Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 9) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a deduction for domestic business income of qualified small businesses.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 620 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the resolution with an amendment I have placed at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 620 provides a structured rule for H.R.

9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act. The bill was introduced on March 21, 2012, by our leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), and was ordered reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on April 10.

The rule provides for consideration of an amendment in the nature of a substitute as is standard practice for this legislation when dealing with tax policy.

Madam Speaker, today we will be considering the underlying legislation, which will allow the House of Representatives yet another opportunity to ease the burden on small businesses across America by giving them the economic tools to create jobs and to help grow our economy. It would be an understatement not to recognize that this country, including small business, is under duress.

We are under duress in this country. The economic circumstances, which abound across the entire country, are not only obvious to every one of our citizens but also to this body, and we are here doing our job today following through not just in regular order, but the process to make sure that we are talking about what Congress should be doing to aid small business. I believe that by giving them the economic tools, the free enterprise system and entrepreneurs, men and women, will know exactly what to do because we're allowing them competitive advantages.

Earlier this week, congressional Democrats and President Obama offered their competing plan, and their plan is to raise taxes on small businesses. We disagree with that.

Today, the Republicans in the House of Representatives, under the great tutelage and leadership of our majority leader, Eric Cantor, offer a different vision for America. Despite their best effort, congressional Democrats think that we can tax our way to improving our economy. It's really simple logic. Increasing taxes on job creators will not help create jobs. It will place new impediments and roadblocks for not just job creation, but the opportunity for business and small business to be successful.

Congressional Republicans, once again today, will stand with small businesses across the Nation as we demand less government intervention and more marketplace creativity and the opportunity for small business to get what it needs.

Madam Speaker, as this Congress and the American people know, job creators are small businesses. They are the engine of our economy and, as a former chairman of the board for a small chamber of commerce in Dallas, Texas, the Greater East Dallas Chamber of Commerce, I saw firsthand entrepreneurship and the availability of talent that was necessary in small business. That same engine of our economy is what we are trying to restart and ignite today. Congressional Republicans will continue to promote job creation through robust economic growth because we must grow our economy by giving those job creators a chance to get that done.

H.R. 9 will allow small businesses under 500 full-time employees to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their domestic business income. So, no matter how they're organized under the Tax Code, under the bill the size of the tax cut is kept at 50 percent of W 2 wages paid, encouraging increasing hiring. I have been in touch with small businesses across Dallas, Texas, and across that area, and we do understand that small business wants to come and create more jobs to increase the amount of not just employment, but to help them grow their businesses. In return, what happens is that loyalty that comes from entrepreneurship to those employees and obviously, then, Uncle Sam, gets the advantage because taxes are being paid instead of paying for unemployment.

Small business, we know, employs about half of our private sector workforce and generates 65 percent of our new jobs. What we are here on the floor talking about today supports ideas that come straight from these small business job creators, directly from men and women, many minorities, many moms who are in the marketplace who are trying to help their family to make sure that they can perhaps pay for their kids to go to college, ideas that they have.

Entrepreneurship, the American Dream, is what we are talking about today, and we need to keep that dream alive. With an unemployment rate consistently over 8 percent for the past 3 years, it's time that we not only take aggressive action, but that we do the things that are being asked for that will create jobs.

In my home State of Texas, the 14 million citizens who work for 387,000 small businesses and 1.69 million sole proprietorships will see immediate benefits from this bill. They call that relief. They call that competitiveness, and we call it up here giving back to those job creators what they need by listening to them and then offering solutions. Those real Texans are struggling even in the midst of perhaps one of the best economies in this country. Texans are still struggling, and small business needs this opportunity today.

Madam Speaker, just a few weeks ago, Congress and the President came together to pass what was known as the JOBS Act, a bill designed and designated to generate unique sources of new credit for small business. I was proud to manage that rule and for legislation that not only passed on a bipartisan effort, but has become law.

This underlying bill today applies those very same principles. But instead of opening up new avenues of credit, this legislation before us enables the very same small businesses to keep more of what they have earned and to reinvest into their own business and to make sure that that capital that was difficult to achieve is now possible through their own success.

Democrats, quite likely, as we have heard up in the Rules Committee and seen in the press, will oppose this novel concept because they really want Washington lawmakers and bureaucrats, not our hardworking constituents back home, to have the availability to get those dollars. I'm proud to tell the small businesses in the congressional district that I represent in Dallas, Irving, Addison, and Richardson, Texas, that with this bill those small businesses, not just in my congressional district that I am lucky to represent, but all across this country, will be able to see the potential, will be able to grow and succeed and, perhaps most of all, it is a group of people in Washington who are willing to listen to the needs of small business, men and women who are trying to create the avenues of success, not just for them and the American Dream, but also for more employees.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this fair rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you for yielding me the time, and I hope that the substance that I provide back is of great measure to the gentleman's request.

First of all, let me say I know Bruce Bartlett. I had a chance to work with Mr. Bartlett when I served as vice president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. Mr. Bartlett was a contributor not just to the NCPA, but of economic terms.

I will completely agree with Mr. Bartlett that there are many out there who have successful businesses. Our point is we want them all to grow. Successful businesses are able to hire new people. Unsuccessful businesses struggle and cannot provide not only an increase in the amount of pay, but also the benefit issue becomes difficult. So we want people to be successful. And I think Mr. Bartlett is correct. It's a wide swath.

I want small business, because of the size, not because of how successful they are, to be able to employ more people. And that's what Republicans are trying to do. Guilty as charged.

I thank the gentleman.

Here's what I can give. Mr. Bartlett is wrong, because I know there will be at least one new net job created, and I know that because the testimony and information that I received last week as I was at the North Dallas Chamber, several people told me this is exactly what they need. They needed the jobs bill to get credit. They need this opportunity.

And what's interesting is, on the reverse side, is where Illinois, in January, a full year ago, passed a bill which increased taxes, and they lost 58,000 jobs in Illinois quickly because of high taxes. We're trying to make it easier to grow small business. Mr. Bartlett seems like there will be no new job growth--there will be--and he knows better than that.

The answer is no. And I would reply to the gentleman, I saw in this House of Representatives when former Speaker Pelosi increased the amount of money that we had in our Member reimbursement account, we went out and did more, and I hired an additional person at that rate.

If given an opportunity, small business wants to grow and they want to add employees, and this is what nobody seems to understand in this town.

We are for growing our economy. No one on our side would do something that wouldn't necessarily work. We are doing it because this is what people are asking for to grow the economy.

Thank you very much for yielding.

As the gentleman knows quite well from the legislation and from the hearing which we had in the Rules Committee yesterday, that while these are great questions that you ask, the answer is we do not tell them what to do. There are no limitations in this bill that would say that you must or must not do these things. We don't do that.

We try and encourage, on the Republican side, and believe that this is what small business is asking for. I think you will be shocked with not only the success, if we had testimony from these small businesses, but this is what they're asking for.

Let's go to the worthiness of why would we possibly push an agenda that will never be held to the light of day with a vote in the United States Senate--for the same reason that the President will never get a tax increase from John Boehner. This Republican House will not increase taxes, and so I don't know why the President is doing what he's doing.

I believe that would be correct.

I appreciate that and thank you so much for asking the question.

The gentleman was here in 1997. The exact same arguments took place as we worked with President Clinton, and we were told on this floor a capital gains tax cut will result in $9 million not coming into the Treasury, and $554 million appeared quickly in that same tax year.

I would say to the gentleman, if we encourage people to go do things, they will turn things into great opportunities.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack) who is a freshman who serves on the Transportation, Homeland Security, and Science Committees, and a man who understands what people back home are asking for.

Madam Speaker, we're hearing a lot of rhetoric today about all these millionaires that are out there. And I would be for their ideas if they worked, but the facts of the case are what they create is less opportunity.

The IRS, on their Web site, shows that there were 37 percent fewer people who filed as millionaires one year over the next. That's the latest information we have on the IRS Web site--37 percent fewer people reported numbers of $1 million or more. That falls right in line with what's happening as America goes into bankruptcy. Because this is about fairness. Well, it shouldn't be about fairness. It should be about opportunities, creating more opportunities. That's the same reason why this same rhetoric, why 63 percent of our children move back in to our homes when they finish college--lack of opportunities. That's not fair. Fairness is opportunity and the chance for people to go make something better of their lives.

What we're talking about today will help some 54,509 women-owned businesses in the State of Texas alone that account for 483,000 individuals. That's what we're trying to help and save. This is the right thing. I'm very proud of it.

I know what they want to do is raise taxes. I know what they want to do is call it fairness. All it simply does is cause further economic malaise and deficiencies all across this country of small business.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), the gentleman who sits on the Rules Committee.

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

By the way, President Obama even admitted that did not work, that shovel-ready proposition that he tried to sell across the country simply did not work. I would be for the President's ideas if they worked. What they're about is the supposed fairness, which diminishes the economic opportunity for this country to grow and have jobs and make small businesses grow.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Thank you very much. In fact, I would tell the gentleman we have no additional speakers other than myself, and I'll plan to close.

I appreciate the gentleman from Florida, not only for his vigorous defense of the Democrat position to increase taxes, but I would like to, if I can, state what really are the facts of the case and what is in this bill.

The claim is that tax cuts will be available for small businesses even if they ship jobs overseas. Well, the fact is this legislation allows the 20 percent deduction for qualified domestic business income. Domestic. That's here. Domestic business. It would not be allowed to include money that was earned overseas. So I think that that is a good part of this bill. I think what Mr. Cantor did is understand that we are trying to grow American jobs.

There have also been a lot of statements made by our friends, but I think the American people need to hear this about the bill and the substitute, which will be allowed and which was allowed in the Rules Committee, and that is, similar to H.R. 9, which is this bill, the Levin amendment, which would be the substitute, does not include any provision addressing companies that continue to make foreign investment. It's devoid of that. Both proposals do tie the small business tax deduction to domestic wages. Both bills do that exact same thing. So to accuse us of not doing something or something that would create or stop business from having jobs overseas, that's devoid of that in both bills. They are both consistent. It's about domestic works.

Similar to H.R. 9, the Levin amendment does not require job creation to benefit from the tax deduction. No one says you have to go and create jobs. We understand enough about business to know this is what they're asking for so they can grow jobs.

The Levin amendment does deviate from H.R. 9 in one very significant way, and that is the amount of money that would be available to small business so that they can expand the economy, grow jobs, and create opportunities for Americans. Obviously, what we're here today to do is to grow the economy.

Madam Speaker, I would like to include in the Record an article which is from The Wall Street Journal, June of 2011. I would like to read just a little bit of this:

This past January, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into

law a 67 percent increase in the State personal income tax

rate and a 45 percent increase in corporate taxes.

By the way--and it's off what is here--this was done for fairness. It is the same proposal that Barack Obama, as our President who was just elected, was trying to push in the campaign. Illinois thought it sounded really, really great. So let's see what happened, what the fairness resulted in, and I go back to the article, that between its passage and June--6 months later--Illinois lost 56,223 jobs according to statistics released by their own departments there in the State of Illinois. But here is what's really amazing. It's not just that they lost the jobs, but it's the hysteria that ensued therein. I continue to read:

To combat the job losses caused by the higher taxes on

businesses, the Illinois Department of Commerce ``has already

shelled out some $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep

more than two dozen companies from fleeing the State.''

So they were not even going to get $230 million worth of additional revenue. They put this tax on, and now they're having to beg people to stay. Madam Speaker, I would be for what President Obama and our friends, the Democrats, are for if it worked the way they said it would. The facts of the case are simple.

The Republicans understand business, but we understand the ability to listen and give small business what it's asking for. They'll do their job. I know small business and I know it well. They'll get their job done, and they'll do it quite well. They will add employment. They will hire their neighbors. They will hire more women and minorities who can come in. They will provide real dreams for people and give them not just that entrepreneurship angle but the angle to make sure that we're adding revenue in this country.

Republicans get it and Democrats, too. We are for fairness in a different way. Fairness comes from a job and job creation and the American Dream, not losing jobs and explaining to people, I'm sorry, we just had to do this just to make things fair.

Fairness and not having a job is not fairness. We're aiming for job creation and the development of that, and that's why we're asking people to make sure that we pass this bill today. I applaud Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor for introducing this legislation. It comes from his listening to people across this country.

I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Over the last few weeks, President Barack Obama has

adamantly supported raising taxes on corporations and small

businesses that employ millions of American workers as a

precondition for cutting our bloated federal spending.

To see the real world effect of this proposal on jobs and

the economy, President Obama's home state provides a useful,

cautionary example.

This past January, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into

law a 67 percent increase in the state personal income tax

rate and a 45 percent increase in corporate taxes. Between

its passage and June, Illinois lost 56,223 jobs according to

statistics released last week.

To combat the job losses caused by the higher taxes on

businesses, the Illinois Department of Commerce ``has already

shelled out some $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep

more than two dozen companies from fleeing the state.''

So not only is Illinois bleeding productive jobs, but it's

now allowing the government to pick winners (large,

politically-connected companies) and losers (everyone else).

Extracting an ever-increasing toll from job creators is

simply the wrong answer for American jobs. Just ask the

56,000 Illinoisans who have lost their jobs since January.

Spreading this failure nationwide is simply not an option.

We are in a debt crisis not because we tax too little, but

because Democrat-led Washington spends beyond its means.

House Republicans have been focused on encouraging and

providing certainty (not new burdens) to our job creators--

and paying down our nation's debt for our children.

The rest of America simply cannot afford more of the failed

policies of the President's home state, and House Republicans

will fight against tax hikes so that we may ensure a brighter

future for generations to come.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 620 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

3903) to reduce the deficit by imposing a minimum effective

tax rate for high-income taxpayers. All points of order

against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate

shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. All points of order against

provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of

the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution

on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House

shall, immediately after the third daily order of business

under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the

Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this

resolution.

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

I thank my friend for yielding the time.

I would begin a little bit unusually by asking a few questions of my friend and then yielding to him for any response that he may have.

A gentleman named Bruce Bartlett was the former Department economist for President Ronald Reagan. He makes this comment: The serious point here is that the term ``small business'' casts a very wide net.

Indeed, since the only test for being a small business under the legislation, as my good friend proposes, is the number of employees, the ultimate beneficiaries of the Republican bill will be some large and profitable businesses that just happen to have few employees.

What is my friend's response to that?

Then I ask my friend first to just listen, and then I will ask yet another question.

Mr. Bartlett also said this:

The Republican tax plan will do nothing whatsoever to

increase employment. It is nothing more than an election-year

giveaway to favored Republican constituencies and should not

be taken seriously.

But I ask my friend, after hearing what Mr. Bartlett said, and listening to you, as well, saying that it's suggested that there will be jobs, is there a requirement in the legislation as is proposed that requires the creation of jobs?

Can you give me a ``yes'' or ``no''?

Let me offer to my friend a complaint: the fact that this matter didn't go through regular order, did not have hearings. It did have one question period during the Ways and Means Committee markup, and the person that was being questioned on the Committee on Taxation was the chief of staff, Thomas Barthold. And when he was asked about the effects of H.R. 9--and the question was put to him by our colleague, Mr. Becerra: Is there a requirement that you create jobs? Mr. Barthold says: There's no requirement on the result of the tax relief.

I go back to you and ask you again: Is there a requirement that jobs be created in the measure as offered?

My friend says that no one would do anything that would not necessarily work. Well, why are we spending the time on this when my friend and I know that this measure is not going to become law for the reason, whether we like it or not, that the United States Senate is not going to pass it?

Last week, contrary to what you said, in the United States Senate the President's plan and the Democrats' plan was offered where there would be an alternative minimum tax for people that pay a million dollars or more in taxes. It's been referred to as the Buffett rule. You said that it didn't pass. It had a majority. But it didn't come up because Republicans didn't allow for it to have a majority. Whereas, had it come up, it likely would have passed because some Republicans would have caused it to pass, also.

You don't create jobs with your 20 percent. And now you need to answer for me: What if somebody, after they get the 20 percent, rather than hiring somebody, fires somebody; do they still get the tax cut?

All of what my friend says is most regrettable. One of the things that I'm sure Members in your Conference are concerned about is the fact that this is a 1-year measure.

Am I correct about that?

Tell me then, how many times have we passed anything 1 year that's a tax something or another that cuts taxes? Let's take the Bush tax cuts that lasted 10 years that are soon to expire. How is it then that you expect that this is not going to go beyond 1 year? One year already is going to cost $46 billion.

Now my friend is a deficit and a debt hawk, and I like to think that I'm conservative enough to feel that the deficit and the debt are matters that we should address in order to give Americans opportunity. Toward that end, what is a $46 billion measure going to do, other than blow a hole in the deficit, since it's not paid for?

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, we can point back. I'm talking about what you're trying to do today. What you're trying to do today is blowing a $46 billion hole in the deficit, which will destroy opportunity.

I thank my friend, and let me move on, now that I've had the opportunity to talk with you.

I rise in strong opposition to this rule and its opportunity- destroying under the underlying bill. When it comes to small businesses, Congress should work to create chances for smart, savvy, small business owners to thrive so that hardworking Americans can get a fair shot at a good paying job for an honest day's work and thereby ensure that our economic recovery continues.

Instead, the Republican bill creates only one opportunity, and that is the opportunity for those that are better off, including those of us in the United States Congress, to pay less than we could and can as our fair share in taxes.

Make no mistake: H.R. 9, despite its name, is not going to level the playing field so that American businesses can create the kinds of opportunities that the average American needs. That's because House Republicans have made the benefits of this bill available to a wide range of enterprises owned by wealthy people, including lawyers. I'm one of the lawyers, not one of the wealthy. But when I was a lawyer and had three secretaries as a single practitioner, if you had given me a 20 percent tax cut, I may have shared some of that with those three employees. I assure you I would not have hired anybody. Had you, when I was a lawyer, given me a 20 percent tax cut and required me to hire somebody, then I would have hired somebody, and it may have done some good. But other wealthy people--lobbyists, hedge funds, private equity fund managers, as well as many professional sports teams, without a single requirement to expand employment or invest in the United States.

In fact, under this bill, a business owner could fire, as I asked my friend,

U.S. workers, hire full-time workers in foreign countries and still be eligible for the full deduction.

According to an analysis of the Tax Policy Center, approximately 49 percent of the benefits of H.R. 9 would go to 0.3 percent of people with incomes exceeding $1 million in 2012--each receiving an average tax cut of more than $44,000.

That's not creating an opportunity environment in which small businesses can create jobs. As I've said before and will say again, I have no quarrel with millionaires and billionaires and the wealthiest of us in America. And like my friend from Texas, I want everybody to be able to have significant wealth if that were to be possible. I do, however, have a problem with legislation designed to tip the scales in favor of the best among us in this country masquerading as tax cuts for small businesses.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the Republican justifications for this kind of ``trickle down'' tax policy are inaccurate and debunked by history. In actuality, tax rates have little bearing on economic productivity. Some of the fastest economic growth of the post-war period came in the 1950s, when the top tax rate was above 80 percent. The slowest growth came in the 2000s, when the top tax rate was 35 percent--which I pay, and which some of you do not because you are in better circumstances than mine, but all of us in the House of Representatives are better off than the people we want to really help, other than those that are better off like us.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the Republican justifications allow that this occurrence, that the change from the 1950s to the 2000s, is easy to explain. Businesses do not make decisions based on tax rates. They make decisions based on factors specific to their business, like their number of competitors and larger macro- and microeconomic factors.

Bills such as the one before us today ignore this reality in favor of pushing Republican pet policies that ignore the actual difficulties facing hardworking small business owners. In the Rules Committee, I cited Betty's Restaurant in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where I eat breakfast and sometimes lunch or dinner. Betty's doesn't have more than nine employees. If we were to target our relief to 20 percent, Betty would be in better shape. But if Larry Flynt at ``Hustler'' is going to be in better shape because he has less than 500 employees, I'm taking Betty.

I get my clothes cleaned at Spring Cleaners. They've been in business for over 25 years. The owner of that business, after he retired, left it with his daughter. They don't have more than 10 employees in 2 of their cleaning plants. This kind of measure, if targeted to her, would help her. But a law firm here in Washington or a lobbying firm with 49 lawyers that's making $500 million a year will qualify for this tax cut, and I'm taking Spring Cleaners over those lawyers and lobbyists here in this town.

Simply put, what we have before us is the exact opposite of a jobs bill. It's a boon for the rich, the very antithesis of smart tax reform, and does nothing to create opportunities for middle class, let alone, poor Americans. Instead of this misguided legislation before us today, Madam Speaker, we should pass policy initiatives that stimulate economic growth and job creation such as public-private partnerships.

When compared to measures such as infrastructure spending, today's bill would have a relatively small effect on strengthening our economy and helping businesses create even more jobs. In comparison, for every $1 billion invested in infrastructure construction projects, 18,000 jobs--and nobody controverts that, and if you do, say 15,000 jobs--are supported nationwide. And my Governor turned down a billion-plus dollars for a rail project that had been appropriated and that Republicans and Democrats had sought, and it would have created 18,000 jobs. And yet we find ourselves in Florida, just like other places in this country, suffering job diminution. This wasn't money that did not go to Illinois, California, and the Northeast Corridor for rail; it just did not come to Florida.

There are other circumstances. We yesterday passed a measure here to extend the transportation measure for 3 months. Cut me some slack. Jim Oberstar had been begging us before he left Congress to do a $400 billion infrastructure bill that probably would have put us in the position of not having to have done the stimulus had we done it when he asked for it, and we need to do a better bill than the 3-month extension. This was the 10th extension of the transportation measure that we have done. We are better than that, and we could have done what the Senate offered, MAP 21, and we would kick-start this economy rather than kicking this can down the road.

Let me tell you something about the can. It's getting ready to run up against a wall or a cliff, and there ain't going to be nowhere else to kick it. Some day, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, are going to have to stand up and face the fact that we must address this in a significant way, and we can't have this gridlock, and we can't have this continuing standoff.

This is supposed to be the ``land of opportunity,'' Madam Speaker. Let's make sure that it's the land of opportunity for rich people. Let's make sure that it's the land of opportunity for middle class and poor people. Let's make sure that it's the land of opportunity for small and large businesses. In short, opportunity for all Americans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on the Buffett rule, which Representative Baldwin has introduced--and I'm a cosponsor of--as H.R. 3903, the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012. This bill would ensure that people making over $1 million a year do not pay a lower tax rate than middle class Americans. To discuss our amendment to this rule, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my good friend.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would urge my friend from Texas that I'm going to be the last speaker, and I'm prepared to close if he has no further speakers.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

H.R. 9 is not about creating jobs or helping small businesses increase hiring. It is another in a long line of Republican proposals that benefit those of us, including those of us in the House of Representatives, that are the better-off Americans at the expense of the middle class.

My Republican friends rejected an amendment offered by our colleague, Representative Crowley, which I offered in the Rules Committee in his stead, which would have prevented businesses from eliminating jobs in the United States while creating jobs overseas under this bill.

Procedurally, it is also disconcerting that, contrary to my Republican colleagues' self-professed commitment to an open process, Democrats have been allowed only one substitute in an otherwise closed process. Nor was H.R. 9 the subject of any hearing before either the full Ways and Means Committee, or the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, with the exception of a brief question-and-answer session with Joint Committee on Taxation staff during the markup.

Finally, instead of taking real steps to address the very real need to create opportunities for businesses to succeed in a still nascent economic recovery, House Republicans are more than willing to rush through another tax bill that could, if it were to pass--and it is

not going to, and they know that--only help those of us that are better off in society, while sticking middle- and lower-income families with the bill and creating exactly zero jobs.

And you call this opportunity?

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment to the rule in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this opportunity-destroying measure and to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

This bill needs to be graded, and the grade it gets is F, a fat F grade. It fails all tests of sound tax policy.

Let me start with truth in advertising, a grade F. This is not a small business bill. It's small business in name only. It's totally untargeted, totally. It applies as long as an entity has under 500 employees--law firms, sports teams, financial consultants, lobbyists, corporate farmers--and regardless of what their annual receipts are. They can be tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars.

Interestingly, when the SBA looks at its loan program, it has what's called a common standard. What that is is that generally the businesses it serves cannot have more than $7 million in average annual receipts for most nonmanufacturing firms. This bill has no limits--none--as to function or amount of receipts, so really this bill mocks the use of the title ``small business.'' This isn't about mom and pop. It's about popping the cork for wealthy taxpayers.

Secondly, graded on tax fairness, F. According to the most cautious estimate, 56 percent of the tax break under this bill goes to taxpayers making $250,000 or more annually. It provides 125,000 taxpayers making $1 million a year with a tax break of over $58,000. Another model says that 49 percent of this $46 billion revenue loss goes to people with incomes over $1 million. This is Bush tax cuts on steroids.

Thirdly, in terms of job creation, another grade F. Listen to the Joint Tax Committee analysis. It says this bill's economic impact ``is so small as to be incalculable.'' The only thing calculating about this bill is its political nature.

We've looked at the Web site of the majority leader. He uses Mr. Robbins, who was the one who advised Herman Cain on 9 9-9. Here's what Mr. Robbins says about this bill: He estimates that a 1-year tax cut would create 39,000 jobs. This is on the majority leader's Web site. So, according to the analysis that the leader is touting on its own Web site, H.R. 9 would increase the Federal deficit by $1.1 million for every job supposedly created. So, another big F.

Now let's talk about where these jobs would be created. The bill is so untargeted to require that the jobs that are created here would really be created, because a company would get this benefit if it sheds jobs or if it uses the deduction to hire workers overseas.

Let's next go to fiscal irresponsibility, another fat F in terms of responsibility. This bill adds a whopping $46 billion to the deficit in 1 year; if it's made permanent, one-half trillion dollars over the next 10 years. So I say this to anybody who votes for this bill and then goes home and utters the word, once, ``Federal deficit.'' They will sell short the intelligence of their constituents, because they will know when someone is selling them a pig in a poke.

Now let's talk about tax reform, another fat F. This bill is the antithesis of tax reform. What it does is ridicule supporters who claim their fealty to tax reform. It doesn't simplify tax structures; it complicates it. That's why I quote The Wall Street Journal this morning. This is what they say about your bill: It's another tax gimmick.

Just earlier today somebody got up here and read from The Wall Street Journal. It was some months ago. Again, The Wall Street Journal says: ``The U.S. economy does not need another tax gimmick.'' So this is tax policy gone haywire.

I'm going to offer a substitute, after we finish debate here on general debate, that's targeted; that will help create jobs; that's fair; that is fiscally responsible and continues a policy that both Republicans and Democrats have supported in the past.

This flies in the face of anything bipartisan. It flies in the face of anything that is truthful in advertising. It flies in the face of anything that is fair. It flies in the face of anything that creates jobs. It flies in the face of fiscal responsibility, and it flies in the face of tax reform.

So I more than urge people to vote ``no'' and vote ``yes'' on our substitute. I really urge that they exercise their responsibility to try to get this country moving in the right direction, not with policies that deserve a total F on the test of sound tax policy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

We have a Statement of Administration Policy in total opposition to this. The Small Business Administration would not provide a loan for innumerable people who benefit from this. They have a $7 million limit.

Supply-side economics, we tried that for a number of years, and we were losing 700,000 jobs a month when this administration took over-- 700,000, and you raise supply-side economics as something we should embrace? No way. No way.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington, Dr. Jim McDermott, a member of our committee.

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

I yield myself 5 seconds.

Is it worth $1.1 million a job in Washington?

I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Oregon, an active member of our committee, Mr. Blumenauer.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I now yield 3 minutes to another very active member of our committee, the gentleman from California, Xavier Becerra.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

What the leader said is not correct. The substitute provides some help to those who invest in property, plant, and equipment. That's not Paris Hilton.

Let me finish.

You didn't yield at all to us, so let me finish.

It has to be a factory that's built here.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

May I ask the distinguished gentleman from the State of Ohio how much time remains on both sides?

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

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

I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining, please?

I now yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

I yield the balance of my time to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Democratic amendment in the nature of a substitute offers a 1- year extension of 100 percent bonus depreciation for certain U.S. businesses.

Most importantly, the amendment offers a stark contrast to the majority's untargeted giveaway to the very wealthy Americans.

First, bonus depreciation is available only to businesses that make investments in depreciable property. As a result, most of the benefit from the bonus depreciation provision will flow to businesses such as manufacturers that make significant investments in property, plant, and equipment. These are the types of businesses that create good jobs here in our country.

In contrast to the majority's mistaken bill, very little, if any, benefit would go to lawyers, lobbyists, hedge fund managers, and entertainers, to mention just a few. These service professionals simply do not make large investments in depreciable property.

Second, bonus depreciation is only available for property used in our country. So a business that builds a new factory only gets the deduction if the factory is built in this country.

In contrast, the majority's bill provides a benefit to businesses regardless of where they're expanding or investing. Businesses that cut jobs in the U.S. and expand overseas could get the benefit of H.R. 9. In practice, they would get no benefit from this amendment.

Third, the incentive to purchase depreciable property provides a benefit to all of the businesses that produce the property. The result is a more general and widespread economic stimulus.

Fourth, and finally, bonus depreciation is a proposal that has had bipartisan support, unlike H.R. 9. H.R. 9 is going nowhere--nowhere-- and it should not.

Vote for and pass this substitute. It is sound policy and can become the law of the land.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman is correct in that the contrast is very stark. They've tried to raise taxes on millionaires in the Senate so they pay like the people who work for them. This bill would provide a tax break of $58,000 to those who make over $1 million, which are 125,000 taxpayers. That is a stark contrast. Have people very wealthy pay a fair share on the one side, and have this House give them a big break.

I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentlelady from Nevada, Shelley Berkley.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Does the gentleman from Michigan have any other speakers?

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

There is a criticism that the bonus depreciation provision doesn't go far enough. My answer to that is: let's pass this and then join together. You have supported bonus depreciation in the past. You haven't acted on it. We do.

Let me just say what's at stake. This bill isn't going anywhere--it's going nowhere, but it says everything about the majority's priorities.

They oppose raising taxes on the very wealthy, they take a pledge that applies to the very wealthy, and they end up with a bill they won't pay for. They make empty rhetoric about the deficit. Essentially what they're coming here today to do is to make it worse, by giving a tax break to the very wealthy through this bill.

We've said it many times, nobody refutes it. You're stuck on a pledge not to raise taxes even for the very wealthy, and you come today with a proposal for a tax break for 125,000 taxpayers making more than a million dollars with a tax break of 58,000. Then to make it still worse, you cut necessary programs for lower- and middle-income families, from child care and Meals On Wheels. Where's your conscience?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been consistent in my support for comprehensive tax reform that lowers rates for individuals and businesses by eliminating the types of carve outs and deductions in the tax code that, as recently reported by The Hill, have let 26 Fortune 500 companies pay a negative tax rate over a four-year span. To be clear, that means these companies are getting paid by the government while hard-working men and women pay their taxes.

Something is very wrong with this picture. That is precisely the reason why we need real, long-term comprehensive tax reform. Last year, Senator Tom Coburn identified nearly $1 trillion in annual spending through the tax code through tax earmarks that benefit special interests such as video game developers, hedge fund managers, NASCAR, dog and horse tracks and ethanol producers. Unlike an earmark in an annual appropriations bill, these tax earmarks are far worse because once enacted they typically exist in perpetuity.

Using these extensive tax loopholes, General Electric (GE) paid no federal taxes in 2010. Yet, the Congressional Research Service has found that GE was honored by a Chinese newspaper for ranking 32nd among commercial service sector companies that paid taxes to China.

Let me repeat: GE paid no taxes to the United States, but was a significant source of tax revenue for China. China? China, a country that is spying on us, persecutes people of faith and has a long record of horrific human rights abuses.

Rather than putting forth true comprehensive tax reform--the type that would bring stability to the economy by providing certainty for job creators and families--both parties in both chambers have pushed political agendas instead of what is best for America.

The so-called ``Buffett rule'' the Senate attempted to pass earlier this week was defeated, and rightly so. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus points out President Obama's pursuit of this policy ``is pure political stunt. . . . It won't pass. And even if that happened, it would have a negligible impact on the exploding debt--$4.7 billion a year, or less than four-tenths of 1 percent of this year's deficit--and take a tiny nibble out of income inequality.''

At a time when strong leadership is needed to address our nation's crippling debt, it is unfortunate that President Obama has continually failed to lead by example. He even walked away from the recommendations of his own bipartisan fiscal commission.

Unfortunately, the House today has done no better than the Senate or president. The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial today headlined Bipartisan Tax Gimmickry, candidly described the proposal before us as a ``gimmick'' and went on to say that Republicans ``would do more for the economy and their political prospects if they began to educate the country about sensible tax policy.''

The bill before us is a temporary, one-year proposal that will increase our debt by $46 billion, without an offset to pay for this additional deficit spending. I want to stress: $46 billion for a temporary, one-year proposal.

I want to remind my colleagues that two months ago Congress essentially wiped out the $95 billion in savings cut from the 2011 and 2012 appropriations bills when it approved extending the payroll ``holiday'' for another year at a cost of $93 billion.

We are now talking about adding to this spending for a total of $139 billion in temporary, one-year stimulus spending with no offsets; no way to pay for it.

We are already running trillion dollar deficits for the fourth straight year. We are $15.6 trillion in debt. We have unfunded obligations and liabilities of $65 trillion. Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee earlier this month posted a chart on its Web site showing that our debt at the end of 2011 was greater than the combined debt of the United Kingdom and the entire Eurozone.

We need look no further than the riots in Europe to see the destructive impact that results from the crushing reality of a government unable to deliver promised entitlements to its citizens. There have been riots in Belgium, Spain, France, Ireland, England, Italy, Latvia, and Greece. And yet we are considering another proposal that moves us closer to Europe's instability.

We are now spending $4.3 billion a week simply on interest to service the debt. And this is at historically low interest rates.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that by 2022 we're going to be sending $11.6 billion out the door each week to nations such as China, which is spying on us, where human rights are an afterthought, and Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are jailed for practicing their faith, and oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia, which funded the radical madrasahs on the Afghan-Pakistan border, resulting in the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

And, unless we change course, according to the CBO's long term estimate, every penny collected of the federal budget will go to interest on the debt and entitlement spending by 2025.

Every penny. That means no money for national defense. No money for homeland security. No money to fix the nation's crumbling bridges and roads. No money for medical research to find a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease.

Quite frankly this borrowing is unsustainable, dangerous and irresponsible.

Given our nation's fiscal obligations, one must ask: Can we really afford another costly, one-year policy absent the needed comprehensive reform?

Why are we spending time on a policy that everyone knows has no chance of being signed into law as currently drafted? Could it be because, as recently reported by Politico, ``Congress is readying for a political fight with dueling tax votes this week that will define each party's priorities in this election year''?

The final paragraph of today's Wall Street Journal editorial noted that ``[t]he economy works best when investors and companies can operate under predictable policies that allow them to better judge their risks for the long term. Reagan-era officials understood this, but too many Republicans have forgotten. The U.S. economy doesn't need another tax gimmick. It needs a tax reform that includes a permanent cut in individual and business tax rates for everyone.''

The president and some on the other side of the aisle say that our debt crisis is because Americans are under-taxed. Like President Reagan said, and I believe, ``the problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.'' There is no question that the real problem is overspending, especially on runaway entitlement costs and through hundreds of billions of so-called tax expenditures.

It is no secret that our inefficient and burdensome tax code is undermining consumer and business confidence, further weakening our fragile economic recovery. Comprehensive tax reform is needed now more than ever to rid our tax code of earmarks and loopholes that promote crony capitalism and let Washington pick winners and losers.

Two weeks ago I was one of 38 members to vote for the bipartisan Cooper-LaTourette substitute amendment to the budget, which was modeled on the work of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. The Simpson-Bowles Commission produced a credible plan that gained the support of a bipartisan majority of the commission's 18 members. Called ``The Moment of Truth,'' the commission's report made clear that eliminating the debt and deficit will not be easy and that any reform must begin with entitlements. Mandatory and discretionary spending also has to be addressed as well as other ``sacred cows,'' including tax reform and defense spending.

The Cooper-LaTourette substitute was a balanced and ambitious plan, that, while not perfect, was the type of bitter medicine necessary to address our deficit. There is never a convenient time to make tough decisions, but the longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be. Unfortunately, the amendment failed.

For nearly six years I have pushed bipartisan legislation to set up an independent commission to develop a comprehensive deficit reduction package that would require an up-or-down vote by the Congress. I have said that the enormity of the crisis we face demands that everything must be on the table for discussion--all entitlement spending, all domestic discretionary spending, and tax policy; not tax increases, but reforms to make the tax code simpler and fairer and free from special interest earmarks.

I have supported every serious effort to resolve this crisis: the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, the ``Gang of Six'' effort, and the ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' bill--including the Balanced Budget Amendment. None of these solutions were perfect, but they all took the steps necessary to rebuild and protect our economy.

But powerful special interests continue to hold this institution hostage and undermine every good faith effort to change course. And that's why we have these actions on the floor of the House and Senate instead of the much-needed proposal to enact comprehensive reform.

Mr. Speaker, I do not sign political pledges to special interest groups. My only pledge is the oath of office I take on the first day of each Congress. And that is why I cannot partake in this political vote that would further add to the deficit without dealing with the underlying drivers of our deficit and debt.

As The Hill reported this week: ``Republicans and Democrats are hurtling toward a fiscal cliff, but neither side wants to take the plunge.

``In less than nine months, Bush-era tax rates are scheduled to expire, hiking rates for the middle class as well as top income earners. At the same time, automatic spending cuts will kick in. The combination, coupled with the expiration of the payroll tax cut and other factors, would constitute a blow that analysts say could imperil the economic recovery and send America crashing back into recession.''

We need to simplify the tax code to lower tax rates. But we need to do it through real, comprehensive reform, not through a piecemeal approach that makes it too politically easy to ignore our overall finances. I vote ``present'' to bring attention to this point.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 620, I call up the bill (H.R. 9) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a deduction for domestic business income of qualified small businesses, 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. 9.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act. This legislation will allow small businesses with fewer than 500 employees to take a 20 percent tax deduction.

Small businesses are the engine of job creation, and while we pursue comprehensive tax reform that will give all businesses certainty to invest and hire, this bill will help small businesses to reinvest, hire new workers, or provide a raise to an employee.

The policies put forth by President Obama and congressional Democrats have yielded more government spending but have failed to generate strong income growth and the jobs Americans need. Instead of lowering unemployment, we got a lower credit rating; instead of massive job creation, we got massive and unprecedented levels of debt; and instead of higher wages for working families, we got higher gas prices.

This bill provides real relief to American small businesses and the workers they employ, and it treats every small business equally. Contrary to the political cronyism we've seen time and time again, this bill does not pick winners and losers. It provides relief to all small businesses, including those in my

home State of Michigan. Michigan has been hit especially hard over the last 3 years with some of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation. And while small business owners in my district need and want comprehensive tax reform, they also agree that we must take steps to spur investment and hiring today as well. These business owners are the real experts who know what they need to add jobs back to our communities.

Take, for example, Bob Yackel, president of Merrill Tool. As part of the 400-employee Merrill Technologies Group, Mr. Yackel says:

As a manufacturing business in mid-Michigan, we know

firsthand the ramifications of the recent economic turmoil.

The best way Washington can help energize economic growth is

by making sure business owners are spending less on tax

payments and more on creating jobs.

Bob Yackel is a larger small business owner, but there are smaller businesses that feel the same way.

Jim Holton, owner of Mountain Town Station in Mount Pleasant, has served the central Michigan community as a restaurant owner for more than 15 years. He is especially pleased with the simplicity and ease of this legislative approach. He says:

The beauty of the Small Business Tax Cut Act is its

simplicity. If you're earning profits and contributing to the

economy, then you can take 20 percent off your tax bill. No

hoops to jump through. This is a great way for business

owners like myself in the Great Lakes Bay region and across

America to help jump-start our economy.

Those are just two examples in Michigan's Fourth District, but they echo small businesses and small business owners across the country.

Throughout our history, we've depended upon these industrious and innovative risk-takers to help us move through tough economic times. While we work to provide them the long-term comprehensive tax reform they need, we can also take steps today to unlock new opportunities for them immediately. Passing this bill will provide these much-needed, immediate opportunities.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting small business and to demonstrate that they support them as well by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 9.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) be permitted to control the balance of the time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schilling).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller.)

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

At this time, I have two additional speakers. One of them will close, so I have one speaker before closing.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, we're prepared to close.

I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Thank you.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

No.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

I believe the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has the right to close.

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

I appreciate at least hearing some of the new-found fiscal responsibility from my friends on the other side, since the Obama administration has come into office with help from Democrats on the other side of the aisle who increased the debt by $5 trillion, with a ``t.''

Let me just comment on this substitute. It's not that the bonus depreciation in this legislation doesn't go far enough. It's that it doesn't provide bonus depreciation. It does limit the bill based on the concept of bonus depreciation, but this bill has been analyzed by the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Rather than providing the $46 billion of tax relief, this bill only provides a small fraction of that, 6 percent. Under the underlying legislation, millions of small businesses would be able to make investments, be able to buy equipment, would be able to hire workers. This substitute guts the bill and will result in no economic impact in this country.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on the substitute. I would urge support for the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I seek time in opposition to the motion.

I would just say to my friend that I'm not going to stand up and say that this is a procedural ploy. But I will stand up and say it is a political ploy.

We should not be picking winners and losers. The fact is small businesses are hurting because of the failed policies of the Obama administration. It's time to stand up for small business and the people they employ.

Let's get America back to work. I urge defeat of this motion to recommit and support for H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.