To amend title 5, United States Code, to make clear that accounts in the Thrift Savings Fund are subject to certain Federal tax levies.

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Act stops the tax hike we face at the end of the year and provides a 1-year extension of the low tax policies originally enacted in 2001 and 2003 and then extended again in 2010.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.

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

There is a choice to be made here, and it isn't what the chairman has put forth for one second. Everyone in this body agrees that we should extend the middle class tax cut. The Senate passed a bill that does just that. The President is ready to sign it this week.

The middle class families of this country need certainty, not some

vague promises about something to be done in the future. The question is: If everybody agrees that we should continue the middle class tax cut, why don't we come together? The answer is this: The Senate bill continues all of the tax cuts for every American household on their first $250,000 of income; 114 million families would see their tax cuts extended in full; 97 percent of small businesses would keep all of their tax cuts, according to the Joint Taxation Committee. Why don't the Republicans join us in acting?

I think the answer is clear. This chart shows it. They're insistent. Their priority is cutting taxes for the very wealthy. They want to give households that earn more than $1 million a year a tax cut on average of $160,000. This chart shows it. What we have here for middle class families, $2,200; for the very wealthy, $160,000. That's over 70 times more of a tax cut for millionaires than for typical families. What makes it worse, if possible, is it would add $49 billion to the deficit.

This Republican bill also would raise taxes on 25 million families. Those who benefited from the EITC, the child tax credit, and a higher education tax credit, that they would eliminate altogether. It's still worse. The bill we're going to discuss tomorrow, the so-called ``tax reform,'' essentially would provide someone earning more than $1 million a $331,000 tax cut.

This debate is not about tax reform. It's about whether or not we protect the very wealthy at all costs--at all costs at the expense of middle-income families, and everybody except the very wealthy. This talk about 700,000 jobs being lost, that study was financed by special interest friends, and it's been discredited by every fact checker.

They're talking about 70 times more for the millionaire than for middle-income families on average, when in 2010, 93 percent of income growth went to the top 1 percent of wealthy households. And they come here and say that their first priority is protecting the very wealthy.

This isn't about tax reform. We need to work on this. This is about whether the first priority of the Republicans is protecting the very wealthy, holding hostage middle-income families. Let the middle-income family hostages be released. Join together for what everybody says they're for. Let's pass today our substitute and give a middle-income tax cut to everybody, including 97 percent of small businesses.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

When you look at Mr. Herger's district, he's standing up to protect 180 people who have income over $1 million, sacrificing a middle-income tax cut for 285,000.

I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished former chairman and a gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

I yield myself 15 seconds.

You know, it's ironical that the gentleman from Illinois minimizes adding $50 billion to the deficit over 10 years, if continued, which is your policy, continued the high income. A trillion dollars, that's something you just shrug your shoulders at?

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, Earl Blumenauer, another distinguished member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another member of our committee.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Look, no one here should distort the facts. From Joint Tax: 97 percent of small business people would keep all of their tax cuts. And in the Speaker's district, there are 144 people with income over a million, compared to the 300,000-plus. He's sacrificing the middle class for a few with over a million dollars.

I now have the pleasure of yielding 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Crowley, from the great State of New York.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Look, I want to repeat, Joint Tax says 97 percent of small businesses would keep all of their tax cuts. And in Mr. Paulsen's district, there are 1,345 people with income over 1 million compared with over 325,000 households. That's the equation at stake here. That's the equation.

I now have a real pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the very active gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

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

Could the Speaker indicate how much time there is on each side?

I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Could you tell us, please, again how much time there is remaining?

I now yield 2 minutes to another active member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), our ranking member on the Budget Committee.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Velazquez), who is the ranking member on the Committee on Small Business and who has toiled in the vineyards and beyond on behalf of the small businesses of this country.

How much time is left on this bill?

We have one more speaker on this.

Mr. Camp, do you have more than one?

Why don't you call on the one, and then Mr. Hoyer is going to wrap up on this bill.

I now yield the balance of my time on this bill to the distinguished whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I now call up the substitute amendment.

Could the Chair be clear as to who has the right to close on this amendment?

I now yield 2 minutes to another Member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

It's now my real pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) who is the chair of our caucus and an active member of our committee.

I would ask my colleague from Michigan how many further requests for time do you have left?

It's now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California, our distinguished leader.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

There are a few undisputed facts. Small business--97 percent of small businesses will receive all of their tax cut. Don't listen to the propaganda to the contrary. Everyone will receive their tax cuts up to $250,000 of income. Don't listen to propaganda that says otherwise. And income over $1 million, for those who have that, would receive under the Republican bill 70 times more than the typical family. And when the two bills are combined, 150 times more than the typical family.

Let me say just a word about tax reform, which I favor. It's being used as an argument for inaction. But, look, let's be realistic. No matter who controls the Congress next year, there won't be tax reform until maybe the spring or the summer. So are you going to use that same argument for tax reform, say, in a lame duck against middle-income tax cuts? Or in January, are you going to use the same argument? Are you going to use tax reform as a shield to protect the high-income taxpayer? In a word, the Republican bill is a path to nowhere for middle-income taxpayers.

Our substitute is a sure path. Pass it. The Senate already has. The President will sign it. Act now. Vote for the substitute.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank him for his legislation on the floor today, to strengthen the backbone of our democracy, the great American middle class.

Today we can do just that by passing President Obama's middle-income tax cut, which is on the floor today as the Levin substitute. It has already passed the Senate and could be signed into law by the President before the weekend.

We have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to give a tax cut to 100 percent of the American people. We have an opportunity to relieve some of the uncertainty that exists in our economy as to how we are going to pay the bills and how America's working families are going to pay the bills.

We have an opportunity for fairness, which is an all-American value, for fairness for our families, for our businesses, and for our budget. We must not--as some people always accuse Congress of doing--miss an opportunity.

We have to take advantage of the opportunity that is here today. The bill provides for fairness for the middle class and certainty, as I mentioned.

The Republican alternative says not only do we want to give 100 percent of the American people a tax cut; we want to give a bigger and better tax cut to people making over $250,000 a year ,2 percent of the American people. In order to do that, we greatly increase the deficit which would incur borrowing from other countries, including China. And to top it all off, in order to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in our country, we have to increase taxes for the middle class in order to pay for that. If you make over $1 million a year, the Republican tax proposal will give you a tax cut of $160,000 on average. And on average, America's middle-income families would have to pay $1,000 more in taxes.

You know, we work for the American people. You are our bosses. So as our bosses, what would you instruct us to do when it comes to reducing the deficit, giving a tax cut to 100 percent of the American people, which will inject demand into the economy and therefore create jobs. So we are reducing the deficit. We're creating jobs, and we're having fairness as a principle as to how we go forward.

Make no mistake, by refusing to vote for the Senate-passed bill, House Republicans are giving more tax breaks to the richest 2 percent, tax breaks they don't need and we can't afford. At the same time they cut taxes for the rich, as I said, they would raise an average of $1,000 on 25 million American families, families who rely on that money for day-to-day needs to pay their bills. That isn't fair, and Democrats will fight to prevent these tax increases on middle-income families in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest people in our country.

Today is a day when we can end some uncertainty. People talk about the cliff. We are going to go over the cliff come January. Let's not even go anywhere near the edge of that cliff. Let's pass this bill today. It will save just under $1 trillion because we're not giving those tax cuts to the high end. That is almost all the money that is needed to avoid the sequestration come January. So again, we are addressing the uncertainty not only in the lives of the American people, but in the life of our economy.

Or today is the day that Republicans will continue to hold the middle class hostage to tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country.

I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Levin, join the President of the United States, join all of us. There isn't a person in this room, in this body, I think, who doesn't support tax cuts for the middle class. Why can't we just do that, do what we can agree upon right now, tax cut by the weekend, alleviating uncertainty for our economy as we go forward, and then we can have a debate about what a Tax Code should look like that has fairness, simplification, and again keeps us competitive, innovative, and, number one, allows the private sector to create jobs. Again, jobs, jobs, jobs.

We will reduce that deficit by having additional revenue, by creating growth, by addressing spending so we are investing in those initiatives that grow our economy. Pretty soon when we end this debate, it will be around the time when America's families will sit down for dinner at the kitchen table or wherever, and they will have these discussions about how they pay the bills, the bills to stay in their home or their apartment, wherever. Discussions on how they will pay for their children's education, how their pensions are affected by all of this. The list goes on and on.

With one vote, we can alleviate that uncertainty. We're not going to eliminate it, but we can lessen it. We have that responsibility. Let's not miss an opportunity to do just that.

So I thank you, Mr. Levin, for your leadership and members of the committee for all of your hard work.

Designed to fail. That's what this bill is. It is designed to fail. Very frankly, you made sure that it was going to fail when you passed the amendment that added the reform bill and this bill together.

Designed to fail. How sad.

I don't think you want to raise taxes on anybody. I understand that. I'll accept that premise. What we ought to do is to make sure, in the agreement that we have with the Senate and the House, that at least the 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 have no increase in their taxes. At least we ought to do that. America knows we have agreement on that. They're wondering why, when you have agreement, you don't take that agreement and give the assurance and certainty to 98 percent of the American working people that they won't have an increase in their taxes so that they'll have the confidence that they'll have that money in their pockets to, perhaps, purchase that refrigerator that they need or that oven that they need or perhaps a new car or so that they can help their kids go to college.

Why don't we give them that confidence, I say to my friends. Mr. Speaker, I wish we would do so.

Today, we could embrace the agreement that the Senate has come to and tell the 98 percent, ``You're safe.'' In addition to that, by rejecting this bill, we will reject taking money out of 25 million people's pockets that they rely on to support themselves and their children.

That's what the Senate bill does. It protects the wealthiest in America while telling some of the poorest in America, the least well- off in America, you're going to pay more, you're going to get less. How perverse. How undermining of our economy. How undermining of the confidence of our people. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we're better than this.

Newt Gingrich talked some years ago in 1998 about the ``Perfectionist Caucus.'' Mr. Speaker, he said embrace agreement. He was agreeing with President Clinton and Newt Gingrich at that point in time on a budget which adopted PAYGO one more time, which is one of the reasons why we balanced the budget 4 years in a row. The House Ways and Means bill leaves 98 percent of our people at risk, while our bill gives 100 percent of the people a tax cut.

Let us reject the House bill. Let us adopt the substitute. Let us send it to the Senate and make it law. The President will sign it, and it can become law and give confidence and help to those 98 percent of Americans.

This Republican proposal, is not the straight-forward tax cut extension middle-class families and small business owners are asking for.

Instead it extends tax cuts to even the highest incomes, a plan already rejected by the Senate and which the President has said he would veto.

Moving forward with this legislation will only prolong the uncertainty the American people have asked us to end.

What we ought to do--before the August district work period--is pass the extension where we have agreement--for earnings under $250,000, which is a tax cut for 100 percent of Americans.

Ninety eight percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses will see no change to their taxes.

Let's pass what we agree on now and afterward debate what we disagree on.

Instead, we've seen Republicans insist on an all or nothing approach, which has held middle-class tax relief hostage to tax cuts for the top 2 percent.

Now, they are doing so once again, with a rule on this bill that makes it harder for us to reach an agreement to prevent a tax hike on the middle class.

This is not the regular order or open process Speaker Boehner and Republicans campaigned on and pledged to uphold in this House.

At the same time, this bill would impose an average tax hike of $1,000 on 25 million working families by allowing the expanded Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit to expire while eliminating the American Opportunity Tax Credit.

That lies in stark contrast to the $160,000 tax cut this bill would deliver to the average millionaire, according to the National Economic Council.

Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this bill, and I call on Republicans to work with us to pass the tax cut extension for the middle class on which we all agree.

I thank my good friend from Michigan for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8. The reason I oppose this bill is because this bill will impose taxes on hundreds of thousands of U.S. military families, our heroes. That's right, of the millions facing a tax hike, hundreds of thousands are U.S. military families. Let's call this bill what it is, the ``Republicans' Tax Hike on Our Heroes Act.''

Now, I know those on the other side of the aisle will come down here one by one and claim they are extending tax cuts for everyone, but you're extending cuts for people earning over $1 million a year and raising taxes on families earning under $45,000 a year. This bill scales back tax breaks put in place by President Obama and directly aimed at benefiting working families.

Let's take a moment to put a face on the 25 million Americans whose taxes will go up, including hundreds of thousands of U.S. military families.

If you're an Air Force Staff Sergeant with 8 years of service, a spouse and three young children here stateside at home, the Republicans' Tax Hike on Our Heroes Act will raise their taxes by $1,100. A new recruit, a private in the U.S. Army in their first year of service earning a little over $18,000 a year--$18,000 a year, men and women on the front line defending our freedom--if they're married with an infant child at home, they will see an increase under this bill of $273, a tax increase under the Republicans' Tax Hike on Our Heroes Act.

It begs the question, how are my colleagues who represent Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn going to vote on the Republicans' Tax Hike on Our Heroes Act? Are you going to stand with your military family constituents or with the 2 percent?

How are my colleagues who represent Fort Dix in New Jersey going to vote on the Republicans' Tax on Our Heroes Act? My colleagues who represent Fort Bragg in North Carolina? Fort Detrick in Maryland? Fort Monroe in Virginia? Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois? Beale Air Force Base in California?

Today, the choice is clear. Stand with Democrats and the President who have put forward a plan that simply asks America's wealthiest to support this great land.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic substitute on this tax provision.

I have tremendous respect for Chairman Camp and the members of the Ways and Means Committee, but I would like to note that not a single one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuted what I spoke about before, about the fact that if the Republican tax bill were to pass, as opposed to the Democratic tax bill, there would be an increase in taxes on 225,000 military men and women, many of whom are in Active Duty overseas as we speak.

I mentioned in my remarks that under the Democratic bill, the EITC rate, the earned income tax credit under the bill would afford a sergeant in our Army today with 8 years of service, married and with three children, and has a basic pay of $34,723, would receive under the Democratic plan an EITC benefit of $3,508.

I want to be very clear about this, Mr. Speaker. The earned income tax credit under the Republican bill would only be $2,390. Now when I do the math, that means that under the Republican bill, that sergeant and his or her family would have a $1,118 tax increase. You can't get around it. Those are the facts. Those are the numbers. They speak loud and clear. And not a single one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuted that.

We have refuted the $250,000 issue as it pertains to small business owners. The reality is, the men and women on the front lines defending this democracy, defending our freedom, defending our way of life, allowing for small businessmen and -women to prosper in this country, they're not worth a tax break.

Your bill increases taxes on our military men and women. There's no getting around it. A vote for the Republican bill is a vote to increase taxes on military men and women. A vote for the Democratic substitute is a tax cut for our military men and women.