in this House who would very much like to have a chance to vote to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any American.

I thank my friend for yielding.

If the gentlelady will yield, I was simply quoting the late Senator Paul Tsongas. It wasn't my quote. I was simply quoting Senator Tsongas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say to both of my colleagues who are both good friends of mine that as I listen to the arguments that have been put forward, the standard old class warfare, us versus them, rich versus poor, is an argument that has failed for years and years and years. I think all we need to do is look at the November 2 election. There was a rejection of this divisive tone which we regularly hear around here: the haves and the have-nots.

The fact of the matter is any Member of this House who votes in favor of the measure that is going to be before us is voting for a tax increase. They are voting in favor of increasing taxes on American investors and small businesses in this country. There is all kinds of dispute about this: how many are small businesses, 2 percent. We have evidence that it is substantially higher than that. But if there are any small businesses that are out there trying to create jobs and this policy of increasing taxes undermines them and inhibits their ability to say to a person in this country who is seeking a job opportunity that they can't have it because of this burden that is being inflicted, this is clearly wrong.

Now, again, on the notion of this $700 billion, this $700 billion, the cost, and we are exacerbating the deficit, that is preposterous. If we can get people with a 9.4 percent unemployment rate, 9.6 percent, as I said, in my State, 12.5 percent unemployment rate, if we can get people from the unemployment rolls onto the working rolls, that in and of itself is evidence that we will increase the flow of revenue to the Federal treasury.

Why? We'll diminish the cost of unemployment benefits, and we will have people who are working as productive members of society who are paying taxes. So this $700 billion figure is a ridiculous one.

Mr. Speaker, I will say again: Any Member of this House who votes in favor of the measure that is before us is going to be voting to increase taxes on working Americans, and it is just plain wrong.

Let me just close again by saying that, when I used the term ``political theater,'' I was quoting the very thoughtful ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee of Ways and Means, Mr. Brady, who came before us in the Rules Committee and said, This is political theater.

Why? There are reports today that the negotiators from the White House and both Houses of Congress have come to an agreement that we are going to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans for at least 2 years. Those are the reports that we have that have come out. So we are here on the House floor, denying this institution an opportunity to vote on a proposal like that.

We in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, simply said, Gosh, since 31 Democrats have signed a letter saying they believe it would be a mistake to increase taxes on any Americans, the House should have a chance to vote on that.

I offered that proposal upstairs last night in the Rules Committee. A party-line vote.

The Democrats said, Oh, no. We're not going to allow what would clearly be a majority of this House, I believe, if we were to actually have a vote, to work its will. We are going to resort to legerdemain and not allow a motion to recommit.

This bill before us, Mr. Speaker, happens to be the airport and airway bill. It's basically the FAA bill. They did that to deny even an opportunity for a motion to recommit. Now, I know that's all inside baseball stuff, but it's inside baseball stuff that led the American people to cast the votes that they did on November 2, because it was a year ago last June when this ``read the bill'' measure came forward, when we had the 300-page amendment dropped in our laps at 3 o'clock in the morning in the Rules Committee, and we didn't have a chance to read it. So the American people started looking at what takes place in this institution, and on November 2, they rejected it.

Well, with what we are doing here today, it is obviously an indication that this majority that is now in charge is tone deaf. They don't understand the message that the American people sent, because they have spent time looking here at what is going on, and that is why we have focused on increasing transparency, disclosure, and accountability.

So, as they have done that, they've said, Don't do the kinds of things that you are contemplating doing right now.

The bottom line is, by resorting to legerdemain, we are going to end up increasing taxes on working Americans.

I say, in closing, Mr. Speaker, that any Member of this House who votes in favor of this measure is voting to increase taxes on the men and women in this country who are out there saving, investing, and working to create jobs for our fellow Americans, and it is just plain wrong. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1745, I call up the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.

Colleagues, the time has come. This is the moment to stand up and be counted on middle-income tax cuts. The Republicans want to continue to keep middle-income tax cuts hostage, hostage until it's combined with upper-income tax cuts. It's, in part, because they don't want to have to vote separately on tax cuts for the very wealthy.

But, as I have said, the time has come. We must not let middle-income taxpayers remain hostage to a partisan agenda. Indeed, I was going back over comments that have been made these last months, and I refer to one from my colleague from Michigan, the ranking member. He is here.

He said, just a few months ago, in talking to AP, that it would be difficult to block extension of middle-income tax cuts, even if it doesn't stop tax rates from increasing for high earners saying, ``I will probably vote for it myself.''

Today is the test whether the hostage-taking ends. Every single provision here, every single one, is about tax cuts, tax cuts that are so important for this country.

And let me, if I might, refer to some of them. For families making less than $250,000 a year, this bill permanently extends the following, the 2001-2003 tax cuts, including the current income tax rates. That means a lot for middle-income families throughout this country, the marriage penalty relief that means so much for tens of thousands, for millions of families, lower rates on capital gains and dividends and the $1,000 child tax credit.

For 2 years, very importantly, this bill will protect more than 25 million taxpayers from the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, by extending it, as I said, for 2 years through 2011. And, importantly, it permanently extends the small business expensing. So added all up, these tax cuts, we are talking tax cuts for middle-American families and small businesses of tax cuts over 10 years of $1.5 trillion.

And I want say something and be very clear because often it's raised about small businesses, America's small businesses receive a tax cut under this bill. It's only 3 percent of the very wealthy which will not receive a larger tax cut.

So, in a word, the time has come. The smoke screen is now being lifted by this bill. You have a chance to stand up or back down on tax cuts for the middle-income families of our country.

I hope that we can rise above partisan politics. I hope that we can keep in mind the millions of families who are counting on action by us and no longer holding them hostage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 15 seconds to myself.

This is the fact from the Tax Policy Center: Only 3 percent of small businesses would be affected, and of that, only a small amount get most of their income from small businesses. This isn't about politics, Mr. Camp; this is about people.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I suggest the gentleman reread the bill: $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years; 97 percent of small businesses receive a tax cut.

Those are the facts, period.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, a hardworking member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield myself 10 seconds.

Ninety-seven percent of small businesses will not pay any more taxes. They'll get a tax cut.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional half minute. You must go on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Once again, 97 percent of small businesses will get tax cuts, not tax increases. Those are the facts. Period.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my real pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada, a member of the committee, Ms. Berkley.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

It's now my privilege to yield 1 minute to our very distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, first, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material in the Congressional Record.

Secondly, before I yield the balance of the time to the Speaker, our very distinguished Speaker, I want to take just a minute or less to make a couple of key points.

Number one, everybody would receive a tax cut under this bill. Everybody. Secondly, only 3 percent--these are the facts--of small business owners would get the additional tax for income over $250,000. Only 3 percent. And the third and last point is this. For those with income a million and over, under the Republican plan they would get a tax cut of over $100,000, while average Americans would get a fraction of that.

It's now my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to our distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentlelady from California, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has prepared a technical explanation of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853. This document expresses the Committee's understanding and intent of the provisions included in this legislation. This document can be found on the Joint Committee on Taxation website, www.jct.gov, under document number JCX-52-10.

Mr. STARK, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4853 the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010. This bill puts the interests of working families and our nation's fiscal health ahead of millionaires. The legislation allows the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, and protects struggling middle class families from a tax increase they cannot afford during these difficult economic times.

A vote against this bill is a vote against middle class families in order to protect millionaires and billionaires. Our colleagues across the aisle want to hold middle class tax relief hostage so that they can give yet another massive tax break to the wealthy. The Congressional Budget Office reported what we already know: tax cuts for the rich provide virtually no economic stimulus. Extending the rates for the highest income tax brackets is not a break needed by our small businesses. Individuals with small business income make up fewer than three percent of taxpayers in the top two tax brackets. There is no reason for us to use $700 billion that could be used to create jobs or reduce the deficit so that millionaires can get a tax cut.

Earlier this week Congress allowed unemployment insurance to expire for millions of Americans. Two million people will lose their unemployment benefits in December alone, including over 400,000 in my state of California. Last week, nearly every Republican voted against a three month extension of unemployment benefits to help families keep a roof over their heads and food on their dinner table over the holidays. This week, they will gladly justify using $700 billion in borrowed money to make a few thousand millionaires happy. The priorities of the Republicans are dangerous and out of touch with what our economy needs.

I support the Middle Class Tax Relief Act because it will protect middle and lower income families. In addition to making the tax cuts permanent for the first $250,000 of income for all married couples, the legislation will extend the $1,000 child tax credit; provide permanent dividend income tax relief; allow more workers to benefit from the EITC; permanently eliminate the ``marriage penalty''; and patch the AMT through 2011. I urge my colleagues to not turn their backs on middle class families and to support this legislation.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. I commend him for his great leadership in terms of working and being a champion for America's working families, for America's middle-income families who need so much help at this time of this down economy.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting week. Yesterday in the Capitol, hundreds of people looking for work came to the Capitol of the United States. They came because they knew that the day before unemployment insurance benefits had expired for people looking for work. They knew that by the end of December, unless this Congress acts, 2 million Americans will lose their unemployment insurance, 2 million Americans. This is the first time in American history when unemployment benefits would have been allowed to expire at this rate of unemployment.

They came looking for jobs. They came in the spirit of fairness to say until we can find jobs, we need to continue unemployment insurance. And what they heard was that the Republicans in the Senate had said, if you want unemployment insurance, it has to be paid for. Well, they have paid into unemployment insurance. But we want to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America to the tune of $700 billion, and that doesn't have to be paid for.

Now, I think we should use as a measure for everything that we do: What does it do to create jobs? What does it do to reduce the deficit?

Unemployment insurance, the economists tell us, returns $2 for every dollar that is put out there for unemployment insurance. People need the money. They spend it immediately for necessities. It injects demand into the economy. It creates jobs to help reduce the deficit.

Giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in America does add $700 billion to the deficit, and the record and history shows it does not create jobs. It does not create jobs. I mention this because this is the context in which we bring up this tax cut for middle-income families in America today. And while some on the other side say this is not going to make a difference, it indeed makes a difference.

Let me say, unequivocally, there will be no tax bill for any situation unless there is a tax cut for middle-income people in our country. That is what this vote is about today. That is our declaration. That is what we send to the table for the discussion that the President has so rightfully called for.

Now what our Republican colleagues are saying is we know they must support tax relief for the middle class, right? And this is tax relief for every income filer in our country; everyone gets a tax break. But what they are saying is unless you give an additional tax break to the wealthiest people in our country, adding to the deficit and not creating jobs, we are not going to vote for middle-income tax cuts.

As Mr. Hoyer said, holding the middle-income families of America hostage

to a tax cut for the wealthiest, and who are they? Well, some of them create wealth, create jobs. We want to reward success in America, and they do get a tax cut in this bill.

Some of them are getting bonuses on Wall Street. Did you see the announcement? Almost $90 billion in bonuses on Wall Street after all that they have put us through, not all of them, but some of them, $90 billion, billion with a ``B,'' dollars in tax bonuses, and under what the Republicans want to do, they are not going to pay. They want a tax break for that, a bonus and a tax break on top of it. But, no, we can't give middle-income tax cuts unless you do that; and, no, if we do unemployment insurance, it has to be paid for but not a tax break for these billionaires with these bonuses on Wall Street.

This is so grossly unfair. It is so grossly unfair. I can't imagine that my colleagues on the Republican side don't want to give a tax cut to the middle class. Why don't they just vote for that? They can try to add whatever else they want and have that debate. But to say that this is not the right thing to do, I think, is not the right thing to say.

So we have a situation where we come out of an election: jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what those hundreds of people looking for work came to Capitol Hill looking for. They were looking for jobs. They were looking for security for their families.

One young man, 35 years old stood up and said, I am 35, I am married, I have a 4-year-old child. I have been out of work for 2 years. I am a college graduate; I am a trained professional. Don't tell me to dip into my savings. My savings are all gone.

Don't tell me to go ask help from my family. I have already done that. They have done what they can, but they are strapped as well.

Don't tell me to cut back on what we do as a family. That was something we did a long time ago.

So we have tried to live as we look for work on unemployment insurance, and you are now telling us that Congress cannot pass that unless it is paid for while it is giving, I am saying, a tax cut to the wealthiest people in America, $700 billion unpaid for, $700 billion added to the deficit. Something is very wrong with this picture.

But we come to this floor, we Democrats today, with great clarity. The tax cut for middle-income families will create jobs because people will spend that money again, inject demand into the economy, and create jobs. That is something that will help. That growth will help to reduce the deficit while the record shows, and history, recent history, acknowledges that the tax cuts at the high end did not create jobs.

Those tax cuts were in place during the Bush years and more private sector jobs have been created this year than the entire 8 years of the Bush administration. They simply did not create jobs.

If you want to create jobs, if you want to reduce the deficit, if you want to stabilize the economy, if you want to support the value of what the middle class, middle-income families mean to our country, these workers who came were veterans, they were the backbone of our country. They came from the heartland of America. They came from a place where we in this Congress and with this President saved the auto industry, saved the auto industry.

Without the measures taken by the Obama administration and this Congress, we would have unemployment that's even higher. But that's not good enough. We want unemployment that is lower. This tax cut takes us to that place. This tax cut, not what the Republicans are proposing, will help create jobs, instead of what they want to do, which is not create jobs and increase the deficit.

The choice is clear. It's not about who signed 44 signatures, that I am not going to do this unless you do that. We are very clear. There will be no tax bill unless there is a tax legislation that gives middle-income families in America the fairness they deserve, the respect that they have earned and the economic opportunity for creation of jobs, reducing the deficit, and stabilizing our economy. I think this choice is clear.

I urge our colleagues, and I hope we could have some bipartisan support for middle-income families in America, to vote ``aye'' on this important legislation.

I again salute Mr. Levin for his leadership.