>> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 15 and the noes are 20. >> the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. next we will recognize mr. yarmouth for the purposes of offering an amendment. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> clerk will report and the staff will hand out copies. >> an amendment offered by mr. yarmouth in relation o taxes. >> gentleman is recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment that i'm offering is designed to reduce the deficit by up to a trillion dollars, and it ensures that the very wealthiest americans will share in the responsibility to help address our deficit situation. it returns to the clinton era tax rates for incomes over $1 milli million, and it institutes the buffett rule to ensure that middle-income families do not have a higher tax rate than millionaires and billionaires. as we've seen from the

discussion of the prior amendment, the proposal by the republicans is one that would give a substantial tax break to the wealthiest americans at a time when they have spent money of the best decades of their existence. we've seen from the era of the bush tax cuts the disparity in income and in wealth in this country grow by unprecedented amounts. to the point at which we rank as a nation as one of the -- having one of the greatest disparities in wealth of any nation on earth. i saw one chart several months ago where we ranked, like, 45th -- we ranked about 45 or 46 k countries. many third world nations. we had a higher disparity of wealth than those countries. we have a nation who loves to see people do well. i'm not one who would argue with na. we want to see people do well.

we want to see people prosper. but we now have a very dire budgetary situation as everyone on this panel admits. and we have to look at the sources of the problem that got us into this hole when we want to address the situation. it's clear that a large percentage somewhere in the estimates of 25% to 35% of the accumulated tet over t ed debt few years was a result of those bush tax cuts. my amendment would simply ask those people who have done extroomly well, making more than $1 million, to pay 4.6% more in income tax only on the amounts over $1 million. as the ranking member mentioned, and i appreciate his presentation very much, the only recourse for making up for all of this lost revenue proposed in the republican budget is to

either eliminate many, many loopholes that will tramatically affect -- many programs that affect middle income americans, lower income americans and se r seno senors. that's the only way we can afford to pay for these enormous tax cuts. what we're says is, asking those people who make more than $1 million to pay a little bit more. as jesse james said when he robbed the banks, that's where the money is. if we're going to address the deficit situation, i know the rhetoric is we could tax every rich person in the country, take all the money and it wouldn't pay off the deficit. that is true. we can ask them to do a little bit paying in this enormous effort we're trying to make to reduce the testify sit. we can ask them to do a little bit more. that's what my amendment does. with that i'd yield three minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. ryan. >> i thank the gentleman and would also associate myself with his remarks and also say that

really gets down to the issue of fairness. as i have shared with this committee before, this is also about coming together to form some level of compromise. we have major issues in the country. 34th ranking for the united states in infant mortality. 28th for life expect tansy. we spend more on health care than anyone else. get worse results. we talked about the ipad and who's going to make it. we need to invest in the workers who are going to make it. make sure they're well educated. make sure we have the proper infrastructure so we can ship those products. we got to make sure we have the research done so we can make sure we develop the next renn ration of ipads. i want to share with my friends again someone who is willing to compromise when the facts change. and that was rapidly becoming my favorite republican, ronald reagan. signed many tax increases into law because we had to deal with a long-term structural budget

testify -- deficit issue. highway revenue act, 1982, signed into law by ronald reagan. social security amendments of 1983, signed into law by ronald reagan. railroad retirement revenue act of 1983. signed into law by ronald reagan. deficit reduction act of 1984, signed into law by ronald reagan. consolidated omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1985. signed into law by ronald reagan. omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1985. signed into law by ronald reagan. super fundament ams and reorganization. signed into law. another tax increase by ronald reagan. continuing resolution of 1987. signed into law by ronald reagan. omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1987. signed into law by ronald reagan.

continuing resolutions 1988. tax increase by ronald reagan. because we had huge long-term structural budget deficit issues that we needed to fix. and we can't get the republican party to agree to raise taxes on someone who makes more than $1 million a year! and we're going to cut education. we're going to cut infrastructure. we're going to cut research. cut funds to community colleges. we got to build an economic system for the 21st century. that means asking the wealthiest to sacrifice, to contribute, and then we make these investments and balance the budget in a long-term, balanced way. ronald reagan was willing to do it. i hope all you guys who mention him in all of your speeches would follow his lead and help us with a balanced budget. do this over a moderate way in the long term. we can continue to make our investmen investments. >> i yield now one minute to mr. blumenauer from oregon. >> thank you very much, mr.

yarmuth. i think this is, in fact, reasonable. it's part of the bigger picture. i think pledges that will never raise taxes are goofy. i didn't feel comfortable and did not vote against the last amendment that somehow we would not ever raise on a quarter million. i don't think that's part of this system. this is a simple, small step forward to give more flexibility. i quote our chairman. wealthy people can afford to pay more out of pocket. that he used to describe what he wanted to do with the medicare. they certainly can afford to pay a little more out of the income over $1 million. and i think this is reasonable. it's balanced. it's where we're ultimately going to be. i think it would be a credit to the committee if we acknowledged it and approved the amendment. >> i want to as one other thing. i know that a lot of people are concerned these are the job

creatives. if you raise their taxes they're going to employ fewer people, not going to take the risk they would otherwise take. i want to repeat a story many of the new members have not heard yet. some of the older members have heard it. but i have a brother who's been a very successful entrepreneurial. he's in the barbecue restaurant business. and he always voted republican because he wanted to pay less tax. back in 2008 he called me and said, john, you'll be happy to know i've decided to support president obama -- at that point senator obama. all democrats this year. i said, that's fwraet, bob, what was your e fipny. he said, well, i finally figured out that if nobody can afford barbecue it doesn't matter what my tax rate is. i've told that story hundreds of times. every time i do i get an incredible reaction because that's where we are in this economy. we have basically hollowed out the middle class. for the last 10 or 15 years they've seen no increase in their standard of living or purchasing power. the people we're talking about

right now including my brother have seen their lifestyle go sky high. he doesn't mind if he's asked to pay a little bit more. he's not going to change his business decisions. he's not going to change his lifestyle. as a matter of fact, he says this is a very appropriate measure at this time. he would rather see more people afford barbecue, not so much worry about his tax rates. with that, i urge everyone to support this amendment. >> gentleman yields back. the gentleman to the right of me just reminding everyone the time on the clock is simply the maximum amount of time that everybody wants to use and that it can go anything lower. not just to the gentleman who was speaking. this is to -- for everyone i think he wants to convey. to the gentleman from california for ten minutes. >> thank you, mr. acting chairman, for that admonition. you know, this is my seventh budget markup here. we make our arguments at one another. i think i could make most of

yours as well as you could make them and you could probably make most of ours as well as we could make it. we hear this one a lot from you guys. you know, the rich must pay their fair share. you hear back from us that it doesn't make sense when you're trying to create jobs to attack job creators. whereas i agree with that, that's not the point that i'm going to make. the point that i'm -- we need to solve this thing. we've got this deficit problem. we've got to solve this. or we will be like grease. i know that's been oversaid, but it is absolutely true. grease's problems and europe's problems have bought us a little time. we actually have a little more time to solve this problem than we tid probably a year ago. in the end we've got to solve it. and we shouldn't solve it defin one year. because that will have shocked the economy to a degree that won't be effective. but if we fix it over five or ten and we have the trajectory, we'll be in good shape.

and those are the things that i think we have to do. in this amendment, in this tax the rich argument, it's not helpful and it's not productive. i want to explain why. first of all, it's not that much money. in the grand scheme of what we have to do. the buffett ra rule, which is mentioned in here and one of several things. i understand. raises i believe the estimate i saw yesterday was $31 billion over 11 years. that means it's roughly $3 billion a year. if we have a $1.2 trillion deficit, which we do, it is a quarter of a percent of the existing deficit. we could put the buffett rule in effect tomorrow and you have 99.75% of the deficit left to deal with. okay? this is a political argument. this is not a genuine deficit argument. also, you guys use it over and over again. this is -- i think you've put forth -- this is the sixth amendment. and in three of them have

included the tax the rich proposal. you've ip colluded it to pay for your transportation stuff. to pay for your veterans stuff. you include it in some that are left to see, i don't know. you take the same dollar and use it to pay ten different times. that math doesn't work. it doesn't help to get things done. if you look at the president's budget and a lot of the things that you guys oppose in our budget -- i understand you oppose our budget and that's fine. this is what debate is about. but let's come up with something that solves the problem. then let's have that debate. then let's have that debate over things. you don't like a lot of the spending reductions we have in here. that's fine. but if you're not going to do those, taxes the rich won't cover it. you can confiscate every single dollar over $1 million and it won't come close. you can confiscate at over

$250,000 and it won't solve the problem. but the spending that's in the president's budget or that you guys want to do. so if you want to do that spending and you want to get the budget to balance in five years or ten years, then you've got to increase taxes on everybody. now, if you want to do that, that's fine. let's have that argument. let's have that discussion. but to act as though taxing the rich, to act as though the buffett rule and some of this stuff is going to make any serious improvement on this deficit thing is misleading. for that reason i believe it's counterproductive. you can say things that i disagree with. and that's what politics is about, and that's okay. but at some point we've got to lay these things out. we have to have this discussion for real. this way balances the budget. this way balances the budget. which ones are we going to choose. this can be a part of it, sure. you can do this. that's fine. but to act like it's -- you can raise spending and do this and nothing else is just flat wrong and just flat misleading. and i would argue as well that

the -- the divisiveness that this creates is not -- is not beneficial for american culture. i remember a friend of mine -- i had partners -- european partners for a long time in my business. i remember someone over there saying to me you know the difference between america and europe? he says in europe when we see someone drive down the street in a rolls royce they say, they ought to take that from him. in america when someone drives down the street in a rolls royce you say, wow, i'd like to have one of those one day. you know why that difference is? now, that's what he told me. that's because this is a society, this is a culture based on merit and not position and based on aspiration and not envy. and when you build this sort of case that you're building culturally, forget the fiscal aspects of it, i think you're taking out building blocks in what is a very critical part of american culture.

you know, we don't -- we don't attack the baseball player who hits really good. we admire that person because of their talent. and that's -- and i use that analogy, but you can use other things. anyway, i really think this part of this discussion is not i havelarly productive and i've a number of other people who wish to speak so i'd yield a minute and a half to mr. rokita. >> i thank the gentleman. i associate completely with the gentleman. if we could have the slide, slide two i was talking about. yes. this is in graph form exactly what the gentleman from fo here we have the taxable income of americans based on their total income. you see the bars on the far right. those are the millionaires that are being discussed. and you see the dollar bills that they possess, their property. as the gentleman says, you can take 100% of everything they

make, and you won't be able to touch the debt and the deficits that we've accrued. there are not enough oprah winfreys. there are not enough peyton mannings. there are not enough federal bureaucrats if we took everything we owned and assumed two things. that they wouldn't move away to another country and that they would continue to produce. you have to go to the middle class. because that's where the dollar bills are. that's where their property is. so any -- anybody, whether it's mr. yarmuth, the president of the united states or anyone else who says just tax the rich, know this, they're coming for you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. mcclintock. i yield to mr. mcclintock for -- what do you need? a minute? minute and a half. >> a minute and a half will do it. the gentleman in ohio in his litany forgot the -- produced one of the most prolonged periods of economic expansion in

american history. the gentleman is correct. he did raise taxes as part of a budget deal later in his administration in which he was promised $2 or 3% of spe$3 of s cuts for every tax increase. he lamented later we got the tax increases. he never saw the spending cuts. a tax is not an antedote to a deficit. a deficit is a tax. it is a future tax. taxes and deficits are the only two ways we can possibly pay for government spending. we either tax now or we run a deficit and tax later. the fact is over the past ten years, going through -- from 2002 to 2012, through the recession, through the recent tax cuts, revenues are still up 33%. population inflation, by the way, in the same period up 35%. so revenues tracking pretty much population and inflation growth. the problem is that our spending

has grown 76% in the same period. the deficit is a spending driven problem and ultimately must be addressed on the spending side. >> mr. mulvaney for a minute. >> i have very little to add to what mr. campbell said. in fact, it was perhaps the most reasoned and well balanced articulation of our philosophy that i've heard in a long time. i commend him for saying that. i do want to commend the gentleman from kentucky for the very least taking a position that tries to lower the deficit and doesn't actually spend the additional money. you heard me today talk about taxing and spending. this one at least is just taxing without spending. i have to commend you for that. you go ahead and take that slide down, mr. campbell made that point. i would encourage my colleagues to consider this. because we hear this a lot about the clinton era taxes. it is true. it is true that we had levels of prosperity during this country where we had higher levels of taxation. that does not mean that we had prosperity in this country because of those higher levels of taxation.

and that raising our tax levels has nothing to do with getting us back to prosperity. in fact, the exact opposite is true. you encourage us on a daily basis to look at what's happening in europe. oh, republicans, don't cut spending. you'll end up in a recession like greece. what i think is lost too often, there have been tremendous tax increases in many european countries including greece. they're learning the hard way what happens when you raise taxes during recession. again i say to you that while we did have prosperity with those higher tax rates, we did not have that prosperity in the late '90s because of those tax rates. we continue to have a spending problem. the only way to fix that spending problem is to spend less money, not to take more money from people. with that i yield back. >> thank you. my apologies to mr. ribble and mr. flores. i yield back. >> gentleman is recognized for one minute for the purposes of closing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think one of the arguments we just heard repeated several times is one of the most bizarre arguments i've ever heard. that is because we don't solve the problem of our deficit in one fell swoop with one step that we shouldn't do it. if that were the case looking at

the other side, why would we cut the s.n.a.p. program? why would we cut head start? why would we cut head start and education programs and foreign aid. none of those by themselves helped get us in our deficit. this has to be a balanced plan. the democratic budget which we will introduce is a balanced plan. we cannot just look at the expenditure side of the problem when we have a revenue problem, as well. anyone who doesn't think we have a revenue problem is not looking at this in a balanced way. it does not solve the problem by itself. it is an incremental approach. it is something we have to do to get our deficit in order. >> the questions those in favor sayaye. noes have it. >> mr. garret? mr. garret no.

mr. simpson? mr. campbell. mr. campbell, no. mr. calvert. mr. calvert, no. mr. aiken. mr. cole. mr. cole, no. mr. stetsman, no. mr. langford. mr. langford, no. ms. black. ms. black, no. mr. ribl. mr. ribbal, no. mr. mull vanny, no. mr. young mr. young, no. mr. amish, no. mr. gin ta, no.

mr. aiken. mr. aiken, no. mr. vanholen, no. ms. captor. ms. captor aye. ms. mcculm. ms. mcculm, aye. mr. honda. mr. honda, aye. mr. ryan. mr. ryan, no. ms. moor. ms. caster. mr. shuller.

ms. bass. ms. bass, aye. mr. simpson. >> absolutely not. >> mr. simpson, no. >> are there voters looking to change their vote. if not the clerk shall report. >> on that vote the ayes are 15 and the noes are 22. >> the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. we are recognizing mr. pascarel for the purposes of announcing an amendment. >> the clerk will designate the amendment. call out the amendment first. >> an amendment offered relatby

pascarel. >> now the gentleman is recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. can we have the chart up here, please? out of all the positive economic news i think the most interesting point i saw was the increase in manufacturing. manufacturing activity grew at the f months and now orders rose to nine month high. new dollar manufacturing sales creates $1.70 worth of economic impact. it is middle class jobs with workers earning 23 #% more than workers in other parts of the economy. yet due to what can be best described as duty by policy makers manufacturing was previously in a decades long decline, one could say 20 years decline. u.s. domestic manufacturing

declined since peaking in the mid 70s at 19.5 million jobs, workers and then fell off a cliff during the past decade ozu.s. multinational companies exploeted tax loopholes. during the recession the manufacturing workforce plummeted falling to a near 60 year low. and we have lost millions more without the president and the congress acting to assist the auto industry. during the recession it's a long time, this recession. the manufacturing sector is incredibly important to me because of my own hometown which is the seat of manufacturing in this country, patterson, new jersey. we have seen a turn. we turned the corner with over the past two years on the leadership that is present. u.s. manufacturing sector has added more than 400,000 jobs,

first period of sustained job growth since the 1990s. meanwhile manufacturing production has increased by about 5.7% on an annualized basis since the lull in 2009. at a recent weighs and means hearing secretary gietner, i had the opportunity to talk to him about building and how the tax code can be formed to accelerate the gains to not only stop the flow of jobs abroad but also to reverse the flow bringing these jobs back here. i have been working to develop a tax credit that rewards companies that return jobs in operations to the united states by reimbursing them up to 20% of the relocation cost. this mirrors the president's proposal for a 20% tax credit

while also working to close tax loopholes for companies. look, it just doesn't make sense how we are helping those corporations send jobs offshore and yet those corporations are bringing them back to this country. we are not giving them assistance. now we know what the real depth of subsidizing manufacturing is in many of the countries we trade with. this is unfair to our manufacturers. it is unfair to business. it is not a democrat or republican issue. i think it is a matter of fairness. we look at the laws between our countries that we do trade with. amendment i introduce today builds on the momentum in manufacturing. democrats recognize we cannot just be a country of consumers. we must build our economy. i would like to yield to the gentleman of ohio with your

approval. >> thank you. i thank the gentleman from new jersey. i want to add how important this is in what we have seen in ohio in measures of make it in america and also what happened with the auto industry. i know many of my friends on the other side didn't support what the administration was doing with that. in ohio we have seen success. one out of every ten jobs in ohio is related to the auto industry. in my hometown we make the chevy cruze. the supply chain throughout the state because of a focus on manufacturing. and i think what else needs to come into this are some of the policies that the president had of putting tariffs on chinese steel tubing. also $2 billion worth of investments to steel tuque companies including a chinese tubing company located in the

united states because we were able to beat back some of these unfair trade practices by the chinese. i think the fact that we can get people making things again in the united states is important but it has to be part of a comprehensive agenda of workforce development, the veterans jobs core, community colleges and these different things including the tax incenti incentives. i want to thank the gentleman for this amendment. i will support it and i hope the friends on the other side will help make it happen. >> section 199 of the manufacturing deduction and tax code, it's an incredibly important preference for manufacturers. it also costs money which i think is well worth it. we can help manufacturing by not turning tax code upside down. those folks who want to bring jobs back