Floor Statements

We all come together in the aftermath of the overwhelming tragedy at Tucson to remember all of the victims and also to fervently hope, still in disbelief.

Our colleague, Gabrielle Giffords, epitomizes what a public servant should be, fully dedicated, principled, caring and reaching out to all constituents and to all our colleagues. Time will tell with clarity exactly what are the appropriate lessons for all of us to learn from the Tucson tragedy.

In the meanwhile, our focus is, indeed, very personal. In the holiday card that Gabby sent to me, she wrote her best wishes for a joyful new year and continued writing that we will have our work cut out for us.

The new year is now far, far less joyful. So our hope in the prayer we are sending with love to Gabby and to Mark is that Gabby will be able to join us as we take on the work cut out for us to which, Gabby, you have devoted your whole self so fully.

This is what the Republicans are after, what their repeal would mean: It would take away from millions of Americans coverage for kids with preexisting conditions, coverage for young adults under 26. Recommended preventive care would be taken away. It would take away lower drug costs for seniors. And this is what the Republican repeal would do. It would give back to insurance companies unreasonable premium increases, unjust policy terminations, rescisions. It would take away this. It would give back profits and CEO salaries to insurance companies, not health care benefits.

It would give back annual and lifetime limits on benefits. It gives back to insurance companies discrimination ability against women.

These are concrete reasons to vote ``no'' on this repeal, a misfortune for the United States of America.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights: ``Congress of the United States, begun and held at the City of New York on Wednesday, the 4th of March 1789.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before the House today to reduce the budgets for Members' offices as well as leadership and committee offices in the House of Representatives.

At a time when so many of our constituents are struggling to make ends meet in a difficult

economy, and with the federal deficit as high as it is, the House and Senate must keep looking for ways to tighten our belts. During the last Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, we voted to freeze the salaries of Members of Congress in 2010 and again for 2011. The resolution before the House today would save an additional $35 million.

While this resolution saves $35 million, the Republican leadership will be bringing a health care reform repeal bill to the Floor next week that will blow a one trillion dollar hole in the budget. Not only would the Republican repeal bill turn back the clock on the significant reforms and consumer protections and jeopardize health care for millions of Americans, their repeal bill would also add $230 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, and a jaw-dropping $1 trillion of red ink over 20 years. These are not my figures, but those of the non- partisan Congressional Budget Office.

In a word, if cutting $35 million from Congress' budget is a step in the right direction towards reducing the deficit, adding $1 trillion to the deficit by repealing health care reform takes us about 28,570 steps in the wrong direction.

I urge support for the resolution before the House today and strong opposition to the Republican health care repeal bill next week.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the passage of H.R. 2941, to renew ``Johanna's Law'' to increase public awareness and knowledge of gynecological cancers. I am pleased to have introduced this important bill with Representatives DeLauro, Issa, and Burton. Johanna's Law established a national public information campaign to educate women and health care providers about the risk factors and early warning signs of gynecologic cancers. This bill before the House carries on that important life-saving work by extending funding of Johanna's Law from 2012 to 2014.

The law was named after Michigan resident Johanna Silver Gordon, a loving mother and dedicated public school teacher, who, despite visiting her doctor regularly, was blindsided by a diagnosis of late- stage ovarian cancer, learning only after her diagnosis that the symptoms she had been experiencing were common symptoms of that disease. Despite the best efforts of her physicians, tragically, Johanna lost her life to ovarian cancer 3\1/2\ years after being diagnosed.

Johanna's story is far too common. Although it has been 10 years since she died of ovarian cancer, and 4 years since Congress first passed this important legislation, each year over 71,000 women in the U.S. are diagnosed with a gynecologic cancer and over 26,000 women are lost to one of these serious cancers. Many of those deaths could be prevented if more women knew and recognized the early symptoms of gynecologic cancers and received prompt treatment.

Today we continue to build on the work we began with the passage of the first Johanna's Law 4 years ago. Our best weapon against gynecological cancers is early detection. A woman's chance of survival is dramatically improved when the gynecological cancer is diagnosed early. Ovarian cancer causes more deaths in women than any other gynecological cancer; however, it has a 93 percent survival rate if detected in Stage One, but only a 20 percent survival rate if detected in Stage Three or Four.

Right now, awareness, education, early diagnosis, and treatment are the most effective weapons we have in our war against gynecological cancers. I urge my colleagues to support Johanna's Law so we can prevail in our battle against these terrible cancers that cut short the lives of our mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, partners and friends. I urge passage of this very important legislation.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Democratic majority in the House has made it crystal clear that we stand on the side of middle income families, of unemployed workers, of small businesses struggling in this difficult economy. The compromise before

us clearly requires painful choices. These choices relate to each of the three criteria for judging the merits of this package: Does it add to the deficit? Does it promote economic growth? And does it promote fairness?

For decades, Republicans have unwisely promoted a view that tax cuts pay for themselves. So while making deficit reduction their rhetoric, they never have had any intention of paying for tax cuts which add to the deficit, plain and simple. Adding to the deficit is defensible if the bill meets another criterion: Does it promote economic growth? Adding to the deficit in the short term as a tool to promote economic growth that will, in turn, help address the long-term deficit has been the basis of vital actions taken by the Democratic majority, actions to stem the financial crisis, jump-start the economy, and save the auto industry. These were necessary steps, sometimes unpopular ones, and steps unfortunately not effectively articulated at times by the administration.

This bill does include important provisions aimed at increasing economic growth and jobs: unemployment insurance for millions out of work who will spend money received to keep their families afloat; the middle income tax cut; the temporary reduction in payroll taxes; and business provisions like the R&D tax credit, the new markets credit, and full expensing of business investment for 1 year.

Unfortunately, in their zeal to undo the Recovery Act, Republicans have insisted that we not extend the successful 48C credit for advanced engineering manufacturing or the Build America Bond program, working to rebuild our economy. The Republicans have insisted on provisions that violate the third criterion, fairness for taxpayers.

In order for the administration to be able to include provisions that help lower and middle income families, it came at the price of assisting the very wealthy, the Republicans' priority. Their position has led to a package where the top six-tenths of 1 percent of the very wealthiest receive 20 percent of the benefits of the tax package. My amendment would strike a blow at this unfairness by replacing the highly irresponsible and unfair Kyl estate tax giveaway. The resulting $23 billion in additional borrowing won't go to create jobs. It will be used to provide an average tax cut of more than $1.5 million to the 6,600 wealthiest estates next year. This represents less than three- tenths of 1 percent of all estates.

I urge my colleagues to vote to change this egregious piece of the legislation so the American people can see clearly who puts the interests of the middle class ahead of the very wealthiest. And then the Republicans in the Senate will have a stark choice that might be painful for them. It would make it clear whose side they are on.

I will accept the remainder of the bill because after the approach taken by Republicans in the House and Senate these last weeks, obstructing and holding hostage everything until they get their way on the tax breaks for the very wealthy, I am not willing to put the fate of the middle class and the unemployed in the hands of the Republican majority next year. Especially when voiced by the Senate Republican leader that their main priority is the failure of our President.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from North Dakota, a member of our committee, Mr. Pomeroy.

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

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

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

I now yield 15 seconds to Mr. Welch of Vermont, followed by 3 minutes to Mr. Jackson of Illinois.

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an active member of our committee.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a very distinguished colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from the great State of Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to a distinguished Member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I now yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

It is now my real privilege to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a very active member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I now yield 2 minutes to another active, distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

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

It is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

It is now my real pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

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

It is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the active Member from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished Member from California (Ms. Eshoo).

It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to a member of our committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who has been working day and night on this issue.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

I am privileged to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

It is now a real pleasure to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

It is now my real pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a Member who has been very active on this issue, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

It is now my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland.

I have an amendment at the desk.

The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4337) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify certain rules applicable to regulated investment companies, and for other purposes.

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

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), someone who has been working on this issue for--I don't know how long--a long time.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us right now makes important changes to the tax law rules that relate, as Mr. Neal and Mr. Tiberi said, to regulated investment companies, more commonly known as mutual funds. They were described 80 years ago in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee as, ``A group of small investors who have banded together for the purpose of obtaining diversity and supervision through the medium of pooling their investments.''

While mutual funds continue to serve this important role, the tax rules that govern mutual funds have not been updated in over 20 years. In June of this year, the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, chaired by Mr. Neal, heard testimony from a variety of industry experts stressing the importance of modifying our Nation's tax laws to ensure that the technical tax rules pertaining to mutual funds would better interact with other tax rules.

The Ways and Means Committee and the Congress have an obligation to ensure that our tax rules keep up with the times, so the bill before us would update and simplify the rules that apply to mutual funds to ensure that small investors are not disadvantaged simply because they band their investments together through a mutual fund rather than investing directly.

The bill enjoys strong bipartisan support. It passed the House by voice vote earlier this year and just last week was amended to pass the Senate by unanimous consent.

I want to thank all of my colleagues on Ways and Means and all others who joined for their contributions to ensure that these important changes to the mutual fund rules can be swiftly signed into law by the President of the United States. Passage today will do just that. So I urge strong support for this measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6517) to extend trade adjustment assistance and certain trade preference programs, to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

This is really a vital bill. I bring it to the floor in a bipartisan spirit to move and to make sure that all of the important pieces of this vital legislation, all of them, become law. This bill continues the essential trade adjustment assistance program that we expanded in 2009. Importantly, these reforms were authored on a bipartisan, bicameral basis by Mr. Rangel and myself, Mr. Camp, Senators Baucus and Grassley. So let me say just a few words about TAA.

Since the reforms were implemented in 2009, more than 155,000 additional trade-impacted workers who might not have been certified under the former TAA program became eligible for TAA worker benefits and training opportunities. More than 155,000. In total, more than 367,000 workers were certified as eligible for TAA support in that timeframe.

In 2010 alone, and I also want to emphasize this number, 227,882 workers took advantage of TAA and participated in the program, receiving case management, training and/or income support. You know, I wish in a way 227,882 people could come here and line up from here. I'm not quite sure how far the line would extend. It would be a very long way. We have a solemn obligation to continue this expanded program.

This legislation also supports U.S. businesses that need inputs or components not produced here in the U.S. in order to manufacture, and I underline that, downstream products here in the United States of America.

Miscellaneous tariff bills like this one have been a part of U.S. policy for 27 years. But in recent years, we have made the process more transparent than ever before, and if I might, I want to pay tribute to all of those who have worked together here in the House and in the Senate in terms of the transparency of this process. Based on these improvements, the Sunlight Foundation has phrased the MTB as ``transparency done right.''

The last MTB was signed into law in August after passing the House by a bipartisan vote of 378-43. Taken together, according to one study, these two MTBs are expected to increase U.S. production by at least $4.6 billion over 3 years and to support 90,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Next, the bill also includes an 18-month extension for two preference programs--GSP, the Generalized System of Preferences; and the Andean Trade Preference Act, ATPA--that are set to expire at the end of the year. That means in 2 weeks. Last year, this legislation was passed by voice vote.

Preferences are important tools in U.S. trade policy. They help developing nations capture the opportunities and meet the challenges of trade and globalization, while at the same time, and this is critical to emphasize, providing significant benefits here in the United States. For example, ATPA has helped develop an important market for U.S.-made textiles in the Andean region, while also helping those nations in their efforts to fight trade in narcotics. Also, the majority of U.S. imports, 75 percent using GSP, were imports used to sustain U.S. manufacturing, including raw materials, parts and components, machinery and equipment.

These programs have also, and again I want to emphasize, have been shaped to encourage broad-based economic development, with eligibility criteria regarding worker rights--we have worked on the worker rights provisions over the years--the rule of law, innovation and investment, and policies to fight corruption.

Madam Speaker, there has long been, because of the strength of these programs, bipartisan support for all of them. Each of them relates to U.S. jobs. Each of them relates to U.S. jobs, and it is crucial that we act to continue them today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the chair of the Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, the imprisonment of Liu Xiaobo is a personal tragedy, a national shame, and an international challenge. The answer is clear: Mr. Liu should be released immediately.

For his more than two decades of advocating for freedom of speech, assembly, religion, peaceful democratic reform, transparency and accountability in China, Mr. Liu is serving an eleven-year sentence in a Chinese prison for ``inciting subversion of state power.'' Those in China, like Mr. Liu, who have penned thoughtful essays or signed Charter 08 seek to advance debate, as the Charter states, on ``national governance, citizens' rights, and social development'' consistent with their ``duty as responsible and constructive citizens.'' Their commitment and contribution to their country must be recognized, as the Nobel Committee has done, and as we do today, and their rights must be protected.

The Chinese government has said that awarding the Nobel Prize to Liu Xiaobo ``shows a lack of respect for China's judicial system.'' I would like to take a moment to examine this claim. For it seems to me that what truly showed a lack of respect for China's judicial system were the numerous and well-documented violations of Chinese legal protections

for criminal defendants that marred Mr. Liu's trial from the outset. I refer here to matters such as the failure of Chinese prosecutors adequately to consult defense lawyers, and the speed with which prosecutors acted in indicting Mr. Liu and bringing him to trial, effectively denying his lawyers sufficient time to review the state's evidence and to prepare for his defense. Chinese officials prevented Mr. Liu's wife from attending his trial, in which she had hoped to testify on behalf of her husband. Mr. Liu's lawyers reportedly were ordered by state justice officials not to grant interviews. It is these abuses committed by Chinese officials in China, not the actions of a committee in Oslo, that demonstrated ``a lack of respect for China's judicial system.''

All nations have the responsibility to ensure fairness and transparency in judicial proceedings. The effective implementation of basic human rights and the ability of all people in China to live under the rule of law depend on careful attention to, and transparent compliance with, procedural norms and safeguards that meet international standards. I serve as Cochairman of the Congressional- Executive Commission on China (CECC). The Commission's Political Prisoner Database, which is available to the public on-line via the Commission's web site, www.cecc.gov, contains information on thousands of political prisoners in China. These are individuals who have been imprisoned by the Chinese government for exercising their civil and political rights under China's Constitution and laws or under China's international human rights obligations. The enhancement of the database that the Commission announced this past summer roughly doubled the types of information available to the public, enabling individuals, organizations, and governments to better report on political imprisonment in China and to more effectively advocate on behalf of Chinese political prisoners. And people around the world have been using the database to do just that. The number of ``hits'' to the database from individual users, NGOs, academic institutions and governments around the world has skyrocketed. The database makes clear that political imprisonment in China is well-documented, it is a practice whereby the Chinese government has shown disrespect for the law not only in Liu Xiaobo's case, but in thousands of other cases, and it must end.

Unfortunately, the end to political imprisonment in China does not appear likely at this time. Since the Nobel Committee's announcement, Mr. Liu's wife, Liu Xia, has been harassed relentlessly, and remains confined virtually incommunicado under what appears to be house arrest. In the weeks following the Nobel Committee's announcement, there have been over 100 documented incidents in which Chinese citizens have been harassed, interrogated, subjected to police surveillance, detained or placed under house arrest for their expressions of support for Liu. Articles in China's official state-run media have attacked the Nobel committee and painted a harshly negative portrait of Liu. Chinese authorities have attempted to limit the dissemination of information about Liu's receiving the Nobel Prize. Chinese officials have censored unauthorized references to Liu on the Internet and cell phones and blocked access to news about Liu from outside China. Chinese officials have imposed severe travel restrictions on Chinese activists, scholars, and lawyers whom they fear will attempt to attend the Nobel peace prize award ceremony in Norway on December 10. In the last month, Beijing police reportedly have prevented leading scholars and lawyers from boarding flights to attend international conferences for fear they will attend the Nobel peace prize award ceremony. Other public intellectuals physically have been prevented by police from meeting foreign reporters.

The Director of the Nobel Institute said China's pressure on other governments to boycott this year's ceremony has been unprecedented in his twenty years as Director. China's G20 negotiator said that countries sending officials to attend the award ceremony honoring Mr. Liu must be ready to ``accept the consequences.'' Diplomats report that the Chinese Embassy in Oslo has sent official letters to foreign embassies in the Norwegian capital asking them not to make statements in support of Liu, and not to attend the Nobel awards ceremony on December 10. This is not the behavior of a strong, responsible government.

As Liu Xia said the morning her husband was selected to receive the Nobel Prize, ``China's new status in the world comes with increased responsibility. China should embrace this responsibility, and have pride in his selection and release him from prison.'' As Nobel laureate Vaclav Havel correctly noted, ``intimidation, propaganda, and repression are no substitute for reasoned dialogue. . . .'' And as Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu recently wrote together with Vaclav Havel:

We know that many wrongs have been perpetrated against

China and its people throughout history. But awarding the

Nobel Peace Prize to Liu is not one of them. Nor is the

peaceful call for reform from the more than 10,000 Chinese

citizens who dared to sign Charter 08. . . . China has a

chance to show that it is a forward-looking nation, and can

show the world that it has the confidence to face criticism

and embrace change. . . . This is a moment for China to open

up once again, to give its people the ability to compete in

the marketplace of ideas. . . .

I take particular note of the words of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who, in a recent interview with CNN, stated:

Freedom of speech is indispensable. . . . The people's

wishes for, and needs for, democracy and freedom are

irresistible.''

Sadly, the Chinese government clearly has shown the world, through its mistreatment of Liu Xiaobo and countless others, that Premier Wen's words are not the basis for government action in China.

This Resolution shines a light on the Chinese government's failure to enforce basic human rights, and underlines that China once again is at an important crossroads, and seems to be turning in the wrong direction. This has implications not only for the development of institutions of democratic governance in China, but also for the United States in managing our relations with China.

I am pleased to co-sponsor this important Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1745, I call up the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

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

Colleagues, the time has come. This is the moment to stand up and be counted on middle-income tax cuts. The Republicans want to continue to keep middle-income tax cuts hostage, hostage until it's combined with upper-income tax cuts. It's, in part, because they don't want to have to vote separately on tax cuts for the very wealthy.

But, as I have said, the time has come. We must not let middle-income taxpayers remain hostage to a partisan agenda. Indeed, I was going back over comments that have been made these last months, and I refer to one from my colleague from Michigan, the ranking member. He is here.

He said, just a few months ago, in talking to AP, that it would be difficult to block extension of middle-income tax cuts, even if it doesn't stop tax rates from increasing for high earners saying, ``I will probably vote for it myself.''

Today is the test whether the hostage-taking ends. Every single provision here, every single one, is about tax cuts, tax cuts that are so important for this country.

And let me, if I might, refer to some of them. For families making less than $250,000 a year, this bill permanently extends the following, the 2001-2003 tax cuts, including the current income tax rates. That means a lot for middle-income families throughout this country, the marriage penalty relief that means so much for tens of thousands, for millions of families, lower rates on capital gains and dividends and the $1,000 child tax credit.

For 2 years, very importantly, this bill will protect more than 25 million taxpayers from the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, by extending it, as I said, for 2 years through 2011. And, importantly, it permanently extends the small business expensing. So added all up, these tax cuts, we are talking tax cuts for middle-American families and small businesses of tax cuts over 10 years of $1.5 trillion.

And I want say something and be very clear because often it's raised about small businesses, America's small businesses receive a tax cut under this bill. It's only 3 percent of the very wealthy which will not receive a larger tax cut.

So, in a word, the time has come. The smoke screen is now being lifted by this bill. You have a chance to stand up or back down on tax cuts for the middle-income families of our country.

I hope that we can rise above partisan politics. I hope that we can keep in mind the millions of families who are counting on action by us and no longer holding them hostage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 15 seconds to myself.

This is the fact from the Tax Policy Center: Only 3 percent of small businesses would be affected, and of that, only a small amount get most of their income from small businesses. This isn't about politics, Mr. Camp; this is about people.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I suggest the gentleman reread the bill: $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years; 97 percent of small businesses receive a tax cut.

Those are the facts, period.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, a hardworking member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield myself 10 seconds.

Ninety-seven percent of small businesses will not pay any more taxes. They'll get a tax cut.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional half minute. You must go on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Once again, 97 percent of small businesses will get tax cuts, not tax increases. Those are the facts. Period.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my real pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada, a member of the committee, Ms. Berkley.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

It's now my privilege to yield 1 minute to our very distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, first, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material in the Congressional Record.

Secondly, before I yield the balance of the time to the Speaker, our very distinguished Speaker, I want to take just a minute or less to make a couple of key points.

Number one, everybody would receive a tax cut under this bill. Everybody. Secondly, only 3 percent--these are the facts--of small business owners would get the additional tax for income over $250,000. Only 3 percent. And the third and last point is this. For those with income a million and over, under the Republican plan they would get a tax cut of over $100,000, while average Americans would get a fraction of that.

It's now my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to our distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentlelady from California, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has prepared a technical explanation of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853. This document expresses the Committee's understanding and intent of the provisions included in this legislation. This document can be found on the Joint Committee on Taxation website, www.jct.gov, under document number JCX-52-10.

Mr. STARK, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4853 the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010. This bill puts the interests of working families and our nation's fiscal health ahead of millionaires. The legislation allows the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, and protects struggling middle class families from a tax increase they cannot afford during these difficult economic times.

A vote against this bill is a vote against middle class families in order to protect millionaires and billionaires. Our colleagues across the aisle want to hold middle class tax relief hostage so that they can give yet another massive tax break to the wealthy. The Congressional Budget Office reported what we already know: tax cuts for the rich provide virtually no economic stimulus. Extending the rates for the highest income tax brackets is not a break needed by our small businesses. Individuals with small business income make up fewer than three percent of taxpayers in the top two tax brackets. There is no reason for us to use $700 billion that could be used to create jobs or reduce the deficit so that millionaires can get a tax cut.

Earlier this week Congress allowed unemployment insurance to expire for millions of Americans. Two million people will lose their unemployment benefits in December alone, including over 400,000 in my state of California. Last week, nearly every Republican voted against a three month extension of unemployment benefits to help families keep a roof over their heads and food on their dinner table over the holidays. This week, they will gladly justify using $700 billion in borrowed money to make a few thousand millionaires happy. The priorities of the Republicans are dangerous and out of touch with what our economy needs.

I support the Middle Class Tax Relief Act because it will protect middle and lower income families. In addition to making the tax cuts permanent for the first $250,000 of income for all married couples, the legislation will extend the $1,000 child tax credit; provide permanent dividend income tax relief; allow more workers to benefit from the EITC; permanently eliminate the ``marriage penalty''; and patch the AMT through 2011. I urge my colleagues to not turn their backs on middle class families and to support this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act and urge the House to pass it today.

Bighead carp were first brought to the United States in the 1970s to control algae in aquaculture ponds. Unfortunately, bighead carp and other harmful species of non-native fish were released into the Mississippi River in the early 1990s during major flooding. Since then, the Asian carp have established themselves in the Mississippi River system. Asian carp are voracious eaters and the impact of the carp on native fish populations has been severe.

In the ensuing years, the Asian carp have made their way north and are now threatening to invade the Great Lakes. The federal government and the Great Lakes states are fighting a pitched battle against the carp to prevent them from becoming established in the Lakes. We must use every means available to stop this destructive fish from invading the Great Lakes.

We're already paying a heavy price for the decision to import these non-native carp into the United States. For many years, during both the Bush and Obama administrations, a number of us from the Great Lakes region have been urging the Fish and Wildlife Service to include bighead carp on the list of injurious species under the Lacey Act and so minimize the risk of further harm by prohibiting the importation and interstate transportation of live Asian carp without a permit.

The bill before the House today would list bighead carp as injurious under the Lacey Act. I commend Senator Levin for introducing this important legislation, which passed the Senate on November 17. Although it is too late to undo the damage that bighead carp are doing in the Mississippi River and its tributaries, we should do everything possible to prevent these invasive fish from harming other areas of the United States. I urge passage of S. 1421.

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

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

This is a long injustice. And the question has been raised: Why use moneys within the jurisdiction of Ways and Means and Finance to support this bill? The answer is very clear. There is no escape. There is a moral compulsion to act on this legislation. And no one should hide behind issues of jurisdiction. We have tried to do this for years. The Finance Committee decided there was a way to finance it. This is a morally right thing to do period.

The bill also extends the basic TANF program through September 30 of next year. I greatly regret that the TANF provisions included in this bill do not include an extension of the TANF Emergency Fund. That fund has helped unemployed families find work and assisted local economies in coping with the recession. Roughly 250,000 jobs were created, most of them in the private sector. Unfortunately, Republican opposition in the Senate has repeatedly blocked our efforts to extend this program.

This is critical legislation. I urge its support.

I yield the balance of the Ways and Means' time to Mr. McDermott.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Andrew Gerhart, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Lawrence Technological University in Southfield, Michigan.

Dr. Gerhart has been named the 2010 Michigan Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. More than 300 top professors in the United States were considered in this annual competition, which is the only national program to recognize excellence in undergraduate teaching and mentoring.

Dr. Gerhart received his Master's degree from the University of Wyoming and his Ph.D. from the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, NM. After numerous highly successful career endeavors, he began teaching at Lawrence Tech University in 2002 and has become a remarkably active teacher and researcher. He is the director of the Thermal Science Laboratory and Aerodynamics Laboratory, Coordinator of the Certificate of Energy and Environmental Management Program and Aeronautical Engineering Minor/Certificate, and Chair of the Leadership Curriculum Implementation Committee.

During his tenure at Lawrence Technological University, Dr. Gerhart has received numerous awards and been nationally recognized for papers and presentations about improving the educational process. In 2005, he was awarded the Outstanding Young Engineer of the Year by the Engineering Society of Detroit. Also that year, his paper, ``K-12 Summer Engineering Outreach Programs--Curriculum Comparisons Between Ages, Minorities, and Genders'' was awarded Best Paper--PIC V at the 2005 ASEE Annual Conference. Additionally, he is the recipient of a 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 Kern Faculty Incentive Grants for research with Turbine Technologies, Ltd, and recipient of portions of the 2006 KEEN grant and 2007 Chrysler Foundation grant.

I have seen first-hand the outstanding work that Lawrence Tech University is doing. In particular, the University's Center for Innovative Materials Research is doing state-of-the-art work in the area of advanced composite materials. It is important to develop these cutting-edge technologies here in Michigan because of our strong roots in research and development.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the achievements of Dr. Andrew Gerhart and to congratulate him on receiving this well-deserved award. I am confident Dr. Gerhart will continue in his success, as he educates students to be the next leaders in the field of engineering.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6419) to amend the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 to provide for the further extension of emergency unemployment benefits, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, this is called an emergency bill because it is an emergency. For millions of people, this is an emergency. Unemployment benefits are going to run out in a few days. Therefore, it is an emergency for the United States of America. And let me just indicate what is at stake here.

Through January 1 of next year, close to 2 million people will not any longer be eligible for benefits. And then, a month later, the amount almost doubles. This is an emergency.

Last night, I was in my office at 9:30 and a person called from Atlanta, Georgia, to thank me and to thank Mr. McDermott and to thank our party for bringing up this extension.

I don't know what more any of us want. I don't see how we can go home for Thanksgiving when, as a result of failure of benefits, hundreds of thousands of people may not have a turkey on their table because they can't afford it and the next week may not have the moneys they need to meet their daily needs.

This should be a bipartisan effort. This is a totally human effort. This is totally an urgent effort. These are people laid off, people who have been looking for work, people who cannot find work. For every job, at least five people are looking for employment for that job. I don't know what other evidence needs to be brought here. It can be stated very briefly and directly.

If the 2 million people who are going to lose their benefits looking for work were brought here so we could see them, would anyone vote ``no''? Would anyone vote ``no''? Do we need the 2 million here? Can we put ourselves in their homes, in their shoes, in their places with their families, with their children.

This is an emergency. This House must act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I say to the gentleman from Louisiana that the people of this country who are looking for work don't want empathy; they want the unemployment insurance that they worked for, and you're standing in the way. Don't send them empathy. Send them what they worked for.

I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the author of this bill.