serving in the u.s. armed forces. and the life of a lutheran pastor and spy who was executed after a failed plot to execute a of hitler. and the new book, "without hesitation." find the complete the and at booktv.org. the american history tv continues with the nixon solicitor general on how he got the job. also, his reaction to the smoking gun tapes. carl anthony talks about the first lady and her partnership with the 30th president. and why one of the judges at the salem witch trials were

accused of witchcraft and 19 were put to death. american history tv, telling the american story every weekend. see the complete story online. you can also press the alert button and have the schedule he mailed to you. house democrats are meeting all of the floor so leaders can figure out what to do to start debating the tax cuts and unemployment benefits bill. some democrats wanted more time to voice their opposition to the legislation. a minute and a half. , mr. nch: thank you speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. to return to this debate -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: members, let's carry our conversations off the floor.

members. members, let's carry our conversations off the floor, please. the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. just to remind members where we are in this debate, we are about to debate and take up a measure that would, number one, preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans while we have a $1.3 trillion deficit in the current year. we would also, if this bill were to pass, create a tax exemption for estates of up to $10 million . that's for 6,600 individuals which brings to mind i'll

paraphrase winston churchill who has said, it has been some time since so many have been asked to do so much for so few. with no legitimate reason, i might add. we are also talking about raiding the social security trust fund for the next two years. a total of $111 billion. and increasing the deficit by about $1 trillion. which will require us to exceed the national credit -- debt limit. in april or may of next year with this bill passing we will definitely exceed the current $14 trillion debt limit that the country has. i had a fair opportunity to negotiate contracts when i was an ironworker. one thing i learned, and it applies to this agreement with the republican senate, there's a big difference between compromise and surrender.

and what this bill represents is a complete surrender of democratic principles and standing up to working people and makeling them -- making them carry an undue burden under this tax law. i yield back, mr. speaker. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has 11 minutes remaining. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, at this time i'm happy to yield three minutes to my very hardworking colleague from columbus, indiana, who offered some very thoughtful remarks and endured the committee on rules last night. three minutes for mr. pence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. pence: thank the ranking member for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. since last summer i have been among those voices in this congress calling for action to prevent a tax increase that would affect every american. just a few short weeks from now.

so i rise with a heavy heart today to say that as i look at this short-term tax deal negotiated by the white house with congressional leaders, that i have concluded after much study that it's a bad deal for taxpayers. it will do little to create jobs. and i cannot support it. let me say, though, that i have the deepest respect for my colleagues on the republican side of the aisle who may differ with me on this issue in the final analysis. this is a tough call. no republican in this congress wants to see taxes raised on any american. we all know what we should be doing today is voting to extend all the current tax rates permanently. the reality is that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity. and simply by extending some of

the tax rates that are on the books today for a few short years, we will not create the certainty necessary to encourage businesses to take out loans, to expend resources in ways that will put people back to work. we just know that. i was back in muncie, indiana, a couple days ago, hi a bappinger walk up to me and said what are you going to do on this? sounds like a tough deal? i said i hadn't decided at that point. he said, well, he said nobody's going to come walking into my office to sign a five-year note on a two-year tax cut. so why are we doing two years? there's an election in two years. i get that. there are people that for whatever reasons want to redebate this in two years. i get that. i just don't get how it actually gets people back to work. and with regard to the spending

in this bill, we can help families that are hurting in this economy, particularly during this cherished holiday season, but we can also figure out how to pay for it. and lastly, let me say, the american people have spoken. on november 2, mr. speaker. they -- the american people did not vote for more deficits or more stimulus or more uncertainty in the tax code, but that's just what this lame duck congress is about to give them. i think we can do better. every republican in this congress would like the opportunity to do better. and sadly, this rule does not permit us to even have a fair up or down vote on extending all the current tax rates. and i'm profoundly disappointed by that. and so i rise in opposition to this rule, but i also rise in opposition to the underlying bill. we can do better. we must do better on behalf of

hurting families and americans who want to go back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. sherman: i'll be voting yes on the amendment and if it fails as i expect it will, i will be voting yes on the bill. i'll vote yes on the amendment because we ought to have a fair estate tax in this country. but instead republicans insist that we increase the deficit $28 billion over the next two years in order to provide the lowest tax rates in 80 years on the richest few dozen families in each of our states.

we should care about the deficit. and to say that the tax rate included in the amendment is unfair is to say that every republican voted for an unfair tax when they voted for the bush tax law that was applicable to 2009. furthermore, another problem with the estate tax in the bill is that it provides a rate of tax for those debts that occur in 2010 that is less than zero. because the richest families can choose between a zero tax rate or huge write-offs on their income tax which might be even lower and they'll get the best possible tax advice. finally, under this bill, you're going to have some people who realize that if the patriarch of the family dies this year, they save tens of millions of dollars over next year. i hope that no plugs are pulled. i'm going to vote for the bill overwhelm because of one

question, compared to what? if we do not send this bill to the president's desk this year, he will certainly sign a worse bill next year. it is not clear that house democrats were at the table in the december negotiations, but it is clear that house republicans will be at the table for the negotiations in january. on this bill. the president, democrats in the senate, have already agreed to this deal and i fear that they would agree to something a little bit worse. so it is with great reluctance that i will vote for this bill should the amendment fail. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, may i inquire of my friend how many speakers he has remaining? mr. mcgovern: we still have a few more speakers, mr. dreier.

mr. dreier: is that three? mr. mcgovern: i would say three. more than a couple. mr. dreier: fewer than several? ok. in light of that let me reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. i thank the gentleman very much. i'd like to make sure we classify this not as a class warfare, if you will, but a good samaritan waiving the flag. frank -- waving the flag. if we take the best of america and recognize that working people need help so the unemployment insurance that is part of this bill is a valid part of it, the child tax credit, the payroll holiday, all of those speak to the vision of this nation. that we have the willingness to

share, we understand what men and women on the frontlines of iraq and afghanistan, they fight not for any one class or any one community. they fight for america. so when we provide an estate tax that blurs the understanding of america, that we need an estate tax that is $5 million and $10 million, we are not telling the truth. the present law provides for most americans. $3.5 million for an individual, $7 million for those who are couples. provides for family businesses. it provides for farmers. it works and it has worked. not necessarily the best, but to give $25 billion to $28 billion unnecessarily that would go and take away from education and social security and medicare, domestic spending that is necessary, is a crime. so this is not about fighting against someone who has a few more dollars than the next person. it is to do what we are sent here to do to make sure that the

capitalistic system works for everybody, including those who are now unemployed. let's get our senses together. let's get the senate to understand what the real deal is. fight for everybody. not just a small special interest group. it's time to stand up and be counted. i'd like to see this rule go forward simply because i want to put it to them that you can't spend $28 billion and waste it on those who don't need it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. at this time i'm happy to yield a minute and a half to our very, very, very diligent and hardworking ranking member of the committee on energy and commerce, the gentleman from texas, mr. barton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for a minute and a half to address the house. mr. barton: i thank the distinguished chairman to be of the rules committee, mr. dreier of california, my good friend. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. barton: mr. speaker, this is

not a bad compromise that's before us. but it is also not the best compromise. it's not a bad deal but it's not the best deal. . the gentleman from california who spoke on the democratic side just a few minutes ago i think said it the best when he said, in january our republican friends will be at the table. we are making a compromise today on the republican side, in my opinion, that we don't have to make. i think the tax cuts should be permanent, not temporary. i think the additional spending should be paid for now, not just added to the deficit. a funny thing happened in november, we elected over 80 new republicans. the majority is going from about 255 democrats to 242 republicans. you cannot tell me that the week

before christmas americans in the business community are deciding what their capital investments are going to be for 2011. those decisions have already been made. so i am going to vote against the rule and with he will -- reluctance vote against the bill. not because it's a bad compromise but because we can do better and i fully expect in january, when the republicans become the majority party in the house, that we will do better. so again this is not the worst bill that's ever been before us, but it could be better and it should be better and so i would ask my colleagues to vote no on the rule and no on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed h.r. 6516, an act to make technical corrections to

provisions of laws enacted by the coast guard authorization act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from the great state of new york, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. rangel: for the first time approaching this rule, it's my understanding that if i want to stop $23 billion from increasing the deficit by knocking out a senate provision and substituting a pomeroy, in order to do that i would have to accept the remainder of the senate bill. and i don't think that members of this house should have to make that choice. it seems to me that if you

believe that it's inequitable for a handful of people to receive such a large amount of money at the expense of the deficit, at the expense of discretionary spending, that we should have an opportunity, one, to vote against the senate bill in its present form, this does that, and, two, to vote for pomeroy which would allow us to at least control the amount of tax relief that we give to estate taxes. so i yield back the balance of my time but i do hope that we get a rule that would allow us to express exactly how i feel, republican or democrat, because if you're not a part of the deal it's hard to be supporting it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. reserves. the gentleman -- >> i inquire of my friend how many speakers he has remaining. mr. mcgovern: mr. capuano and

myself. how much time is remaining, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has 3 1/2, california, 6 1/2. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield to my colleague from the commonwealth of massachusetts, mr. capuano. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? mr. mcgovern: 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. capuano: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, like all major bills that we do here, there is good and bad in this bill. there are things i like and things i don't like. thanks a normal circumstance here. but in the final analysis, i think people have to ask themselves one simple question. are we ever going to get to the place where we pay our bills? this bill doesn't do it. in 2002, the last time this house had the opportunity to be fiscally responsible, and that's not the same thing as fiscally conservative or liberal, it's responsible, we voted to let the

pay-go rules go and the results are where we are today. this bill will kill our children with very little input or benefit at the moment. it is not an emergency. i want a tax cut just like everyone else. but i also consider myself -- i am a social liberal. i do believe in social security and medicare and senior housing and all the other things that we do here. i do believe in them. i know that others don't and i respect those who want to cut those programs. let's have that debate. but let's not do it through the back door. if you believe in those programs it is incumbent upon us to pay for them. voting for this bill simply empowers those who want to cut those programs anyway and i cannot in good conscience support that. this bill must go down even if

the deal we get next year is worse. i understand that but it's not the right thing to do for those of white house believe in the programs that we have. thank you -- for those of us who believe in the programs we have. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. dreier: is my friend prepared to close? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'd ask my -- mr. dreier: i'd ask my friend if he's prepared to close. mr. mcgovern: i am. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, with that i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, democrats and republicans alike share the goal of job creation and deficit reduction. we regularly hear that argued from both sides of the aisle. the best way for us to do that is to encourage economic growth. economic growth is the key to dealing with job creation and deficit reduction. now, mr. speaker, i don't like this bill that's before us but i

like even less the idea, i like even less the idea of increasing the tax burden on working americans. in fact, putting into place what would be tantamount to the largest tax increase that we have ever seen. i am very pleased that president obama is beginning to embrace the john f. kennedy vision for economic growth. the vision that has recognized that reducing marginal rates does in fact create jobs and create more opportunities and the famous john f. kennedy like, the rising tide lifts all boats. the fact that president obama is now moving into that direction is a very positive thing. he's also on another issue that's going to create jobs done so on the issue of trade. i'm pleased that he wants us to move ahead with what will be the largest bilateral free trade

agreement in the history of the world, that being the u.s.-korea free trade agreement. i think it's imperative for us to do this in columbia and panama as well. so that we can create union and nonunion jobs, good manufacturing jobs right here in the united states of america. that's an issue that i hope we'll be able to address early next year. so, mr. speaker, i believe that it is the right thing for us to do, for us to make sure that we don't increase taxes on working americans and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to close simply by saying that i agree with many of my colleagues who have come to the floor today to express their concern about how these tax cuts, mostly for the rich, will add ancredible debt burden on the backs of our -- an incredible debt burden on the backs of our children. we can do better than this. i'm also worried because i think

what my friends on the republican side want to do is take tax cuts for the rich off the table next year when they use a budget axe to go after domestic spending and i will say to my colleagues, that as we have this debate on tax cuts, there are a lot of people in this country who this debate is meaningless to because they're falling through the cracks and we have an obligation to help strengthen the safety net in this country and i worry about the agenda that my republican colleagues are going to pursue next year. i worry that it's going to be on the backs of the most vulnerable in this country and that is wrong. we have an obligation, a moral obligation, to be able to make sure that everybody in this country not only has opportunity but is also not allowed to fall through the cracks. we have a hunger problem in this country. we have people, we have children who go to sleep at night hungry in the richest country in the world. we should be ashamed of ourselves. we can do better than add to the deficit by giving more tax cuts to the wealthy. mr. speaker, with that with -- i

withdraw the resolution. the speake >> the house leadership decides how to move slower. one congressional leader said that frustrated liberals wanted more opportunity to register their opposition to the bill. the bill is expected to be changed in some ways to accommodate their concerns. we will bring you live coverage of the house when the numbers come back and -- when the members come back in. president obama talks about a year-long review of afghanistan. he says progress has been made. following the present, we will hear from secretary hillary clinton. this is from the white house

briefing room. >> good morning, everybody. when i announce our new strategy for afghanistan and pakistan last december and directed by national security team to assess our efforts and review our progress for one year, that is what we have done consistently over the last 12 months. there have been updates from the field, monthly meetings with my national security team and frequent consultations with afghan, pakistani, and coalition partners. that is what we have done with our annual review, part of which is complete. i want to thank secretary clinton and secretary case for their leadership and the joint

-- and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mike mullen. i also want to express the dedication of richard holbrooke. the tributes that have poured in for him across the globe expresses the broad international commitment to our shared efforts in this critical region. i have spoken with president karzai in afghanistan to discuss our findings and the way forward. today, i want to update the american people on our review, assessment of where we stand, and areas where we can do better. this continues to be a difficult endeavor. i can report that thanks to the extraordinary service of our troops and civilians on the ground, we are on track to achieve our goals. it is important to remember why

we remain in afghanistan. it was afghanistan where al qaeda applauded the 9/11 attack that murdered 3000 innocent people. it is the tribal regions along the afghan border from which terrorist have launched attacks against our homeland and our allies. if broader insurgency were to engulf afghanistan, that would give al qaeda more and to plan these attacks. we have been clear about our core goals, not to defeat every last direct last -- every last threat. it is not nation-building. it is afghans who must build their nation. we are focused on disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan and preventing a catastrophe that threatens america and our allies in the future.

in pursuit of our core goals, we are seeing significant progress. today, al qaeda's senior leadership in afghanistan and pakistan is under more pressure than at any point since they fled afghanistan nine years ago. senior leaders have been killed. it is harder for them to recruit, travel, train, and plot and launch attacks. in short, al qaeda is hunkered down. it will take time to ultimately defeat al qaeda. it remains a with liz and resilience in determined to attack our country. we will remain religion this in disrupting and dismantling that terrorist organization. we remain focused on the three areas of our strategy. our military effort to break the taliban's momentum so that afghan forces can take the lead. our civilian at first to promote

development, and regional cooperation with pakistan. our strategy has to succeed on both sides of the border. for the first time in years, we have put in place the strategy and the resources that our efforts in afghanistan demand. because we have in our combat mission in iraq and brought home nearly 100,000 of our troops from iraq, we are in a better position to give our forces in afghanistan is a port and equipment they need to achieve their mission. our drawdown means there are few americans employed -- deployed in harm's way that when i took office. we are making considerably -- considerable gains toward our military objectives. military and civilian personnel are in place along with forces from our coalition, which has grown to 49 nations.

along with our afghan partners, we have gone on the offensive, targeting the taliban and its leaders and pushing them out of their strongholds. progress comes forward and at a very high price in the lives of our men and women in uniform. in many places, the gains we have made our fragile and reversible. there is no question that we are clearly more areas on taliban control and more afghans are reclaiming their communities. to ensure afghans can take responsibility, we continue to focus on training, targeting the growth of afghan security forces. the contribution of additional traders make me confident we will continue to meet our goals. much of this progress, the speed with which troops are deployed and the increase of training of

afghan forces -- much of this is the result of having sent a clear signal that we will begin the transition of responsibility to afghans and start reducing american forces next july. this sense of urgency also helps galvanize the coalition are around a goals we agree to in lisbon. we are moving toward a new phase in afghanistan, a transition to afghan led security that will begin next -- begin next year. nato remains -- nato maintains a long-term commitment to training and advising afghan forces. or the security gains to be sustained over time, there is an urgent need for political and economic progress in afghanistan. for the past year, we have dramatically increased our

presence. going forward, there must be a continued focus on delivery -- the delivery of basic forces along with transparency and accountability. we will support an afghan political process that includes reconciliation with the taliban that breaks ties with al qaeda and accept the afghan constitution. we will forge a new strategic partnership with afghanistan next year. we will make it clear that the united states is committed to the long-term security and development of the afghan people. we will continue to focus on our relationship with pakistan. increasingly, the pakistani government recognizes that the terrorists are a threat to all our countries, especially pakistan. we have welcomed major pakistani 0 cents in the tribal regions.

we will continue to help -- offensives in the tribal regions. progress does not come fast enough. we will continue to insist that terrorist safe havens within their borders must be dealt with. at the same time, we need to support the economic and political development that is critical to pakistan's future. as part of our future dialogue with pakistan, we will work to develop trust and cooperation. we will work on projects to improve the lives of pakistanis. we will encourage closer cooperation between pakistan and afghanistan. next year, i look forward to an exchange of visits, including my visits to pakistan. the united states is committed to an enduring partnership that helped deliver improved security, development, and justice for the pakistani people. again, none of these challenges will be easy.

there are more difficult days ahead. as a nation, we can draw strength from the service of our fellow americans. from my recent visit to afghanistan, i visited a medical unit and presented purpleheart to our wounded warriors. a platoon had just lost six of its teammates. despite the tough fight and their sacrifices, they continue to stand up for our security and for our values that we hold so dear. we are going to have to continue to stand up. we will continue to give our brave troops and civilians the strategies they need to succeed. we will never waver from our goal to disrupt and dismantle and if the al qaeda. we will forge partnerships with people who are committed to progress and peace. we will continue to do everything in our power to secure the safety of the american people.

with that, vice president barton --vice president joe biden and i will be part. i will turn it over to secretary clinton and secretary gates. thank you. >> good morning. i appreciate the president's words about ambassador holbrooke. it was a week ago this morning that he and i and members of our team our meeting about this review and the conclusions to be drawn. as many have observed, he was certainly a giant of diplomacy. he understood how difficult the mission he had been given was. he threw himself into it with every fiber of his larger-than-

life being. he was deeply committed to its success. he and his team, to members of which are with me today, the acting special representative who has on the ground experience leading one of our civilian teams in the kandahar for one year, and another deputy in the operation focusing on our strategy going forward. both ambassador holbrooke and i approached this preview keenly aware of where things stood 22 months ago. this administration -- i did it is fair to remind us all -- inherited an extraordinarily difficult situation. there was no coherent strategy

to unified america's at the in the region. there was no clearly defined mission. our military and our civilian forces lacked the resources they needed to get any progress accomplished. today, we have a different story to tell. president obama announced a strategy one year ago that define a clear mission and committed the resources needed to accomplish it. today's review shows that while we face serious challenges, as the president just outlined, key parts of our strategy are indeed working well. in pakistan, we have moved beyond a purely transactional relationship dominated by military cooperation. we now have brought engagement on both the civilian and military sites.

through the strategic dialogue that we established last year, pakistan and the united states have begun a long-term commitment to work together, not just on security, but on energy, agriculture, education, health, and other areas that directly affect the daily lives of pakistani people. there will continue to be obstacles and setbacks. our conclusion is that our partnership is slowly but steadily improving. we have greater cooperation and understanding. that is yielding tangible results on the ground. in afghanistan, our search is not simply military. we have expanded -- our surge is not simply military. accomplishing our mission requires close cooperation between our civilians, our troops, and our international afghan partners. we have worked together to rest

the momentum of the taliban. civilians have been instrumental in kandahar. they will be critical to help us consolidate the gains we have made in the last year as we move toward the transition to afghan responsibility. our strategy recognizes that rebuilding afghanistan is a global commitment. the isaf mission continues to grow. today, it stands at 49 countries. the organization of islamic countries has recently joined the international contact group. they know that helping the afghan people and standing up against violent extreme live -- violent extremism is essential to the world. this part of our national effort was on full display in lebanon -- in lisbon last month. we laid out a plan for the afghan government to take

responsibility for its own security. the transition will begin in 2011 and conclude in 2014. of course, we are clear-eyed about the way ahead. the review emphasizes the need for a political process in afghanistan, including reconciliation an expanded regional and international diplomacy. it means to complement the continuing military presence. in pakistan, it will be important to keep making progress in eliminating sanctuaries for extremists. we must continue to close the gap between kabul and islamabad. we know we will not accomplish the goals the president will -- president has set forth today, tomorrow or next month. we believe we are progressing in our core go up disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al qaeda in the reaching -- in the

region. we will not and we dare not repeat history. we will continue to support the people of afghanistan and pakistan as they worked to build their future, one that is secure, prosperous, and free and does not pose a threat to the people of the united states. >> i would also like to add my condolences to the holbrooke family. richard was a tireless advocate for peace an old friend. we will met him. i just returned one week ago from another trip to afghanistan where i saw firsthand our efforts across the country. i met with troops and commanders on the ground. i saw how international afghan forces at report taliban courses across the country. -- -- forces across the country.

in my last visit, the troops near can hire with that-- kandahar -- i met with our troops who had taken territory, secure it and held it. they were in the process of creating their new zone of security. as we expected and warned, the u.s. coalition and afghan forces are suffering more casualties as we push into areas long controlled by the taliban. in the east, i saw how our troops are focused on disrupting the taliban and keeping them from gaining access to population centers. the taliban controls far less territory today than they did one year ago. the military progress made in the past four months since the

last of the additional 30,000 troops are arrived has exceeded my expectations. central to these efforts has been the growth of the afghan security forces in the size and capability. they are ahead of schedule. more than 65,000 new recruits have joined the fight this year. all of them are rifle-qualified, as opposed to 1/3 of them in november of 2009. afghan troops are already responsible for security in kabul and are increasingly taking the lead in kandahar when they make up 60% of the fighting forces. they are performing well in partnership with coalition troops and will continue to improve with the right training, equipment, and support. committees are being helped to protect themselves while denying insurgents sanctuary and freedom of movement. pakistan has committed over 140,000 troops to operate in

extremist states and -- safe havens along the border. we believe the pakistanis can and must do more to shut down the floor -- the flow of extremists across the border. the pakistani military has simultaneously been contending with the historic flooding that has devastated much of the country. our progress in afghanistan is fragile and reversible. i believe we will be able to achieve the key goals laid out by the president last year and further embraced by other nato heads of state in lisbon. that is our afghan forces to take a security lead in the coming year and for the afghan government to assume security responsibility country-wide by

2014. this process has already begun in places like kabul and will accelerate in the spring and summer of 2011. the transition will spread nationwide over time. it will be gradual and it will be based on conditions on the ground. i would like to close with a special word of thanks and holiday greetings to our troops and their families, especially those serving in afghanistan. it is there a sacrifice that has made this progress possible. i regret that we will be asking more of them in the months and years to come. >> thank you, roberts. to a question for secretary gates and secretary clinton. >> we are going to leave this to go to the u.s. house. members are coming in after recessing to talk about how to move forward on the tax-cut bill. the bill may have to be changed. live coverage from c-span.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 4010, be a act for the relief of yam da. -- yamada.

.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following communication. the clerk: the honorable -- the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that i and my capacity as custodian of records for the chief administrative officer have been served with a subpoena for

documents issued by a grand jury in new york county, new york. after consultation with the office of general council, i have determined the compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed, sincerely, daniel j. strouble.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, by direction -- by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1766 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 254, house resolution 1744, resolved that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to debate in the house the topics addressed by the motion specified in sections 2 and 3 of this resolution for three hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means or their designees. section 2, after debate pursuant to the first section of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill, h.r. 4853, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund, to amend title 49, united states

code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program and for other purposes with the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment thereto. and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21, motion offered by the chair of the committee on ways and means or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion of final adoption, without intervening motion. section 3, if the motion described in section 2 of this resolution fails adoption, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on a motion that the house concur on the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment and which the chair

shall immediately put the question. section 4, until completion of proceedings enabled by the first three sections of this resolution, a, the chair may decline to entertain any intervening motion, resolution, question or notice. b, the chairmy postpone such proceedings to such time as may be designated by the speaker and, c, each amendment and motion considered pursuant to this resolution shall be considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would remind all members that cell phone use in the house chamber is not allowed. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for one hour. ms. slaughter: for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman is recognized. ms. slaughter: and also ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the house resolution 1766. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, since i made a rather lengthy speech at our first rule this morning, i want to be giving up my time to other members so i will just at this point reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank high friend from rochester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as i might consume and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized, without objection. mr. dreier: i think it's very important for us to understand exactly what's taking place here . about five minutes ago i was downstairs and told to appear on the house floor and i am here and i know that there's been a democratic caucus held to deal with the changes, i know that

lots of people have been following what has transpired over the past few hours and i think that before we proceed it would be best for the distinguished chair of the committee on rules, mr. speaker, to explain to us sort of what's happened and what we're doing and what specific changes members can anticipate in this rule. and i'd be happy to yield to my friend. ms. slaughter: thank you for yielding. there are very few changes if any. we did have some cautions from the caucus in the democratic party is really the most important part of our side of the house. the speaker is meticulous about working with them to achieve consensus. and frankly we had a rather raw cause meeting this morning at the caucus and it was decided that it would be better if we recessed and took some time to see where we were and to make sure that all facets of the caucus have been listened to. but as i said, there were will

be little change from the rule we had this morning. deliredelire -- drishe dreier -- mr. dreier: mr. speaker, if i could reclaim my time, there may be very little changes. it's my understanding that just from the brief staff report think a got that we are going to under this rule continue to have a vote on the pomeroy amendment which increases the death tax and following that, because of concern that was raised by members on the majority side of the aisle, there was concern that there wouldn't be a final passage vote and so am i correct to infer that we can anticipate the only change being a final passage vote on the measure? ms. slaughter: the gentleman is correct. there were many members who felt that they needed that extra vote . at the proper time we will make the decision as to whether we will call and ask for a change. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i'll reclaim my time again. i'm trying to get a clear understanding so that members of this body will know what the proposed changes are in this

rule that is before us that we're debating now and i think that, again, looking back to what we've gone through over the last several years, transparency, disclosure, accountability, those are the guides that we're trying to use. and so before we proceed, mr. speaker, i believe that it's very important to have a clear understanding of exactly what it is that we are considering and i'm going to reserve the balance of my time and ask the chair if she would explain that to the membership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: the only thing i can tell you, mr. dreier, as i said before, there's no change in this bill. we may or may not ask for an ability to have a separate vote, as you pointed out, so that people will have an up or down vote on the bill. as you know, we are dealing with a resolution, the pomeroy

portion of it should go down, then we would normally have that up or down vote. if it should pass, that would normally be the end of our proceedings and it would go directly to the senate. we are simply adding a precaution, members have requested to an an up or down vote. mr. dreier: would the gentlewoman yield? ms. slaughter: yes. mr. dreier: let me explain it the way i understood. so the rule is identical to the rule we were debating earlier, that being we are anticipating three hours of general debate. we are expecting that there will be a vote, then, on the proposal by mr. pomeroy to increase the death tax. and then, mr. speaker, we may or may not, following that, have a vote on final passage before the

measure is sent to the senate and from there it would go onto the president, is that a correct splangs? ms. slaughter: that's correct. -- explanation. ms. slaughter: that's correct. lawyer slaughter -- ms. slaughter: i yield to the gentleman from california from california, mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi: thank you for the leadership and the change in the rule. the earlier rule presented a significant problem to us in that it had basically a vote on the pomeroy amendment and that would then be then, if that passed, the vote on the bill. the separation is very important to many of us because we see in this particular piece of legislation serious problems. for example, we see that the social security payroll tax is

being reduced, which, for the first time ever in history has, i think, put social security security in play. and we think that in the future this may be a very, very serious detriment of the well-being of the social security system. in addition, the way the taxes are structured, that goes against some very fundamental premises that were best announced and laid out by franklin roosevelt and eached on the marble in his memorial here in washington, d.c. are the words that speak, i believe, very directly to this piece of legislation when he said that the test of our progress is not whether those who have much get more, but rather those who have little get enough. this piece of legislation that we will be voting on, even with the proposed amendment of the

pomeroy amendment, really does give those who have much even more while those who have little get very, very little. we strongly support the middle-class tax cut. that is always our position and president obama was quite correct in announcing his support for the middle-class tax cut. we think the republican position of greater wealth and lower taxes for those who have much, not just a little much, but a great, great deal of the wealth of america that that is not justified. and therefore, we stand in support of the proposed rule and we will speak later on the bill. i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, may i inquire of the distinguished chair how many speakers she has and what kind of time frame we can expect? ms. slaughter: i have two, and

perhaps three -- i have more on the floor. these three and maybe one or two in the back. but not a lot. mr. dreier: i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. ms. slaughter: than i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois. mr. jackson: i want to join my colleague from california in supporting the rule and expressing my opposition to this bill. a number of members of congress will come and express their opposition to the bill in the debate and i wanted to use some of the time during the rule to set the climate for what you will -- what many members of this body will be hearing. i want to start with a couple of quotes that i think ought to drive some of the discussion that will be taking place here on the floor. the first is from "wealth of nations" adam smith.

i quote, the subject of every state ought to contribute to the support of the government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities, that is in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy upped the protection of the state. as henry holmes has written, the goal of taxation should be to remedy inequality of riches by relieving the poor and enriching the -- i'm in favor of an income tax. when i find a man or a woman who is not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which protects him, i find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours. and franklin roosevelt in worcester, massachusetts on act 21, 1936, stayed the taxes after all are the dues we pay in a

membership in an organized society. there will be a great debate on the floor of this congress tonight about extending the bush-era tax cuts. the bush-era tax cuts are an extension of the reagan tax cuts of the 1980's represent one of the most profound shifts of wealth in our nation from those most vulnerable to those who are well healed, those who are better positioned in our society to make their way through life. and so it is our hope, mr. speaker, this debate be conducted in a way that allows people to participate. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i will continue to reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from california, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes -- three minutes. mr. miller: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding this

time to me and i rise in support of this rule as amended that will give an opportunity both to us to address what i think is an egregious provision in this bill, which unfortunately i think also mirrors another provision in this bill, and that is the tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of the people in this country and to a handful of states, 6,000 estates, giving them $25 billion tax cut at a time when working families are struggling to keep their families together and also the fact that it does nothing in terms of stimulus, in terms of job creation. the tax cuts to the wealthy, so many economists have said it is the least sometime louisianative you can do. they don't need to spend that money. the estate tax provides no

impact either to the economy. so what we are doing is we are talking about doing this for the sake of the economy. we are cutting taxes to people and to estates that will not contribute to the economic growth. and so we are creating debt that is unnecessary to create. and we are a couple of weeks away from the debt commission. we are a couple of months away where people are concerned what the united states is going to look like greece, spain or portugal and now, we aren't prepared to make the distinction on whether or not we would create debt for hopefully economic purposes and or to hand out taxes that don't need them and won't contribute to the improvement in the economy but clearly will be put on the debt of this nation and will clearly have to be dealt with in the ensuing congresses where i will

-- where it will drive decisions. i do think this rule is an improvement because it will give the opportunity to those individuals who want to vote against this tax cut for a limited number of estates, they will be able to do that and whether they vote for that or against that, individuals will have the ability to vote against this legislation because it's not to suggest that that amendment addresses all that is wrong with this legislation. it doesn't address the tax cut for the high income. it doesn't address the complications of the payroll holiday and what that means to the financing of social security over the long-term, the ability of this congress to change that a year from now, the fact that that can lead to tax increases for individuals and that it's less progressive than the higher provision that was in the

original recovery act to provide assistance to middle-income families. there are a number of good provisions in this legislation. there are tax provisions in here to help educate their children, take care of their children and extension of unemployment for a year. but i would hope that we would support the rule as inadequate as this legislation is, i would hope they support the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i inquire of my friend if she has more speakers. ms. slaughter: we are up to four more, i think. mr. dreier: i reserve the balance of my time. ms. slaughter: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, is recognized for three minutes.

mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time. mr. speaker, i'm going to oppose this bill, however the rule comes out, for several reasons. number one, if this bill passes, we will extend the upper income tax cuts at a cost to the deficit of $700 billion for an additional two years. we're told that in two years, it will expire. but we also know that our friends on the other side of the aisle will try to extend it in two years. and in two years, we'll have the same kind of coercion. we will be told if we don't extend the upper end tax cuts,

the middle class tax cuts will expire. i don't see any reason to believe we won't succumb to that coercion two years from now in an election year. i believe passing this bill would make permanent the upper end tax cuts which would generate a $700 billion increase in the deficit, which would make it impossible to fund housing, education and everything else we need. it would be the culmination of the republican effort to starve the beast and create huge deficits in order to provide the political cover for reducing expenditures in housing, education and medicare. i hope mr. pomeroy's amendment does pass but if it doesn't that's another problem. thirdly, social security. we are going in this bill to provide for 2%, one-year reduction of 2% in the social security tax. that will cost us $120 billion in one year that will be replen

issued from the general fund. politically, once you make that tax cut, it will be impossible to restore it. it will be $120 billion taken away from social security. the conservatives have said we have to increase the retirement age and reduce benefits because it contributes to the deficit. we said no. social security has nothing to do with the deficit. we are putting right in the middle of the deficit debate and will cost the general fund $120 billion a year, $1.2 trillion for 10 years and told you have to reduce benefits and increase the retirement age. we will be told a year or two, by the way, the money we are taking away from social security, we need the money for education, housing or something else and we don't want to be in that position.

f.d.r. decided in 193 that social security would be supported by its own tax, by its own situation of people paying into it year after year and so they can take it back. we are going to take some of that money away and say the general fund will support it. f.d.r. knew by setting up the social security being self-financing it would be difficult to reduce. it puts social security at great risk and accordingly, i must oppose this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: assuming my friend still has additional speakers, i will continue to reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. >> i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized.

ms. edwards: i was not prepare to support this rule this morning but i do now and i support the ability of the house to move forward on this tax cut bill. it's sad that later on we'll consider a bill that isn't just about an estate tax that benefits only 6, 600 families, it's about what we do with social security for the long-term, protecting the investment that owl our seniors, people who are invested in social security should be able to expect in the years to come. it's about the debt that's going to be saddled onto our children and grandchildren. the underlying bill is so problematic in so many ways and i'll have an opportunity to speak on my opposition to that bill. but i do stand here able to support a rule that allows me to

take a vote as a democrat to speak to the values that i hold for working people and for working families and for our children and grandchildren and their future and with that, i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from environment, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: i thank the gentlewoman from new york. america faces two great challenges. we have too few jobs. over 15 million americans looking for work can't find it. millions more are so discouraged they don't go out. number two, too much debt, aproaching $14 trillion in this bill would -- and this bill would add $58 billion more. president obama was right in proposing legislation, absolutely right.

legislation is needed to are revive our economy. president obama is right, he's absolutely right that we should extend the middle class tax cuts for folks up to $250,000. they need the money and we can't shrink their paycheck. but this legislation creates too few jobs and too much debt. the cost per job is in the range of $390,000. the cost of this is largely because of the success of the senate republicans who insist on $200 million, both in estate tax reductions in high-end tax reductions that will go to the wealthiest 2% of americans. this is not about class warfare. this is about prudent use of taxpayer dollars. if we borrow a dollar, there should be some job bang for that dollar borrowed. in high -- those high end tax cuts and estate tax cuts don't

yen rate job bus they will be a bill that will come due and must be paid by the middle class and working families of this country. we have a responsibility to focus on jobs and to rebuild the middle class. we can do a better job. we could have a bill that extended the bush tax cuts up to $250,000. the money saved put that into reducing the deficit and infrastructure development. we could have a bill that focused on an estate tax that was less generous than what is being considered in this legislation. we could have a bill that will protect social security, americans know we cannot take money out from the revenue stream and expect to have solvency in the long-term. so we have a chance to pass the legislation to revive us economically to treat the middle class right and to limit the debt. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from california.

mr. dreier: i continue to reserve, based on the assumption my friend has one or two more speakers. ms. slaughter: a good assumption. right now i'll yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california are reserves, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. cohen: i want to thank the chairlady for giving me the opportunity. i wasn't going to support the rule this morning, but i will support it now. i support it because i want to vote to make the estate tax more reasonable. even though the reality is whether we're going to give the wealthy a six-course meal with win or seavepb-course meal with wine. we should be talking about a meat and three. the fact is, the estate tax with $755,000 exemption we started we started with the bush tax cuts.

now it's $500 million. the benefit to the heirs of the richest people in the country is unbelievable, unfa no, ma'amable. you have a continued concentration of wealth in a few select families, lords, so to speak, princes, moneys beyond what anybody needs to have in this nation and not contribute to others. the fact is, this was a very difficult vote. very difficult decision to me. i asked my constituents to let me know what they thought. i had hundreds of people call and write and contribute to a poll. it was about even for and against. the fact is, our future of our nation is at risk. these tax cuts to the most wealthy people in our nation, co-cooperations that -- to corporations that will not produce jobs in the hundreds of billions of dollars category and the inheritance tax will take away from children, the aged and the needy in years to come who will need support from this

nation. the deficit will be so great when it comes time to deficit cutting, the cuts will come to the people most in need. hubert humphrey said the test of a country is how they treat those in the dawn of life, those in the twilight of life, the aged, he and others like dr. king, the dalai lama, never talked about giving more to the rich. mr. garamendi started talking about franklin roosevelt. the fact is, those people who are the moral test will suffer when the cuts are made. i cannot support that. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'd like to inquire if there are further speakers on the other side? ms. slaughter: more coming and i see three. mr. dreier: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman are reserves. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. defazio: the lack of response on the republican side is a bit interesting because we're about to add $430 billion to this year's deficit if this bill passes. $430 billion borrowed, probably from china, added to the deficit. record $1.75 trillion. we've been told this is the only deal, the best deal. no, we've offered an altern tiff and earlier today i thought we had some prospect of voting on it, one that's much less expensive, more targeted to working families, average americans and those who are unemployed, would have created real jobs with substantial investment in infrastructure prospects, not the jobs you'll get by giving people tax breaks

saying, go buy some goods from china, that will put america on the path to recovery. every other major economy on earth is talking about buckling down and having a sustained recovery. no, not here. we got out the credit card. trillion dollars. it's only $858 billion. guess what, our kids and grandkids will be paying that bill for 30 years and the most insidious part of this is that $111 billion of that will come from the social security trust fund but don't worry. after we take the money from the social security trust fund and ask people to consume with it, present day consumption, in order to take care of social security long-term we'll borrow $111 billion from china and reinject it and a year from today, the republicans will say, you can't raise taxes on every american and we can't afford to subsidize that program anymore, we're going to have to cut it. this is a bad deal. it isn't going to create the

jobs we could create for a smaller price tag. it's not going to give the relief we as democrats want to give to working families and unemployed americans and put this country on a path to recovery. i urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and make in order an amendment to make major structural changes to this deal. it should not be a take it or leave it deal dictated by the republican minority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. sherman is recognized for three minutes. mr. sherman: republican senators have held america hostage, held the american economy hostage, held hostage the middle class.

and the president agreed to pay the ransom. now that ransom can be paid this month, only with the consent not only of the president but the senators than house. so we can stop the ransom from being paid until the end of the year. at that point, the president will still be willing to pay the ransom and the ransom will go up. if the ransom is going to be paid, let us pay it before it goes up. knowing that the president had agreed to the major and expensive changes that the republican senators demanded, i sought to amend this bill only in a modest way, only to the extent that we could do the deal by the end of the year. and i put forward an amendment that would not increase the cost of the bill by a penny or reduce

the tax cuts as the republicans have been asking for by a penny. i asked only that instead of the payroll tax holiday, that needlessly involves the social security trust fund and co-mingles general funds with the social security trust fund, that we send out checks as soon as possible so that the money the republicans have already agreed should go to working families would get to them perhaps in time to spend this year's -- to pay this year's christmas bills. unfortunately, no effort was made at the highest levels to secure the support of even a couple of republican senators for that kind of minor tweaking. so we stand today with only one choice. pay the ransom now or pay more ransom later.

this is not a place democrats want to be. but ultimately, it is better to pay the ransom today than to watch the president pay even more and i think he'd be willing to pay a bit more next month. therefore, we are going to have to swallow hard, we are going to see an estate tax law so bad that for the richest families where someone died in 2010, the tax rate is going to be less than 0. the family will be able to choose 0 or choose huge reductions in future income taxes. and they will be well advised and they will pick whatever costs the treasury the most money and we will collect less than zero from those families. we will see those with an income, not millionaires, but people with a million in income get tax relief they won't spend and don't particularly need.

but the choice is to pay the ransom now or watch it go up next month. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'd like to again inquire of my friend how many speakers she has remaining? ms. slaughter: mr. dreier, i wish i could tell you, but i'm getting a new one in at the rate of one a second. i think one, two, three, four at this point. mr. dreier: i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlewoman has 8 1/2 minutes remaining and is recognized. ms. slaughter: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker and let me say to the chairperson of the rules committee what a terrific job she's doing. of course i would urge us all to vote for the rule. but i don't think we should vote for this tax cut. the idea is we'll kick the tax

cuts down the road for another two years. ever seen anybody kicking a can? mr. moran: they don't bend over and pick it up and drop it in a trash can they keep kicking it. that's what we're going to dwosme knew in 2001 and fwee, when we were told these tax cuts would expire in 2011, they weren't going to expire. and they're not going to expire either in an election year. our president is going -- isn't going to run on a platform that he's going to raise your taxes. with regard to social security, do we really think that next year we're going to increase payroll taxes by what will amount to a third? from 4 to 6 1/4%? we aren't going to do that. we are going to take money out

of the general revenue fund. you know, what we're talking about is not $900 billion. it's really about $4 trillion. that's what we're committing ourselves to. and yet, back in 2001, president bush inherited a surplus, imagine, think about that because it's not going to happen in our lifetime or our children or grandchildren after this vote is taken tonight, but we had a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. at the end of 010, we were going to have our debt paid off, instead of $12 trillion debt, we would have paid off and we would have fulfilled our responsibility to our children and grandchildren eye generation. this doesn't. this is the wrong thing to do. it's the easy thing to do. everybody loves a tax cut.

you know, let's be santa claus. in fact there are 81 provisions in this tax bill. most of us have no idea what they actually do, but look through it, 81 different deductions and exemptions and giveaways and lobbyists and so on. that's not what we ought to be doing at christmas time. when we sit our children and grandchildren on our lap, we ought to be proud we served them and looked into the future, native american who originally lived in this land, they used to make decisions based on the seventh generation to come. we can't even look seven years ahead. that's why we ought to vote no on this tax bill. it's irresponsible and i urge my colleagues to vote no on the bill but yes on the rule.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from north carolina. mr. watt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. watt watt i oppose the estate tax provision on this bill and i thank the rule would allow us to vote against the estate tax and i oppose the failure of the high income tax cuts and i oppose the way we are doing the social security situation because i think it will result in damage to social security and this rule does not give me the opportunity to vote against those two things. and therefore, it's my intention to vote against the rule. i tried to make it clear to my leadership that i think it's important for me to have that

vote on those two issues and they haven't seen fit to make that in order. so i feel like i must, under those circumstances, vote against the rule. so i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield one minute to the the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentlelady for yielding to me and i regretfully oppose the rule and will oppose the bill and the most important reason is that this bill will not translate into job creation in the united states of america. all it does is put our taxpayers on the hook for another $1 billion -- billion dollars and

billion dollars borrowing from china and saudi arabia in order to give more tax cuts to the rich over the next 10 careers with no guarantee that that money will be invested in the united states of america. the dow was up 42%, nasdaq is up 78%. wall street is on track to see its second highest profitable year on record with projected $144 billion in bonuses going out the door. couldn't they take some of that and go to those unemployed and seeking their way forward in this economy? this bill will not be a real stimulus. in fact, it will only yield 33 cents on every dollar that is borrowed to pay for it, not creating real robust growth. i'm so sad for our nation that we can't do better and help america back to work. i thank the gentlelady for yielding me the additional time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from california continues to reserve? mr. dreier: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from mississippi, mr. taylor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. taylor: on may 9, 2001 was my son's 13 birthday. 13 was a very unlucky year for him and every other kid in america. on that day, unemployment was 4.3%. our nation was $5 trillion. nine years and seven months since the passage of the bush budget, unemployment is 9.8% and our debt has grown and please listen by a staggering $8 trousm

2 -- ms. slaughter: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. mr. taylor: after nine years and seven months of the bush budget, our debt has grown by $8,204, 749,146,330.57. if there is anyone in this body who wants to tell me that the intended effect was to double the number of unemployed people and to add $1 trillion to the debt and therefore we should do more of this -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . mr. taylor: i rise in opposition to this rule and i beg this body to defeat this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i inquire of my

friend from rochester how many speakers she has. ms. slaughter: i have no more speakers. mr. dreier: in light of that, i'll close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 27 minutes remaining. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i have listened to a number of my friends offer great quotes. i listened to mr. jackson quote william jencks bryan and mr. adam smith. mr. garamendi quoted teddy roosevelt -- was it franklin roosevelt. well, i would like to close by quoting one of our great former colleagues, late jack kemp who stood many times here in the well and said, if you tax something, you get less of it. if you subsidize something, you get more of it. in america, we tax, work,

growth, savings, investment, productivity. we subsidize nonwork, welfare, consumption, debt and leisure. mr. speaker, jack kemp was reveered by democrats and republicans alike and he understood very clearly that if you increase that tax burden on job creators, you undermine the ability for people who are trying to get on to that first running of the economic ladder a chance to do that -- rung of the economic ladder a chance to do that. i don't like this bill. i don't know anyone who says they like this bill but i like even less the prospect of increasing taxes on every american who pays income taxes

today. so that's why i believe we should move ahead as expeditiously as possible so come january, we can have this laser-like focus in our quest to grow our economy by reducing the size and scope and reach of government so we can increase opportunity for all americans and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: in a moment, i will be offering an amendment to the rule and i want to take this opportunity to briefly describe the amendment. the amendment shifts initial consideration of the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 4853 into the committee of the bhole. after three hours of general debate, a vote will occur on the amendment printed in the report of the committee of rules and

the committee of the whole shall rise. if the amendment passes, a vote will occur on a motion that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment with the amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. if the motion fails, a vote will occur on a motion that the house concur in senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment. and i urge a yes vote on the amendment, the rule and the previous question. and i have an amendment to this rule at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. slaughter of new york, strike all the resolving clause and insert the following any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18 declared the house resolved in the committee of the whole house for consideration of the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 4853.

to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund to amend title 49 united states code to extend authorizations for the apet improvement program and for other purposes. all consideration are waived except arising under rule 10, clause 21. motions addressed by this resolution and shall not exceed three hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on ways and means. after general debate senate amendment shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. no amendment shall be in order except the amendment printed in the amendment accompanying this resolution. that amendment may be offered by representative levin from michigan or designee and not be

debatable. all points of order are waived except those arising under clause 10 rule 21. section do, disposition in the first section of this resolution, the committee of the whole shall rise and report the senate amendment back to the house with such amendment as may have been adopted. section 3-a, committee of the whole reports the senate amendment back to the house with an amendment, the pending question that the house concur in the senate amendment of the house amendment to the senate amendment with such amendments. bmp, if a motion cease pide fails adoption, the pending question shall be a motion that the house concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment. section 4, if the committee of the whole reports the senate amendment back to the house without amendments, the pending question shall be the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment. section 5, until completion of

proceedings enable by this resolution, a, the chair may decline to entertain any intervening motions, question or notice. b, the chair may possess pone proceedings in the house as such time as may be designated by the speaker. each amendment and motion considered pursuant to this resolution shall be considered by this resolution considered as read. all points of order against pending motions specified in sections 3 and 4 are waived except arising under clause 10, rule 21 the previous question shall be considered as read to final adoption woult intervening motion or question of consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote on the amendment, on the rule and the previous question. i yield back the balance of my time. i move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time.

all time having expired, without objection, the previous question

third that was the bait from earlier today on the rules.

the rule was changed this evening to a loudvotes -- to allow provisions that would change tax provisions and send the bill back to the senate.

pay-as-you-go principles under clause 10-c of rule 21 and as an emergency designation pursuant to section 4-g-1 of the statutory pay-as-you-go act of 2010. accordingly the chair must put the question of the consideration under clause 10-c-3 of rule 21 and under section 4-g-2 of the statutory pay-as-you-go act of 2010. the question is will the house now consider the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative.

the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1766 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 4853. the chair appoints the gentleman

from the northern mariana islands, mr. is a plan, to preside over the committee of the whole -- mr. sablan, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 4853 which the clerk shall report by title. the clerk: 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 chair: pursuant to the rule, the senate amendment is considered read. general debate shall not exceed three hours 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 90 minutes. the gentleman will recognize -- the chair recognizes the gentleman -- the committee will be in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor. the committee will be in order. >> parliamentary inquiry. the chair: for what purpose does

the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, parliamentary inquiry. since the rules of the house allow for someone in opposition to claim time in order to speak on a bill, is that rule being abrogated now or can we follow the rules and someone like me who is opposed to the bill claim time? the chair: the gentleman has stated in a no such rule is applicable to these -- stated that no such rule is applicable to these proceedings. mr. gohmert: i'm sorry, i do not understand. the chair: there's no such rule. mr. gohmert: so this is set up now, the rules have been abrogated so no time is allotted to anyone in opposition, is -- do i understand that correctly, mr. speaker? the chair: the gentleman has not stated the parliamentary

inquiry. mr. gohmert: parliamentary inquiry then. the chair: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. gohmert: under the rules of the house, going back to the thomas jefferson rules of the house, as adopted by this majority in this term, someone in opposition to a bill is always given the right to claim time. so i'm asking the parliamentary inquiry if that is now the case or if that rule, the standing rule, is not going to be allowed at this time. the chair: the gentleman's premise is incorrect. mr. gohmert: the gentleman's premise is incorrect? so someone can claim time in opposition? thank you. i'm sorry, the mike cut out. the chair: the house is operating under the rule that provides the debate time to the

chair and ranking member of the committee on ways and means. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. >> further parliamentary inquiry. i understand that under the rule just passed, the time has been allocated to a proponent on this side of the aisle of the bill, a proponent on this side of the aisle of the bill. the understanding was, though, that the time would be allowed to -- the owe -- allowed to the opponents of this bill. mr. taylor: i am asking if the chair or someone would identify who that time will be yielded to . the chair: the rule provides for the debate time to be allocated equally and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the

committee on ways and means. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: the democratic majority in the house has made it crystal clear that we stand on the side of middle income families of unemployed workers, of small businesses struggling in this difficult economy. the compromise before us clearly requires painful choices. these choices relate to each of the three criteria for judging the merits of this package. does it add to the deficit? does it promote economic growth? and does it promote fairness? for decades republicans have unwisely promoted a view that tax cuts pay for themselves.

so while making deficit reduction their rhetoric, they never have had any intention of paying for tax cuts which add to the deficit, plain and simple. adding to the deficit is defensible if the bill meets another criteria. does it promote economic growth? adding to the deficit in this short-term is a tool to promote economic growth that will in turn help address the long-term deficit, has been the basis of vital actions taken by the democratic majority, actions to stem the financial crisis, jumpstart the economy and save the auto industry. these were necessary steps, sometimes unpopular ones, and steps unfortunately not effectively articulated at times by the administration. this bill does include important provisions aimed at increasing

economic growth in jobs. unemployment insurance for millions out of work who will spend money received to keep their families afloat. the middle income tax cuts, the temporary reduction in payroll taxes and business provisions like the r&d tax credits, the new markets credit and full expensing of business investment for one year. unfortunately in their zeal to undo the recovery act, republicans have insisted that we not extend the successful 48-c credit for advanced engineering manufacturing or the bill -- build america fund program working to rebuild our economy. the republicans have insisted on provisions that violate the third criteria, fairness for taxpayers. in order for the administration to be able to include provisions that help lower and middle income families, it came at the

price of assisting the very wealthy, the republicans' priority. their position has led to a package where the top .6% of the very wealthy receive 20% of the benefits of the tax package. my amendment would strike a blow at this unfairness by replacing the highly irresponsible and unfair estate tax give-away. the resulting $23 billion in additional borrowing won't go to create jobs, it will be used to provide an average tax cut of more than $1.5 million to the 6,600 wealthiest estates next year. this represents less than .3% of all estates. i urge my colleagues to vote to

change this egregious piece of this legislation so the american people can see clearly who puts the interest of the middle class ahead of the very wealthiest and then the republicans in the senate will have a stark choice that might be painful for them, it would make it clear whose side they are on. i will accept the remainder of the bill because after the approach taken by republicans in the house and senate these last weeks, obstructing and holding hostage everything until they get their way on the tax breaks for the very wealthy, i am not willing to put the fate of the middle class and the unemployed in the hands of the republican majority next year.

especially when voiced by the senate republican leader that their main priority is the failure of our president. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may -- as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: this house has a choice today, raise taxes on families and small businesses or prevent a massive, job-killing tax increase from going into effect a mere 16 days from now. if you think our economy han handle higher taxes, if you think middle class families should lose roughly $100 per week out of their paychecks, then vote no today. make no mistake about it, a no vote today is a vote for higher taxes, taxes that would

devastate families and send shock waves throughout our economy. if you believe beshed stop this massive tax increase in its tracks, especially when unemployment is stuck at nearly 10%, then vote yes. if you want to be sure we don't extend the failed making work pay policy from the failed stimulus law that has the i.r.s. writing checks to people who pay no income or payroll tax, then vote yes. if you're opposed to the federal government taking more than half of a family farm or business due to a death, then vote yes. if you're interested in fundamental tax reform, getting rid of exemptions, deductions and loopholes that complicate our tax code, then vote yes, because this bill gives us the time that we need to rewrite the tax coat, cut spending next year, and get our economy back on track. i know some of my friends want to wait until january when republicans are back in the

majority because they think we can get a better deal. that is as mission guided as it is politically ka loused. it's irresponsible to play a game of chick within the senate and white house next year while middle class americans are forced to pay $100 a week more in taxes and are forced to suffer even greater job losses. if this bill fails today, that's what will happen. paychecks and jobs will burn while washington fiddles. if that's your stance, then i ask, what better deal could we get? people talk about making tax rates permanent. that's something i support. that's something every republican in this house supports. but how does waiting until january, february, march, april, or may make that a reality. hoe the senate voted yesterday on the demint amendment which would have made the rates

permanent and it failed 37-63. last time i looked, we didn't pick up 23 states in the -- seats in the united states senate and the president has flatly refused to sign such legislation into law. so tell me, how do we get a better deal by waiting? it makes no sense to gamble with the american people's jobs and the very paychecks they are rely on to put food on the table and keep the house warm this winter. americans are suffering through the deepest and longest recession since the great depression. this is not a time for political speeches or electoral posturing. this is a time to act responsibly, to do what is right and to vote yes. employers are begging us to pass this legislation. small businesses and the national federation of independent business are supporting the bill because they know they cannot afford a tax hike. the business round table, which represents the largest employers in the country, with over 12 million employees, is supporting this bill. because they know the economy

cannot afford a tax hike. the u.s. chamber of commerce is supporting this legislation because they know we cannot afford a tax hike. the national association of manufacturers is supporting this legislation. economists across the spectrum from the far left to the far right are supporting this legislation and so should the members of this house. by no means is this bill perfect. for example, i think we should have paid for the extension of unemployment insurance. and frankly, we will. i'm committed to producing legislation next year to recamp and pay for the federal unemployment benefits our nation provides. we should not have to choose between adding to the deficit and providing this important help. but we cannot allow that single concern to hold this bill up. time has run out. this is our only chance and the harm to our economy and the hit

families would suffer is far too great a risk. let's be clear. this bill is about taxes. long standing tax policy for that matter. and preventing a tax hike. it isn't about spending. nearly 90% of this bill is tax policy and that policy is aimed at preventing a tax hike for families and employers while providing direct tax relief to the american worker. it also protects family farms, ranches, and businesses from being hit by the destructive death tax. that will go as high as 55% next year if we do not act. instead this bill reduces that rate to 35% while increasing the exemption amount from $1 million to $5 million. i know $1 million sounds like a lot of money and it is. but think about the family farmers in your district and the cost of the big machinery it takes to operate and mag their -- and manage their land.

some combines i see cost a quarter million of dollars each. that isn't cash in the bank, it's equipment in the field and the federal government has no right to take half of it when mom or dad passes on. while i support a total repeal of the death tax, this bill makes significant improvements to the estate and gift tax and it deserves our support. members should also know, and the american people should know, that this bill does not contain new policy. new provisions were not snuck in late in the night or behind closed doors. we took a firm stand against new policy, we took a firm stand against policy that had not been renewed repeatedly. as a result, more than 70 provisions, some of them my own, were excluded from the bill. well over $100 billion worth. the most notable provisions of these were from the failed stimulus bill, like the making work pay credit, the build america bonds credit, which

subsidized americans going deeper into debt. nor are there the usual washington christmas tree ornaments. this bill is narrowly focused on tax and unemployment policy. unlike the people bus the democrats are preparing, there are no earmarks like the $2 million for an ice age scenic trail, there's no study on subterranean termites in new orleans and there isn't $1 billion for the new health care law. the election is over, let's not start the next campaign here today. let's make the right choice, let's stop this tax hike from going into effect in two weeks, let's put our constituents' jobs before our own, let's show the american people we can govern and we can take yes for an answer. let's pass this bill with broad bipartisan support as the senate did yesterday by a vote of 81-19. i urge my colleagues to vote yes and i reserve the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. rangel: tonight will be a rather historic vote. in the old day, the house would initiate tax bills and then we would send it to the senate. then the senate and the house would come together and have what was known as a conference. but it's clear to me that rules are changing fast and now that the house has spoken in terms of a tax bill, in terms of giving some comfort to those people who are unemployed, it seems to me now that it works -- the president works with a handful of republicans and tells us on the house side that if we change

anything, this absolutely -- there's absolutely no deal. i think the president said that these people that were unemployed were being held as hostage. and we find that all the tax benefits seem to be centered among the people who are the richest we have in this country while we find more and more americans going into poverty. i submit to you that democracy cannot grow with this type of diversity when we find so much wealth held in the hands of so few and so many other people who are without jobs and without hope. it would seem to me that we have time to correct these things, there's nothing in the constitution or the house rules that indicates that we can't work closer to christmas. i know other people believe that this would be a violation of christian values but helping

those people who are poor, helping those people who are without jobs, i submit to you and to christians, jews, and gentiles that this would be the proper thing to do with the spirit of christmas rather than just to do what people outside of the house dictated that if we don't do it their way, then these people that we have such a moral commitment to will go without compensation and the rest of the people that deserve a tax break would be denied if we don't go along with the package. so to members who are coming to this body, this is a new set of rules, a new set of traditions, but i tell you, it is not the american tradition that i knew and loved so well. the chair: the gentleman from michigan.

mr. camp: the gentleman is are recognized for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. herger: the $3.2 trillion tax increase takes etchingt in two weeks and thit consequences could be catastrophic. even if we reverse this tax hike next year, families and small businesses would see higher taxes immediately on january 1. according to the tax foundation, the average middle class family in my own northern california district would see their fall income taxes more than double. people in my district are already struggling. small businesses are barely hanging on. the unemployment rate is near 20% in several counties i represent. we simply cannot afford this enormous tax hit.

this has been a difficult decision for me. i'm outraged that the president and democratic leaders are demanding billions of dollars in unpaid for spending on unemployment benefits and special interest giveaways as a price for stopping a massive tax increase. additionally, we should be making the current tax rates permanent. if businesses face the threat of another tax increase in two years, they will be reluctant to make investments that pay off in five or 10 years. madam speaker, we have to provide long-term certainty for america's small businesses. i commend mr. camp for his dedication to protecting taxpayers and his hard work on this legislation. in the next congress, i look forward to working with chairman camp to fix this bill's flaws.

we must bring permanent -- permanency to the tax code and we must cut wasteful federal spending, both to pay for the unemployment benefits and also to start bringing down our unsustainable federal deficit. finally, i know from personal experience how much of a burden the death tax is for family businesses. my relatives on my father's side of the family had to sell our family's farm in north dakota just to pay the death tax bill. that should not happen in america. i urge the house to vote no on the pomeroy death tax amendment and yes on the senate bill. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. i recognize the gentleman from