Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 955 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act of 2009. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 and 10 of Rule XXI and against the bill itself. The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motion except 1 hour of debate and one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule to assist American families and small businesses with needed tax relief in a time when American citizens and American small businesses are beginning to turn the corner. This rule will allow us to bring legislation to the House floor later today that will not only strengthen our economy by directing tax relief to middle class families and creating jobs at small businesses, but will also do this in a deficit neutral, fiscally responsible way.

Since being elected to Congress, I have repeatedly voted, along with my colleagues, to cut taxes for middle class families and small businesses. In doing so, we have upheld our pledge to the American people, and I have kept a promise I made to my constituents to provide much-needed tax relief and incentives for economic growth.

I know that there are many families and businesses in my district that are struggling in the current economic crisis with rising costs of everyday items, including food, gas and health care. The legislation this rule provides for consideration of will extend a number of critical tax-relief measures that are relied upon by middle class families and small businesses to improve the quality of life and strengthen our economy.

I am aware that we face harsh realities in addressing the current economic crisis. While these are challenging times, we simply cannot endlessly borrow our way out of this situation. The legislation we will consider under the rule strikes the necessary balance between continuing the tax incentives that will help families and businesses continue to improve their position while offsetting the cost of extending these provisions by tightening tax compliance and making commonsense changes to the tax treatment of compensation paid to hedge fund managers. This change applies to investment fund managers the same rules that apply to real estate agents, waiters and CEO stock options.

In doing so, we will extend $30 billion of expiring temporary tax provisions through 2010, including the existing deductions for tuition expenses, the research and development tax credit, and the State and local property tax deduction, among others, and we will do so without increasing the deficit and without any additional borrowing.

The American people understand the idea of PAYGO, that Congress should have to balance its books just as they do. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives continues to show a strong commitment to the pay-as-you-go rule adopted in January of 2007. I applaud my Blue Dog colleagues for their outspoken leadership on PAYGO, and I am proud that the House has passed legislation that would create statutory PAYGO.

All of the incentives that are included in this package will expire at the end of the year unless Congress acts to extend them. It is vitally important that these tax incentives are extended in order to maintain the economic recovery that has slowly started to take hold in this country.

The legislation's extenders create important tax credits for individuals. It extends the deductions for tuition and education expenses, helping families send their children to college. It continues to allow teachers to claim a credit for up to $250 in out-of-pocket purchase of classroom supplies to better educate our children, and it extends the increased standard deduction for State and local property taxes so that working families can keep more of their hard-earned dollars for other necessities during these tough economic times.

The legislation includes an extension of several provisions important to businesses, including the credit for a company's R&D expenditures. Extending the research and development credit is vital to ensuring that American companies remain competitive and on the cutting edge of innovation. This credit is of particular interest to the area of New York that I represent because its extension will further the expansion of the microchip fabrication and nanotechnology industries which are beginning to blossom in upstate New York.

In the past, the R&D tax credit has lapsed, and Congress has had to retroactively extend it. American companies rely on this credit and upon its continuity so they can adequately plan for their long-term research projects. I support this proactive extension to provide that continuity, and I will continue to work for a much-needed permanent extension that would eliminate concerns for further expirations or lapses.

The bill also extends expiring measures to address the drop in charitable giving that has been caused by the current state of our economy. It does so by extending deductions for charitable contributions of real property, food inventories, books, and computer equipment. The bill allows tax-free charitable contributions from an IRA account of up to $100,000 per taxpayer per year.

When I speak with constituents who work and volunteer their valuable time with not-for-profit organizations, they tell me this is more important than ever today in our struggling economy. These provisions help those organizations continue to provide the assistance to those in need, which is particularly important today.

Supporting this rule and the tax-relief legislation we will consider later today is simple and common sense. We can provide tax relief and incentives to middle class families, spur innovation, retain and create jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from hostile nations, and reduce greenhouse gases. And we can do it all in a fiscally responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Doggett.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Rules Committee and friend from the State of Florida for his able management of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to point out that the underlying legislation will extend a number of expiring tax relief that individuals, businesses, and charitable organizations depend on to improve the quality of life and strengthen our community and our economy. These provisions are relied upon by families and individuals struggling with rising costs of everyday items, including food, gas, and health care. They encourage companies to hire more workers and invest in new technologies.

As our country is beginning to turn the corner, the naysayers continue to oppose any necessary substantial change. As if that is not enough, they continue to offer no meaningful alternatives, only more of the same policies of incurring more debt, passing it on to our children, and saying ``no'' to any responsible policy offered by the majority. It should not be the role of the loyal opposition to oppose every bill the majority offers. That is the reason partisan divide is so wide in this country today.

This bill, H.R. 4213, is a good bill. It is good for Democrats. It is good for Republicans. It is good for all Americans. To say we should not pay for it flies in the face of everything Democrats and Republicans have been saying

for months, that we cannot endlessly borrow and increase the debt but must restore fiscal responsibility.

Just a short time ago, I heard a colleague of mine on the other side of the aisle giving a 1-minute speech, saying that we must stop the runaway spending and the record deficits. That's exactly what this bill does. It makes us accountable and pays for the tax extenders. H.R. 4213 strikes the necessary balance between continuing the tax incentives to help families and businesses without increasing the deficit.

I don't think the importance of this fiscal responsibility can be overstated. We all know that these are challenging times, but we cannot endlessly borrow our way out of the situation. And there are only two ways to do the tax extenders: either to borrow and pass it on to our children or to have responsible ways of paying for it. And that's exactly what this bill does, responsibly pays for these very important tax extenders.

For years, borrow-and-spend policies of the previous administration have saddled our children's future with $9 trillion of foreign-owned national debt, all incurred during relative times of economic prosperity. The debt translates into daily interest payments of $1 billion.

These tax extenders are paid for. I repeat, they are paid for. H.R. 4213 represents the dedication to commonsense PAYGO principles that we in Congress should have to balance our books even in these tough economic times just as our constituents do. This legislation does exactly that.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and the rule because the American people are counting on us to extend these vital tax provisions in order to continue to improve our economy.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 955 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart

At the end of the resolution, insert the following new

section:

Sec. 2. On the third legislative day after the adoption of

this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention

of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the

consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the

Rules of the house of Representatives to require that

legislation and conference reports be available on the

Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and

for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the

Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that

portion of the Congressional Record designated for that

purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative

day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order

without intervention of any point of order or demand for

division of the question, shall be considered as read and

shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and

(3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain

instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of House Resolution 554.

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

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

It is the tradition of this House to annually extend certain tax relief items, everything from a research and development tax credit to incentives for the manufacture, purchase and use of alternative fuels, to credits that help offset out-of-pocket expenses for teachers that they incur buying materials for their classrooms.

I helped write many of these provisions, and if the bill before us were truly a tax extenders bill, I'd be voting for it, as I have in previous years. However, the Democrats seemingly have never met a tax cut they liked; and, thus, the Democrats have turned tax extenders into tax extenders and tax raisers.

I want each of my colleagues to think about that for a minute. The bill before us proposes permanent tax increases and just 1 year of tax relief. Unemployment is at 10 percent. Nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs since the start of the year. The economy is continuing to hemorrhage thousands of jobs every month. Small businesses continue to struggle as credit markets remain tight. And this proposes to raise taxes on economic investment.

Just yesterday the President called for a Stimulus II package to help small businesses and to help start job creation. Part of that was to cut capital gains taxes on investments in small businesses, showing he understands the importance of capital to growing business and creating jobs.

By contrast, this bill changes how carried interest has been treated for decades, and it is nothing short of a new tax on the very investments needed to start a new business and create economic growth in this country.

So while Democrats claim they want to stimulate growth, they are actually increasing taxes in a way that will discourage job creation. And they left more than two dozen expiring tax relief provisions out of the bill, including the biggest of them all, the AMT patch.

So in addition to the tax increases within this bill, there are, by omission, close to 30 tax increases that Americans will face next year because of the bill's shortcomings, including higher taxes for small businesses and approximately $2,600 in higher taxes for millions of middle class families.

While some of those admissions might be justified, I'm disappointed that, once again, the Ways and Means Committee held neither a hearing nor a mark-up to consider legislation within our jurisdiction. Given the disconnect between House Democrats' rhetoric on jobs and their votes for tax increases, it is no wonder employers are confused. New investments aren't being made, and unemployment remains high. I support tax extenders, and that's what we should pass today, not this tax- increasing, job-killing bill before us.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who has been a leader in the effort to restore the local sales tax deduction.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I think the point that we're trying to make on the floor here is that this is a false choice: Either you're for teachers or you're for the research and development tax credit, or you're against it. And the false choice is: Do we really have to raise taxes on job creators in order to get the extension of the research and development tax credit temporarily? Do we have to have this permanent tax increase that, frankly, will make us one of the highest-taxed countries in the world on this sort of investment tax? And I think that's a false choice being presented today.

And with that, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I just want to comment, too, on this perfect economic picture you said occurred in 2001. As we all know, the bubble burst in 2000. So that history is not quite accurate. I just want to correct that for the record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What we're being offered here is temporary tax relief for 1 year paid for with permanent tax increases. And I would just say that while the majority disingenuously portrays this provision as targeting only rich Wall Street financiers, it actually goes well beyond that, affecting investments and transactions along Main Street as well. This extremely broad provision applies not only to private equity firms and hedge funds, but also to real estate partnerships that invest in every congressional district and venture capital funds that help finance start-up, high-tech and biotechnology investments all across America.

This provision would have far-reaching consequences on the returns of the pension funds, university endowments, and philanthropic foundations that invest in these partnerships that are targeted by the majority.

Let me just, for the record, say that in CQ there is a quote from Chairman Baucus on the Senate side that said the House on Wednesday will take up a roughly $31 billion bill extending dozens of provisions expiring December 31. The major offset for the package, raising $24.6 billion through taxing investment on partners income for managerial services as regular income rather than capital gains, is unlikely to survive in the Senate.

Again, we are moving forward on a funding mechanism that is permanent for 1 year of tax relief, and it is something that the Senate will not take up. To go on further, he says the provision passed the House twice in the 110th Congress but went nowhere in the Senate where Democratic leaders deemed it too contentious. Earlier this year, Baucus said he did not want to spook shaky financial markets by using the measure as an offset.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I am prepared to close if the gentleman has no further speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

To close, Mr. Speaker, the American people don't need to be reminded of the dire economic situation we face today. The American people know unemployment at 10 percent

remains far too high. They know it's tough to make ends meet without having to pay higher taxes. They know higher taxes on investment, on business investment, won't create jobs. In fact, it will hurt job creation.

The American people need not be reminded of those things, but apparently the majority does. Nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats enacted their so-called stimulus bill. Unemployment is 25 percent higher than the administration promised, and yet the bill before us proposes to add a new $24.6 billion tax on business investment.

Now, frankly, I wish we could end this year-end process we go through, and I know the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee gave an interview yesterday where he suggested a way out of this year-end extenders process we find ourselves in. I look forward to working with the chairman to try to find a solution to this problem.

The bottom line is the decision we are faced with today means we should be encouraging business investment, not discouraging it through higher taxes. I would just say to my friend that our motion to recommit would not repeal the international banking disclosure provisions.

In fact, Republicans share the majority's concern about the illegal use of offshore accounts to evade U.S. taxes. Tax evasion is a Federal crime and individuals who break the law by illegally hiding their income in offshore accounts and any financial institutions that facilitate that tax evasion should be aggressively pursued and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

If loopholes exist in law that allow tax cheats to illegally hide assets offshore, obviously Republicans stand ready to help close those loopholes in an appropriate way. As I said, our motion to recommit would retain the language in the majority's bill on that provision.

Again, these extensions of tax relief, which in many cases are policies Republicans passed and voted for when we were in the majority, they are helpful, and they are important to do, but they are temporary. They last 1 year. In order to get that done, the majority would increase taxes on economic investment.

Let's just be clear about this. It changes how business income has been taxed for decades, making it so that income that is currently taxed at a rate of 15 percent would be taxed at 35 percent, more than doubling that tax in an economic recession. It places one of the highest taxes on investment found anywhere in the world, and its reach and scope will increase taxes on everyone from the largest investors to the local real estate partnerships, again, permanent tax increases for 1 year of tax relief. With that, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, this point of order illustrates the dangers raised by the majority's PAYGO rule and its decision at the start of this Congress to prohibit us from offering motions to recommit that are not PAYGO compliant, something that all minorities, Republican and Democrat, over the last many years have been permitted to do in prior sessions, including as recently as last year.

The majority has asserted the motion to recommit violates clause 10 of rule XXI, known as the PAYGO rule, which requires amendments, including those contained in a motion to recommit, to be budget neutral.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that his point of order should be overturned because it precludes the House from considering the merits of a different approach to the underlying bill, one that would let the American people keep more of their hard-earned income.

By contrast, granting the PAYGO point of order would prevent the House from considering whether to extend this tax relief, as it has done many times before, without offsets. We should be encouraging business investment, not discouraging it through higher taxes.

Let's be clear. This carried interest tax of over $25 billion changes how business income has been taxed for decades, making income currently taxed at 15 percent up to 30 percent, more than doubling it.

Mr. Speaker, granting this point of order would foreclose the House from even considering whether it might want to pass this bill with fewer offsets or further tax relief.

Accordingly, I ask that you overrule the point of order and allow the House to debate and vote on our alternative, which would provide additional tax relief for families and small businesses without some of the most objectionable offsets found in the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess Mr. Camp, who is my friend, wasn't referring to me when he talked about the Democrats who didn't like tax relief. They forgot about the idea that I was the lead sponsor on the net operating loss bill, and have supported accelerated depreciation allowance, and believe that there are some tax cuts, in fact, that are better than others. And, at the same time, I think we could all find unity in the suggestion today that one thing we've discovered is that tax cuts really don't pay for themselves.

But I rise in support of this extenders legislation that we're considering today, and certainly Mr. Rangel should be acknowledged for the hard work that he has offered on this legislation. There ought to be an opportunity here for us, Mr. Speaker, to find some common ground. There are many, many, many good parts of this legislation that I know our friends on the other side support.

There are provisions here in the bottom of the ninth inning, with two out, that are expiring; and we need to give some predictability to decisions that will be made by businesses and individuals over the course of the next year. And this is going to be the last chance that we're going to have to do it this year.

This bill contains extensions of many popular incentives. For my home State of Massachusetts, this bill means that 94,000 teachers will get a deduction for their out-of-pocket expenses for classroom supplies, no small matter.

It means that more than 1,000 businesses in Massachusetts will get some credits for the millions they spend on research here in the United States. A reminder, the research and development tax credit is in this bill, and it is critical to retaining American jobs. Without this bill, 125,000 families in Massachusetts cannot take the deduction for college tuition expenses. This legislation provides significant tax relief to millions of families nationwide both in red States, purple States, and blue States.

There are 12 million families nationwide who live in States with no income tax; however, this bill does provide a State sales tax deduction.

This bill also includes a number of popular tax incentives for alternative fuels. There are also packages of tax benefits to assist distressed communities and those hit by natural disasters. There are many well-crafted provisions in this bill. There's not really enough time to address all of them.

This bill does no harm to the Federal budget. The cost of these cuts is completely offset by two revenue raisers, one of which I have offered and authored, and I know there is broad support across America for that issue. This is the Foreign Bank Account Reporting bill, which will shut down abuses by wealthy taxpayers hiding money in overseas banks.

And for the life of me, I can't understand why everybody in this institution is not supportive of this measure. Transparency is important. 160,000 soldiers in Iraq, about to be 160,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, and we have taken our sweet time by not cracking down on these tax evaders who don't want to pay their fair share at the same time that we had these extensive commitments around the world. I'd like to poll that question in any congressional district in America. We have taken the comments of those who are impacted and we have made this reporting regime a workable enforcement tool in this legislation. Again, you should not be hiding money in foreign bank accounts for the sole purpose of avoiding American taxes.

The second offset is a carry interest proposal which seeks to ensure investment managers pay taxes on their earnings as income tax rates rather than capital gains.

Let me also suggest that Mr. Rangel has crafted a balanced bill. Again, I will repeat, it does no harm to the Federal Treasury. He has included a directive to the nonpartisan and, I think, highly effective and professional Joint Committee on Taxation to review the effectiveness of all of these extenders so that we could begin in earnest our effort to reform the Tax Code.

I certainly am supportive of this measure. I hope it will find broad support across this institution.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Just before I recognize my friend from Michigan, I want to remind my friend from

California there are 320,000 teachers in his home State who will not get a tax benefit if this legislation does not pass, 571,000 families will not be able to deduct higher education costs, 1.2 million families will not be able to deduct home State sales taxes that they currently pay, and 4,000 businesses in a State that is so dependent upon high technology in California will not be able to get the credit for their crucial research and development costs.

With that, I yield to my friend from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for 3 minutes.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, a reminder that there are 303,000 people in the State of Texas who will not be able to deduct their higher education tuition costs. That is for the State of Texas a $690 million benefit.

With that, I would yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman was concerned that I was picking on teachers, let me raise this point. There are 2,274 businesses in his home State of Illinois that will not be able to get a credit for their crucial research and development costs, a $23 million benefit.

And with that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

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

Just reminding him of those numbers. I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

In response to my friend's, Mr. Roskam's, argument here about these tax proposals being made permanent, I don't understand how the other side could have been witness to borrowing billions and billions of dollars for Iraq and not having had the courage to speak to the issue of transparency and allowing the American people to see what Iraq was going to cost.

In addition, remember, they talk about fiscal responsibility? They cut taxes six times while committing 160,000 soldiers to Iraq. On January 19 of 2001, they inherited an almost perfect economic picture: unparalleled economic growth, the deficits had been paid off, the debt was coming down. And do you know what? To show you my bipartisan position here, let's give Bush I some credit for that, having had the courage to do it, and Clinton twice. It was the recklessness that the other side embraced that now we have to pay for.

And this bill today, as unpalatable as some of them might argue that it is, it's paid for. We square this issue with the American people. This legislation is paid for.

Let me yield 2 minutes to the very important member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Just before I recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), I hope that my friend Mr. Camp will have a chance--he spoke to one provision of the pay-for. Maybe he will speak to the issue of tax evasion as to whether or not he supports the $8 billion that's being raised in this legislation to pay for this bill.

With that, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, my friend, Mr. Davis, for 2 minutes.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to just assess how much time is here, if you will give me a second.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for 3 minutes.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

There is an opportunity here today to begin the discussion of fundamental tax reform. If we could move past the ideology that is so rigid, where we can only discuss cuts and never revenue or, on the other side, only revenue and never cuts, then we could move this debate and discussion forward.

Now, the other side today, they are suggesting to the American people, we like the R&D tax credit. We like teachers. We like tuition assistance, and what we are saying on this side is we like all of those institutions as well, but we think they should be paid for. Sometimes you have to eat the broccoli before you have your dessert.

Tax reform is an opportunity. I hope that the strategy that got us into this difficulty--remember the old argument here that tax cuts pay for themselves? You couldn't even get our friend who ran for President on the Republican ticket last year to have his top economic adviser say that was true. That's part of the problem here, being married to rigid ideology as opposed to common solutions that might make this work for the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

My friend from Texas conveniently left out TARP I, which was a Bush initiative; conveniently left out the cost of the Iraq war, which was borrowed money; and conveniently left out the Bush tax cuts, which cost $2.3 trillion that only went to people at the very top of the economic strata of America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the motion before us is in violation of clause 10 of rule XXI of the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The underlying legislation of H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act of 2009, extends for 1 year a number of noncontroversial, temporary tax- relief provisions that are set to expire at the end of this year. These provisions will benefit individual taxpayers, students, teachers, small businesses, and other companies that invest in research and development.

While I support these temporary tax-relief extensions, I believe that these tax provisions should be made permanent, or that at the very least they should be extended for more than 1 year. For example, the bill includes a 1-year extension of the sales tax deduction. This provision is very important in Florida, the State that I'm honored to represent, because without this deduction, Floridians would end up paying significantly more taxes to the Federal Government than the taxpayers with similar profiles in different States.

These year-to-year extensions, while better than no extension, fail to provide the predictability and the certainty that small businesses and families need to plan their budgets. Leaving these important tax- relief provisions to the last minute, also, I believe, is most unfortunate. It unnecessarily places an additional burden on families and small businesses that are already struggling in this economy.

I also oppose the inclusion in this legislation of a permanent tax to pay for temporary tax relief. The bill would raise the tax rate on investment gains received from an investment services partnership interest, which is currently taxed at a rate of 15 percent, to a rate as high as 35 percent at the end of 2010, and then the tax will rise to 39 percent.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this is a tax on Wall Street venture funds; but as our friend, Congressman Kevin Brady, explained last night when he testified before the Rules Committee, about half of that tax will be paid by real estate partnerships that build apartments, homes and shopping centers in our communities. Those real estate partnerships invest in new infrastructure in our communities and they help create jobs in the construction industry. Yet once this tax hits those partnerships, they may very well reconsider their investment decisions and abandon their partnerships for other investments, further hurting our communities and hampering possible economic recovery.

The construction industry has been hit very hard, Mr. Speaker, in the community that I am honored to represent, and too many jobs have been lost. What we need to be doing is providing incentives for job growth and investment in the construction industry. Unfortunately, we are doing the opposite with this legislation.

During his first inaugural address, President Reagan said, It is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work, work for us, not over us, stand by our side, not right on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.

The legislation being brought to the floor today will not do what President Reagan said we need to do.

With unemployment at 10 percent and an economy struggling to recover, this is not the time to raise taxes, particularly a tax on capital investments that help create jobs. This new tax will discourage the entrepreneurial risk-taking that our economy desperately needs right now in order to create new jobs.

Mr. Speaker, for centuries the United States prospered because we have been the safest place in the world to invest. It was good for business to invest in the United States, to create new businesses, in other words, to create jobs in the United States. We are moving away from that philosophy that made this country the most prosperous Nation in the history of the world. Because of that, our economy will continue to suffer. We are moving away from that.

Just yesterday the President, for example, called for increased capital investments in small businesses. Yet here we are today, ironically, increasing taxes on capital investments that could help small businesses grow and provide them the capital to hire new workers.

During yesterday's Rules Committee hearing, we heard testimony from my friend and distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Cao) regarding a proposed amendment that he wished to have the House debate today. His amendment would extend the time for making low-income housing credit allocations under the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act by 2 years. According to Mr. Cao, this extension is needed to preserve the availability of financing for affordable housing projects in the Gulf States. This amendment is just another example of Mr. Cao's thoughtful efforts continuously on behalf of his constituents.

Unfortunately, the majority on the Rules Committee decided that once again they would block all amendments from consideration, including Mr. Cao's, as well as amendments submitted for consideration by Mr. Brady, Mr. Reichert and Mr. Geoff Davis of Kentucky. It's unfortunate the majority continuously closes down the process and blocks consideration of amendments.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, they campaigned on the promise of openness. They said they would open this process as it had never before been opened, that there would be a transparency that had never before been seen; and what we have seen is exactly the opposite.

They have closed the process like never before. The majority should have allowed consideration of all the amendments to the legislation that were submitted before the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Louisiana, an extraordinarily thoughtful member of this House, Mr. Cao.

Mr. Speaker, we believe, as the overwhelming majority of Americans do, that Members of Congress should have the ability to read bills before they vote on them. It shouldn't be an issue, frankly, because the majority and the distinguished Speaker during the campaign, the political campaign, said that they would have the most open Congress in history and that Members would have at least, should have at least, 24 hours to examine bills before those bills are considered on the floor.

But that hasn't been the case. I remember in the Rules Committee one early morning at 3 a.m. we were handed a 900-page amendment, called the manager's amendment, to energy legislation, the so-called cap-and-trade legislation that we considered a few hours later, just a few hours later here on the floor of the House. No one had any opportunity to vote on that legislation. And then we had similar situations with very significant and extensive pieces of legislation. So the American people were, I think, rightfully so, outraged when they saw those examples of very important and extensive pieces of legislation being brought to the floor without Members of Congress being able to even read them. And they should really be posted online so that not only Members of Congress but the American people in general could read them.

That's why legislation has been filed by a bipartisan group of 182 Members that have signed right there, right at that desk in front of you, Mr. Speaker, a discharge petition, it's called. They go up there and they sign. I signed. 182 Members have signed the discharge petition to bring to the floor legislation saying that Members should have 3 days, that there should be 72 hours, once it's filed, before legislation is brought to a vote on the floor.

So that's why I am asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so that we can consider that legislation that 182 Members have gone to the desk there and signed, bipartisan legislation by Congressmen Baird and Culberson. It would not interrupt this legislation that is being brought to the floor at this time, the tax extenders legislation, because if the motion passes, the motion I'm making, it provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days. So we could vote on the tax extender bill and then, once we have done that, consider that legislation requiring the 72-hour timeframe for Members to be able to study legislation and, quite frankly, for the American people to read legislation before it's voted on.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Thanking my friend Mr. Arcuri for his courtesy, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 955, I call up the bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, this package of extensions of legislation that are about to expire represents the real need for tax reform in this country. I have talked with the Ways and Means Committee ranking member to see whether or not our leadership can agree that the taxpayer really deserves better than this and should be able to depend on some continuity in the law.

To that extent, we will be sending to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation all of these extenders that we hope will be supported overwhelmingly today to better advise us how we can get on with the tax reform to make certain that certain things like research and development and other great things that we have in this package would be made permanent, so that the taxpayers, corporate and private, would know what they can depend on, instead of just relying on the constant extensions which have passed this body before.

So along with Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Camp, we ask that this committee take this up. And also we want to make it clear that the contents of this bill and the understandings of legislative intent is available on the Joint Committee's Web site, www.jct.gov. And it's listed under the document number JCX-60-09.

This list of bills, as I said, concerns very important legislation, and our committee has worked very hard on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like permission for the balance of my time to be turned over to Richard Neal, who heads up a special subcommittee on our Ways and Means Committee, who spent a great deal of time evaluating what we should do, along with Congressman Levin and other members of the Ways and Means Committee, and with your permission and the permission of the House, I'd like to yield the balance of the time that I have to Congressman Neal.

Yes, I will.

Yes, I yield to the gentleman.

The gentleman from Alaska is correct. I look forward to working with him on this important legislation for the Alaska Native community; and when the committee considered this and other provisions that have a later termination, all the other provisions we plan to take up with priority. And I thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Neal for the fantastic job he has done, along with my good friend Mr. Levin, for presenting the position of the Ways and Means Committee, which, Republican or Democrat, we are so proud to be a part of.

We have produced for this Congress $30 billion of benefits to the American people. Some may be critical because it's only for 1 year, but I think we have made it abundantly clear that because we are on the brink of reform of the entire system, as Mr. Levin said, we've got to study this to evaluate how we can better serve our teachers, our State and local governments in order to make certain that the things that everybody here is in support of can be made permanent so that they can plan and understand exactly where this Congress is coming from for the people of the United States.

It's interesting to note that the opposition to this bill, nobody has criticized any of the benefits that are in this extender bill. Let me say this again. This is a very, very unique thing that would happen in the Halls of Congress. The bill that we are presenting and asking for an affirmative vote, H.R. 4213, there is no criticism of any provisions of the benefits that are in this legislation. I'm going to rest for a moment and let that sink in.

The opposition to this bill, it appears to me from listening to the responses from my Republican friends, is that their problem is that we don't want to increase the deficit. Their problem is they just don't like the way we are indeed closing the loopholes. When we say, We're closing loopholes, they say, You are raising taxes. You bet your life we are. We are getting the resources that America deserves by fairness and equities in the tax system. There's no way to clean up the tax system without making those who should be paying taxes to pay it.

So if indeed you have some criticism of the loopholes that we're closing, let's take a look at the loopholes. That sounds fair, because my friends have not been talking about the benefits in these bills. My friends on the other side are talking about taxes. If you want to make this a case of forgetting all of these good people that deserve and relied on the extension and make this a tax reform argument--which I really think should be at another time and another place. I really think that tax reform really deserves the study, the research, and the debate so at the end of the day we don't have a Democratic tax bill. This country deserves a bipartisan tax bill, because there's going to be pain in it; because every time we try to bring equity into it, if the other side is to say I don't have any tax reform, but you're raising taxes by cutting away a lot of benefits that we say people don't deserve, and you say that we're increasing taxes.

Well, let's talk about it. A part of this good bill is being funded so that we don't have a deficit by making certain that, during this time of war, American taxpayers don't avoid their fair share of taxes and they get together in an unpatriotic way and pick foreign countries to determine how they can avoid American taxes and pick foreign countries to invest in and put foreign countries that really are not concerned with our need for jobs and equity but they're concerned with greed for their stockholders and corporations. Did one Republican get up and say this is a good thing? And I would yield to anyone on the other side who wants to say it is not a good thing to go after these people who are taking advantage of our law.

So we can't reform it all at one time, but we can knock out these things where people are taking unfair advantage of our Tax Code.

The other issue, which made me think in listening to the response to this extender bill where hardly anyone talked about the benefits, seemed to be centered around some tax provision that is commonly referred to as carried interest. It seems as though the minority is saying that there's a certain group of people that do work and they're entitled to get compensation for their work.

For those who think this is a complicated issue, it is not. It means that we really think as a body that those people who take outstanding risk, who are not employees but are adventurous, creative people, that they be given 15 percent, a lower tax rate than 35 percent. And we're saying that those people who put capital in, who work in order to develop jobs in whatever they want to develop, if their money is in, they should get a 15 percent tax cut because they took risks. Anybody who doesn't put money in here that becomes a partnership and acts like they're taking risk should not be able to enjoy this benefit.

So I do hope that you consider the weight of the debate and then vote accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.