myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. we are told that in a few minutes we'll resume the debate on child nutrition where we left off yesterday. before we were abruptly interrupted by the majority's strategy to prevent legislators from ledge stating. i urge my colleagues -- from ledge stimulating. i urge my colleagues if you support this support our commonsense motion to recommit. listen to the national school board association who in a letter today wrote, quote, the motion to recommit recognizes that federal regulation of the paid meal price is not in the best interest of the school districts implementing school meal programs, close quote. they are urging congress to support the motion to recommit. . listen to child care experts who today announced strong support for the motion to recommit.

to inquire background checks on all child care providers who participate in federal child nutrition programs. and, mr. speaker, i'd ask unanimous consent to have both of those letters entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kline: mr. speaker, i support the suspension. i ask my colleagues to support the suspension. but please support the motion to recommit and provide the real protections our children and families need and deserve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday we rose so that we would be able to defeat the motion to recommit on the child nutrition bill. and somehow this was a misuse or abuse of procedure. i think what we see today is that we were very wise to do

that. because the intent of that motion to recommit on the child nutrition bill was to kill the bill. now, ordinarily we would have accepted that motion to recommit on this bill but we're all aware -- we're beat over the head in this house of what's going on in the senate. the senate republican leaders just sent a letter all signed by all 42 republicans that they would not consider any legislation until the tax cut legislation is dealt with. and in "the new york times" it's said to have cast a long shadow over all remaining legislation before their body. and "the wall street journal," "the wall street journal" says that it's going to -- it puts a road block up before other issues that have been proposed in the senate. we knew yesterday that we were dealing with a bill that came from the senate, that was the subject of many hearings in the

senate committee, that passed after debate and amendments unanimously, bipartisanly out of the committee, was reported to the floor and after debate was passed unanimously on a bipartisan basis in the senate. we also know that we're not going to be able to offer the house bill that mr. kline, myself, our staffs, the members of our committee on both sides of the aisle worked on, because we cannot get it considered in the house, i mean, in the senate. we know that we must take now the senate bill if we're going to make the progress on many of the issues that we agree on across the aisle that are in this bill. but we also know that we will not be able to change this bill from the senate to pass unanimously and send it back into that senate in the current array. because now any senator will be able to object to what was previously done by unanimous consent because of other issues

that are taking place in the senate. while we agree on a substance of the motion to recommit, we could not let that kill this bill. so today the members can make their concerns known and vote for the motion to recommit. i hope they will on both sides of the aisle. that can be sent to the senate and if the senate feels the same urgency that we do about the protection of our children, both to make them self and to make them healthy, they can take up that suspension vote by u.c. sometime late before christmas and pass it. if not, i'm sorry to say the gentleman will be chairman of the committee in january and this can come out on -- i'm not sorry that you will be the chairman, i am kind of sorry that you will be the chairman, not that you will be the chairman but that the chairmanship will go to the other side of the aisle. anyway, this can be brought up on suspension and sent to the

senate. but we cannot risk the value of the underlying child nutrition bill. we cannot risk the changes that it makes to make those school lunches and breakfasts and nutrition programs safer for our children with the changes in the recall law when something goes very wrong in our food supply in this country and children's lives are threatened, their health is threatened. the schools must be notified on a timely basis. we cannot give up the opportunity to send this bill, to provide for healthier meals, to combat this incredible increase in our nation of obesity and diabetes and children presenting with adult diseases and illnesses because of diet. this is one of the first lines of defense against obesity and diabetes as designed by the american pediatric association, the nutrition association. people who are concerned with

and understand and deal with on an everyday basis of the health of america's children. we're trying to incorporate that in this legislation. so that's what's at risk here. we're trying to do it the best way for the members of the house, where we don't have to put at risk the child nutrition bill, but we can clearly state that this is a priority of the house, to protect our children in these settings by having background checks for the providers of those. i would suggest that it may be better done in the next session when we can look at what's the cost of that on small providers and family daycare providers. there's a story suggesting it may be hundreds of dollars per provider or hundreds of dollars per employee. so we can look at that. but the fact of the matter is, given the u.c., which really says, in the united states senate, given the letter sent by senator mcconnell to senator

reid, basically says, no other issues will come up before the tax cuts are dealt with. now, the tax cuts, what he's saying is, until they get the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country, the poor children in this country who need child nutrition, who need school lunches, who need school breakfasts will have to wait. this house has an alternative. we can vote to pass the child nutrition bill and we can send it to the president of the united states today. and then they will be assured that those school lunches that are healthier, that are safer will be there. and finally let me say, they will also be assured, as will their parents and the taxpayers of this nation, that the moneys that we appropriate for eligible children will be used on eligible children, that we're not going to cross subsidize our activities in the school with federal moneys designed for the lunches and the breakfasts and the snacks of poor children in this country. and i know that the other side

apparently doesn't like this provision, but this is about accountability. we don't allow people and the food stamp program to go out and subsidize other people in the supermarket who think they don't want to pay whatever the price is for what they're buying in the supermarket. take a couple of food stamps and do that. we're not going to use federally taxpayer dollars and child nutrition dollars to cross subsidize other activities in schools and then risk the ability to pay for the lunches of the poorest children in this nation. so today you can vote for the -- this suspension bill on background checks, you can vote against the motion to recommit, save the child nutrition bill and send it to the president of the united states and make it the law of the land and i hope my colleagues will do that and will do it with great pride that we're making dramatic improvements in the child nutrition programs of this nation, to be more efficient, more transparent, to be healthier and to be safer for this nation's poor children. and i yield back the balance of

my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6469. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition?

>> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1745, i call up h.r. 4853 with the senate amendment thereto and i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. designate the senate amendment and designate the motion. the clerk: h.r. 4853, an act 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. senate amendment. mr. levin of michigan moves that the house concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 4853 with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1745, the motion shall be

debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on ways and means. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: 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's here. he said just a few months ago in talking to a.p. 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, and i quote, i'll probably vote for it myself, end of quote. 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 more mid -- 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. and for two years, very importantly, this bill will protect more than 25 million taxpayers from the a.m.t., the alternative minimum tax, by extending it, as i said for two years through 2011. and very importantly, it permanently extends the small business expensing. so add it all up, these tax cuts. we're talking about tax cuts for middle american families over $1.5 trillion. and i want to be very clear because often it's raised about small businesses.

97% of american small businesses receive a tax cut under this bill. it's only 2% of the very wealthy which will not receive a tax cut. so in a word, the time has come. the smokescreen 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time.

the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: the unemployment rate in october, the latest data available, was 9.6%. that marked 15 consecutive months we were at or above 9 1/2 percent unemployment in this country, the longest period since the great depression. all told, 48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since the so-called $1 trillion stimulus bill and nearly 15 million americans remain unemployed. what's the democrats' answer to the great recession, increase taxes. but not just any taxes. democrats and the bill before us today are targeting half of all small business income in the country. democrats are targeting the very employers we need hiring more workers and buying more equipment, not paying more taxes. let's face it. this bill is as misguided as it

is footal. this is the wrong policy -- futile. this is the wrong policy at the wrong time and the majority is wrong for bringing it to the floor today. many of their own members agree with me. i have a letter signed by over 30 democrat members of the house, and let me read what they wrote, and i quote, in recent weeks we have heard from a diverse spectrum of economists, small business owners and families who have voiced their concerns that raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth. given the current frew jilt of our economy, we -- few jilt of our economy we share their concerns. i repeat that. raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that this letter be submitted into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. camp: set aside for a minute the economists and the political rhetoric and let's look at what small businesses say the impact of this tax hiking legislation will be. according to the national

federation of small businesses, the businesses most likely to face a tax increase by raising the top two rates are businesses employing between 20 and 250 employees. according to u.s. census data, businesses with between 20 and 299 workers employ more than 25% of the total work force. those who are most likely to be hit by these taxes -- these tax increases employ one out of every four workers in this nation. this democrat tax hike is putting a target on the back of every worker in every small business in america. as for the futility of this exercise, it will be comical if it prpt so irresponsible. democrats can barely muster the votes in this house. i was told they had to whip the bill and hold a special caucus this morning just to move forward. their position is so precarious they won't even allow republicans to offer amendments

or any alternative. why? because democrats know the republican bill to extend the current rates for all taxpayers would pass with broad bipartisan support. so once again house democrats have closed down the amendment process in order to pass a bill that will never see the light of day in the senate. just yesterday 42 senators sent a letter to majority leader reid and stated in no uncertain terms, and i quote, they will not vote on cloture to any legislative item until the senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all american taxpayers, end quote. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that this letter be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. camp: clearly this bill is going nowhere. democrats are wasting time while americans are looking for work. democrats are playing games

while americans struggle to make ends meet. the american people did not send us here to posture. they sent us here to provide solutions. i'd hope that after the election we'd get down to working together to solve some serious problems americans are facing. that's why i was encouraged the president agreed to have democrats and republicans, house and the senate to hammer out a deal on these expiring tax rates. i thought maybe we'd turned a corner. instead of letting that process work itself out, instead of working with republicans to prevent job-killing tax increases, house democrats are back at it again putting politics ahead of everything else. this is a time for serious negotiations and solutions, not political stunts. far too much is at stake. far too many families are out of work and far too many families will soon seek real and sizeable amounts of money taken out of their paychecks if

the democrats continue with these games. i urge my colleagues to reject this democratic tax hike, this job-killing tax hike, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve -- i yield 15 seconds to myself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: this is the fact the tax policy center. only 3% of small businesses would be affected, and of that only a small get most of their income from small businesses. this isn't about politics, mr. camp. this is about people. i yield -- i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of this legislation as the best way to move our economy forward. the middle class tax relief extends significant tax relief to every american.

let me say that again. every american. under this legislation no matter how much you make, the first $250,000 will continue to benefit from today's lower rates. and given the softness in our economy and the number of households that are still struggling, that's the right thing to do. but what this legislation does not do is put an additional $700 billion on our national credit card, as our republican colleagues would like to do, by extending an extra bonus tax cut to the folks at the very, very top. instead, for the top 2%, those reporting income over $250,000, we have the clinton era tax rates on just that additional portion of that income. and with our annual deficits now topping $1 trillion and our national debt approaching $14 trillion, it's the right thing to do to make sure our economy is on a sustainable footing for the future.

we have the bipartisan commission debating that question right now, and yet our colleagues want to put $700 billion on our credit card. now, our colleagues that we just heard said that it was necessary to create jobs. really? these are the tax rates that are in effect today, and during the bush years and during the eight years of the bush administration 600,000 private sector workers lost their jobs with these rates compared to the clinton administration. $23 million -- 23 million jobs created in the clinton administration with the old rates at that particular time. moreover, the nonpartisan congressional budget office recently looked at 11 different options for strengthening the economy. this one came in dead last. now, we also heard from our colleagues that they tried to use -- they tried to use small businesses as a smokescreen for their plan to protect this bonus break for the folks at the top. first of all, as my colleagues

said, only 3% of small businesses are affected. 3%, 97% not. but what's interesting is when you look at the 3% what you find out is in the definition of the tax code, one that apparently has been used by our colleagues, people may be surprised to find a lot of mom and pop operations like price waterhouse coopers, asset manager fidelity investments, and k.k.r. fall under the pass-through income definition. just the other day, k.k.r., that small business, purchased del monte foods for $4 billion. now, those are all good businesses, but they're not small businesses and they would benefit from the proposal that we and the president have made to provide 100% depreciation for their investments this year. that will help jobs and the economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr.

speaker. i urge support of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means, the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. why are we playing these political games? we have 15 million people out of work. we have families, small businesses, seniors, job creators facing a near $4 trillion tax bomb that will go off on january 1. and here we are playing political games. this bill's dead on arrival in the senate. everyone knows it. we're wasting time today. worse than that, it undercuts the president's own sincere efforts to work with dave camp, the ranking member of the ways and means committee, senate republican, senate and house democrats to actually come up with a real solution to solve this problem. instead, this body is rushing forward with more political theater. my question is, wasn't september the time to play political games? right now with the clock ticking, shouldn't we be all

about solutions? let's talk about two myths. democrats say let's pass this, it will help jump-start the economy, it will do just the opposite. one, the people they hit, these consumers hold one of every $1 -- hold $1 out of every $3 in consumption. instead of spending money for christmas, send it to washington. secondly, it damages the small businesses who are the backbone of job creation. you'll hear this claim that it only hits 3% of small businesses. you know how they figured that? me counted the tax i.d. number. so people that have small businesses that have been vacant for years are still counted. but if you count the actual income from small business, that's what gets taxed, half of all small business income, half of all the income that creates the jobs in america will be hammered by the democrats' tax bill.

and don't take my word for it. the joint committee on taxation, the congressional budget office, the president's own head of the council of economic advisors said passing all tax relief for all people in america will boost the u.s. economy more than this bill. final point, these dollars won't be used for deficit reduction. democrats and the president signed seven bills. $625 billion of tax increase in the last few years. guess how much went to deficit reduction. not a dime. it all went to expand the government and double that to a bigger government. let's stop playing games. let's get real solutions. let's have an up or down vote that extends tax relief for all americans, that helps move us into the next two years and let's stop that ticking tax bomb. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan.

mr. levin: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman. mr. neal: i want to disagree sharply that my colleague, mr. brady, just made. america needs to have this conversation. we need to have a conversation as to how we got into the mess that we find ourselves in today. and part of that conversation is the discussion and debate over whether to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. that's the difference of opinion that we're debating right now. now, our friends on the other side are going to tell us that this has a big impact on small business despite what the i.r.s. says, and i'd even offered a proposal that would address the 3% issue moving down the road. but let's listen to one small business owner. barry fox. the president of marble king. the last remaining american manufacturer of marbles. he thinks we've lost our marbles. when asked whether the way to economic recovery was tax cuts for the wealthy, mr. fox simply

replied, absolutely not. america has paid the price for its theology. the theology that tax cuts pay for themselves. they inherited a near perfect economy 10 years ago. record job growth, deficit eliminated, the debt being paid down and alan greenspan warned us we were paying down the debt too quickly. this argument today is about fairness. it's the type of taxes that we wish tone vision in this matter helped to create. even the nonpartisan tax policy center analyzed the bush proposal at different income levels. they found that next year for someone earning more than $1 million he or she can look forward to an average tax cut of $128,832, if we extend these tax cuts for the wealthy. and they found that next year somebody making $7 million can look forward to a $400,000 tax cut if we leave the bush

proposals in place. this is a question about how we treat the working families of america. this is a question of not cementing into the law a system with skewed benefits and i urge support for a middle class tax cut. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from the ways and means committee, from kentucky, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you. mr. speaker, what will the job create doers? this is the number one question we must ask ourselves when bills are brought to the house floor. there's always lots of talk about fairness. well, their idea of fairness toward job creators means that a lot of people will not have jobs. i'd like to remind my colleagues that under the current tax policy before the subprime mortgage meltdown that resulted largely from that dealing with fannie mae and freddie mac, we had 54 months of consecutive economic growth. what would the job create doers if they were enacted?

i wonder if my colleagues shouldn't get a bracelet with the initials wwjcd on it, what would the job creators do, before plunging off the cliff with some of these policies. it's not a question we have to ponder long. the answer is simple for anybody who has owned a business and is faced with increasing costs imposed by them by the federal government. as a former small business owner, let me walk you through the tough decisions this bill would force on millions of job creators. with obamacare and all the other burdens on top of this current tax increase. they'd have to cut back or eliminate on benefits, they'd be switching employees to part time. raises and bonuses would be replaced in all likelihood by pay cuts, layoffs or moving more companies to places that have friendlier tax and regulatory burdens. these are serious and real decisions that will face our job creators on january 1 as a direct result of this bill raising taxes on millions of job creators. if there was one resounding message in the election it was that the american people were putting a restraining order on the increasing burdens this congress and this administration

have placed on the american people. at a time when our economy's trying to recover, why would we raise taxes on anyone? why would we even partially want to impede our nation's path to economic recovery? under the current tax policy, we had growth. if we move into this direction, we will see a repeat of the failures of the roosevelt administration in 1937, causing a gross double dip in our economy and it's going to hurt every american. this past tuesday president obama hosted a summit at the white house where appointed members of congress were asked to work in a bipartisan fashion to device a solution to the pending tax hikes and what was the majority do here? simply try to once again force something down our throats without real discourse. house democrats chose to ignore this call for bipartisanship just as they've ignored the will of the american people on issue after issue after issue and are forcing a vote that will produce significant job killing results for small business owners faced with the uncertainty of a looming tax hike. over an ominous $3.8 trillion tax increase, it's one of the

most severe plagues that we could put on economic recovery. as a result, private sector money that would be invested will continue to sit on the sidelines. mr. brady: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. small businesses are playing defense against an overreaching federal government. it's impeding the economic recovery and not fostering predictability in order to create jobs. this vote come downs to job creation versus worsening our troubles. before you cast your vote today, ask yourself, all of my colleagues, wwjcd, what would the job create doers? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. with unanimous consent, the gentleman from texas will control the time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, a member of our committee, mr. boccieri -- becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two

minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. working americans believe that the tax code favors the rich and the influential and guess what? they're right. last year the average billionaire in america got about $100,000 back from the bush tax cuts while the average middle class family in this country received 1/2 of 1% of that. not half of that, 1/2 of 1% of that. it's time that this country began to tax fairly and invest wisely. republicans are holding these tax cuts for the middle class hostage, demanding an extra tax cut of $700 billion worth of bailout for millionaires and billionaires. all of which republicans would not pay for, which means that once again we'd have to go to china and a lot of other countries to borrow since right now the government is running a deficit. these are the same tax cuts that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say will create jobs and we need to rev up the economy for that reason and keep

these wealthy tax cuts. well guess what? these are the same tax cuts that we've had in place for the last 10 years and what have these tax cuts giving wealthy folks over $100,000 a year given us? 15 million americans are unemployed. the worst recession if not a depression we've faced since the 1930's. we've seen what the results are of these tax cuts for the wealthy for the last 10 years. now they say we need to do it again to improve the economy. it's time that this country acted sanely. it's time that we focused our attention on the middle class, give folks who have worked very hard, those who every week, every month come home with a paycheck, they see the fica deduction, they know they've paid some taxes. we need to make sure they know we're doing everything to invest in them so that maybe one of these days when we turn over the product we buy in a store and we see where it's made, it will once again say made in america because an american got a job. these tax cuts that are geared toward the wealthy would not do

that and those 3% of small businesses that might be impacted, because 97% of small businesses in america would get the tax cut, those 3% are populated by very wealthy folks. vote for this legislation. it's good for middle americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i yield myself 15 seconds. i would point out the chambers of commerce, 2,600 small businesses and business associations have signed a letter pushing and making the case for extending all tax relief for all small businesses and all taxpayers including a number from california, the orange county business council, the north hollywood chamber of commerce. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brady: i would like to yield that the point three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas who has fought against higher taxes and for more small business job creation, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding.

mr. speaker, the bipartisan negotiations are fleeting around here. the white house photographers haven't even left, the ink wasn't even dry on appointing the negotiators and then all of a sudden house democrats spring to the floor their tax increase bill on small businesses, on american families. you know what? i've heard the rhetoric of my prend friends on the other side of the aisle -- of my friends on the other side of the aisle. i'm still looking to find, where is the tax cut they're talking about? i don't see any tax cut. all i see is tax increases. half of small business income is going to be taxed under their bill. 15 million of our fellow citizens are unemployed. how many more have to become unemployed? how much more human misery? how much more rejection at the ballot box before my friends on

the other side of the aisle come to their senses? they have tried to spend their way into economic prosperity, it has failed. they have tried to borrow their way into national economic prosperity, it has failed. they've tried to bail out their way into national economic prosperity, it has failed. and here today again another opportunity to tax our way into economic prosperity. it does not work. the american people have rejected this tired old class warfare rhetoric. you cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator. the american people know this. and their voices were heard on election day. you know, mr. speaker, what i find interesting is how many democrats have come to the floor to quote the economist dr. mark

zainy, probably the most quoted economist by the democrats and yet he himself has rejected the idea of raising taxes in this economy. dr. peter orszag, one of the architects of obamanomics, now that he's out of the administration, he has written in an editorial that we should not be raising taxes. i mean, mr. speaker, this is a group that can't even get keynesian economics right. keynesian economics says you do not raise taxes in a time of recession. i mean, look at the period of almost perpetual near 10% unemployment that we've had. again, how many more people have to suffer? how many more jobs have to be lost? it's simple, mr. speaker. no tax increases on no nobody. it may be poor gram -- on nobody. it may be poor grahammer but

it's good economics. we should reject this bill and this employ. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 10 seconds. i suggest that the gentleman reread the bill, reread it. $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years, 97% of small businesses receive a tax cut. those are the facts, period. i now yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. without objection, so ordered. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, benjamin franklin once said, nothing in the world is certain but death and taxes. mr. franklin had never met the modern republican party. the only thing certain about taxes these days, if the republicans are going to use them to take from the poor and give to the rich again and again and again. and now the senate republicans

have brought all legislation to a halt, halt in this building, until the super rich get their tax cuts. they are determined to take care of the rich. that political maneuvering by the republicans brings uncertainty to the middle class at a time when they really need certainty. when they know what they're going to have in the next year. food banks are panicking all over this country because the republicans in the senate say the tax cuts for the rich go before any money for those unemployed people who are looking for their unemployment insurance. the food banks know what's going to happen. hungry people are going to be coming in. but it doesn't make any difference to the republicans. in fact, it's time to hang your christmas stocking. can you imagine the rich in this country hanging their christmas

stocking and putting in the gold of the tax cuts and the unemployed hanging their christmas stocking? the poor, the unemployed, those who don't have a check to pay for food or pay the mortgage, they're going to look in their christmas stocking and see what? coal. we know how this movie's going to come out. this bill will pass over to the senate, it will come back with a big tax cuts for the rich, some of us are going to vote no, we'll vote yes today, but no when it comes back because it isn't fair to the unemployed people in this country. that they get their money for sure when we dole it out to the unemployed one fight at a time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia who is a leader in cutting taxes, restoring the level of

government spending, the leader dess nat of house republicans, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and thank the gentleman from texas. mr. speaker, on tuesday republicans had a productive meeting at the white house that we hoped promised a fresh start after an historic election. there was recognition on both sides that it was time to put aside the political gamesmanship and the partisan rhetoric and begin working for the public to produce results. clearly, mr. speaker, that mess amming has not been sent to some in the majority today. -- message has not been sent to some in the majority today. we have a bill that would raise taxes on many small business people and working families. we know the facts. although some could say otherwise, 50% of the people that are impacted by this tax

hike get at least 25% of their income from pass-through entities. these are the small businesses that we're relying on to create jobs in this economy. but sadly it appears that the outgoing majority is more interested in staging meaningless votes that amount to political cha grinry than it is to pursuing policies that get the economy back on track and americans back to work. simply put, mr. speaker, this bill is a job killer that runs completely contrary to the discussions that we had with president obama at the white house a few days ago. a bipartisan majority in the house supports a clean bill to ensure that no american faces a tax increase in this difficult economic environment. mr. speaker, we call on speaker

pelosi to stop the gimmicks and allow all members of the house, republican and democrat, to vote on legislation that would prevent tax increases for all, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield two minutes to a member of the committee, a hardworking member, mr. pascrell from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. i've heard in the last few moments about trickled down economics. you know, here we go again. and i heard the quote, what works and what doesn't work. let me tell you what doesn't work. if you look back just a few years ago, in 2000 we had a 4.2% unemployment rate. by the end of 2008 we doubled it. not one word about that. those eight years have disappeared off your memory lapse. and by the beginning of 2009,

the concentration of wealth in the top 1% was only matched by the period immediately before the great depression. so let's get it straight. in this piece of legislation, everyone gets a tax cut. even sammy sosa. i don't know if he's playing any more. even derek jeter. they all get a tax cut up to $200,000. and of course if they are couples, up to $250,000. even billionaires will get a tax cut up to $250,000. you have never communicated it because you have never told the total truth. this legislation is very specific about how we're going to help the middle class. i believe a five-year extension would provide better. i don't believe we should extend indefinitely any tax cut , but i'm going to vote for this bill because i refuse to allow the middle class to be the victims of partisan

gridlock. america's middle class is the reason i've come to the floor multiple times over the last six months to declare the necessity of taking a vote on these taxes. and, mr. speaker, i went to my own district. there are 334,000 households in the district. less than 1%, less than 1%, 1,092 are making $1 million or more. their argument is dead in the water with heavy sand that brings it deeper and deeper because they don't talk about the middle class. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i would just say in comment to my friend's remarks, this is not about giving anybody a tax cut. this is about preventing a tax

increase in a time of great unemployment that has gone on, as i said in my remarks, for more than 15 months at 9 1/2 percent. and now i'd like to yield to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding. a couple months ago i'm walking through a manufacturing facility in the western suburbs of chicago with the entrepreneur that started it. this is a guy who about 45 years ago is living on the northwest side of chicago with his wife, and he's a tinkerer, you know, the type of person that goes in the garage and comes up with some idea, a blue-collar guy, and comes up with an idea. and over a period of time he borrows a couple thousand bucks from his mother-in-law and builds up a little business. this is a very typical story. this isn't unique to chicago or detroit or new york. this happens all the time. he then builds that business up and i'm sitting down with him

and his son whoa is now running it and -- who is now running it and the guy is 75 years old. i told him about his business. he talked about 2008. it's now a lean operation. he further says, congressman, the smart move for me is to put three quarters of a million bucks in this production line and he points to a production line on the floor. i ask him, are you going to do the smart thing? and he says, no, i'm not. of course i ask him why not and he says because washington, d.c., tells me i'm rich. see, i file as an individual, and washington, d.c., tells me i'm rich. so that means i got to hold on to capital because i don't know what's going on. i think my taxes might be going up at the first of the year. and then further, he mentioned health care, he mentioned cap and trade, he mentioned ambiguity in the capital market. but for the life of me i can't understand why we as a body have not figured out that we

need people like him, my constituent, the entrepreneur to go out and hire folks. and he's not going to do it if his taxes are going to go up. and this is not a uniquely republican revelation, mr. speaker. peter orszag recently said that now is no time to raise taxes on anybody. dr. christina roam ert argued now is -- romert argued now is not the time to tax anybody. since the democrats have been able to control this process for years and now we find ourselves 30 days out from the largest tax increase in american history and we're having this junior varsity argument about whether we should nickel and dime the very people that we're trying to create an incentive for, i just think we can do better. i think the american public, mr. speaker, has an expectation that we are going to do better. i think, frankly, the white house has an expectation that we can do better. so i urge us to defeat this

today and to really get about this very serious idea of how it is that we create not just certainty and predictability but an environment where the entrepreneurs that i've described and i represent and we all represent say to themselves, yes, i want to invest and i want to hire more. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will remind members to direct their comments to the chair. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 10 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 10 seconds. mr. levin: 90% of small businesses will not pay any more taxes. they'll get a tax cut. i now yield a minute and a half to mr. crowley, a distinguished member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. crowley: i thank the gentleman for yielding me that time. the united states is united in blocking all of american

businesses. that's trouble for america. the republican plan will not keep our troops at war safe. the republican plan will not extend benefits to people who have lost their jobs because the company relocated overseas. the republican plan will not pay down the federal debt, and the republican plan will not create one new job. aren't these the very same priorities that americans want us to be focusing on? yes, but that is not who the republican plan will benefit. this bill will cut taxes for every american who earns up to $250,000. this bill will eliminate the marriage penalty permanently for the first time in congress' history. this bill will cut the cost of college for young people in america. this bill will cut taxes for small businesses. instead, the republican plan will increase taxes on every american family who makes less than $250,000 a year because

unless we do it their way there will be no bill. so exactly who will the republicans try to help in this legislation? this little dog, trouble, that's who. trouble is leona helmsly dog who inherited $12 million. under the republican plan if trouble doesn't get a tax break nobody else should. and that's very troubling. under the republican plan, america will -- mr. levin: i yield the gentleman an additional half minute. mr. crowley: under the republican plan, america will go to the dogs. this dog received $12 million. how many americans who work in new york or michigan or california or florida or georgia earns $12 million in a lifetime? they'll protect this little dog but they won't protect the middle class of this country

and that, i think, is wrong. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield a minute and a half to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. herger: thank you very much. mr. speaker, we are now in some of the worst economic times since the great depression. 9 1/2 percent unemployment nationally. i have areas in my district that have doubled that amount. this is certainly the wrong time to be raising taxes. we need to stop this tax increase for all americans, for the hardworking families who are struggling to make ends meet and also for the small businesses that are relying upon to create jobs and to grow our economy. the bill before us today will result in a massive tax increase on small business owners, entrepreneurs and job

creators at the very time our country most desperately needs them to succeed. and to hire more employees. mr. speaker, this is no time for half measures. i urge the house to reject this flawed bill and instead pass legislation to ensure that no american sees a tax increase on january 1. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. under unanimous consent, the gentleman from -- mr. levin: i yield myself 10 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: unanimous consent to continue to control the time. now i recognize the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin. mr. levin: thank you. i yield myself 10 seconds. once again, 97% of small businesses will continue to receive -- they'll get tax cuts, not tax increases. those are the facts, period.

i now yield two minutes to -- a minute and a half to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 4853, the middle class tax relief act of 2010. during these times of economic difficulty, middle class and working families need all of the help that they can get. extension of the alternative minimum tax for two years and extending the 2001, 2003 tax cuts for marginal individual income will protect more than 25 million families from the alternative minimum tax. this legislation will make permanent the temporarily reduced taxes on capital gains and dividend income for taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 for single

filers and $250,000 for married couples. the bill will maintain the current 15% rate for middle class taxpayers. higher education has becoming increasingly difficult to pay. certain modifications to the education incentives included in the economic growth and tax relief reconciliation act. student loans are in serious need of retention. this bill will provide the opportunity for individuals to deduct. there has never been a time greater when the middle class needed a tax break. that time is now. let's do it today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee,

the gentleman from nevada. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. heller: i strongly support tax relief for the middle class and others, but today's bill is misguided. nevada is struggling. it has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. more than 14%. some counties in my congressional district are as high as 16%, 17% unemployment. real unemployment probably closer north of 20%. at home in nevada i constantly talk to families, small business owners and workers struggling to make ends meet. that's why i have supported extending unemployment insurance. . today's washington knows what's best class warfare and of so-called tax relief is a dangerous way to go. the outgoing majority party does not understand that tax hikes do

not create jobs. the skwlout going -- outgoing majority party doesn't understand the bigger government doesn't create jobs. the outgoing majority party still doesn't understand that more regulations still doesn't create jobs and doubling down on failed stimulus spending which this bill does also is, too, the wrong way to go. it bears repeating simply because the current outgoing majority so often fails to listen, the income levels in the bills today exclude many small businesses. and it's those small business owners who are the job creators in the economy. 3/4 of all new jobs are created by small businesses which employ half of all private sector employees. these are the entrepreneurs, the patent filers, the exporters, start-ups, and the innovators. they, not washington politicians, are the ones who will lead our nation out of its economic struggles.

yet today we are asked to support a tax increase on them. i have a letter here signed by a number of national and local organizations who strongly support extending the current tax relief. in the letter i say, quote, strongly urge congress to end the tax uncertainty plaguing the business community by extending the expiring 2001, 2003 tax rates. nowhere in this letter, nowhere in this letter signed by 28 pages of organizations -- thank you. nowhere in this letter signed by 28 pages of organizations and businesses nationwide do they waffle or endorse these income limitations. several chambers of commerce and local base -- businesses from around the state of nevada who understand the importance of the certainty in our tax policy have signed on to this letter. businesses like silver state

bear gate. star sound audio, and air system s incorporated. today's exercise and political theater is bad politics. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. speaker, it's now my real pleasure to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. this is kind of a comical debate in a way. we hear time after time after time why would we want to pass job-killing tax hikes? well, i would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle why did they write them into the law? because these are republican tax hikes that we are dealing with. trying to decide what makes sense both from a fiscal standpoint and from a fairness standpoint. i love the fact that people talk about job-killing tax hikes as if every small business is going to make a decision based on what

their personal tax rate is. i come from a family of small businesspeople. my father was a small businessperson -- business person who built a small company, i have a sister who is a small business person. i ran a small business. not one of us ever made a decision about what we would do in our business based on whether a few more percentage points would come out of our net income, particularly when we are dealing with people who are mostly making millions of dollars a year. i have one brother who is in the barbecue restaurant business. i talk to him about what impact taxes have on his decisions in business. he said, you know, if nobody can afford barbecue it doesn't matter what my tax rate is. that's where we are as a country. we have a measured portion of our population whose standard of living is stagnated over the last 10, 20 years and we have a small percentage who have done very, very well thanks in part

to the tax breaks that they were given back in 2001 and 2003. we can afford to give everybody tax cuts if we want to raise the national debt another $700 billion. i think we have to draw a line somewhere. we have to say that people who have done extremely well over the last 10 years thanks to the bush tax cuts need to pay a little more. this won't kill jobs. it won't -- we won't be crying crocodile tears for them. it's more important that we make sure that the vast majority of americans have the income they need to drive this economy. that's where the businesspeople, small and large, will be. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. -- >> not one american taxpayers' taxes will be reduced as a result of passage of this bill.

let as be clear what's at stake today. a vote for this bill is a vote to raise taxes on millions of american families and small business owners. the democrat leaders argue that we have to raise taxes to reduce the deficit. but this is absolutely false. the burden to reduce the deficit should be on congress and not on the backs of the hardworking americans. it is our job to make the tough spending cuts and restore fiscal discipline not to make millions of american businesses and families a scapegoat for our debt. keep this in mind, no tax increases ever created one job. if america's private sector is going to create the jobs we desperately need, congress must stop the threat of new taxes, get out of the way, and let employers have some certainty for once. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to respect the message of the american people from election day. and let's reject this tax hike scheme. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure

to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from nevada, a member of our committee, ms. berkley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. berkley: i thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this legislation. today's vote is an affirmation of this congress' commitment to middle class americans and a crucial step in getting our economy back on track. this tax cut extension does not exclude anyone. what it does is permanently extend middle income tax relief which will provide much needed certainty to our small businesses, our entrepreneurs, and create conditions for law enforcement growth. while still dealing responsibly with the federal deficit, and let us not forget it is a burgeoning deficit. this legislation ensures that on january 1 every american will be -- every american will be paying lower taxes than under current law. it will extend relief from the

alternative minimum tax for two years and provide permanent relief from the marriage penalty. it also permanently extends tax credits like the improved child tax credit, simplified earned income tax credit, and numerous benefits for education. for our small business owners we are also permanently increasing the amount they can expend so they can quickly realize the benefits of their capital investment. these provisions are critical to nevada's economic recovery. it is good for my congressional district, the city i represent of las vegas, that is really hurting and the people of the great state of nevada. we owe it to our fellow citizens to pass this bill and ensure that we are creating conditions for renewed economic growth. the certainty of this legislation creates and will bolster consumer confidence, provide businesses with tax certainty, and foster long-term

investment. nobody can argue or quibble with its benefits. these economic conditions are essential to the health of consumers -- consumer laid economy like las vegas. we still have work to do both in terms of promoting jobs and removing uncertainties in the tax code. we must quickly move to legislation that prevents -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. levin: i yield 30 seconds. ms. berkley: we also have to work on our estate tax to pre--2001 levels. i look forward to that discussion with the bill i introduced with congressman brady as the basis for the debate. let's get moving. this is the easy stuff. this we should pass without any uncertainty or concern that we are not doing the right thing for the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes

to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fattah. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. fattah: let me thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding me this time. there are theory and facts. there are democratic tax rates in which we saw 22 million new jobs created and we saw the balancing of the budget and hundreds of billions of dollars in national debt paid off. then there's republican tax rates called the bush tax cuts in which we saw a net loss of 600,000 jobs and we saw trillions of dollars added to the national debt. these are facts. you compare to eight years of clinton to eight years of bush. you compare the two rates. and you look at the jobs and the effect on the debt and the deficit. and we know what the reality is. our friends on the other side say, well, we don't want to hurt the economy. the best way not to hurt this

economy is to do away with the set of policies that created the situation we are in now with 15 million people without jobs are -- our national debt doubled. as economic theory i think we should get rid of the income tax and move to a consumption tax, but theory is something you can debate and you can wonder about. facts are facts and we can't hide from them. the facts here that upped the bush rates -- under the bush rates this country is seeing unemployment spike by millions. our debt rise by trillions. so we come to say that maybe the republicans were right when they put an expiration date on this because they didn't really know what was going to be the result. we see the calamity, we' the economic calamity that has resulted from doing these types of uneven tax breaks weighted to the top 2%.

so we come today saying for 98% of the middle of our people in our country, people at 250 and under, they should continue to have and make permanent a break on their taxes. for the wealthiest, for their first 250,000, they should get an identical break. we should return to the clinton break or the democratic breaks thereof. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will note the gentleman from michigan has five minutes remaining. and the gentleman from michigan has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first of all i want to associate myself with the previous speaker, my friend from pennsylvania. i, too, support a consumption tax, a fair tax, tax simplification, in whatever form. i hope we can come together to work on tax reform and tax simplification in the year ahead. today, though, we are doing a

show and politics. we are passing -- we are voting on a bill which the speaker knows there aren't the votes to pass. she furthermore knows that if it did pass the senate is not going to pass it. today is all about political show. it's about more class warfare. it's interesting that the speaker would choose this route because november 2 i believe that brand of politics was squarely rejected by the voters all across america. we also know that the economic policies of the speaker and the president have failed. when the stimulus bill was passed, unemployment was about 7.6%. we were told this would keep it from going to 8%. but here we are now with unemployment at nearly 10%. 15 million people out of work and we are hearing again from the democrats that this is what we need to do to turn the economy around.

i believe the american people spoke on that squarely and i think the statistics show we are at 10% unemployment rate it's not going to work. about 75% of small businesses, and i think there's something like 27 million in the country, 75% of them file their taxes as individuals. 750,000 of them actually would come under this category of getting a tax increase. and these are people who are the first to turn around and hire folks when the economy improves. these are sheet rock contractors, these are restaurant owners, these are other tradesmen who have two, three, four, five, 15 employees. they are going to be the first ones to turn around and hire folks. so right now we do not want to hit them with a high tax increase. we need to reject this and continue with the white house and come up with a compromise. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan.

mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield one minute to our very distinguished majority leader, mr. hoyer of maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of this legislation. first let me say that there were two messages that came from this election in my opinion. maybe others as well, but certainly these two. one, we need to grow jobs. we need to have more jobs for our people. we need to grow our economy. the second was, we are very concerned about the deficit. . i agree with both of those conclusions in this election. i think we need to do both of those. in the short term in order to grow the economy we have to invest in the economy and we need not take money out of the pockets of consumers. now, as a result of the tax bills that were adopted in 2001

and 2003 because we wanted not to have the scoring for a longer period of time and the deficit displayed exploding they were made to sunset. that is to say tax cuts were put in place and then they were dunsls setted. it so happens that they dunsls set at the end of this month. that would -- that they sunset at the end of this month. and if we didn't vote for that to go into effect taxes would increase on everything. what this bill does is says, no, we want to cap. we want to make sure that no american has any tax increase for the first $250,000 of their income. no american. 100% of american taxpayers would be exempt under this bill from any increase in their

taxes on january 1 of this year. one of the other messages that the american public said to us, when you can reach common ground, when you can reach agreement, why don't you guys take it? why don't you move forward where you can agree and then spend time on that which you cannot agree upon but at least do that on which you can reach common ground? now, i haven't heard all of the debate. i've been in other meetings, but my suspicion is almost everybody, if not everybody on the floor wants to make sure that the first $250,000 of income of any american is not subjected to a tax increase on january 1. that's my conclusion. now, somebody will come up and say, no, you're wrong on that, but if so i stand to be

corrected. but we have reached common ground, i believe, on that proposition. that's what this bill carries forward. now, we have disagreements. as i said, the second message was, they're very concerned about the deficit. i'm very concerned about the deficit which i think, as i was quoted in the paper yesterday or the other day as saying, it's the most critical challenge that confronts this country that impacts on every other challenge we have in this country including our ability to bring taxes down and create tax reform. now, we don't have agreement on other elements of the republican tax program of 2001 and 2003 which will sunset pursuant to that policy on december 31. and the issue, therefore, before this house right now is

whether we're going to hold hostage the first $250,000 of income of every american or we're going to say, no, we have agreement, we'll resolve that and then we will contend on the other issues. whether we argue about necessity to cut taxes on those over $ 50,000, on impacting small business, on growth of the economy, all of that's a legitimate argument. but i really do not believe we have disagreement on what this bill intends to do. it's just that some people think it doesn't do enough. i understand that. but very frankly, my friends in the house and in the other body, we have been holding hostage american policy to agreement on 100%. or in the case of the senate on 60%.

the american public are frustrated by that. i'm frustrated by that. i think that's not the way a legislative body works. the legislative body works when you can create consensus, move forward. now, somebody will get up and say, no, we should increase the first $250,000 of income and let that sunset. i doubt that anybody said that. i doubt anybody believes it. but if you don't believe it, any member of this house, then vote for this bill. not only does it save income but it takes earned income tax credit, it takes capital gains, it takes childcare tax credits and says that the first $250,000 of income will not be subjected to an increase. i can't believe we don't agree on that. i'm hopeful that every member will vote for this. now, i frankly want to say i don't think this is the final

package. we know that the senate has disagreement. we know that the white house has its own view, but this will be critically important if we move this issue forward. and some people on the other side say let's act and let's act now. fine. then, let's give them a vehicle in which to act. revenue issues as we know have to initiate in the house. now, this vehicle is a vehicle that i think will be used and can be used by the other body to effect consensus policy. but let us not hold hostage that on which we agree to that on which we do not agree. so i would urge my colleagues, vote for this legislation. let's move this forward. let's give the confidence to american working people that we are united in the conviction that in this tough economy at

this time they ought not to see an increase in their taxes on january 1. that's what this vote is about, and i urge my colleagues to support it and i thank the gentleman from michigan, the chairman of the committee and, yes, mr. camp, the ranking member, who will soon be chairman of this committee, for their efforts on this bill notwithstanding their disagreement on its substance. i thank the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, for yielding, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i would just say i listened very carefully to the majority leader's well-reasoned arguments and if in fact this bill were going somewhere they would have made a great deal of sense, but we know now that the senate will not take up this bill. 42 senators have signed a letter that they will not take

up any legislation unless it is dealing with the potential tax increases on all americans. i also have a letter that i -- was sent to the house of representatives dated today from the national association of manufacturers. and there's probably been no state hit harder than michigan, no sector hit harder in michigan than manufacturing. and i want to quote from this letter that says, manufacturers strongly support extending the 2001 and 2003 tax relief for all taxpayers. over 70% of american manufacturers file as s corporations or some pass-through entity and will be significantly impacted by these higher rates. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office fully extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would add between 600,000 and 1.4 million new jobs in 2011 and between 900,000 and 2.7 million jobs in

2012. i would ask unanimous consent that this be made part of the record. mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? mr. camp: yes, i will yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the courtesy of my friend for yielding. if he heard what i said -- and i know he was listening. i thank him for that. he and i both know revenue bills must initiate in this house. so if the senate is to effect what those 42 members suggested they wanted to see, then it must have a vehicle from this house on which to act. what i suggested and what i believe is that when you say this bill is dead, i think -- i'm not sure i agree with you because in my view it will be this bill on which they will ultimately reach whatever compromise is available in the united states senate. so in fact i think this is an important vehicle to reach perhaps the compromise that we all know is ultimately going to be necessary while at the same

time expressing the views i think of -- i think the overwhelming numbers of us that certainly the first $250,000, we may not agree on further or another level or something but certainly would the gentleman disagree that we all agree on the first $250,000? mr. camp: i thank the majority leader and reclaiming my time, i think we would have much better chance if the vehicle that was sent over to the senate was actually one that dealt with the potential tax increases or all americans. but i know my time is very short and i just wanted to say i also have a petition, a coalition letter sent to us by over 1,300 businesses, trade and local chambers of commerce urging that we extend the current tax policy for all americans in preventing a tax increase from going into effect. i would ask unanimous consent to submit the series of coalition letters. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. camp: i think what has happened today is a charade. i am glad it's coming to a close. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. speaker, first, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material in the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: 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% -- these are the facts -- of small business owners would not get the additional tax for income over $250,000. only 3%. 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 increase -- 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 our time to our distinguished speaker of the house, the gentlelady from california, nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker is recognized. the speaker: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i commend him for his great leadership in terms of working and being a champion for america's working families, america's middle-income families who need so much help at this time of this down economy. mr. speaker, this has been a very interesting week. yesterday in the capitol

hundreds of people looking for work came to the capitol of the united states. they came because they knew that the day before unemployment insurance benefits had expired for people looking for work. they knew that by the end of december unless this congress acts two million americans will lose their unemployment insurance. two million americans. this is the first time in american history when unemployment benefits would have been allowed to expire at this rate of unemployment. they came looking for jobs. they came in the spirit of fairness to say until we can find jobs we need to continue unemployment insurance. and what they heard was that the republicans in the senate had said, if you want

unemployment insurance it has to be paid for. well, they have paid into unemployment insurance, but we want to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in america to the tune of $700 billion and that doesn't have to be paid for. now, i think we should use a measure for everything that we do. what does it do to create jobs, what does it do to reduce the deficit? unemployment insurance, the economists tell us, return $2 for every $1 that is put out there for unemployment insurance. people made the money, they spend is immediately for necessary its. it injects demand into the economy, it creates jobs to help reduce the deficit. giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in america does add $700 billion to the deficit, and the record and

history shows it does not create jobs. it does not create jobs. i mention this because this is the context in which we bring up this tax cut for middle-income families in america today. and while some on the other side say this is not going to make a difference, it indeed makes a difference. let me say unequivocally there will be no tax bill for any situation unless there is a tax cut for middle-income people in our country. . that's what this vote is about today. that is our declaration. that is what we send to the table for the discussion that the president has so rightfully called for. what our republican colleagues are saying is we know they must support tax relief for the middle class, right? and this is tax relief for every

income filer, everyone gets a tax break. but what they are saying is, unless you give an additional tax break to the wealthiest people in our country adding to the deficit and not creating jobs, we are not going to vote for middle income tax cuts. as mr. hoyer said, holding the middle income families in america hostage for the tax cuts for the wealthiest. who are they? some create wealth and create jobs and we want to reward success in america and they do get a tax cut in this bill. some of them are getting bonuses on wall street. did you see the announcement? almost $90 billion in bonuses on wall street after all that they had put us through. not all of them, but some of them. $90 billion, with a b, dollars in tax cuts. and under what the republicans

want to do they are not going to pay -- they want a tax break for that. a bonus and tax break on top of it. but, no, we can't give middle income tax cuts unless you do that. and no, if we do unemployment insurance, it has to be paid for. but not a tax break for these billionaires, for these bonuses on wall street. this is so grossly unfair. it is so grossly unfair. i can't imagine that my colleagues on the republican side don't want to give a tax cut to the middle class. why don't they just vote for that? they can try to add whatever else they want and have that debate. but to say that this is not the right thing to do i think is not the right thing to say. and so we had a situation where we come out of an election, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. that's what those hundreds of people looking for work came to

capitol hill looking for. they were looking for jobs. they were looking for security for their families. one young man, 35 years old, stood up and said, i'm 35, i have -- i'm married, i have a 4-year-old child. i have been out of work for two years. i'm a college graduate. a trained professional. don't tell me to dip into my savings. my savings are all gone. don't tell me to go ask help for my family. i have already done that. they have done what they can but they are strapped as well. don't tell me to cut back on what we do as a family. that was something we did a long time ago. until we have tried to live as we look for work on unemployment insurance, insurance, and you're now telling us that congress cannot pass that unless it is

paid for. while it is giving, i'm saying, a tax cut to the wealthiest people in america, $700 billion unpaid for. $700 billion added to the deficit. something is very wrong with this picture. but we come to this floor, we democrats today, with great clarity. the tax cut for middle income families will create jobs because people will spend that money again, injecting that into the economy and create jobs. that is something that will, that growth will help to he reduce the deficit. while the record shows and history -- recent history acknowledges that the tax cuts at the high end did not create jobs. those tax cuts were in place during the bush years. and more private sector jobs have been created this year than

the entire eight years of the bush administration. they simply did not create jobs. if you want to create jobs, if you want to reduce the deficit, if you want to stabilize the economy, if you want to support the value of what the middle class -- middle income families mean to our country, these workers who came with veterans, they were the backbone of our country, they came from the heartland of america. they came from a place where we in this congress and with this president saved the auto industry, saved the auto industry without the measures taken by the obama administration and this congress, we would have unemployment that's even higher. but that's not good enough. we want unemployment that is lower. this tax cut takes us to that place. this tax cut, not what the republicans are proposing, will help create jobs, instead of what they want to do is not create jobs and increase the deficit. so the choice is clear.

it's not about signatures that i'm not going to do this unless you do that. we are very clear. there will be no tax bill unless there is a tax legislation that gives middle income families in america the fairness they deserve, the respect that they have earned, and the economic opportunity for creation of jobs, reducing the deficit, and stabilizing our economy. i think this choice is clear. i urge our colleagues and i hope we could have some bipartisan support for middle income families in america to vote aye on this important legislation. i thank mr. levin for his leadership and yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: all time has -- for debate has expired. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of

this motion is postponed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on the following motion to suspend the rules previously postponed. h.r. 6469 by the yeas and nays. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. george miller, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6469 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6469, a bill to amend section 17 of the richard b. russell national school lunch act to include a condition of receipt of funds under the child and adult care food program. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the

national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 416, the nays are three. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to

reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, proceedings will now resume on s. 3307 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: senate 3307, an act to re-authorize child nutrition programs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. >> mr. speaker. i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20,

the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 198. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 200, the nays are 221. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye please

say aye. those say no -- those in favor please say aye. those say no. >> mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 258, the nays are 156. the bill is passed. without objection a motion to reconsider --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 264, the nays are 157. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, proceedings will now resume on the motion to concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 4853 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 4853, an act 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. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1745, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion by the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, the 15-minute vote on the motion will be followed by a five-minute vote on suspending the rules with regard

to house resolution 1313 if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker: on this vote the yeas are 234. the nays are 188. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and fwreg to house

resolution 1313 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 1313, resolution expressing support for designation of may as child advocacy center month and commending the national child advocacy center in huntsville, alabama, on their 25th anniversary in 2010. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are -- >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the resolution is agreed to. >> mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is

expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 413, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, seek recognition?

ms. lofgren: i call up prifflet resolution h. res. 1737 in the matter of representative charles rangel and ask for its immediate consideration. the clerk: house calendar number 246, house resolution 1737, resolved that one, representative chearls b. rangel of new york be censured, two, charlings b. rangel present himself in the well of the house. three, be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the speaker. and four, representative rangel pay restitution to the appropriate taxing authorities or the u.s. treasury for any unpaid estimated taxes outlined in exhibit 6 on income received from his property in the dominican republic and provide proof of payment to the committee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one hour. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to yield 30 minutes of my time to the the gentleman from new york for purposes of debate only and for his control of those 30 minutes. of my remaining 30 minutes, i ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes of my time to the the gentleman from alabama, the ranking member on the committee of standards of official conduct, mr. bonner, for purposes of debate only and for his control of those 15 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i yield such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman may proceed. ms. lofgren: as chair of the standards of official conduct and the subcommittee in the matter of mr. rangel, i rise in support which calls for censure, article 1, section 5 of the constitution provides each house

may punish its members for disorderly behavior and with the concurrence of the members. the committee on standards is realming ethical standards that ensure that members and staff act in a matter befitting the public trust. this role of the committee to review allegations that a member has violated those standards, in this case after a lengthy and thorough investigation that spanned more than two years and 5,000-page report, the committee concluded that this member violated those standards. we were charged with recommending an appropriate sanction to the house. the entire report has been available to members of the house and the public on the committee's web site and many portions have been publicly released since july. here is a brief summary of the findings of that report. in this matter, we found that representative rangel engaged in misconduct in four areas. mr. rangel improperly sole is ted individuals with business and interests before the house to fund the charles b rangel

center at city college of new york. he misused official resources to make those solicitations for millions of dollars and improperly sole is ted funds from lobbyists and failed to file disclosure statements for 10 years and accepted the benefits related to his use of a rent stabilized apartment as a campaign office under circumstances that created an appearance of impropriety. and failed to report and pay taxes on income he received on property he owned indom republic. his conduct in each of those four areas violated laws and regulations and rules of the house namely that he violated the gift and solicitation ban, a statute enacted by congress in 1989, violated clauses 2 and 5 of the code of ethics for government service, violated postal service laws and regulations issued by the franking commission, violated

the rules of this house, violated the purpose law arbitration statute derives directly from the constitution, violated the ethics in government act and violated the internal revenue code. a bipartisan majority of your colleagues concluded that 11 of the 13 counts in the statement of alleged violation regarding these areas of misconduct were proved by clear and convincing evidence. we found his actions and aaccumulation of actions reflected poorly on the institution of the house and brought discredit to the house. nothing we say or do here today will in any way diminish his service to our country or our gratitude for his service both in this house and as a hero of the korean war. but that service does not excuse the fact that representative rangel violated laws. he violated regulations, he violated the rules of this house and he violated the standards of conduct. because of that misconduct a nonpartisan committee staff recommended he be censured and

the majority of the committee recommended censure and the committee voted that he be pay restitution to the taxing authorities. censure is a serious sanction and one rarely imposed by the house the decision to recommend that was not reached lightly. the committee considered the aggregation of representative rangel's misconduct. the committee concluded that his violations occurred on a continuous and prolonged basis and were more serious in character meriting a strong congressional response rebuking his behavior. for the violation, the committee considered not only the amount of taxes he failed to pay over many years but the fact that he served at various times in influential position as chairman and ranking member of the ways and means committee. it brought discredit of the house with this member with great responsibility for tax policy did not pay his taxes for many years. some have questioned whether a recommendation of censure is

consistent. it is true that the committee's roughly 40 years of experience, the house has censured four members. it is true that for precedent to be followed, a precedent must be set. we follow precedent, but we also set it. for example, nearly 30 years ago, the committee recommended that two members be reprimanded for engaging in sexual relations with pages. the house rejected the recommendation and instead censured those two members. it is possible that if that situation were to occur again today, this house might not feel censure a severe enough action. many of this body pledged four years ago to create the most honest, most open and most ethical congress in history. censure for this misbehavior is consistent with that pledge. at the hearing, the nonpartisan committee counsel said clearly that representative rangel's pattern of misconduct was sloppiness and said that did not excuse miss misconduct.

in light of those considerations, a bipartisan majority of the committee concluded that it was appropriate to recommend to the house that representative rangel be censured. key decisions were made with bipartisan votes, not all votes were unanimous but each on the basis of a bipartisan majority vote. the purpose is not punishment but accountability and credibility. accountability for the respond ent and credibility for the house itself. where a member has been found by his colleagues to have violated, that member must be held accountable for his conduct. representative rangel has violated the public trust. while it is difficult, actually painful to sit in judgment of our colleagues, it is our duty under the constitution to do so and accordingly i bring this resolution to the floor today. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. bonner is recognized for 15

minutes. mr. bonner: i yield such time as i may consume. this is a solemn moment for this house at a time in little under an hour all of our members will have an opportunity to make a statement with their vote. as such and because the rules allow the rules mr. rangel to defend himself against the recommendation of the committee and the committee's time is being evenly divided between the chair and the ranking member, i want to inform the body that there will only be three members on this side of the aisle who will speak. i say this because there have been a number of members who have approached me even on this committee asking for time. but out of respect for all and especially in light of the rare nature of this debate, i intend to recognize our time only to myself, mr. hastings, the former chair of the ethics committee

and our colleague who served almost two years on the investigative subcommittee as well as our colleague, mr. mccaul, who serves as the ranking member of the ajude ca tower subcommittee during that phase of that matter. if other matters care to have their views inserted into the record, we would have no objection. with that, i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccaul: first, let me thank the gentleman from alabama for his leadership on this solemn occasion. this is this is an important day for mr. rangel, the congress and the american people. as ranking member in the rangel adjudicatory proceedings and as a former worker in the department of justice, i take this seriously. no member asked for this

assignment. but we accept our responsibility here today for no other reason than to protect the honor, integrity, and credibility of this great institution. the american people's confidence in us is at historic lows. they want their elected representatives accountable for their actions, just as they are held accountable as private citizens. today, we have an opportunity to begin a new era restoring the trust of the american people. the committee agreed on 12 of the 13 counts, finding he violated multiple rules of the house and federal statutes. including the most fundamental code of conduct, which states a member of the house shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect credibility on the house. credibility is exactly what is at stake here. the very credibility of the

house of representatives itself before the american people. most egregiously, the committee found that mr. rangel failed to pay his income taxes for 17 years. and this, while serving as chairman of the committee that writes the tax laws of the nation. what kind of message does this send to the average working man or woman who plays by the rules and struggles every day to pay their own taxes? mr. rangel also solicited contributions from corporations, foundations, and lobbyists who had business before his committee to build a school bearing his name. i've consistently opposed members of congress naming monuments after themselves. the committee recommends the most severe punishment available both on the facts and the precedent this sanction is

both rare and historic. founding father john adams said that moral authority and character increases as the importance of the position increases. in his letter to the speaker, mr. rangel stated that as chairman of ways and means, he is to be held to a higher standard of propriety. i agree. mr. rangel failed to hold himself to this higher standard. the american people deserve better. while i sincerely feel for mr. rangel as a human being, i feel more strongly that a public office -- may i have 15 more seconds? >> i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i feel strongly that a public office is a public trust and mr. rangel violated that trust. the speaker challenged us to enter into a new era of

transparency and accountability. mr. mccaul: let us begin today, let justice be served, let us begin to enter into a new era of ethics to restore the credibility and integrity of this house, the people's house, and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bonner: i yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from washington state, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is are recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend from alabama for yielding time. for over two years, i served on the investigative committee that reviewed allegations and evidence involving mr. rangel and we found a substantial reason to believe, which is what our threshold was, that violations occurred. because the facts of this matter are not disputed, i will not comment on the evidence. i will, however, comment on the length of the investigation and particularly a statement made

by mr. rangel regarding the confidential work on the investigative committee. first on the length of the investigation, chairman green and i, when i was ranking member of the subcommittee, had every intention of completing the investigation before the conclusion of the 110th congress. but events intervened. in september of 2008, mr. rangel publicly pledged he would release in a timely manner a forensic analysis of 20 years of his tax returns and financial disclosures. however, we did not receive the report until may of 2009, eight months later. then in december of 2008, serious new allegations involving neighbors industries resulted in the committee's unanimous decision to expand its jurisdiction. in august of 2009, amendments filed by mr. rangel to his financial disclosures raised serious new questions, resulting in the committee unanimously expanding the investigation once again.

finally, after receiving the information long requested from him, the subcommittee completed its work and sent the statement of alleged violations to him on may 27, 2010. remember that date. now, on mr. rangel's statement, and here i'm going to be very crittle, mr. speaker. let me read a statement he made in an article dated june 6, 2010 in "politico." i'm quoting mr. rangel now. i would normally believe being a former federal prosecutor that if the allegations involve my conduct as a member of the house and there's a committee with republicans and democrats there that you refer to the committee. and if they are so confused after 18 months they can't find anything, then that is a story. end quote. mr. rangel, in my view, had misrepresented the work of the subcommittee. why do i say that?

because the comments he made were comments over a week after -- after -- the subcommittee had transmitted a detailed, confidential statement of allegations, acompanied with thousands of pages of documents to him. he knew the contents of the report. confused? there is no confusion. everything was in his possession he knew what the subcommittee produced and he deliberately misrepresented its contents. in fact, he was aware of the subcommittee's work as early as december 15, 2009, when he testified before the committee. in addition, after he received this s.a.v., he subsequently met in executive session at his request two more times with his council. mr. speaker, i mention this because there was discussion of process in this matter. it is completely disingenuous to suggest that the subcommittee had treated him unfairly.

mr. speaker, the investigating subcommittee completed its are responsibilities to the house and the american people in a timely, professional, and responsible manner. the facts supporting the 11 violations are not disputed. i will vote for the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bonner: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. >> i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 30 minutes. mr. rangel: first, let me apologize to this august body for putting you in this very awkward position today. and to the ethics committee, i do recognize that it is not a job that many of us would want to have.

last week, as we were reading about the north koreans attacking the south koreans, i was haunted by the fact that on november 30, 60 years ago, i was in korea as a young 20-year-old volunteer in the second infantry division. and on that occasion in subzero weather, 20 degrees below zero, the chinese surrounded us and attacked and there were hundreds of casualties, wounded and killed and captured.

screams were heard, i was wounded, and had no thoughts that i would be able to survive. but god gave me the strength not only to survive though wounded, but to find my way out of the entrapment and for three days i had the strength to lead 40 of my comrades out of that situation and we all were haunted by the fact that so many of my comrades did not survive it. i tell you that story, not for sympathy, but to let you know that at that time in every sense, i made up my mind that i could never complain to god for any events that occurred in my life. and that i would dedicate my life in trying in some meaningful way to improve the

quality of life for all americans as well as as much as i could do for humankind. it is for that reason that i stand to say that i have made serious mistakes, i do believe rules are made to be enforced, i do believe we in the congress have a higher responsibility than most people, i do believe that senior members should act in a way as a model for new and ress experienced members. i do believe that there should be enforcement of these laws, there should be sanctions. but if you're breaking new ground, i ask for fairness. none of the presidents of the history of this great country has -- never in the history of

this great country has anyone suffered a censor when the record is abundantly clear that in those investigations which i called for, the committee found no evidence at all of corruption. found no evidence of self-enrichment, found no evidence that there was intention on my part to evade my responsibility, whether in taxes or whether in financial disclosures. and there's absolutely no excuse for my responsibility to obey those rules, i take full credit for the responsibility of that. i brought it on myself.

but i still believe that this body has to be guided by fairness. and so that's all i'm saying. i'm not here to complain. i have too much to be thankful for. being from where i am and being where i am today and once again it's been awkward, especially for my friends and supporters, but i want to respect the dignity of the community that elected me to serve them, i want to continue to serve this congress and this country and do what i can to make life better for other people and i think we all agree that in 40 years, i tried my darnedest to do that. so at this point, by unanimous, i would like to turn the remainder of the time that the chair has given to me to my

fellow colleague, bobby scott. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from virginia may control the time. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i served on the special subcommittee appointed to investigate this matter and descended from the subcommittee report and i rise to oppose the pending motion to adopt the resolution. i believe that under precedence of the house, imposingsen sure on one of our members for violating procedural rules of the house would be singularly harsh and unfair and without precedence. mr. rangel acknowledged his mistakes and he's asked to be punished fairly, punished just like everybody else similarly

situated. accordingly, i believe punishment is appropriate but i believe censure is in appropriate. congressman charles b. rangel is a dedicated public servant and dedicated soldier who made outstanding contributions to the people of the united states and to this institution. yet he has has made mistakes which resulted in violations of the rule of official conduct for members of the house and he will be punished for those violations. the question is, what is the appropriate punishment? we need not answer this question in a vacuum. congressman rangel is not the first member to violate rule ares of official conduct. we have ample precedence from which to glean the appropriate punishment. it's clear from the precedence of the house thatsen sure is not a fair and just -- that censure is not a fair and just punishment. the committee counsel during

the hearing acknowledged those elements are not found in this case. furthermore, the committee report in this matter acknowledges that the recommendations for censure in this case is a violation of prior precedence. the point is made in the report on page 7, and i quote, although prior committee precedence for recommendation ofsen sure -- censure involves direct financial gain this committee's recommendation for censure is based on the cumulative nature of the violation not direct personal gain. cumulative nature violations to support the committee's recommendation censure is without precedent. in the case of congressman george hansen, the committee stated that and i quote, it has been the character of the offenses which establish the level of punishment imposed new york city -- not the nature. neither the character nor the

cumulative nature of the violations warrant a censure. now eight of the 11 counts that the committee found that congressman rangel has violated are for raising money for the center at the public university in his congressional district. the program is to train young people to go into public service using his life experience as an inspiration. assisting a constituent institution with such a project is not a violation in and of itself, but there are proper procedures to be followed if you are going to raise money for a local college. he openly assisted the institution clearly with nothing to do anything improper but he did violate the rules by not following proper procedures. once a determination was made that he used official resources to help the local college, that one mistake has been converted into almost eight different counts. one, he used the letterhead, two, he used the staff, three,

used office equipment, frank mail, all from the fact that he cannot use official resources. that was a violation and what should the punishment be for raising money improperly? we have the case of former speaker newt gingrich and funded a college course aimed at recruiting new members to the republican party after he had been warned not to and found to have filed false reports in 13 instances causing substantial delays and expense to the committee and did not lose his job as speaker. congressman rangel did not lie about his activities and he believed he was doing right, although he made mistakes and he received no prior warning as did speaker gingrich. yet congressman rangel lost his chair man shp on ways and means and faces the possibility of a

censure, not a reprimand. another example of raising money involved former house majority leader tom delay. he was admonished for participating in energy company fundraiser which the committee found created the appearance of special treatment or access. mr. delay was cited for his partisan conflict in the textous house of representatives using resources of a federal agency, the f.a.a. and in an ethics investigation that involved accusations of solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions in return for legislative assistance, used corporate contributions in violation of state law and improper use of official resources for political purposes as i think everybody is aware, recent news reports that mr. delay has been convicted of charges of money laundering in connection with circumventing a state law against corporate contributions and political

campaigns and been found guilty, the media reports that he faces possible prison sentences between five and 99 years in prison and yet the house did not censure mr. delay, nor did they impose a reprimand but issued a committee letter. mr. rangel has made mistakes and should be punished like everyone else in the past consistent with precedent. now on the issue of mr. rangel's rent stabilized apartment as a campaign office, mr. rangel's landlord knew of his use of the apartment for a campaign office and did not see it as illegal. the committee records reflect, an attorney for the new york housing authority has testified that the use decision was up to the landlord. if somebody rented the apartment that was not technically protected by the rent stabilization law, the tenant is not protected, however the lease is permed. that's what the attorney said for the housing authority said.

i don't know if that's right or wrong, but that's what he pleeved and landlord pleeved and the housing authority lawyer believed. let's talk about this apartment. it had been vacant for months. charlie paid sticker price for the rent, he passed nobody on the waiting list. this is not a corrupt scheme. to the extent there is a violation, let's punish him consistent with others who have had problems. earlier, it was found by the committee to have been paying more than market rent for his campaign headquarters. the rent paid to family members who owned the building. he wasn't censured or reprimanded but received a committee letter. other cases of campaign violations have not resulted in censure. one example is the case of bud shuster for violation of house rules relating to campaign and other violations. he was found to have allowed a former employee turned lobbyist to communicate with him to

influence his schedule and give him advice pertaining to his office and found to have violated the house rules and congressional staff for campaign purposes, to have made certain expenditures for campaign accounts for expenses that were not campaign or political purposes and yet he received a letter nofment a censure, not even a reprimand. both of those cases involved personal financial gain and intentional violation of the rules. the sanction for both was a letter of reprimand. there's the issue now of his failure to pay -- report income on rental property on property he owned in the come dominican republic and report those on his disclosure statement. some rental payments were reported on his disclosure so

nothing to cover up. while he did not file all his reports properly, these do not warrant censure. mistakes are usually corrected with nothing more said. the only cases where there is a violation, sanction, for failure to disclose are cases where there is some corrupt coverup. for example, failing to file campaign contributions during contrarygate or filing to have loans or assets with those who would reveal a conflict of interest. the committee found no evidence that failure to report was for financial gain or coverup. the tax issue, comment was made that he hadn't paid taxes for 17 years. if they are worried about those taxes, tax matters involved a deal where he and many others had pooled their rent and paid expenses and anything left over was profit. it wasn't as profitable.

he got a couple small checks and that was it. however, one of the bills paid was the mortgage and principal is income on which you have to pay taxes. whatever sanction there should be for that transgression should be consistent with precedent. the only example of anybody sanctioned for tax matters in this house in the history of the united states have been those who did not pay taxes on bribes they received. that's it. all we ask is he be sanctioned like everyone else. since there is no indication that representative rangel tried to conceal, censure is not the just punishment. he hired an accountant to ensure that all of the matters have been cleared up. he knows he messed up and knows he will be punished and ask he be punished like everybody else.

charlie rangel will be punished for his transgression, but neither the nature or cumulative impact has been the sufficient basis for censure nor has the level of one's position been the basis for sanction as we said in the case of newt gingrich or tom delay. both had multiple serious violations which were intentional with aggravation such as concealment, lying and failure to heed warnings, nonch of which are in this case. all the instances of censure, reprimand or other sanctions make it clear that censure is not an appropriate sanction. charlie is not asking to be excused for his conduct. he accepts responsibility. all we ask that we cite what has been done in the past and apply sanctions similar to those sanctions and based on the precedents, there is no

precedents for censure in this case. i reserve the balance of my time. >> i yield five minutes to the the gentleman from new york, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. king: i thank the gentleman for yielding. at the outset, let me express my respect for chairman lofgren, ranking member bonner, mr. hastings, mr. mccaul and all the members of the ethics committee and their dedicated effort in this painful matter. i will vote against the censure resolution because i do not believe the findings warrant the severe penalty of censure. i studied hundreds of pages of committee documents, concluding the subcommittee findings, minority view, representative scott, report of the full committee and exhibits and correspondence.

mr. speaker, censure is an extremely severe penalty. in the more than 200-year history of this body, only 22 members have been subjected to censure, none in more than a quarter century. if expulsion is equivalent of the death penalty then censure is life i am prisonment. i have no cases where charges similar to those against congressman rangel resulted in censure. thus far, the penalty has been reserved for such violations on sexual abuse of minors. in congressman rangel's case, the committee's chief counsel said he found no evidence of corruption and the committee report itself said, there was no direct personal gain to congressman rangel. mr. speaker, my religious faith is based on scripture and tradition.

my training as a lawyer has taught me to respect precedent. why today are we being asked to revert more than 200 years of tradition and precedent? there is no doubt that congressman rangel has violated rules of this house, but these violations -- there is no evidence of finding of criminal intent. as congressman scott pointed out, it was public record that charlie rangel was living in the rent stabilized apartment. that was hidden from nobody. that was public record at his campaign headquarters. it was hidden from nobody. it was also public record that charlie rangel had the home in the dominican republic. it was public record that charlie rangel was trying to obtain funding for a public university in his district. nothing was hidden. so where is the criminal intent? that is why i strongly believe the appropriate penalty is a reprimand. why are we departing from

tradition and precedent in the case of charlie rangel? certainly it can't be because of who he is or what he has achieved in his life. a kid from the inner city who emerged from very troubled surroundings to be a combat soldier and authentic war warrior who left his blood in korea, who worked his way through law school, who became a distinguished prosecutor in the united states attorney's office and elected to the new york legislature and united states congress, where he has served with distinction for 40 queers. unless my republican friends get nervous, charlie rangel is a friend and colleague, we disagree on virtually every issue. i can't begin to tell you how many times charlie have gone at it and debated on local news shows back in new york. but they are very significant debates. but during that entire time, i

never heard anyone question his integrity or ever seen charlie rangel treat anyone with disrespect, which is very unusual for somebody in his high position as many of us know, whether it be flight attendants, cab drivers, staff members or the guy on the street corner on 125th street. my colleagues, i know we can get caught up in media attacks and political storms. but i am imploring you today to pause for a moment and step back, to reflect upon not just the lifetime of charlie rangel, but more importantly, the 220-year history of tradition and precedent of this body. let us apply the same standard of justice to charlie rangel that's been applied to everybody else and which all of us would want to apply to

ourselves. i respectfully urge a vote against censure and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: who yields time? mr. scott: i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey, 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. woolsey: i rise today in defense of the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. i appeal to my colleagues and your sense of fairness as you deliberate on this matter. censure is a very serious sanction. one step short of expulsion. only 22 times in the history of this body has the house censured a colleague and not once in the last 27 years. in the past this punishment has been reserved for serious acts of corruption, taking bribes, lying under oath, gross sexual misconduct, profiting from one's office.

carelessness and minor rules violations have never been grounds for censure. far more serious ethical lapses than mr. rangel's have not met with seen sewer. for example, newt gingrich and tom delay. but they were not censured and in fact newt gingrich continued to serve as speaker of the house. mr. rangel has cooperated fully with the ethics investigation acting with transparency and expressing regret and apologies for his actions. quite simply, mr. rangel's trance gregses and lapses in -- transgressions and lapses in judgment do not rise to the level of censure. fairness, my colleagues, demands that we vote no. the speaker pro tempore: who yields time? >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. tanner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one

minute. mr. tanner: thank you, mr. scott. i, too, have, as mr. king said, enormous respect for the ethics committee. it's a job none of us asked for and none of us want. it has to be done to protect the house of representatives. as a lawyer, i also believe in precedent and i have searched this record and find no activity involving moral turpitude or any activity that could be classified as one with criminal intent. therefore, i think a -- an appropriate action that would protect the house as well as punish congressman rangel, would be a reprimand. i think that is the appropriate punishment commensurate with what has occurred here unfortunately. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

mr. scott: i yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. boss well, one minute. mr. boswell: thank you, mr. speaker. i concur with what was last said, i have great respect for the committee. nobody wants your job. i came here 14 years ago and looking back on years that have gone by, i met charlie rangel as a colleague here and then i learned sometime after that we were fellow veterans and fellow soldiers. i realize that he had served with honor and distinction and a year ago last december, i lead a co-dell, we flew to korea and reflecting back on my time as a student, teacher,

commander of staff college and read a lot of that history, the conflict i served in, as many of you, and i thought of charlie. and he was valorous and did his job. charlie's erred. we know that. i'm not going to repeat those things. he's erred. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: i yield the gentleman 10 more seconds. mr. boswell: he has erred and i think censure is too much, a reprimand is appropriate and he would accept that and i ask this house to recognize that in its history and do the right thing. i would support the reprimand. mr. scott: i yield two minutes

to the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzalez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gonzalez: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i, too, rise along with my colleague from texas to protect the integrity of this house. i simply want to do it in a different manner than the wording reflected in this resolution, which is not fair and is not just and i think we have an opportunity to still protect the integrity and reputation of this house but to do it in a fair and reasonable manner you heard about all of the allegations but i want to quote from what transpired during that committee hearing, mr. butterfield states in all of the investigation of this matter, did you see any evidence of personal financial benefit or corruption? and the prosecuting attorney, the one that may have recommended the censure, replied, i see no evidence of corruption.

do i believe based on this record that congressman rangel took steps to enrich himself based on his position in congress? i do not. this is a chance for this house to rise to the occasion and to do the right thing. that's what furthers the reputation and the good name of this house by doing the fair and just thing. we are held to a higher standard. that's why mr. rangel has admitted to his misdeeds. but since when, since when, do we forfeit the right to fair and just treatment? since when, when we take the oath as members of congress? i think not. we are a jury today and if you are a jury, you'd be admonished, do not let prejudice, bias, or sympathy play any part in your deliberations.

but the truth is, we're a very different kind of jury. we worry that we are going to be scrutinized and whatever decision we reach today in our vote, may result in political criticism. that's the greatest fear. but we will overcome that and do the very best thing. thank you and i yield back. mr. scott: could the speaker advise me how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has 2 1/4 minutes left. the gentleman from alabama has 6 1/2 minute the gentlelady from california has nine minutes. mr. scott: i yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/4 minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. like many members of the house, i have long considered charlie rangel a friend and great public servant.

but that is not before us now. we must now consider a report from the ethics committee finding that mr. rangel violated the rules of the house and recommending he be censured for that. i do not disagree he violated the rules of the house in serious way bus under our standards and precedence, his error demands a reprimand, not a censure. some sanction is necessary and appropriate but we should demand a reprimand not a censure. censure has been reserved for corruption, personal corruption, an attempt to gain money, or sexual misconduct. none of that is present here. you heard the discussion of people who were censured for personal financial gain, for bribery, for lying to the committee, and people like mr. gingrich and mr. hanson who committeed -- committed severe

infractions but were reprimanded. in this case, the chief counsel for the ethics committee said he saw no evidence of corruption and he did not believe mr. rangel was trying to enrich himself. what happened, according to the chief council was that he was overst louse in his dealings with city college and sloppy with his financial dealings. censure is a serious sanction. the decision by the ethics committee to recommend censure was based on the cumulative nature of the violations and because the 11 violations committed by representative rangel on a continuous and prolonged basis merited a strong congressional response. what this ignores, however is that eight of the 11 separate counts all stem from one factor, mr. rangel's belief that certain advocacy for city

college, an institution in his district, amounted to constituent service and constituted official action. second, he does not, as mr. bonner said, fail to pay taxes for 17 years. of course he paid taxes and filed every one of those years he did fail to report some income from a villa he owned because he -- can i have an additional 30 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: there is no further time. ms. woolsey: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields 30 seconds. mr. nadler: he believed that money he never saw a check for was not reportable, he was wrong but it was one error, i ask my colleagues to reconsider this. a censure a punishment never previously imposed for this level of violation of house rules with no adequate explanation for the change in standards offends once sense of

fair play and does not reflect credibility on the house. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks recognition. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bonner: may i inquire of the chair how many speakers she has remaining? mr. lofgren -- ms. lofgren: just mr. butterfield and my closing. mr. bonner: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bonner: this is a sad day but a necessary day to complete a matter that should have been concluded with a public trial but mr. rangel walked out of that hearing. instead, we're left with a vote, an important vote not only for mr. rangel but equally a significant vote for this house as an institution. and for how we are seen by our employers, the american people. watching at home, some are probably looking on with curiosity of sorts as we dispense with this unpleasant

yet constitutionally mandated responsibility to punish our own when necessary. in fairness, today eas actions may also confirm what many of us already know. that washington, d.c., truly is disconnected from the real challenges and worried that much of the -- and worries that much of the rest of america are facing every day. the angst of a father whose son is standing guard in some dangerous remote location in afghanistan, or the uncertainty of that single mom who was just told this week that she had been fired. not only does she have to worry about whether she can afford christmas for her children but whether she can pay the car note or the rent without a job. all across america, these are the real life crises that our constituents are facing. yet here on the house floor, one of our colleagues is dealing with something that to him and i believe to all of us should be considered a serious matter and one that deserves our utmost attention.

as i noted back on july 29, when the investigative subcommittee reported this case there is no debate but that congressman charles rangel has led a compelling life story, one that all of us can, including myself, can respect. he was a private as his autobiography says, left to die on the battlefield in north korea. he earned the purple heart and bronze star for bravery and he was a fatherless high school dropout who went from pushing that hand cart in the streets of new york city to becoming one of the most powerful figures on capitol hill. we all know the story. but my friends, mr. rangel's life story is not why we are here. after all, every american has their own unique story to tell. regretfully, this is a day that does not have to be. if only mr. rangel had settled for the lesser sanctions that today he hopes this body will