Sensible Estate Tax Relief Act of 2012

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 747, I call up the bill (H.R. 8) to extend certain tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 8.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act. In doing so, I and my fellow Republican House colleagues have made an important choice--the choice to focus on job creation. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who oppose this important piece of legislation have made a different choice--the choice to focus on tax hikes that destroy jobs.

The Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act stops the tax hike we face at the end of the year and provides a 1-year extension of the low tax policies originally enacted in 2001 and 2003 and then extended again in 2010. The 2010 bill was supported by 85 current House Democrats, 40 current Senate Democrats, and President Obama.

Importantly, this legislation allows Congress time to pass and enact comprehensive tax reform without causing undue harm to our fragile economy. Economists have noted that comprehensive tax reform, when paired with appropriate government spending cuts, could lead to the creation of 1 million American jobs in the first year alone.

The choice Republicans have made is to pass this bill, work toward comprehensive tax reform, and create jobs. In contrast, my Democrat colleagues have proposed raising taxes. They claim the tax hike will only affect the rich. What they don't want to tell you is that, in reality, this tax hike will hit nearly 1 million small businesses and 53 percent of small business income. A study conducted by Ernst & Young concluded that the Democrat tax hike could lead to the loss of over 700,000 jobs. That is the choice the Democrats have made--to raise taxes on families and small businesses and to destroy jobs.

As this chart illustrates, America is at a crossroads. The question is: Which path will our country take? The Democrats' path includes tax hikes that will cause small businesses to lose 700,000 jobs. The Republicans' tax reform path will make the Tax Code simpler and fairer, and it will lead to the creation of more than 1 million jobs in the first year.

What is even worse is that, in their quest to raise taxes on the so- called ``wealthy,'' several of my Democrat colleagues have made it clear that they are willing to hold low- and middle-income Americans hostage by threatening to let all income tax rates rise as scheduled at the end of the year if they don't get their way. These massive and imminent tax hikes are part of the fiscal cliff, or ``jobs cliff'' as I often refer to it, that we face at the end of this year. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that going over the fiscal cliff could cost America 2 million to 3 million jobs. This would be a devastating blow to almost 13 million Americans who are unemployed, as well as to middle class Americans who have been struggling in the Obama economy.

Mr. Speaker, the choice, to me, is obvious. Let's pass this bill. Let's work toward comprehensive tax reform that creates a simpler, fairer Tax Code for all Americans and, most importantly, that creates the jobs that we so badly need.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider their choice to increase taxes and destroy over 700,000 jobs. Now is not the time to dig the hole we are in any deeper. Instead, Democrats should take the advice of people like President Bill Clinton and former economic adviser to President Obama, Larry Summers, and join Republicans to stop the tax hike, work to strengthen our economy, and get our country back on track.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

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

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would just say that the gentleman's remarks refer to the stimulus bill, a failed stimulus bill that was promised to create unemployment of under 8 percent. Frankly, it's never been there. For 40 months, we've been over 8 percent. These are spending items that were failed, that failed in the stimulus program. That program did not work.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

At this time I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished

member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

At this time I yield myself 15 seconds.

We have a note here from Stan's Two from Rowland Heights, California, a small business. They were asked: How would increased taxes impact your business? ``Less hiring, more struggle to pay for expenses and payroll.'' If rates were allowed to increase, would that affect your ability to hire new employees? ``Absolutely. We've done nothing except cut staff for 4 years now. A tax increase could spell disaster.''

At this time I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee,

I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would just say that my friend's proposals just aren't bold enough. The economy isn't growing. Unemployment is still above 8 percent for 40 consecutive months.

We need to get on a plan for comprehensive reform, not just raising taxes on a segment, not just pitting one group of Americans against another. But let's get a comprehensive reform so we can get certainty, we can get job growth, we can get economic prosperity and get Americans back to work.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I have one more speaker and then myself.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would just say this isn't just about taxes. I would agree with my friend from Maryland, Republicans do not want to raise taxes on small businesses, job creators, or investors because it's also about the economy.

This has been a dismal recovery, the worst since the Great Depression; and unemployment has been above 8 percent for 40 consecutive months. Their answer is to raise taxes on the small business sector, the area where we need to have those jobs to begin to be created. What we're saying is let's keep the law the same for 1 year. We're the only Nation in the world that has all of these tax provisions expiring year in and year out. Let's leave this the same for 1 year, then let's move and adopt comprehensive tax reform in an expedited procedure to do that so we can finish that next year.

If we go down their path of raising taxes on small businesses, 700,000 jobs will be lost. If we go down our path of extending current law for a year, bringing certainty, extending that law for a year, moving forward on comprehensive reform, addressing some spending problems we know this Nation has had, 3 years of trillion-dollar deficits, if we do that, we create a million jobs.

Vote for H.R. 8.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Let me just say that this substitute increases taxes, and it increases taxes

on small businesses, the very sector that we need to be growing to bring us out of this recession. It does not include tax reform. There's no path to tax reform. Our Tax Code has had 5,000 changes in the last decade. The complexity is making it difficult for Americans to know what their responsibilities are. They suspect others get a better deal under the Tax Code because of the complexity. If we can take that away and move to a system that has a lower rate, revenue neutral, that closes off some of these 5,000 changes that have been made in the last few years, we can create a million jobs in the first year alone.

One of the things that led us into this recession is the housing crisis. Here we have a letter from the National Association of Home Builders saying that housing can be a key engine of job growth that this country needs. However, the recovery we're seeing remains fragile. As the rest of the economy is experiencing softening conditions, now would be the worst time to raise taxes.

The National Association of Home Builders believes that lower rates, simplification, and a fair system will spur economic growth and increase competitiveness. That's good for housing, because housing not only equals jobs, but jobs mean more demand for housing. This is just one area that if we raise taxes, as this substitute attempts to do, we're going to really close off what little recovery we've been seeing, and obviously it's been very anemic. Economic growth is just over 1 percent.

We need to be the best country in the world. We need to have the strongest country in the world. We need to have the best Tax Code in the world. Raising taxes on one segment, one group of Americans against another is not the way to get America's greatness back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I don't have to refute what the Member from New York said because the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has already done that. They've said the matters the gentleman is talking about are not tax increases. Those are spending through the Tax Code. That spending was put into the stimulus bill. We know how unsuccessful that was in lowering our unemployment rate below 8 percent, as was promised.

So at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I am prepared to close.

I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I travel around Michigan and my district, the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan, I often hear from many families that they think America is at a crossroads. They really question is the American Dream, is that dream that their children and grandchildren are going to have the opportunities that they had, is that dream still alive for their kids and their grandkids? The reason they ask that is because we've been on the economic path that the majority has established for the last 3 years, and we've seen the slowest recovery from any recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment is still too high. I

think maybe being from Michigan, I'm particularly sensitive to that because we've had tough times for more than a decade. We need to get people back to work. We need to get jobs growing in this country.

There's really a choice: Which path are we going to be on? Which road are we going to take? Which lane are we going to be in? Are we going to be in the lane where we just simply raise taxes? No matter what segment it is, I don't care, just name the segment, but one that we know will cost us 700,000 jobs?

Or will we go down a path where we extend current law for 1 year, as many bipartisan experts have called for. Even President Bill Clinton has called for it. The President's former economic adviser, Larry Summers, has said let's extend current law for a year. Let's take the uncertainty out. And in the 20 hearings we've had on tax reform this year in the Ways and Means Committee, so many employers, so many tax experts, so many independent groups have come forward and said the uncertainty of all of this expiring tax policy is causing a huge problem.

And my friends would say, well, if only we'd raise taxes on people and small businesses and others who make $250,000, that'll solve our problems. Well, it won't. It's just a piece of it. The Tax Code is so complex, with 5,000 changes over the last decade. I often say it's 10 times larger than the Bible, with none of the good news.

The burden that this Tax Code is placing on our economy, it's a huge wet blanket. Our GDP growth is just barely over 1 percent, the gross domestic product. Our economy is not growing enough; and if we don't grow our economy, we can't create the jobs that we need so desperately.

Let's work together. Let's pass this 1-year extension. Tomorrow, we have a package that will lay out our principles for comprehensive tax reform that will also lay out a process to expedite this next year in the House and Senate. We've been working with the Senate to establish these procedures. They will go through regular committee in an open and transparent way, not just roll a bill out on the floor and say, oh, if we only ding that one segment, things will be okay. Let's do this the right way.

This is the greatest country in the world. Let's make this the greatest economic power in the world. Let's reform our Tax Code for the first time in 26 years. Let's make it a pro-growth, modern code that lets our U.S. companies compete around the world, lowers its rates and makes it simpler for people to file their taxes, lessens that burden, lessens that uncertainty and creates 1 million jobs in the first year alone.

It's very clear which path we need to choose. Reject this substitute. Support H.R. 8. Get on the right path. Get on the path to job creation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

It's clear that my friends on the other side are committed to raising taxes at any cost. Does anyone believe that they're going to use that to reduce the deficit? We'll just see more wasteful Washington spending. This isn't a solution. America is at a crossroad. We've had 40 months of 8 percent unemployment. What do we get from them? Not a solution. We get a political ploy.

I appreciate my friend from Oregon touting the benefits of the Clinton administration when we had a Republican Congress. Let me just say I've welcomed the advice of former President Bill Clinton. He said extend all of the current tax rates. Let me just say that this would gut tax reform.

Say ``yes'' to tax reform. Say ``no'' to raising taxes. Say ``no'' to this motion to recommit.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, under the rule before us today, we will choose between two starkly different visions for America. My Democratic colleagues and I are proposing a simple and fair tax cut for the middle class. This proposal has already passed the Senate. If passed by the House, the legislation could quickly become law. Our tax cut is based upon a simple premise--that it is time for the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share--no more. Their fair share.

Unfortunately, despite agreeing with the tax cuts proposed in our bill, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are standing in the way of the tax cut becoming law. Instead of passing a commonsense tax cut, the majority is demanding that any tax cut for the middle class be accompanied by an additional tax cut for the richest 2 percent. Their proposal is based upon the

disproved theory of trickle-down economics--a failed economic theory that has led to record inequality and a broken Tax Code that is riddled with loopholes and giveaways to the wealthy.

For decades, our tax system has been tilted in favor of the wealthy and big corporations--a rigged system that isn't working for most Americans. As just one example, between 2008 and 2010, 30 profitable Fortune 500 companies paid absolutely nothing in Federal taxes, and many more companies and wealthy individuals avoid paying taxes by sheltering the money in bank accounts overseas.

This stands in sharp contrast to other moments in American history. In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s--a 30-year period that saw the creation of the middle class and the realization of the American Dream--top income tax rates often reached levels we wouldn't even dream of today. But despite these tax rates, we saw incredible economic growth and the creation of the strongest middle class on Earth.

The middle class grew, in part, because we did not allow the most successful members of our society to dodge their responsibility as American taxpayers. In years since, we've witnessed a purposeful and concerted effort by some to undermine the notion of shared responsibility, which this government was based on. In years since, we've witnessed a purposeful and concerted effort to undermine that. Starting with Reaganomics in the 1980s, a new theory pervaded American politics--a belief that our focus should really be on helping corporations and the wealthy in hopes that they might in return help some of us.

Many on the other side of the aisle subscribed to this idea and believed that by providing for the powerful interests first, success would trickle down onto the middle class. What we now know is the theory is simply not true. Today, America is increasingly unequal, millions of jobs have been shipped overseas, and the middle class has been gutted. These results are strong evidence that trickle-down economics have completely and utterly failed.

In 2001, President Bush proposed a series of unpaid-for tax cuts that exploded our deficit and put millions of dollars directly into the pockets of the richest families in America, and that's where we are today. At the same time, President Bush claimed that these tax cuts would create jobs. And Vice President Cheney told us not to worry about the cost to our Nation because ``deficits don't matter.'' A decade later, we can see that President Bush and Vice President Cheney couldn't have been more wrong.

Under President Bush, our deficit exploded to record levels; and according to FactCheck.org, he created only 1.1 million jobs. In contrast, President Clinton erased our deficit through a balanced tax plan and created 23 million jobs--quite a difference--which brings us back to the legislation that we are considering today.

Today, the majority proposes that we continue failed policies by extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2 percent. Doing so, Madam Speaker, would cost us nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years, it would force us to continue borrowing billions of dollars from China, and would force us to make cuts in vital programs like Medicare and student loans.

To continue the failed status quo is a disservice to the American people that we represent. It is high time that we start making our Tax Code fair for those who work hard and play by the rules--not just the wealthy who lobby hard and rewrite the rules. We can do that by passing a simple and fair tax cut for the middle class today.

Unlike the proposal from the majority, the Democratic proposal to cut taxes for the middle class is something that both sides already agree on. The majority's strategy of holding middle class tax cuts hostage in exchange for tax cuts for the top 2 percent is outrageous, and it must end.

Far too often, the majority has pursued a partisan and zero-sum ideology that has led this Congress down dead-end roads. We've seen it over and over again, whether it's the majority's proposal to end Medicare as we know it, or their inability to avoid a downgrade--the first in our Nation's history--in our credit. Unfortunately, their proposal today is yet another partisan piece of legislation that will never become law. Indeed, the President has already said that he will veto the majority's proposal if it ever reaches his desk.

When faced with these two starkly different proposals--one, a noncontroversial and commonsense tax cut for the middle class; the other, a partisan tax cut to benefit the richest 2 percent--it's clear what we should do.

I urge my colleagues to provide a fair and simple tax cut to all Americans--because the rich will benefit too--while standing up for the financial security and prosperity of the middle class. Why would we continue a program we know has failed?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlewoman another minute.

The real issue here today is: Are we going to continue something that we know utterly failed? More than 10 years ago, this deal was made with corporations that we would cut the tax rate and that they would produce jobs. We didn't get the jobs. Half of it didn't work. Why would a country as intelligent as ours want to continue that failed policy? We are at a critical crossroads here, and we had better this time get it right.

In that regard, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

I think I must say that 97 percent of small businesses in America will not be affected at all.

With that, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I will be happy to yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, we understand the majority intends to have a last- minute change in the rule. The amendment would create a number of obstacles to middle class tax cuts. And under the last-minute change, the middle class taxes could not be cut until the Senate has approved the entire Republican tax reform agenda, and we certainly don't need that kind of obstacle and we don't need that kind of bill. We need quick action on tax cuts, so I hope we can get that today. But let me remind you that you need to vote against this rule, unless you want the Republican bill to pass automatically.

The Senate-passed tax cuts are a simple and fair extension of tax cuts that will directly benefit the middle class. It was quite wonderful to see the Senate of the United States do the sensible thing and say that everyone making $250,000 and under would receive a tax cut. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are the only ones standing in the way of the tax cut becoming law.

Their flawed alternative proposal demands that any middle class tax cut be accompanied by an additional tax cut for the richest 2 percent. Such a proposal would be and has been a fiscal disaster. It would explode the Nation's deficit, fail to create jobs, and perpetuate the record of inequality facing our Nation.

The oft-repeated premise that we need to protect job creators--who haven't created new jobs--with lower corporate taxes and lower taxes for the wealthy should be put to bed. It has been thoroughly and convincingly disproven.

Instead of protecting tax loopholes for corporations that ship jobs overseas and serving the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, we should be making the Tax Code more simple and fair and asking everyone just to pay their fair share. Our proposed middle class tax cut would be a great first step towards doing just that.

In addition, Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to give the House a vote on H. Res. 746, which would prohibit us from going home until the President signs middle class tax cuts into law. Otherwise, we will be going home perhaps tomorrow with that undone.

There is no excuse for Congress to go on summer vacation at the end of this week. No other American leaves work with a job half done, and neither should we. It is our duty to deliver results for the American people, and we should not leave this town until every middle class family has a tax cut in their hands.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to support the middle class tax cuts, to vote ``no'' on the rule and on ordering the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to put the amendment and other extraneous material in the Record immediately prior to the vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 747 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 747 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 8, a bill to extend the current tax rates for all Americans for 1 year; a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 6169, which provides a legislative path for true tax reform; and for other tools allowing the House to finish its business and continue to operate during the August district work period.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, why are we here today? My friends on the left will tell you that we are here today to discuss the issue of fairness in our Tax Code. I would agree. America is the land of opportunity. We believe that the worst possible thing you can do during a fragile recovery-- that feels like a recession to me--is to increase taxes. Why? Because by increasing taxes, we jeopardize another 710,000 jobs, according to the experts, 710,000 jobs.

One of those jobs could be held by one of my constituents, a friend of mine named Joe Stringer. Joe Stringer is a middle class American, 62 years old. His wife is 67 years old and on Medicare. Joe doesn't make $250,000, Joe doesn't make $200,000, not even $150,000 or $100,000, but Joe does have dividend income, like 9 million seniors around this Nation who have dividend income.

And here is the interesting fact, Madam Speaker, when we hear the left talk about taxing the millionaires and the billionaires, here is the new definition: of those 9 million seniors who have dividend income, 68 percent of them have an income of less than $100,000, 40 percent have an income of less than $50,000. But my friends on the left would categorize these folks as a member of the rich, with their tax cuts being expired at the end of this year.

We are looking at an increase in the dividend tax rate of 185 percent for millions of Americans who are on fixed incomes. These folks aren't rich. They depend on their dividend income, and yes, with the actions of the left, we would see their dividend income tax responsibility and burden go up by 185 percent. This is definitely not right. It is definitely wrong.

Now this is on top of all the new taxes that we find as a part of the Affordable Care Act, another $804 billion of new taxes on Americans throughout this Nation. And in addition to that, Madam Speaker, under their proposal, we see the death tax going from 35 percent with a $5 million elimination to 55 percent. And for farmers, folks in agriculture, and for small businessowners, their wealth is not liquid. You would have to sell your land to pay these taxes. It's what we call a ``fire sale.''

So my friends on the left would punish people who work all their lives and come up with wealth to pass on to the next generation. But in this instance the taxes would go up significantly. And that's wrong.

In spite of the results of all the surveys--yesterday we had a survey done in my district that said that 61 percent of folks would like to see the 2001 and 2003--and, oh, by the way, 85 Members of the Democrats voted for these exact same tax cuts to stay in place in 2010. It was good in 2010; it's still good right now. Sixty-one percent of folks say let's extend these tax cuts for all Americans, and let's keep those 710,000 Americans who would lose their jobs employed.

But in addition to that, the environment that we're working in right now matters; it matters significantly. Because we have over 41 months-- over 41 months, Madam Speaker--of unemployment over 8 percent. It's devastating. It's devastating, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will come together here today and realize that the time for political points should be over; that my colleagues would come together today and realize that the time for trying to divide Americans is over; that we would come together today, Madam Speaker, and realize that the time for punishing success is over.

In many ways, Madam Speaker, in many ways this debate today is about the very soul of who we are as Americans: Are we going to lift everyone up as one Nation, or are we going to push some down to bring everyone somewhere in the fuzzy middle in some misguided attempt to redefine fairness? Are we going to let the foundation of this Nation continue to crack, or are we going to strengthen it for another 200 years?

We encourage--I encourage--success in this Nation. We have to ensure our children can learn about America the same way all of us learned about the land of opportunity. That's fairness that I believe in.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure that I note once again, reinforce the fact, that this 1-year extension that we are suggesting on the right is in fact an extension of not only the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, but also the tax cuts that passed this House in 2010 in a bipartisan fashion.

There is no doubt that an action not to extend these tax cuts is actually increasing taxes on many people in this Nation.

And, in fact, if we do extend these tax cuts, what we are actually doing is allowing current tax law to stay in place. But if we don't do that we are talking about 9 million seniors, 68 percent of whom make less than $100,000, seeing their dividend income go up in taxation by 185 percent. That's the middle class.

We're talking about how the marriage penalty will place a $591 higher tax on over 88 million families. That's the middle class. We're talking about a reduction in the child tax credit that will pose a $1,028 tax hike on 31 million families. This looks like to me that my friends on the left are willing to tax the middle class and the poor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Trey Gowdy.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure that we remember the facts as they are. There's no reason for us to so quickly revise history to meet our political objectives.

In 2010, this House, controlled by the Democrats, the Senate, controlled by the Democrats, and the White House, controlled by the Democrats, passed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. So what we're talking about is a bipartisan piece of legislation that would continue the current tax law because the previous Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, decided that tax cuts were good for all Americans. And now we find ourselves, as Mr. Gowdy said, in the midst of a political season.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rich Nugent, the sheriff.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

I yield the gentleman another minute.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia and my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Rob Woodall.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina, Mrs. Renee Ellmers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Kansas, Ms. Lynn Jenkins.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Steve King.

I have one.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Madam Speaker, I wonder what my friend from Texas would have said, if she was still here, to the 253,000 women, small business owners, who will be impacted by higher taxes based on the actions of our friends on the left. I wonder, Madam Speaker, what my friends on the left would say to the 710,000 newly unemployed Americans because of their actions on the left? I wonder, Madam Speaker, what my friends on the left would say to the senior citizens who make less than $100,000, to the senior citizens who make less than $50,000 who would see a 185 percent increase on their taxes for their dividend income?

Madam Speaker, my friends on the left have asked a very interesting and telling question when they asked: Who deserves a tax increase? Well, we on the right have a very clear answer to that question. We believe everybody deserves a tax decrease.

Madam Speaker, with unemployment for the 41st month over 8 percent, with unemployment in south Atlanta over 9.4 percent, I would suggest, Madam Speaker, now is not the time to engineer fairness. Now is a time for us to keep taxes low.

Madam Speaker, everyone in this room can agree we need to take steps to turn our economy around. But while one side of the room wants to divide our Nation to do so, we understand that punishing some Americans in the name of helping others is not the solution. We must lift everyone up; otherwise, we will all just end up in the squishy, nebulous middle. And America isn't about being mediocre. America is about being the best, the strongest, and the leader of the free world. Let's stay there as a Nation.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Scott of South Carolina

Madam Speaker, I move to amend the resolution with the amendment I have placed at the desk.

Madam Speaker, the amendment instructs the Clerk to add the text of H.R. 6169 as new matter at the end of H.R. 8 before transmitting the bill to the Senate.

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

Madam Speaker, although I have great affection for the gentleman from South Carolina, I am so enthusiastic that

Ranking Member Slaughter is managing this bill.

I rise in great opposition to H.R. 8, but in enthusiastic support for H.R. 15. This is a gift to America's women, working women, mothers.

And let me give you the role: every taxpayer will get tax relief on $250,000. That, by the evidence of this letter from small businesses, will be 97, 98 percent of small businesses. And they are women--most of them, many of them--women who are in their homes having a one-person small business, women who have hired people in a five-person small business, women who are thinking of getting ready to start their small businesses.

Then, of course, the child tax credit. What a boon for working mothers and others who need that desperate relief. And then, of course, the marriage tax relief. EITC, if you come from the gulf region, we were saved by the earned income tax credit for Hurricane Katrina victims. They were able to get some minimal relief to carry them through. The higher education tax credit. The adoption tax credit. And as I indicated, the child care tax credit. A tax credit, as well, for expensing in small businesses.

What are my colleagues and my friends on the other side talking about? A job-killing, economy-killing, deficit-busting H.R. 8 is not the way to go.

So I am enthusiastically here to tell the women of America that this is a vote for you today. Those women who get up every day, who design a way to make a living when there is no job--these women, along with men, who have come into understanding what small business can do for America.

I'm excited because I consider the 18th Congressional District to be a host of small businesses. Everywhere I go, individuals are talking about their small businesses.

I will submit into the Record, Madam Speaker, a letter from small businesses of the Main Street Alliance opposing H.R. 8 and supporting this legislation the Democrats are offering.

This is a celebration for women. This vote today will enhance opportunities for women, small businesses, and families across America.

Madam Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8 and H.R. 6169, and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together in support of regular order for any proposed tax legislation, whether it comes to the House Floor today, tomorrow, or next year. The Rule before us is structured and I note that is titled H. Res. 747, but unlike the jetliners that we Americans use every day, this bill and the Rule are not yet ready for take-off.

House Republicans released a proposal, H.R. 6169, that would relax some of Congress's normal procedural rules in order to enact an overhaul of the tax code--so long as the tax overhaul meets the objectives laid out in the House budget plan authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.

Their proposal states:

``The United States tax code is far too complex and bloated. It forces American citizens and small business owners to focus on filling out tax forms instead of tending to their families and businesses. It is clear to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle that real, fundamental reforms to our tax code are long overdue. In fact, our revenue laws have not been substantially reformed in 50 years,'' Chairman Dreier said.

I couldn't agree more with Chairman Dreier but by putting a stranglehold on the tax reform process before we even begin is tantamount to forcing debate on any tax reform bill while potentially limiting input.

H.R. 6169 lays out several components that the tax overhaul legislation must have in order to be passed through the easier legislative procedure.

All of these components seem identical to those laid out in the Ryan Plan that we witnessed in the Spring--it's like a bad B movie rerun.

The required components of the tax overhaul include:

replacing the personal income tax rates with just two rates, 10 percent and 25 percent (or less)

repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT

reducing the statutory corporate income tax rate to 25 percent (or less)

adoption of a ``territorial'' tax system (exempting offshore profits of corporations from U.S. taxes)

collecting revenue equal to between 18 and 19 percent of GDP

The ``findings'' section of the bill states that revenue will ``rise to 21.2 percent of GDP under current law,'' meaning its proposed revenue target of between 18 and 19 percent of GDP is an explicit cut in revenue.

Like the Republican Plan, the bill introduced by my colleagues Ways and Means Chairman Camp and Rules Committee Chair Dreier, does not say which tax loopholes and tax subsidies should be closed to ensure that the tax system still collects revenue equaling between 18 and 19 percent of GDP even after the plan's steep rate reductions and the repeal of the AMT are in effect.

My sense is that even if those with incomes exceeding $1 million were forced to give up all the tax expenditures Ryan could possibly want to take away from them--all their itemized deductions, tax credits, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance and the deduction for health insurance for the self-employed--even then the net result for these taxpayers would be an average income tax cut of $187,000 in 2014.

That's because the income tax rate reductions Ryan proposed are so deep that they would far outweigh the loss of all these tax loopholes and tax subsidies.

I have consistently supported and voted for middle class tax cuts, as I did two years ago when I voted for the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010, and the extension of unemployment benefits.

I am deeply saddened that the fate of unemployed, low and middle income Americans has been held hostage by the insistence by Republicans that this legislation include a giveaway to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans that is going to irresponsibly expand the already large deficit.

I have spoken to and heard from many fine, patriotic, hardworking middle income Americans from Houston, from the great state of Texas, and all across the nation. Middle class American families and small businesses are deeply concerned about our troubled economy, the skyrocketing national deficit, high unemployment rates, job creation, and sorely needed extension of the tax relief and unemployment benefits set to expire at the end of this month.

The Republican bill temporarily extends for one year, through 2013, all the reduced tax rates and other tax benefits enacted in 2001 and 2003 that are scheduled to expire on Dec. 31. The measure maintains the maximum estate tax rate of 35 percent while retaining the exemption amount of $5 million, provides a two-year ``patch'' to prevent the alternative minimum tax, AMT, from hitting over 27 million taxpayers and allows small businesses to deduct an increased amount of their capital expenditures for another year.

I feel like we have been down this path before and I recall many of my colleagues staking a claim to fiscal responsibility. Well, I ask in all sincerity, which bill is more fiscally responsible: H.R. 8, which blows a hole in the deficit, or H.R. 15, the Democratic alternative which keeps the Bush Tax rates in place for the people who truly need tax relief.

This is the same Republican Congress which has asked for a balanced budget amendment. It has codified the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which is possibly unconstitutional, and has had no impact on jobs and the unemployment problem. Yet today they want us to vote on a tax increase for the top 2 percent. This illustrates what happens when Congress does not work together in a bipartisan manner, laboring for the American people. We must work together and compromise.

The Senate gave us a layup by producing a bill last week which is virtually identical to the Democratic Substitute. All we have to do is act like Olympians and pass it.

The American people are asking the President and Members of Congress to move swiftly and take decisive action to help restore our economy in a fiscally responsible manner. I am disappointed that Republicans have insisted on holding tax cuts for working and middle class families' hostage in order to benefit the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

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

I support those provisions of H.R. 8 which provide relief for middle- class families and small businesses who will see their taxes go down and get much needed certainty. But I cannot in good conscience support tax relief for millionaires and billionaires at a time when others need help just to make ends meet.

Unlike those provisions of H.R. 8 which benefit America's struggling middle class, I do not support the provisions of this legislation which condition that desperately needed relief upon

the unconscionably high cost of providing an unnecessary, expensive giveaway to the wealthiest Americans by providing a 2-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while keeping their estate tax rate at 35 percent on estates valued at more than $5 Million for individuals and more than $10 Million for couples.

These giveaways to the wealthiest Americans during these dire economic times needlessly add billions of dollars to our skyrocketing deficit yet create no value for our ailing economy since these tax cuts are not tied to job creation and preservation.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, Americans who served on the school board or a parents council or the board of trustees, their fire company, that have ever had a dispute about what to do know that one of the ways to resolve the dispute is to say, Listen, let's take the things that we agree on and do them, and set aside the things in which we disagree and argue about them later. But let's agree

on the things we can do and get them done.

I think virtually every Member of this Chamber agrees that if a family makes less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, their taxes should not go up. Let's pass a bill that says that and then move on to the things on which we disagree.

Here is one of the things that we disagree on: The majority's bill that's on the floor raises taxes on 25 million Americans, and they are some of the Americans who least merit and deserve a tax increase. For example, an E4 corporal in the Marine Corps with 4 years of service, married and with two children sees his taxes go up by $448 a year under the Republican bill. Under the Democratic bill, that Marine's taxes do not go up. A military police sergeant, an E5 in the Air Force, who has 8 years of service, with a spouse and three young children would see a tax increase of $1,118 a year.

How could this be?

In 2009, President Obama increased the earned income tax credit, which helps low-income people who work for a living, and he increased the child care credit, which is working people with children. We pay our marines, our Air Force, our Army, and our sailors a lot less than we should. They're very underpaid, and they take advantage of these tax breaks.

The Democratic bill preserves these tax rules for working families, including members of the military; the Republican bill does not.

So I would urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to do the following: Let's oppose the rule that's on the floor, which gives us a chance to amend the bill. When we amend the bill, let's cancel out the tax increase on the Air Force sergeant of $1,118 and let's cancel out the tax increase on the Marine corporal of $448.

Vote ``no.''

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

House Republican Tax Bill Leaves Some Military Families Behind

Military Families with Modest Incomes Could Lose Important Tax Credits

(By Seth Hanlon)

The House of Representatives today is scheduled to vote on

a House Republican proposal (H.R. 8) that purportedly extends

all tax cuts but actually raises taxes on about 25 million

families by reducing certain tax credits. The 25 million

families include middle-class families and students who

currently benefit from a tax credit for college expenses.

Others are parents raising children on modest incomes who are

helped by the child tax credit and earned income tax credit.

Some, as illustrated below, are members of the U.S. military

and their families.

The competing Democratic proposal, which has already passed

the Senate (S. 3412/H.R. 15), extends all income tax cuts for

the 98 percent of families with incomes under $250,000

($200,000 for singles), including these tax credits in their

current forms.

Below are three illustrative examples of military families

whose tax bill would rise next year under H.R. 8, the House

Republican tax bill.

A corporal (E4) in the Marines with four years of service,

who is married and has two children would see a tax increase

of $448 under H.R. 8.

In 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law

improvements to the earned income tax credit--an important

tax credit that boosts the earnings of low- and moderate-

income workers. In 2009, 211,000 military families benefitted

from the earned income tax credit.[1] One of the 2009

improvements reduced the tax credit's so-called marriage

penalty (phasing out the credit at higher income levels for

families that file joint tax returns). H.R. 8 would let that

provision expire, increasing the marriage penalty and thus

reducing the EITC for married couples in the phaseout range.

With military basic pay of $27,660[2] (and assuming no

other household income), this Marine Corporal's family is

affected by the worsened marriage penalty under H.R. 8. As a

result, the family's tax credit would be reduced by $448

under H.R. 8 compared to the current tax rules, the Senate-

passed bill, and the House Democratic alternative. Here are

the details:

Marine corporal (E4), four years' service, married with two

children;

Military basic pay: $27,660

Earned income tax credit under current tax policy and

Democratic plan: $4,326

Earned income tax credit under H.R. 8: $3,878

Tax increase under H.R. 8: $448

A military police sergeant (E5) in the Air Force with eight

years' service, with a spouse and three young children at

home, would see a tax increase of $1,118 under H.R. 8.

Another provision enacted in 2009 boosted the value of the

earned income tax credit for families with three or more

children, reflecting the fact that these families have a

higher cost of living. H.R. 8 would let this provision

expire, so that families with three or more children get the

same-sized tax credit as families with two children.

With basic pay of $34,723, this sergeant's family would be

affected by both the earned income tax credit's worsened

marriage penalty under H.R. 8 and the reduced credit for

families with three or more children. In total, the family's

earned income tax credit would be reduced by $1,118 under

H.R. 8. Under the Senate-passed bill and the House Democratic

alternative, it would not be cut. Here are the details:

Air Force sergeant (E5), eight years' service, married with

three children:

Basic pay: $34,723

Earned income tax credit under current tax policy and

Democratic plan: $3,508

Earned income tax credit under H.R. 8: $2,390

Tax increase under H.R. 8: $1,118

A private in the U.S. Army (El) in his first year of

service, who is married with an infant child, would see a

$273 tax increase under the Republican plan.

The child tax credit generally provides a $1,000 credit per

child. But the credit is only partially ``refundable'' for

families who do not have federal income tax liability in a

given year. H.R. 8 would reduce the ability of some low-

income families to claim the credit. That is because the

credit's refundability is based on the level of a family's

earnings above a certain threshold--and H.R. 8 would raise

that threshold.

With basic pay of an estimated $18,196 in 2013, the Army

private's family's income is too low to owe federal income

tax because of the standard deduction and personal

exemptions. Under H.R. 8, the family would only be able to

claim a partial child tax credit, limited to $727. In

contrast, under the Senate-passed bill and the House

Democratic alternative, the family could claim the full

$1,000 credit for its child. Here are the details:

U.S. Army private (El), first year of service, married with

one child:

Basic pay: $18,196

Child tax credit under current tax policy and Democratic

plan: $1,000

Child tax credit under H.R. 8: $727

Tax increase: $273

These are just three typical military families who face a

tax increase from H.R. 8's failure to extend important tax

benefits for working families. Many families with similar

incomes, military and nonmilitary, would face similar tax

increases because of H.R. 8's failure to extend the child tax

credit and earned income tax credit improvements. H.R. 8 also

fails to extend the American opportunity tax credit for

families and students paying for college.

In all, the House Republican plan raises taxes on about 25

million families, including 18 million families with children

(constituting 37 percent of all families with children).[3]

By contrast, all 98 percent of families with incomes under

$250,000 ($200,000 for singles) would see no tax increase

under the Democratic bill, and the 2 percent of Americans

with higher incomes will keep tax cuts on their income up to

those amounts.

Seth Hanlon is Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for

American Progress.