Expressing the sense of the Congress that the current Federal income tax deduction for interest paid on debt secured by a first or second home should not be further restricted.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 747, I call up the bill (H.R. 6169) to provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing for comprehensive tax reform, 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 on

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

An exorbitant amount of ink has been spilled chronicling the many divisions here in the United States Congress. I was just speaking a couple of hours ago in the well about the bipartisan consensus we were able to put together on the trade issue. And I've got to say that the differences of opinions between and within the Democratic and Republican Parties are extraordinarily well documented, and too little attention is focused on the kind of bipartisanship that we've had on issues like the one that we were debating earlier today. But, having said that, even though it doesn't get much attention, there are a number of issues, Mr. Speaker, on which we can all agree.

We all agree, for example, that dramatic reform of our budget process is needed. We may diverge significantly on the kinds of reforms and the manner in which they should be implemented, but none of us looks at our skyrocketing deficit, anemic economic growth rate, or persistent unemployment and thinks that the status quo, when it comes to the Federal budget process, is acceptable.

I, personally, believe very strongly in the notion of our going to a 2-year

budget cycle so that we could have both the Appropriations Committee and the other authorizing committees expend time, energy, and effort meeting their constitutional responsibility of oversight.

So again, there are a wide range of views as to how we deal with the issue of budget process reform, but there is a consensus. Democrats and Republicans alike believe that it is necessary.

We also all understand that budget challenges must be addressed within two specific areas: both taxing and spending. Again, we disagree greatly on the level and the structure of both, but we agree that it needs to be addressed. We know that meaningful budget reform must consist of both reform of the budget process, itself, as well as reform of the tax structure.

Mr. Speaker, the exponential rise in spending in recent years infused our reform agenda with a great sense of urgency, which is why we, as Republicans, have focused so intently on reversing that trend and bringing about meaningful spending cuts. In fact, when I announced that I would be leaving here at the end of this year, one of the things that I had wanted to accomplish was that I made the choice, even though I wasn't originally planning to run again--this was 2 years ago. One of the things I said we had to do was reverse that trend we'd been on with an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending that we'd seen the years before. Well, I'm happy to say that we have been able to at least begin the process of reversing that trend.

Now we face a new level of urgency on the tax side of the equation. As we face the prospect of stark tax increases at the end of this year, while unemployment is stuck, as we've had pointed out to us by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp, an unemployment rate in excess of 8 percent, which has gone on for more than 40 months--and we've just gotten the report at the end of last week that our GDP growth rate was revised downward from 1.9 to 1.5 percent. Tomorrow we're due to get these unemployment numbers. We all hope and pray that we will see improvement. But even if we do see some improvement, we know that the length of this challenging economic period is something that needs to be dealt with, and one of the best ways to deal with it is meaningful tax reform.

The legislation that we have before us, H.R. 6169, represents one- half of our two-pronged approach for preventing the enactment of catastrophic tax increases that would further paralyze our economy. The first step that we must take, Mr. Speaker, is to put a stop to the tax increases looming at the end of this year, which is precisely what this institution, the House of Representatives, did yesterday with the passage of H.R. 8. That bill will keep in place our current tax rates, as we all know, for 1 additional year. Now, that's an essential step.

The President of the United States has said increasing taxes during difficult economic times is bad policy. In fact, not just President Obama, but even the traditional Keynesian economists will argue that the notion of increasing taxes during slow economic growth is a prescription to exacerbate the economic downturn.

So it's very important that we do that. Again, that's one very important step. But on its own, it's just a stopgap solution, what we have done yesterday, here, for that one period of time.

Mr. Speaker, the second part of our two-pronged approach creates a pathway to a long-term solution. Now, this legislation puts in place a structure that will facilitate consideration and passage of meaningful, comprehensive tax reform.

Again, Democrats and Republicans alike regularly say they are for meaningful tax reform. We have talk from both sides of the aisle about it. What we're doing here with this compromise that we have is putting into place a structure that can lay the groundwork to have action taken rather than, simply, simply talk.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that our Tax Code is not working for the American people. I think that it's another point on which we can all agree. I would say to my friend from Worcester, he knows very well that the Tax Code that we have today is not working. We believe on our side that the Tax Code we have today is not working. It's unfair, and it is Byzantine in its complexity. And we all know, too, that the Tax Code that we have, Mr. Speaker, is clearly a drain on our economy.

I'd like to make a couple of points on this.

Since 2001, that's basically a decade plus a year, a little over a decade, there have been nearly 4,500 changes made to the U.S. Tax Code, so within that decade, 4,500 changes made to the Tax Code. Now, Mr. Speaker, that works out to one change a day, one change a day over that 10-year period of time. Now, the resulting complexity leads nearly 9 out of 10 families to seek assistance in filing their Federal income taxes. And at the same time, Mr. Speaker, the majority of small business owners, small business men and women in this country, 71 percent, 71 percent of all unincorporated businesses are forced to pay someone else to prepare their taxes.

Now, dealing with the Tax Code under these circumstances forces individuals, families, and employers in this country to spend--are you ready for this, Mr. Speaker?--over 6 billion--6 billion--hours, costing over $160 billion every single year in an effort to faithfully comply with the burdensome and complicated Federal tax system.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've talked to tax attorneys and accountants--tax attorneys and accountants--and they acknowledge that these wasted resources are a drain on economic growth and on our shared bipartisan quest for job creation.

Furthermore, the current system is injecting a great deal of uncertainty in our economy. Many of us like to point to the fact that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's look at the uncertainty that has existed over the past several years. Tax rates have been scheduled to increase sharply in 3 of the last 5 years, requiring the enactment of repeated temporary extensions. What does that create for job creators and for investors out there? It creates that uncertainty. And that uncertainty, again, is the enemy of prosperity.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as you know, dozens of other major tax provisions expired in 2011 or are currently scheduled to expire by the end of this year. Working families and small business owners are not able to plan for the future or make rational business decisions, including hiring decisions, in this extraordinary environment of uncertainty.

Now, Mr. Speaker, all of these challenges argue forcefully for comprehensive reform. Unfortunately--unfortunately--real results in this quest have proved, so far, to be elusive. We are all aware of the challenges of moving comprehensive legislation through the Senate. Here in the House, we have, as we all know, a majoritarian body where a simple majority is able to work its will.

The nature of the Senate is fundamentally different, far slower, far slower, by design. Frustrating though its inactions may often be, I do believe that the Framers of our Constitution were actually right to structure these two bodies differently.

However, at times throughout our Nation's history, we've recognized the need to come together, the two institutions to come together to facilitate decisive action on critical matters. And, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what we are doing here today, recognizing that the imperative for tax reform, something that has been discussed for literally decades, is going to be able to have something other than just talk, but action. And we're going to facilitate that with this effort here.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, lays out a roadmap for reform and helps to ensure its timely consideration in both the House and the Senate. It provides for consideration of a bill that is introduced by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee by April 30 of next year, and then incorporates five key pillars of comprehensive reform.

First, the reform package should provide individual filers with much needed clarity and simplicity by consolidating the current individual income tax rates into no more than two brackets, 10 and 25 percent.

Second, it should spur job creation and growth by limiting the corporate

tax rate to no more than 25 percent. And again, focusing on the bipartisan nature of this, I've regularly said that I appreciate the fact that President Obama has come forward and called for a reduction in the top rate on corporations in this country.

Third, it should protect middle class families by repealing the alternative minimum tax. We all know how onerous that has been, and we all know that more and more Americans have, unfortunately, been drawn into this alternative minimum tax, which was designed to focus on very, very few people.

And fourth, Mr. Speaker, it should broaden the tax base to maintain revenue between 18 and 19 percent of our gross domestic product. And so, as we look at our economy, the goal of 18 and 19 percent.

And finally, one of the things, again, I was talking about earlier is our global leadership role. We need to make sure that we shift from a worldwide to a territorial system of taxation to have greater equity, to allow for those who want to invest and participate to be able to do so on a global basis.

These are broad outlines of the tax reform agenda, Mr. Speaker, and they're an outline that I think will lay the groundwork, again, for the details to be put into place. The legislation provides for expedited procedures in the House and the Senate, so that comprehensive reform can receive its due consideration.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the House, under this structure, any committee that receives a referral on the tax reform bill must report the legislation to the House within 20 calendar days. Failure to do so within that time period will result in an automatic discharge of that legislation. Our Rules Committee will then have 15 legislative days to provide a special order for consideration of the bill before the majority leader is automatically empowered to offer a motion to proceed with floor action.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to underscore how important the right of every member of this institution is, after 2 days, any Member of the House will be able to do so if action has not been taken by the majority leadership. These procedures will help to ensure that no committee or Member has the power to prevent or indefinitely delay consideration of comprehensive tax reform.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the Senate, which is where this is really needed because, of course, we have a Rules Committee here in the House and so it's not absolutely essential that we do this. But in the Senate, where this is really needed, the bill, tax reform bill must be referred to the Committee on Finance, understandably, which will then have 15 calendar days to consider and report the bill before the legislation is automatically discharged.

Mr. Speaker, in the Senate, the Majority Leader can then offer a motion to proceed to the bill. After two more days, any Senator will be empowered to do so, again, ensuring that people will not be able to stand in the way of moving ahead with tax reform. Now, that motion will not be debatable, and cloture is not required before a vote on a motion to proceed; basically meaning, Mr. Speaker, that a super majority will not be necessary to allow to move ahead on the debate on tax reform in the Senate.

Now, each amendment will be limited to 2 hours of debate in the Senate, and cloture will also not be required before votes on individual amendments. However, cloture, a very important power that does exist in the Senate, cloture on the underlying bill may still be required prior to the vote on passage of the bill.

So what this does, Mr. Speaker, these procedures ensure timely consideration in the Senate, while maintaining that last hurdle of a potential cloture vote on to final passage.

I believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that this agreement strikes the right balance between facilitating action while preserving the very core nature of the Senate process. The magnitude and the urgency of our current economic challenges demand that we create this clear pathway to comprehensive tax reform.

Our proposal provides a real solution to the uncertainty, the complexity, and the burdensome nature of our Tax Code. And, Mr. Speaker, it unleashes a powerful source of new revenues.

Now, you know this very well, Mr. Speaker. There is a common misperception out there, and you hear it reported from people in the media, and I don't believe that it's normally meant as a pejorative, but what they say is, Republicans don't want to increase revenues. Republicans don't want new revenues to the Federal Treasury. We hear this drumbeat over and over again.

I'm here to say, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans want new revenues to the Federal Treasury. We absolutely must find a way to bring greater revenue. We've got to find a way to bring revenue into the Federal Treasury. We all decry the $15- plus trillion national debt that we have and the massive deficit spending. We've got to have greater revenue to the Federal Treasury.

Where we diverge, between the two political parties, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is the manner in which we see these new revenues actually achieved.

Rather than raising tax rates on any one set of individuals or businesses, we want to raise revenues through greater gross domestic product growth. We want to expand the overall size of our economy, creating opportunity for all Americans. We've done this as a Nation many times in the past.

I always like to point to President John F. Kennedy, who pioneered this approach by cutting marginal tax rates and growing revenues as a result. Now, I acknowledge the marginal tax rates when President Kennedy did this were significantly higher than they are today, when he was able to reduce marginal rates for individuals and reduce capital gains. But we still can put into place pro-growth tax policy.

Mr. Speaker, President Reagan did the same thing 20 years after John F. Kennedy did it, and we all know what happened. We all know what happened, Mr. Speaker, when President Reagan, with the support of many Democrats, through what was known as the Conable-Hance tax package, it was a Democrat and a Republican, a then-Democrat and Republican. Mr. Hance has since seen the light and become a Republican, but he was a Democrat at the time. He offered this measure that brought about major marginal rate reduction. And what did that do?

During the decade of the 1980s, contrary to so many reports, we saw a nearly doubling, a nearly doubling of the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury, bringing even greater results than we saw following President Kennedy's cuts. So, Mr. Speaker, we want to follow the Kennedy-Reagan tradition of expanding the Federal Treasury by implementing pro-growth tax reform.

Now, we all know that our friends on the other side of the aisle do take a different point of view. I wish that they would follow President Kennedy's great example on this. But, unfortunately, the leadership on the other side of the aisle does take a different point of view, which brings me to the final point on which we all agree.

The Democratic approach to the considerable economic challenge we face is to raise taxes. I mean, we all agree that that's what our friends on the other side of the aisle are arguing. I've been watching television ads with President Obama on there talking about increasing taxes on working Americans. Yes, they're in the upper income, but these are people who are creating jobs and investing, and he wants to increase the tax burden on those people.

They readily admit that their solution is to allow a large portion of the tax increases to proceed. They want the tax increases that are scheduled to go into place in January to succeed.

So I come back to my points on the fact that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity, and the statements of President Barack Obama, who as we all know has in the past agreed to an extension of these tax cuts to keep the economy growing. We also know that Keynesian economists have again made it clear that increasing taxes during a slow economy is a prescription for disaster.

So this is where the disagreement lies.

Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that Democrats want to increase marginal tax rates and that we

as Republicans want to grow the economy to enhance the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. We as Republicans argue that making the Tax Code more burdensome for some and more complicated for all is not the solution. Raising taxes when our economy and our job market are flagging is not the solution. The only way for us to create opportunity for all Americans is to reignite our engines of economic growth, but we cannot spark new growth without addressing both the immediate crisis of impending tax increases and the long-term need for comprehensive tax reform.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very, very critical legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I'm prepared to close. If my friend has speakers, I'd certainly sit here patiently and look forward to hearing any thoughtful comments that they might make.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my distinguished Rules Committee colleague for his very thoughtful, warm, and loving mischaracterization of where we stand on this issue.

This is not about Donald Trump. This is not about Donald Trump at all. We continue to hear the two words ``Donald Trump'' invoked in the tax debate.

What this is about, Mr. Speaker, is the 253,484 women-owned small businesses in this country who are seeking to ensure that they can continue to have the ability to hire people and grow their businesses. This is about the potential of losing 710,000 jobs, based on the Ernst & Young report that has come forward. This is about ensuring that we turn the corner on our economy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when I came here in 1981, one of the first bills that I introduced was a bill calling for a flat rate tax. People talked about that all the time. I mean, there was a standard joke out there. It was, well, the simple tax form asks, How much did you earn last year? The second line was, Send it to Washington. I mean, those are the kinds of things that people have said might be in the direction of tax reform. But what we need to do is we need to recognize that everyone has talked about the problem of taxes. Famously, the former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Long, would say, Don't tax you. Don't tax me. Tax the guy behind the tree.

We all know, Democrats and Republicans alike, that there is a desire to make this happen. There is always talk from Democrats and Republicans. Again, President Obama has said we need to bring about tax reform. President Obama has said we need to reduce the top corporate rate from that 35 percent level. I congratulate him for acknowledging that we have the highest corporate tax rate of any nation on the face of the Earth, now that Japan has lowered theirs, Mr. Speaker.

Everybody talks about it, but the question is: How do we actually get it done? Now, my friend said that if we really wanted to do it, we could have done it. Well, there are specifics in this measure. There are specifics. We have five of them. Included among them: ensuring that we repeal the alternative minimum tax, and everyone acknowledges how terrible that is; ensuring that we have two rates of not more than 10 and 25 percent; and, yes, doing what President Obama has said we need to do, and that is reducing the top corporate rate, this calls for 35 to not more than 25 percent; and then also dealing with the global aspect.

This has specifics in it. And what it has, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day is: Let's get the job done. Action, action, action. We can continue to hear all kinds of talk--press releases and all this sort of stuff, talk about what this is. This is about actually doing what Democrats and Republicans say needs to be done.

I think that by working with our colleagues in the Senate--we ensured, by the way, under this structure that no Democrat is denied the opportunity to offer amendments. My friend said that we don't have this great bipartisanship. Well, we're pursuing a bipartisan goal of comprehensive tax reform and the structure to make that happen. But as this process begins, we will have, clearly, amendments in both the House and the Senate offered by any Member who wants to participate in this process at the committee level as it goes through.

I see we have the ranking Democratic member of the Ways and Means Committee, my very dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), here on the floor. I'm sure that as we proceed with tax reform under this structure that Mr. Levin will be offering many thoughtful amendments to this measure. His right is guaranteed under these expedited procedures.

So what we're arguing, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to make sure that, rather than simply talking, we get things done. And I think we've got a chance to do that now.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. We're going to go into a debate now with our friends on the Ways and Means Committee; and from there, we will have a vote on the substitute, which I'm happy to say that we made in order, that will be offered by the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and then we will proceed with a vote on this measure.

So I urge my colleagues to support action, action, action over talk, talk, talk when it comes to the imperative of growing our economy and reforming taxes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by extending my congratulations and to associate myself with the very thoughtful remarks of my dear friend from Rochester, the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules. As she at the beginning said, Democrats and Republicans alike agree on the need for comprehensive tax reform.

She is right on target when she says that, Mr. Speaker, and that's exactly what we're doing. The problem that we have is that the amendment that she is proposing undermines the ability for us to get that done.

Now, as I think about this issue that is before us, we have virtually everyone talking about the need to get this done. We have Democrats talking about it, and we have Republicans talking about it. We have the President of the United States talking about it. In fact, it's very interesting. As I heard my friend characterize the ``misguided principles'' set forth by the Republicans, I am struck by the fact that at least one of those principles has been called for by President Barack Obama. President Obama has said that we need to reduce the top corporate rate from 35 percent. He acknowledges the fact that we have the highest corporate tax rate of any nation on the face of the Earth now that Japan has very wisely reduced its top corporate rate. So what my friend from Rochester describes as ``misguided'' is actually one of the proposals submitted by President Obama.

So, again, talk is great. I've talked about tax reform myself for the three decades that I've been privileged to serve here. My friend has just talked about the need for tax reform, but there is a time, Mr. Speaker, when we need to step up to the plate and take action.

The Framers put into place a very, very good structure, a differentiation between the rules and operations of the House and the Senate. We know that the House of Representatives is the coffee cup into which the coffee simmers. As President Washington said so eloquently to Thomas Jefferson as they were sitting down at the Willard Hotel and were describing the Senate--Jefferson was the really smart guy, but it was Washington who was describing to Jefferson what that ``saucer'' is. It's where the simmering of the coffee takes place, and he said that that's what the Senate is. That was a great vision put forth by our Framers, Mr. Speaker, but there comes a time on some important issues when we need to streamline operations, expedite procedures, and that's what we're doing.

What my friend from Rochester said is absolutely right. We need to put into place comprehensive tax reform. I totally agree with that. Now let's get it done. Yes, we put forth some guidelines. We say two rates, no more than 10 or 25 percent. I mean, let's deal with the globalization issue by shifting from a worldwide to a territorial tax system. Let's do what we can to obliterate the alternative minimum tax, which we all know has impacted so many of our fellow working Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. It was never designed to do that. And as President Obama has said, let's reduce that top corporate rate.

Mr. Speaker, as we look at this issue, we can talk about tax reform until we are blue in the face, but this structure

is one that's going to actually get it done. I say very sadly that this measure that is being proposed by my friend is a measure which simply extends the talking, and it undermines the ability for us to actually take action.

Let's move ahead. Obviously, we need to make sure that we maintain the tax structure for everyone, the tax cuts for all. We did that yesterday. There is this notion of saying let's just proceed with what we all agree on, which is that we all agree on keeping taxes low for those in the middle class. Well, if we do what it is that they're saying, what we would end up doing is actually imposing a massive tax increase on job creators. So we can't come to an agreement on that because, as President Obama again has said, increasing taxes during difficult economic times is bad public policy.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to say that I've said it all.

With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on my dear friend's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, nice try. Let's not be drawn in by this kind of gimmick. Vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

It is true that Democrats believe that we need comprehensive tax reform. There is no doubt about that.

But I want to say to my good friend from California, when he used words like ``bipartisan,'' ``consensus,'' and ``compromise'' in the context of describing this piece of legislation, I have to respectfully disagree with him. It couldn't be farther from the truth. Those words do not apply to what we are talking about here today.

This is a very, very partisan bill. This bill was referred exclusively to the Rules Committee. I am a member of the Rules Committee. I don't recall the gentleman ever reaching out and asking my opinion on what a bill like this should be about. Perhaps my invitation to join the discussion was lost in the mail. If that's the case, I certainly will give the gentleman a pass, but I'm willing to bet that Ranking Member Slaughter was never consulted, that Mr. Hastings from Florida was never consulted, that Mr. Polis from Colorado was never consulted. In fact, this bill was given to us less than 48 hours before we considered it in the House Rules Committee, and every single amendment the Democrats had to try to influence this bill was defeated on a strictly partisan vote--every single one of them.

So this is not in any way shape or form about bipartisanship or consensus or compromise. This is a very partisan bill. I regret that very much because we do need tax reform in this country, but this approach of shutting out the minority party entirely, I think, is the wrong way to go.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very partisan Republican bill. Actually, I use the term ``bill'' very loosely here because this isn't really much of a bill. It's a press release masquerading as a meaningful piece of legislation.

H.R. 6169 would create expedited procedures for the Republican version of comprehensive tax reform. It lays out a whole bunch of criteria that tax reform has to meet in order to get fast-track protection in both the House and the Senate. It's sort of like reconciliation, but my Republican friends don't like to admit that. There are two very big problems with the Republican approach here.

First, there is nothing--nothing--in this bill that would prevent their version of ``comprehensive tax reform'' from containing anything else they want to do: Turn Medicare into a voucher program or eliminate Medicare altogether? That would be allowed. Repeal patient protections under the Affordable Care Act? Yes, they could do that, too. Eliminate the Department of Education? Sure, that would get special treatment. Or they might want to privatize Social Security--one of their oldies but goodies. It is absolutely outrageous.

The second big problem is that, under this bill, the Republican author of the tax passage, as the chairman of Ways and Means and as the person who is supposed to certify that the package is eligible for expedited process as chair of the Joint Committee on Taxation, can and likely will be the very same person. Now, I like Chairman Camp--I think he's a terrific guy--but I do not believe he should be allowed to serve as prosecutor, judge, and jury on the issue of tax reform. You don't put the fox in charge of guarding the henhouse.

But this debate is about much more than the terrible process outlined in this bill. This debate is about priorities. The choices here are very simple, and the contrasts are very clear.

Democrats want to give every American family a tax break. On the first $250,000 of income, everybody--including Donald Trump and including all of those friends of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who give millions and millions to Super PACs--gets a tax break on the first $250,000 of income. The problem is the Republican approach to tax reform is to raise taxes on millions of American middle class families--raise them.

Democrats want the wealthy to keep some of their tax cuts, but we believe during this time of budgetary crisis that we all have to sacrifice, including the millionaires and the billionaires. So we are asking them to contribute just a little bit. Everybody else is contributing. They should, too. Republicans say, no, that they want to protect those tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals and increase the deficit--in order to protect, again, the 2 percent wealthiest Americans in this country.

Democrats want to pass a tax cut bill that has already passed the Senate. That's the one I was talking about, the one that gives everybody a tax break on the first $250,000 of income. We want to pass that. It could be on the President's desk at the end of the week, and we could actually have done something for the American people. Republicans want to hold that bill hostage. There is an old saying that you don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. I mean, it seems to me--again, if I am to believe the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle--that there is no objection to protecting tax breaks on the first $250,000 of someone's income.

If there is consensus on that, then we ought to get that done, and then we could have the other fight about whether or not Donald Trump and Sheldon Adelson and all those other guys get tax breaks. We could have that debate later, but we could actually do something before we recess for August that would actually help people in this country. What a radical idea in this Republican Congress to do something to help somebody--to help middle-income families. We could do that, but they are saying no. We all agree that the economy continues to struggle. Of course the Republican strategy of rejecting President Obama's jobs bill and manufacturing a debt ceiling crisis contributed greatly to this economic crisis that we are in right now.

My Republican friends like to talk about tough choices, about how there needs to be sacrifice in order to get our fiscal house in order. But why is it, time and time and time again, that their tough choices always seem to hurt the most vulnerable Americans? Why does their idea of sacrifice always mean poor people getting less food, or students getting less help with their tuition, or States getting less help with their roads and their bridges? It takes no political courage--zero--to say to the very wealthy, You can keep all of your tax cuts, all of your special tax breaks, and we're going to protect all of those loopholes. It takes no courage. It takes no guts to help out millionaire hedge fund traders who write giant checks to shadowy Super PACs.

Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about fairness. That's what this debate should be about. It's about standing with the middle class instead of always standing with the millionaires and the billionaires.

If my Republican friends were so certain about the rightness of their priorities, they would put the so-called ``principles'' in this bill into legislative language and bring it to the floor. I think the American people would cringe once they saw what those numbers would mean, but they have the ability to do that. I should remind them--and I regret this very much--but they're in charge, they run the House right now. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee could come up with a comprehensive tax reform bill--he could have at any time the Republicans have been in control and brought it to this floor. My friends on the other side of the aisle have enough votes to pass anything. They could have done it. If they did, and if it were clear what the priorities of this Republican majority really were, and if it were there in print, I think the American people, quite frankly, would be horrified.

Democrats stand ready, willing, and able to work with Republicans and all

of our colleagues to enact meaningful, fair tax reform. This bill doesn't get us an inch closer to that goal. If my friends on the other side were sincere about achieving comprehensive tax reform, they would reach out to us in the drafting of a bill like this. They would have consulted with us. As I said, this legislation before us was referred exclusively to the House Rules Committee. Not a single Democrat on the House Rules Committee was consulted about this bill. My guess is not a single Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee was consulted about this bill. We will go through this exercise today. My friends on the other side of the aisle have the votes to pass it. But I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is much ado about nothing because this is not meaningful tax reform. This is a very partisan approach to this issue, and I regret that very much.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has no more speakers, I will close.

Let me repeat some of what I said in my opening statement, because I think it's important for my colleagues to understand this.

The Republican pathway to this tax reform is a path, as I said, for the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to draft and to certify a bill that would receive extraordinary fast-track procedures with virtually no limit on what can be contained in it. Republicans have promised that its fast-track bill would contain at least four proposals based on the Ryan budget, in addition to the repeal of the AMT. Together, these four provisions would shift the tax burden from the wealthiest to the middle class, and it would ship jobs overseas.

Let me just read one of the proposals in this bill. The Republican proposal is ``a consolidation of the current six individual income tax brackets into not more than two brackets of 10 and not more than 25 percent.'' What does this mean? It means that the average millionaire would lock in an annual $331,000 tax cut under the Ryan plan. To pay for these tax cuts, the Ryan plan would potentially eliminate provisions that are vital to the middle class, including tax deductions for mortgage interest, State and local taxes, and charitable contributions, as well as the tax exclusions for employer-sponsored health insurance and contributions to 401(k) plans. The source of this is the Joint Economic Committee. And the plan would necessarily have to raise taxes on middle class families by approximately $4,500.

Another proposal in this bill is ``a reduction in the corporate tax rate to not greater than 25 percent.'' What does this mean? It means eliminating every corporate tax credit and deduction would generate only enough savings to reduce the corporate tax rate to 28 percent. To get to even 28 percent, the Republican tax plan would require wiping out every provision in the Tax Code that encourages domestic job creation, investment, and innovation. In order to raise additional revenues for a corporate tax cut, the Republicans will go after individuals or small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle have made their priorities known in the budget that they all voted for. I think it's a radical approach to our economy. It's an approach that I believe and my colleagues on the Democratic side believe will be devastating to middle-income Americans. It is really unfortunate that we are here not in the spirit of bipartisanship, not in the spirit of compromise or trying to find consensus, but in a very partisan way moving this bill forward. At the end of the day, we're leaving here really doing nothing for the American people.

I was listening to the debate on the drought relief and listening to Democrats and Republicans both lament that there's no farm bill. We're going on vacation, and there's no farm bill. There's no jobs bill, no jobs agenda, no tax cuts for the middle class. We all agree that we should preserve the tax breaks on people earning up to $250,000. We seem to agree on that. My Republicans friends are saying, No, we're going to hold that hostage until you make sure that Donald Trump and the people that give these exorbitant amounts to super PACs, they get their tax breaks. We could agree on that. We could actually do something for the American people, and we're leaving. No farm bill, as I mentioned, no Violence Against Women Act, no cybersecurity plan, no bipartisan plan to prevent sequester.

I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle complaining about the sequester which, by the way, they caused that terrible idea to be a reality when they brought this economy almost to a collapse during the debt ceiling debate. But we're leaving. We're leaving town today to give away tomorrow. We're leaving town with all this unfinished business. We're leaving town not doing anything meaningful for the American people, especially for those in the middle and those struggling to get into the middle.

This has to be one of the least effective, least productive Congresses, I

think, in the history of our country. When you read these public opinion polls, there's a reason why Congress is held in such low esteem. It's because people are watching what we're doing here and wondering why we're not on their side. People who are struggling to hold on to their jobs or to get jobs are wondering why aren't we moving forward with a jobs agenda, why aren't we passing a middle class tax cut. Instead, we are here basically to pass a press release that says that at some point we're going to do tax reform, and they don't want to tell you the details of the tax reform because they think that would be very unpopular and would frighten a lot of people in this country when they see the devastating impact on the middle class.

So having said that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Yesterday, Republicans voted to make tax cuts for millionaires their priority over giving 114 million middle class Americans certainty.

Today, they are doubling down on that agenda. The so-called principles laid out in this bill would rig tax reform to shift the burden of taxes further onto the middle class and ship jobs overseas.

The Joint Economic Committee analysis--it's described here--found that the average millionaire would get another $331,000 in tax cuts, while middle class families making less than $200,000 would see their taxes go up by an average of $4,500. For millionaires, a tax break of $331,000; for middle class families, a tax increase of more at $4,500. That's the Joint Economic Committee's analysis.

Why? Because the only way to finance these massive tax cuts for the highest earners is to eliminate or significantly curtail provisions that support the middle class. These are not loopholes. These are policies that in many cases help made the middle class of this country. Seventy percent of the benefit of the mortgage interest deduction, for example, goes to those who make less than $200,000. And 82 percent of the benefit of the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance goes to those making less than $200,000. And likewise, the provisions relating, for example, to education.

Republicans like to say they will eliminate loopholes--and we just heard that language--and special interest provisions to pay for lower rates. But the provisions I mentioned are not loopholes. They are the policies that helped to build the middle class of America. They are basically middle class provisions, and now they are on the chopping block under this Republican plan. One way, among other ways to describe it, H.R. 6169 is Grover Norquist on steroids.

We need tax reform, but not as a tactic to sock it to the middle class and help the very wealthy. Yet that is exactly what Republicans in Congress want to do.

We recently received an analysis of the plan of Governor Romney. It's also a plan highly offensive to the middle class. A report from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center yesterday made no bones about what it would do to the middle class. They wrote that it is not mathematically possible to write a plan like the one drafted by Governor Romney ``that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers.''

The House Republican plan to lower the corporate rate to 25 percent would require eliminating every provision that encourages American manufacturing--the R&D credit, accelerated depreciation, and the manufacturing deduction. Every one of those.

And, the Joint Committee on Taxation has found that even if you eliminated everything, you could only lower the rate to 28 percent on a revenue-neutral basis.

We need tax reform--indeed, we do--but not a tax rewrite that discourages companies from making it in America and that would move us to a territorial system that taxes no businesses' offshore income and helps to ship jobs overseas.

Well, surely a plan this radical--and that's really what it is, a radical Republican proposal--should be subject to the full scrutiny of regular order and full debate. But not under this bill. Under this bill, the pathway Republicans are setting up is really a railroad to shift the tax burden onto the middle class and ship jobs overseas.

It creates a tax czar, and I'm opposed to any of us being a tax czar, Republican or Democrat, Mr. Camp, myself, or anybody else. It would be a tax czar who creates the plan and then certifies their plan, that it achieves their goals. It would allow him or her to add any other proposal to this high-speed train through Congress. Social Security privatization, that could become part, not of this fast track, but this railroad. Repeal of health reform, or anything else.

We should reject that path and adopt the Slaughter substitute, which would articulate principles for tax reform that would strengthen the middle class, create jobs in the U.S., and reduce the deficit.

You know, we continue to hear about small businesses. 97 percent would receive the full tax benefit under what was rejected yesterday and that we put forth. And in terms of this report about 700,000 jobs, every fact checker has said it's essentially bogus. And I think that's how bankrupt the majority is.

Coming forth, I'd like them to answer the Joint Economic analysis.

I'd like them to answer the study that came out from three people about Governor Romney's proposal. One of the Romney spokespersons said: It's a liberal think tank that analyzed it that way. Oh, no; two of the three authors served in Republican administrations. It's not a partisan analysis, it's a bipartisan analysis, and it shows essentially what's being proposed here, and what Governor Romney is proposing, is, sock it to middle class America in order to help the very, very wealthiest. That isn't the America that we want.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman from Texas talks about loopholes. Is the mortgage interest deduction a loophole? Is the charitable contribution deduction a loophole? State and local taxes a loophole? Municipal bonds a loophole? The health care provision a loophole? You keep using that word, I think, demagogically.

I now yield 4 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

The Republican bill indeed picks winners and losers. The winners are the very wealthy, and the losers are the middle class Americans of this country.

I now, with pleasure, yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a distinguished member of our committee.

I now yield 5 minutes to a veteran of negotiations on taxes and tax reform, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I now yield 4 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts.

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

I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts an additional 1 minute.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

The majority leader continues to use a tool of propaganda, grabbing small business as his mantra. I want to repeat a fact given to us by Joint Tax: under our bill, 97 percent of small businesses would keep all of their tax cuts--97 percent.

I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of our committee.

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the eloquent gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my real pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a veteran of many battles on this floor.

It's now my real pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

I can be very brief, in part, because so many of us have come forth on the Democratic side with real conviction, with real passion, and not basically reading from prepared speeches that simply go over and over the same themes, but really talking about what's at stake for this country and why this proposal is worse than flawed; it's flagrant.

I bring back that chart. No one has refuted it. It's based on the work of the Joint Economic Committee.

Essentially, what this bill would do is to say to America, if you're very wealthy, you get a $331,000 tax cut. But for the typical family, it's a $4,500 tax increase. And so tax cuts for the very wealthy is, essentially, this Republican plan.

Tax increases for the middle class, more and more deficits, jobs overseas instead of making it in America, this is the Republican plan and, essentially, it's Governor Romney's plan. It's, as I said, worse than misguided. It would be a terrible mistake for this House to adopt it, and even a worse mistake for the American people to embrace it.

I don't have confidence in the House Republicans. I have confidence that the American people will say ``no.'' Vote ``no'' here today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

In quick reference to the previous speaker, I don't know how you can say how do we get out of this, and then simultaneously embrace the Romney tax plan, which is $5 trillion more of tax cuts and propose at the same time the extension of the Bush tax

cuts. That's a $7 trillion tax cut proposal. Has anybody heard about those million new veterans we have, the 45,000 that have been wounded? What's going to happen to the veterans system for years to come? It's a $4 trillion cost of the war in Iraq when you factor all of that together.

We've had some really good hearings this year on both sides. We've talked fundamentally about the best path forward to tax reform, and we all agree that the current system is creaking of its own weight. But that's contrary to the idea of fast-tracking, what needs to be a deliberative procedure for understanding what the elimination of some of these expenditures really means.

Despite the talk here today, I'll bet you a year from now that we will not have eliminated the homeowner deduction, and a year from now we will not have eliminated employer-based health insurance, and we will not have eliminated the tax expenditure for charitable deductions. The question is: What's the framework that we're taking up today? The response to that is: not much.

Let me start by saying that what's striking about this proposal is that we all acknowledge that over 6 billion hours a year and $160 billion is too much in trying to comply with the current system. My favorite target is the alternative minimum tax. I've proposed eliminating that tax for a decade and actually have come up with pay- fors for addressing it, by shutting down some of the off-shoring accounts that currently companies who decide to expatriate and give up their American address take advantage of. They are not former citizens of the United States. They are current citizens of the United States. Sophisticated tax avoidance should be addressed.

The AMT, it was enacted in response to--by the way, there were only two Republicans in Congress who voted against it. It was a bipartisan assault on AMT when first addressed; 155 high-income individuals weren't paying any taxes, so Congress responded. President Reagan also embraced the idea that people ought to pay something. Today, 30 million middle class families are caught in the alternative minimum tax, and we patch it each year.

Here's where the American people really should get upset. Since 2001, this is what the patch has meant. I want you to listen to this number. We have spent $400 billion patching alternative minimum tax. The Romney proposal, coupled with the Republican proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts, will take us in 2012 and 2013, when surely we're going to patch this again, to $600 billion of patches for a $1.2 trillion problem. We've spent $50 billion of patching it. You know what that's like? That's like taking a credit card and saying you're only going to make the minimum payment every month and trying to figure out why the principal has not been reduced.

The point here is that if we all agree that tax reform needs to take place and we need to assess what current expenditures mean in the system, but also have some enthusiasm for taking up the off-shoring issue, and taking up those that willfully hide money overseas in bank accounts and they don't want the IRS to know what they've set aside, that's part of fundamental tax reform.

There's an opportunity here to do something similar to what Ronald Reagan and Speaker O'Neill did in 1986 in a bipartisan fashion with both sides getting together in an effort to figure out what to do about building a tax system that keeps America, as the former speaker noted, ``competitive going forward.'' This is not the procedure, Mr. Speaker, to undertake that sort of initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Democrats' middle class tax cut substitute that would extend tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans--and in opposition to the Republicans' legislation that would extend all of the Bush tax cuts.

Congress has a responsibility to protect middle class Americans from getting hit with a big tax hike next year--a tax hike of $2,200 for the typical family. Last week, the Senate passed a bill that would extend for one year the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans. And now it's up to us in the House to provide certainty to middle class Americans that their taxes will not go up next year.

But instead of doing what's right for middle class families and extending the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans, the Republicans are holding these tax cuts hostage until we extend tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. If the middle class tax cuts expire, it would result in a tax hike for over 100 million American families, including 2.5 million families in Massachusetts. Let's not let that happen.

Even more troubling, the Republican tax package ends President Obama's tax cuts that make college more affordable and help working families with children. So not only are our Republican colleagues holding the middle class tax cuts hostage to extending tax cuts for the wealthiest, the Republicans would actually raise taxes on 25 million families with an average tax increase of $1,000.

I introduced legislation last week that would extend these enhancements to the child tax credit and earned income tax credit. But the Republicans' tax package fails to include many of the enhancements in my bill and, therefore, would raise taxes on millions of low and moderate-income families next year. Even though the Republicans tell us that they're against raising taxes, what they really mean is they're against raising taxes on the wealthy. I ask the American people--does this seem fair to you?

I urge my colleagues to learn from past experiences. We tried the Republicans' approach to taxes for 8 years during the Bush years and it didn't work. Let's stand up for middle class Americans and pass the Senate-passed tax extension bill. We all agree that we should extend the middle class tax cuts--so let's put aside politics and pass this important bill and provide certainly for American families.

I'd like to close by talking about one final issue that's very important to Massachusetts--the AMT. I've been a long time advocate of addressing the problems with the AMT. The first AMT was enacted in 1982 to ensure that the wealthiest Americans paid their fair share. However, because the Bush Tax Cuts decreased tax rates without making corresponding changes to the AMT, millions of Americans become subject to the AMT each year even though they do not make a lot of money. To avoid this result, for the past few years, Congress has enacted an ``AMT patch'' that prevents these higher taxes from hitting middle income families.

Unfortunately, the most recent AMT patch expired at the end of last year. And so millions of middle class families could pay thousands more in taxes when they file their returns in April 2013 if we don't enact an AMT patch for 2012.

This is a huge deal for my home State of Massachusetts. About 975,000 families in Massachusetts, including about 80,000 in my district, will be hit with the AMT if we don't enact a patch for 2012. This includes about 785,000 middle income families who make less than $200,000 a year.

To address this issue, both the Democratic and Republican tax bills include AMT patches. But we need to move beyond the patches and really address the problems with the AMT. Since 2001, we've spent about $407 billion on AMT patches--and if we pass a two year AMT patch for 2012 and 2013, we'll have spent about $600 billion on patches. Repealing the AMT would cost about 1.2 trillion--so for the amount of money Congress has spent on patches over the past few years, we could have paid for half the cost of repealing the AMT. I call on my Republican colleagues to work with me on a bipartisan basis to address the AMT problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6169, the Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act of 2012.

Yesterday, House Republicans, joined by 19 House Democrats, voted to extend current tax policies through the end of next year. That was an important, responsible step to provide Congress the time to pass and enact comprehensive tax reform without risking further damage to a fragile economy.

The failure to stop the tax hike that's looming at the end of the year could push us over a jobs cliff. I know many Democrats want to raise taxes, but an independent study by Ernst & Young shows the Democrat tax hike would eliminate over 700,000 jobs. We can't afford to lose more jobs in the United States, and that is why we voted to extend the current tax policy.

Instead of raising taxes on small businesses and making it harder to create jobs, as the Democrat plan did, Republicans are focused on creating jobs, reforming the Tax Code to make it simpler and fairer for all Americans, and strengthening our economy. The bill before us today provides a pathway to that goal.

This bill forces Congress to do its job, something I think all Americans will support. It provides a specific time line for the House and the Senate to act next year on a comprehensive tax reform bill. It also ensures an open process. A bill is introduced and then the appropriate committees may amend it. Democrats and Republicans, alike, will have an opportunity to debate and offer changes.

And this bill tells the American people exactly where we want the debate to start. We say that tax reform should: eliminate special interest loopholes to reduce rates for families and employers, reducing the current six tax brackets down to just two (10 and 25 percent); help America be competitive in the global economy by setting a corporate rate of 25 percent and updating a 50-year-old international tax code to a modern and more competitive territorial system; and get rid of the alternative minimum tax that's currently looming over 31 million middle class families.

We also don't think we should ask taxpayers to bail out Washington's wasteful spending. Tax reform should not result in the Federal Government taking more out of the economy and more out of taxpayer pockets than the tax system historically has.

Tax reform is not about making the government bigger, it's about creating jobs. That's why this bill says Federal tax revenues should remain within historic norms of 18-19 percent of gross domestic product.

Independent economists have noted, when paired with appropriate government spending cuts, comprehensive tax reform that includes these policies could lead to the creation of 1 million Americans jobs in the first year alone.

Compare that to the Democrat plan offered yesterday--a tax hike that would eliminate over 700,000 American jobs. The choice could not be clearer. Do we want and does America need Democrat tax hikes that destroy jobs? Or do we want, and does America need, Republican-backed tax reform that creates a simpler, fairer code and 1 million jobs in the first year alone?

Today, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have one more opportunity to stand with families and job creators by joining House Republicans to demonstrate their commitment to passing and enacting comprehensive tax reform next year. We can and should work together to revive our economy and get the unemployed back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this legislation. And in doing so, take an important step to creating a simpler, fairer Tax Code and more jobs for American families.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would just say to my friend that I don't know whose plan that is. Somebody made that up because that's not our plan. A plan that increases middle class taxes isn't something that I could agree with.

What we envision is an open process that Republicans and Democrats can offer amendments on. But the point is this: comprehensive tax reform that creates jobs and gets the economy moving and gets us back on track can be accomplished.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished members of the Ways and Means Committee and chairman of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I would just yield myself 15 seconds and say that the plan the gentleman refers to is a made-up plan. What we're looking at is the model set up in the Bowles-Simpson Commission, which has been endorsed in a bipartisan way, that will be an open process that will allow amendments so we can debate these ideas in that process, not this made- up bill that they went and are discussing on the floor today.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the distinguished chairman of the Health Subcommittee.

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

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader of the House.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would just say that the gentleman from Texas just described current law as long as you don't bring it back. So what we're looking for is really--we are in a crossroads. I agree with him on that. We really have a choice. Do we follow their path of a tax hike that costs us 700,000 jobs, or do we follow our path of comprehensive tax reform that grows our economy and creates up to 1 million jobs?

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

And I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) be permitted to control the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for the purposes of a colloquy.

I do, Mr. Woodall. I envision with this framework an open debate, as I've said on the floor, one that will entertain a variety of proposals and one that will include amendments

so that we can move forward as a Congress on enacting comprehensive and bipartisan reform.

Absolutely, there will be a full and robust discussion because, as I said, there will be amendments in committee, and there will be an opportunity for Members to weigh in. And, obviously, this will be a national debate. So this is about getting us on that path and moving forward. Because as we know, the alternative is, do we have taxes go up and cost us 700,000 jobs, or do we try to get us on a path of reform that will create the million jobs that we need to get this country moving again? So absolutely.

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

Mr. Speaker, we just have one final speaker to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.