michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from north dakota, a member of our committee, mr. pomeroy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pomeroy: madam speaker, for the last five sessions, i have worked to try to clarify the rate of estate taxation in this country. i felt the right approach was ultimately to take the twine levels and make them permanent. the amendment that carries my name in this debate would take the twine levels for estate taxation instead of the levels contained in the senate compromise. the rationale for the 2009 level is pretty compelling. the estate tax in 2009 was the smallest rate of taxation on estates in 80 years. my friend just referenced an estate tax situation encountered in his family. he did not say it was at a level much lower -- a much higher rate of tax than was ultimately a

cheeved in 2009. in fact the rate in 2009 means 99.8% of the families in this country have no estate tax. zero. it went gradually lower and lower and 2009 hit a lower rate of taxation for estates than was ever the case under ronald railingen -- ronald reagan, was ever the case under george bush one, was ever the case under george w. bush. now why would we want to go with 2009 levels as opposed to the senate deal? simply a matter of money. $23 billion over two and quite possibly the levels in the senate bill would be the new rate for the estate tax. in that case wie lose $90 billion over 10. i've heard on the other side such concern about unpaid for unemployment benefits. you know, i've not heard one word bun paid for estate tax levels.

they would add to the national debt $23 billion more than the 2009 levels, they won't pay for a cent of it and they seem to think that's fine. you know who benefits from the senate tax levels compared to the 2009 levels? 66 of the wealthiest americans in this country. 6,600 of the wealthiest families. let's go with the 2009 levels and save $23 billion over two. let's save $90 billion over 10. let's tackle these deficits starting with a fair estate tax level. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. i'd like to recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield four minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas -- the chair: the gentleman from texas has four minutes. mr. brady: thank you, madam speaker. a gun is pointed at the head of our taxpayers and it will go off january 1 unless congress acts. if we let that gun go off it's going to hurt families who are struggling to make ends meet.

it's going to hurt small businesses trying to survive this recession. it's going to hurt seniors, double the taxes, almost triple the taxes on the dividends that they need to live month to month and day to day. it's going to hurt businesses trying to track capital and it's going to revive the death tax, an immoral tax where you work your whole life to build up your nest egg, your small business, your family-owned farm and when you die, uncle sam swoops in and taking more than half, more than half of everything you've earned. all that haps if congress refuses to act -- happens if congress refuses to act. some are here to say, no, let's not change that death tax. let's raise that death tax. last night on my facebook page, i got a posting from tammie fisher of east texas. her family has had to sell 6,000 acres of their timber land to pay the death tax. they've held that land for 100 years. clarence of texas is a rancher. his grandmother died.

they had to take out a loan from theback to -- bank to pay the death tax. they're still paying. their father passed away recently, they had to take out another loan. they're paying two loans and can barely keep his rampling. last night we heard democrats say, those people are stingy and cheap and haven't worked a day in their life. all that death tax cut p comes back january 1 if we don't act and i'll tell you what, we have some very good friends of mine who say, look, just let that gun go off -- because we can get a better deal later. well, i'm conservative and i'm skeptical and i'm not raising taxes for anyone for any period period. i don't like the spending in this bill and i offered an amendment along with other conservatives to cut $152 billion from this bill, to cover all the costs. we couldn't get a vote on that. we're voting on a lot of things tonight but not a straight up or down d vote on trimming government.

we didn't get that vote but i can tell you the spending cut, this isn't the end of that discussion. it's the beginning. when we have a new republican majority i'm going it take that gun down from our taxpayers' head, i'm going to give them a chance to keep their own money, get this economy going, put in and keep fighting for permanent tax relief and a permanent death tax. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. now recognize the gentleman from michigan, will levin. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal, an active member of our committee. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. neal: thank you, thank you, mr. levin. madam speaker, i'm standing in opposition to this proposal. when we debated the middle income tax cut a few weeks ago, i spoke in favor of a tax system that we might design for the future. a progressive system with substantial tax relief for working families. and in our own democratic caucus

suggested that the number $250,000 was too low. that if we raised that ceiling to $500,000 we could take care of every s corporation, we could take care of every small business person who at the end of the month uses their credit card. that was rejected but i still thought that was a reasonable exro compromise. now when my friend mr. camp spoke a couple of minutes ago he delineated the clearest position of the two parties when he said he was upset that we were not paying for the extension of unemployment benefits. for years they borrowed the money for iraq, they borrowed the money for afghanistan and i challenge anybody on the other side tonight to dispute this point, they borrowed the money for the bush tax cuts as well. that's what we're discussing here. now the reason that i stand in opposition to this proposal tonight, because there are many good provisions in this bill,

including alternative minimum tax, and i do wish the build america bond program was in here, this represents a serious threat to the solvency of the social security system. we will never return that number down the road and what they will argue, you mark my words tonight, what they will argue down the road is, the social security system has been weakened, proving that you need private accounts. their fingerprints will be all over it. they will suggest this proves the theory of the benefit of a private account. so we borrow the money for iraq and when i said of president bush in 2001 in the oval office, mr. president, modest tax cuts for middle income americans. it was rejected and that's why we're in the condition that we're in today financially. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

i wish now to recognize representative camp, the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: at this time i yield five minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentlewoman from florida. the chair: the gentlewoman from oregon is now recognized. or from florida. i'm sorry. ms. brown-waite: i rise today in support of grownups. grownups who realize that the end of the year is coming, the taxes will be raised in we don't act now. when i first came to congress i knew that partisanship had taken over. i knew the enormous extent of the philosophical divide, but i didn't fully realize that entire years would go by without the two sides working together to come up with an answer for the american people. sadly it seems it takes a genuine crisis and a sense of panic before we can work together. in any case, here we are. the bill before us is not the

bill that i would have written, that i would have participated in. it is not the bill that conservative radio talk show hosts or tea party constituents would have liked written. and it's not the bill that "the new york times" editorial page or the president himself would have written. it's a exro miles. this is what a exro -- it's a compromise. this is what a compromise looks like. some so-called constitutionalists want to ignore the fact that the constitution itself actually was a compromise. with a capital c. and while we're still in this bipartisan moment of clarity, let me say a few other things. first, while i strongly disagreed with the policies put forth by my democrat colleagues, i do not envy them for having to preside over the biggest economic collapse in a generation. and while i believe their economic premise is misguided, i cannot fault any legislator for sticking to his or her

principles. what i do believe is unforgivable, however, is the tremendous uncertainty that has been created over the past few years. uncertainty is not good for families, it is not good for investors, it is not good for employers. regardless of the cause, all economic crises are ultimately a crisis of confidence. frankly, the democrat-controlled government has contributed to that. at a basic level beyond all of the fancy models and theories, the economy is really not that complicated. uncertainty leads to doubt, doubt leads to fear and fear leads to paralysis. and that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly where our country is today. by refusing to work with this side of the aisle until this point, we've prolonged uncertainty and aggravated the fear. even here today in what feels

like a great legislative compromise, the most we can deliver for the american people is a year of this and two years of that. the uncertainty must end, madam speaker. and i believe mr. camp when he says that we are going to work on that in january, when the republican majority takes over. at this point i don't much care what the policy is, i just think it needed to be set in stone -- needs to be set in stone. my constituents want to see all the tax cuts extended permanently and they want the estate taxi eliminated permanently. now let me make it clear. i probably have about five bealty -- wealthy people living in my district, so some might say, what do they care about the estate tax? well, they may not be wealthy, they certainly hope that sometime in their life they'll be wealthy or that their children will be and they realize the impact of that. and based on the economic situation, it's kind of a mystery to me why they even would care so much about these rich people, but as i said, they

probably would like to work hard and become them. madam speaker, we know better and our constituents know better. if they aren't rich, they have lived just long enough to know that in this world there are no free lunches. you have to work for what you get and you have to fight to keep it. so even though many of them are poor and even though many of them are struggling, my constituents don't want handouts. my constituents just want to be able to earn an honest living and rest easy at night knowing that the government isn't going to come in and suddenly swoop in and take everything away from them. for them, madam speaker, it's more of a matter of principle. it's simply a way of life. my constituents are upset that the tax cuts aren't permanent and many of them believe that i should vote against this bill. in short, the story cannot explain that despite only 2% of americans are rich, more than half the country does not want

them to be taxed more to expand government spending. you know, the truth of the matter is, madam speaker, it's simple, they don't want government's help them. just -- and they don't want your -- our generosity with our people's money -- other people's money. my constituents simply don't buy it and they don't want a nanny state and they don't want somebody else to have to pay for it. not their kids, not the chinese, not their grandchildren and not rich people. my constituents -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. camp: i yield the gentlewoman an extra minute. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for an additional minute. ms. brown-waite: i thank the gentleman. their philosophy and mine is that we want the government to reward hard work, savings, investment and job creation. i simply don't think these things should be punished and certainly not in the name of fixing everybody's problems everywhere. because at the end of the day, doing that will just create more problems, more uncertainty and

more panic. and finally, madam speaker, my constituents know that we will never climb out of this ditch as long as we keep moving that ladder, keeping taxes low has to be our goal. that's the ladder to getting out of that ditch and i urge adoption of the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from wisconsin, a member of our committee, mr. kind. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. kind: ask to revise and extend. thank you, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to the underlying bill in support of the pomeroy amendment but let's be clear what this legislation does tonight. it adds another $1 trillion to our national budget deficit over the next two years. $1 trillion. given the weak recovery that we have going on with our economy, i think everyone is in agreement that now is not the time to be

increasing taxes on working families and small businesses. we did that. we had that vote just a couple of weeks ago where we protected tax relief on the first $250,000 worth of income, no matter who you are, and on small businesses, that covered 98% of americans. but for those of you who are saying we need to continue tax breaks for the wealthiest 3% that is that's included in this bill, i say, find corresponding spending cuts in the budget to pay for it. so we're not having to go to china to borrow another $300 billion and adding to the debt burden of our children and grandchildren. unstated facts that we have before us today that no one is not talking about, is that our affected tax rate in our country is at a 60-year low. that pre-dates the medicare program and certainly pre-dates the 80 million baby boomers who are about to begin their retirement in joining social security and medicare and tax

rates for the wealthiest 3%. the effective tax rate is 17%. after they itemize and they deduct and back out their expenses with the numerous tax loopholes. that is less than the average working family is paying with their effective tax rate. we cannot sustain that. it is irresponsible. little boys and girls throughout the country will be waiting for santa claus' arrival and i hope they aren't watching tonight because there is no santa claus in the u.s. economy. but there are too many people who think that santa claus is china that they can run to and borrower money from in order to sustain a reckless policy. we can do better. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield five minutes

to the ranking member on the house budget committee, the gentleman from wisconsin. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: madam speaker, let me address a few of the issues that i have been hearing on the floor. i hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying, we can't afford these tax cuts. well looks look at it. only in washington is not raising taxes on people considered a tax cut. what we are talking about here is not cutting taxes. we are talking about keeping taxes where they are and preventing tax increases. second point, we, the government, can't afford this. whose money is this after all? is all the money that is made in america washington's money, government's money or is it the people's money who earned it? i hear this talk about the estate tax. this is going to give a windfall to these people. all this money going to these privileged people who have built the businesses, made all this

money. it's their money. which is it? do we have a country built on equal natural rights where you can make the most of your life, get up, work hard, take risks, become successful, create jobs, grow businesses, do well, earn success, and yes, pass it on to your kids. what on earth is wrong with that? that's the american dream. and to my friends on my side of the aisle who don't like the spending in this bill. i don't like it either. let's cut the spending next year when we're in charge. there's junk in the tax code. everybody agrees with this. this is advancing some of the junk in the tax code. and when i say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, let's get rid of that junk in the tax code when we're in

charge. but right now, let's not hit the american people with a massive tax increase. if we get -- if we want to get the debt under control and our deficit down, we need to cut spending and we need to grow the economy. we need prosperity in this country, we need job creation. we need people going from collecting unemployment to having a job and paying taxes so the revenues can reduce the deficit. and if we raise taxes, even the congressional budget office is telling us if this bill fails and these tax increases continue, we will lose 2.5 million jobs next year. low tax rates gives us economic growth. low tax rates makes us competitive in the international economy. low tax rates allow businesses to plan. is this a growth package? no, it's not a growth package.

you know why? because it still proposes to move this uncertainty forward. it's only a two-year extension. we aren't talking about a pro-growth economic package but talking about a destructive economic package being inflicted on the american people in two weeks. last thing you want to do is have a stock market selloff and lose jobs. the last thing we want to do is inject more uncertainty, raise taxes. we need economic growth and spending cuts and that's what we intend on doing and that's what the voters sent us here to do. let's clean up the stuff we don't like in this bill next year and let's make sure that when people go to christmas, they know they aren't going to have a massive tax increase five days later. madam speaker, this is a bill

that is necessary to prevent our economy from getting worse. this is not a bill that is going to turn it around. next year, let's pass the policies that will turn this economy around. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. . the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i now yield 15 seconds to the the gentleman from from vermont and followed by the gentleman from illinois. >> we have been awarded to state our objections to this bill and it is this, too much debt, too few jobs, too much risk to social security. our lead speaker is a member from illinois, mr. jackson. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. jackson: mr. speaker, in about a month, almost every member of this body will be

speaking at events in their district commemorating the life of reverend martin luther king junior and his famous i have a dream speech. dr. king made a clear point. in a sense we have come to our nation's capital, and i quote, to cash a check. when the architects wrote the words of the constitution and declaration of independence, they were signing a note to which every american was to fall ear. that note was a promise all men would be guaranteed the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and i paraphrase. it is obvious that america has defaulted on this promissory note. instead of honoring the obligation, america has given the people a bad check which has come back marked insusht funds. we refuse to believe there are insufficient funds. so we have come to cash this check, a check that will give us

the riches of freedom and the security of justice. mr. speaker, if we pass this bill today, it will signal a refusal to pay our share into the vaults of opportunity for all americans, it will drive up the debt and will cut programs for the most vulnerable. if this agreement passes, when out of work americans look in the 112th congress for help in paying their rent, our nation's capital will look to those americans and say insufficient funds. when we look to veterans, the 112th congress will say insufficient funds. when our schools look for funding they need to teach our kids, our congress will say insufficient funds. mr. speaker, this bill will only drive up the deficit, which is already too high in the eyes of the american people and will put even more pressure on congress and the president to cut vital programs when we convene next year. if this sounds familiar to the

american people, it should. in the early 1980's, president reagan's budget director conceived of a strategy called starve the beast by cutting taxes and increasing military spending, the president could force congress to cut social spending. as he put it, they would cut real blood and guts stuff. you heard it from the budget chairman a few moments ago. when they are in charge they plan to cut real blood and guts stuff. mr. speaker, if this tax bill goes through, blood and guts will affect us. we need to put -- they will put these important programs on the chopping block. indeed, mr. speaker, we refuse to believe that the american people should be forced to accept this tax deal to accept insufficient funds. we see $858 billion that should be in the vault of opportunity in this nation and that's why we oppose this bill.

members, follow me. oppose any argument that say there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity to rebuild this nation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield to the the gentleman from kentucky, five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. davis: we know without any doubt that all americans will be forced to send more of their dollars to washington on january 1, 2011 if we fail to act. although this legislation is not perfect, the package does provide a measure of certainty and predictability that will allow debate in the coming congress without damaging our fragile economy. this package will prevent devastating tax increases following on the backs of hard working americans, small businesses. this imperfect legislation represents the best agreement that can be reached by republicans and democrats determined to avoid the shock to

our economy that would come from increasing taxes on the american people. a vote against this agreement, which would prevent the largest tax increase in history is really a vote for $3.8 trillion tax increase. regardless what side of the aisle the opposition comes from, they are willing to accept the proposition that taxes will increase for all americans and may gain political points but not willing to let perfect stand in the way of good when it comes to matters. this package earned the bipartisan support of more than 80 senators. if we fail today, middle class families will see $100 per week taken out of their pay check. it will cause more pain for families, force small businesses to cut employees and slow economic growth. critics extend against the standing tax cuts said it will add to the deficit. the federal government is not entitled to specific revenue

from the american people. what is the cost of letting americans keep their own money. many members of congress have lost sight of the fact that money congress spends is owned by the american people and debt we accrue falls on their shoulders. instead of following common sense, democrats and republicans have spent well beyond their means. now, many of my colleagues are looking to the pockets of the american people to foot the bill rather than to make tough choices and cut spending. if less tax revenue is coming in, congress has the obligation to spend less. democratic leadership in the house refuses to accept that proposition. rather than to take steps to solve excessive spending, democrats in congress have one answer, spend more money. they have and why would they trust that tax increases are the answer to our fiscal problems. with the tax record of this

congress, increasing taxes is tantamount of trusting your teenager with a credit card. there needs to be a restraining order on washington. restore fiscal sanity in washington. american families and small businesses can't afford for congress to play chicken with their hard-earned tax dollars rather than renewing the tax cuts. dragging the debate in the next year, the result will be more money taken out of american family paychecks, impeded job creation and partisan political bickering. i would repeal the a.m.t. and permanently abolish the estate tax and insist that the unemployment compensation be offset by commonsense spending reduction. president obama won't sign the extension without the unemployment provision that makes the 2001 and 2003 tax relief permanent. congress must develop and adopt the plan to eliminate the

deficit like any business or family in financial trouble. congress must learn from the mistakes by the bailout culture and support policies to improve the economic climate for entrepreneurs and small businesses. the road to prosperity allows you to take more home to your family and enjoy the economic freedom that has been the hallmark of american culture. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. . the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent that i handle the time until mr. levin returns to the podium. i yield two minutes for mr. dog et of texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: this is the report of the president's bipartisan commission and barely took him a moment to make a deal that spikes our national debt upwards almost $1 trillion and new

borrowing from the chinese and others. this deal bors from others and has problems with the efficiency of most of its provisions that you would get people shovel out cash at the front door of the capitol. billionaire estate bonuses, 1% of the people getting a giant tax cut, that doesn't provide meaningful job growth and there is a very good reason. we pay social security taxes. in order to share in the old-age survivor and disability insurance that is social security. this proposed republican tax holiday is not a day at the beach but endangers the fabric of social security and that's why the agency has called this deal a disaster for social security.

in a very few months, these same republican privatizers of social security will claim tonight about the bush tax proposal that we are raising taxes on workers when we end this temporary payroll tax cut. and this same deal to social security discriminates against so many people that tonight are on the front lines with their lives as our fight -- firefighters, as our law enforcement officers, as those who educate our children and provide vital public services. they don't get a dime out of this provision. 95% of the public employees in massachusetts, a majority of those in the state of texas get absolutely no benefit from this provision. this bill undermines a guiding democratic principle, dignity for seniors. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington state. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for three minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. reichert: mr. speaker, i rise to express my support for this bipartisan tax compromise. we need to do this. we need to do this to prevent a massive tax increase on the american people, on american families and american businesses. the clock is ticking and american people are waiting. if congress doesn't approve this proposal, our small businesses will be saddled and crushed by a $588 billion tax hike. 1/3 of all businesses and business activity in the united states will see higher taxes. businesses that create 80% of our jobs in this country, raising taxes on small businesses in the middle of a recession is absolutely the last thing congress should do. even those in congress who want to raise taxes must question the timing of doing so when credit is scarce, wages are being cut

and people are losing their jobs. as i travel around my district i hear one consistent thing over and over again from small business owners. they need certainty. they want certainty. certainty so they know what uncle sam is going to take from them, from their bottom line now and into the future. certainty so they can plan for and make future investments, hire workers and buy equipment. certainty so they can pursue the american dream without worry being how government will get in the way. opponents of extending all the individual tax rates ignore the fact that more than half of 4.5 million small businesses in america pay taxes at the individual rate, not at the corporate rate. failure to extend the current tax -- individual tax rate is a tax hike on small businesses. my colleagues who want to discuss comprehensive tax reform

should remember that extending all of the rates now will give us a chance to have that discussion without adding a massive tax increase on small businesses. avoiding this tax hike is just as important for families across this country as it is for small businesses. millions of americans are employed by small businesses that face -- that will face this tax hike and in many cases their wages and their jobs hang in the balance of the decision that we will make here today. the business world needs certainty and families need certainty. certainty to plan for the cost of higher education for their children, certainty to buy a home that they can call their own, and certainty for the day to day task of making ends meet, just providing for the basic needs of their family. people are struggling, families are hurting and the last thing we need government to do is to reach deeper into their pockets and take their hard-earned

dollars. this compromise package isn't perfect. it's been said over and over. compromise rarely is. but perfection shouldn't be the barrier to what's practical. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. reichert: i yield back. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. inslee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, i came to peace with my decision on this bill this weekend when i was holding my 2-year-old grandson, brody, checking out the christmas tree. and i became focused on the real question before us. is it right to put $858 billion of deficit debt on that kid's shoulders? and the answer is no for three reasons. first, this bill represents an old unsuccessful experiment in supply side economics. that's failed time and time again in 2001 it was going to create jobs, didn't create a single net job. most of us remember when the

first president bush called this type of scheme voodoo economics. do you remember that? well, this is day gentleman -- deja voodoo commim economics and we have no interest in erecting the failed policies of george bush. second, let's be honest about what this deal is, a bipartisan deal gone bad. it's a case where both sides handed out candy to their favorite constituencies, handed them together in one pile of $858 billion of deficit spending and said, we will sober up, just not today. we've got to have a time to finish and stop kicking this can down the road. true bipartisanship will happen when both parties confront fiscal reality and become responsible. third, we have to face the music to what this deal is. it's just another case of using an overextended credit card. we cannot build an economy based

on credit card consumer spending. this is what got us in the hole in the first place. and this deal does not educate one kid, does not build one bridge, does not lead to the production of one innovative company. it doesn't build america, it just builds american debt. so let's learn from our past, let's put away the credit card, let's get an unemployment extension the old-fashioned way, let's have more jobs and less debt, let's defeat this bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield five minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from louisiana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. mr. speaker, indeed this is a sad state of affairs in which refind ourselves in having to deal with this in the waning days of the 111th congress. in just a mere 16 days, a massive tax increase, $3.8

trillion, will hit every american taxpayer. mr. boustany: at a time when we're dealing with high unemployment, very sluggish economic growth and uncertainty about our future. american families and businesses have had uncertainty hanging over their heads for months and we've known about the date of the expiration of these tax provisions. it's time for this congress to act. it's way past due. no one is satisfied, no one in this body, i'm sure, is satisfied completely with this bill. i certainly don't like provisions in it. but we may not like the situation that we find ourselves in, but it is this situation that determines our duty to act. mr. speaker, we cannot roll the dice with the american economy and the fate of american families and american businesses. that would be the height of

irresponsibility and we've seen enough of that in this 111th congress. let's examine some of the provisions in this bill. if you vote yes, you're voting to prevent tax increases on working americans, you're voting to prevent tax increases on small businesses and job-creating investments. if you vote no, you're voting for job-killing -- a job-killing $3.8 trillion tax increase that kicks in on january 1 and it will be paid for by every taxpayer and most small businesses in this country. if you vote no you're basically voting to allow for the average middle class family to see $100 pulled out of their paycheck every week. that's a lot of money for the average family. if you vote yes you're voting to prevent a hike in the death tax on our family farmers and small business owners who take risk

and have built farms and built small businesses, taking those risks in a uniquely american way. why do we want to penalize that? mr. speaker, now there are some who say on our side that we ought to wait, they may think it's good politics, they may think we may have more leverage. well, it's not all that clear as to what could be gained if we were to wait. but i'll say this, mr. speaker, it's inevitable that there would be delays in enacting any kind of a package and as a result of the delays, months going by perhaps, we'll see a job-killing massive tax hike on everyone. for those concerned about the deficit, certainly a concern i share, this tax increase will basically hit economic growth, hit prosperity in this country like a category five hurricane.

it will put us back into a recession. and the prospects to try to correct these problems will be even worse and make it much more difficult for us to act into the future. let's be clear. this is not a pro-growth program, as my colleague, mr. ryan, said earlier. this is a two-year agreement. it's a first step, the first step in correcting the severe problems that we find ourselves in. this will give us time to move forward with fundamental tax reform which when coupled with spending decreases, cutting spending, we can get our country back on a sustainable economic course. a sustainable path to prosperity, a sustainable path to restore american competitiveness and to restore american leadership at a time when we need to do this for the position of economic strength. so let's clear the slate so that we can start anew in january to get our country back on a

competitive basis. i urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the passage of this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves the time. the gentleman from michigan, will levin. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield two minutes to a member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to the senate amendment to the middle class tax relief act of 2010. this bill has good parts to it for the poor in the middle class, but it gives away $120 billion to the super rich. $120 billion the rich don't need and will not create any jobs. it's a huge give-away to the super rich in these tough economic times. it just boggles the mind, it's unconscionable, it's indefensible.

we all know the only reason we're even considering this craziness is to get republican votes in the senate so they won't filibuster the bill. that republicans insist on giving away taxpayer money to the rich while sticking it to the poor and the unemployed is worse than wrong, it is without conscience. yesterday my state of washington announced it will cut all the working poor health care from the state basic plan. 66,000 people and 16,000 low-income children will lose their health care, all they'll have is the emergency room. it doesn't end there. the washington state is also cutting off 85,000 elderly off their drug assistance program. these are people's lives we're talking about and we're pushing american families off their last lifelines during a recession to give tax breaks to the rich. that's the republican tradeoff. americans don't want this give-away.

they want us to act with compassion and economic common sense and not help start another republican economic disaster. we could and should fix this bill with fair rates but we won't because senator mcconnell says, give me money for the rich. i urge you to vote against it. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield five minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from illinois. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. the state of washington is cutting the working health care for the working poor, that's what we heard a minute ago. but wasn't it just an argument just a couple of months ago, mr. speaker, that if this body took up the obamacare that basically the birds were going to be chirping and the sun was going to come out and the clouds were going to part and the economy was going to be fabulous and we were not going to have another health care problem again?

mr. roskam: but what happened? running ramrod through this body ended up a job-killing health care bill and now we're wringing our hands. it's amazing to me. back when i was in the illinois general assembly, mr. speaker, i used to practice law and there was one time when i was approaching, i filed a motion at a courthouse and i approached a judge and he knew that i was a legislator and with a twinkle in his eye he said, well, mr. roskam, let's see how you voted on the judicial pay raise. and he kind of looked underkneadneath his below ther, he was teasing me, and i quickly said, your honor, i voted no but i hope yes. he thought about that for a second and he said, motion granted. now, i hope today there is a whole lot of show biz going on here because i hope today, mr. speaker, what's happening is that there are a lot of people who are saying voting no that

aren't voting no. with due respect to my friend from the state of illinois who acknowledges there is insufficient funds. he thinks there is going to be insufficient funds, look around. 111th congress, there is insusht funds. this congress and this leadership, mr. speaker, has doubled our national debt in five years and based on their own numbers will triple that national debt in 10 years. so this is not a news flash that is coming in the 112th congress, it's here today. we had debt independence day on august 4 of this year, which was the date of which every dime that went out from the federal government, mr. speaker, was borrowed money. so let's not act as if this is a new issue. this is not a new issue. this is the issue before us. we're looking at a terrific tax

increase that has the potential to drive us and to push us to a tipping point and a spiral that goes further and further down. now, let me talk to my friends on my eyed side of the aisle. i won't yield and then you can do what you want to do. friends on my side of the aisle say we are going to get a better deal, we'll pass a bill on january 6. somehow the senate is going to pass it on january 7 and the president is going to move his objections, even assuming that is true, let's think that through. january 7, a new bill is signed into law, not until mid-february the internal revenue deals with that and not until mid-march and then we are at the best-case snar yeoh and -- scenario sucking the life out of this economy and what does that? a downward trajectory that none

of us want. nobody wants that. one of the messages of november 2 is that we need to come together and work together. yeah, there are things in this bill that i don't like. there are things in this bill that i'm not pleased with, but i know at all costs we need to avoid a jobs-killing tax increase and i would be happy to yield to the the gentleman from illinois. mr. jackson: i was hoping the gentleman might comment on whether or not his impression of the bill was that it was deficit neutral. mr. roskam: clearly it's not deficit neutral and adds to the deficit, which is why i said it is not completely satisfactory. mr. ryan as chairman of the budget committee, has indicated what his intentions are. i find it ironic there is this new-found interest that it relates to deficit reduction

notwithstanding everybody else's numbers that the national debt will triple in 10 years based on the current majority. i said my peace. but waste clear what we need to avoid is raising taxes and putting this economy into a spiral out of which real, real difficulty comes. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. . mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to mr. blumenauer, an active member of our committee. mr. blumenauer: this agreement may or may not be good politics, but it is wrong. it is ducking tough issues and trying to make every interest group happy. i will be the first to admit it contains items i support some i have worked hard to enact but not worth the price no matter how much i invested in them. this should be the time we stop

adding to the deficit with nothing to show to it but a temporary boost to the pocket books and the economy and covers -- controversies that will continue nonstop. we must borrow, it should not be for current operations but for long-term investment. the tinkering around the edges of the tax code and the need to patch the a.m.t. is counterproductive and will cost money to repair the broken tax code but investment well worth the cost. we should repeal the a. mmple t., broaden the base, make the code more simpler more fair and less costly. if we are at $1 trillion more in debt, we should address the infrastructure deficit. that would pay for itself with projects that will last for decades while putting hundreds of thousands to work at family wage jobs. make no mistake.

this vote means an exchange for a little temporary releaf weighted in favor of those who need it the least. this bill means that americans will pay more in debt and interest, a sluggish economy and costs of an unfair tax system. it's a bad bargain for the future of america's families. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. flake: i don't have time to detail all that is wrong with this bill but i'll focus on one small part of it. it's the social security payroll reduction. i want everybody in this body to remember this figure, this one number, $2,1136. that's the raise that we are all giving ourselves with this bill. that's the raise that we are

giving ourselves and we are borrowing every penny of it, from our kids and our grandkids and probably china. $2,136. we don't know where that came from. i asked people in this body where did that provision get in here? it's not part of extending the current tax rates, keeping the tax rates current. this is new. we were told somebody in the senate has put it in. but no one has sought to remove it. but keep in mind, $1,136. that's how much every member of this body, because all of us make more than $106,000 a year. so all of us are giving ourselves a $2,136 raise with this legislation. we better remember it, because the voters certainly will. this money, as i mentioned, we

are borrowing it. we don't have it. we can't pull it from another account. there's nothing in the social security trust fund to take it from. so we are borrowing it, every penny of it. just remember that number, $2,136. that's the raise we are giving ourselves with this legislation. i urge a no vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. . the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. levin. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the very distinguished colleague on the ways and means committee, mr. pascrell of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pascrell: mr. chairman, families are hanging by threads, literally, as we debate this tonight. we know the economic wreckage that occurred between 2001 and 2008. double unemployment, flat wages and unbrideled greed. we didn't do a very good job

incorrecting the problem in the first two years that we took over -- second, rather, that we took over. no question about it. these are perilous times. i say to my friend from arizona, both sides agree that we need extraordinary remedies in extraordinary times. ordinarily, your side and our side would vote against this legislation, because it's not paid for. but these are not ordinary times. you have said in the past, no to tax relief that every american, even billionaires, could take advantage of. if an extra 2,800 estates don't get a massive tax break. we had an agreement on the estate tax. h.r. 4145 -- 4151, i think it was, that provided a $7 million

exemption for families affecting less than .02% of the country. that wasn't good enough. so when the negotiations over the tax relief for the american middle class started, opponents saw the chance and decided to take the middle class hostage, agree for the tax relief only of 2,800 additional estates worth over $7 million, and provided billions more in tax relief. i don't know any working class families that own estates worth over $7 million. maybe you do in your district. no, you said to middle-class tax relief if the top brac et is not extended for the top 2% so i could give $63 billion. i ask not support for this agreement. mr. camp: i would like to yield

to the the gentlewoman from kansas. the gentleman from arizona is a co-sponsor of the legislation that would reduce the payroll tax that would give the so-called pay hike to members of congress. but let me say this payroll tax deduction applies to every working american such as the rate reduction applies to every small business in america. i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from kansas. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. >> when i ran for congress, i made a pledge to the people of kansas that i would vote not to raise their taxes. today i will honor that pledge and vote for the tax bill before us, because a no vote on this measure is a vote to raise taxes on every american taxpayer, every working parent, every small business person, every retirey, everyone. ms. jenkins: while the economy

struggles to get back on its feet and unemployment remains at 10% and allowing liberals to achieve their goal of raising taxes on american families and small businesses by nearly $4 trillion is extremely bad economics. there are several aspects of this provision that i'm against, including the massive deficit spending required for the unemployment benefits for 13 months that are not paid for and the 35% death tax, which will create hardship for many family farms across the entire midwest. but failure to pass this legislation will be the equivalent of reaching into the bank account of every middle-class family and pulling out an additional $5,000 next year. the families i represent in kansas have had to tighten their belts and can't figure out why washington continues to raid their bank accounts and refuses to tighten the belts of the

federal government. it is truly sad that we have reached this point. the current majority could have addressed this issue at any time over the last two years. but they were very busy throwing money at solutions in need of problems that they didn't take time to build a budget, appropriate money or address the issue of taxes. and now our backs are against the wall. while this is far from the ideal permanent extension we desire, a two-year extension of the current tax rates provided in this bill gives business some short-term certainty so they can go out and invest and hire new workers to grow the economy and provides congress with a window to truly reform the tax code correctly without a mad scramble next year to undo the damage. when we reconvene in january, it is imperative that the next congress led by a new majority

reform our tax code, end the death tax, reign in spending and balance our budget and putting punitive taxes on hard-working americans until washington can best accomplish that is not the right way to go about this. the people of kansas expect more of their representatives in washington. i urge my colleagues to cast a vote against tax increases and vote in favor of this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mr. levin? mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield two minutes to the distinguished member from the great state of nevada, ms. berkley. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. berkley: i rise in favor of this bill. the people in the state of nevada are having a very tough time right now. we have the highest unemployment

rate in the country and highest mortgage foreclosure rate. the people in my district are particularly hard hit. one in five people that i represent have no jobs. the unemployment benefit extension in this piece of legislation is critical to the very survival of so many of the families that i represent. everybody thinks of my district of las vegas and north las vegas as a very shiney wonderful town, and it is all of those things, but it's a working class town and most people don't fully and most people don't fully appreciate that. i represent electricians, keno runners, waiters, waitresses, valets and porters. all these people are middle income wage earners and the middle income tax extension will be a tremendous help to these families. the child care tax credits so many of the people that i

represent in las vegas are single mothers who are working. the bane of every single mother, and i know this, is good child care at an affordable price. the child care tax credit makes a difference whether these women can go to work or not. if you add in the alternative minimum tax, 33,000 of the people i represent will be slammed by that if we don't extend it. marriage penalty tax, earned income tax, these are all very important to the middle income wage earners that call las vegas and nevada home. one of the most important things is the tax extenders that are included in this. nevada is one of eight states that does not have a state income tax. if you're a state income tax state, you can deduct state income tax from your federal income tax. nevada doesn't have one system of we a few years ago along with brian baird and a few others were able to get an extension for sales tax and being able to

deduct your sales tax. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. >> mr. speaker, job creation is priority number one. 14 million americans are striving every day to find a job. what they fail to understand in washington, to get a job, you've got to promote small business and free enterprise and entrepreneurship. 70% of all the jobs created in america are created by small business. in my state of florida, 99% of all businesses registered in tallahassee, our capital, are either small businesses or medium sized businesses, mainly a couple hundred employees or less. to raise taxes in this environment, when many businesses right now are struggling on the verge of

trying to stay open, many of them can't get credit. if we raise the taxes on small businesses and a lot of people don't realize a lot of small businesses are subchapter s's, l.l.c.'s, partnerships, sole propie -- sole proprier toships so it's all passed through income to them personally. raising taxes on small businesses, they're saying it will affect 48% of businesses if we don't act today. people ask why doesn't business have any confidence right now, or the confidence they should? they just don't believe what's happening in washington. the administration and this congress in their mind and their right is very antibusiness. so if we want to create jobs, the last thing we should be doing is raising taxes on small businesses. if we want to help families and we want to get people back to work, we need to pass this bill and do what we can, no tax

increases come january 1. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognize. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, a member of our committee, mr. -- the chair: the gentleman is are recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: i was in a meeting two days ago at the organization in chicago in cook county that services low income families. trying to figure out how to help some of my constituents get their homes heated because it might be snowing in washington but it's cold in chicago. the telephone rang, somebody said, could you take a call from the president? i said, which president? they said, the president of the

united states. i said, of course i'll take it. i got on the phone and the president said to me, danny, we need to pass this bill, and we need to pass it because even though it's cold, it's going to get colder. there are going to be people who don't have any unemployment compensation benefits and they can't pay their heating bill. there are going to be people who want to send their kids to college and without the tax credits for college tuition, they won't be able to pay the tuition. i said, yeah, but mr. president, what about the people way up at the top that's getting all this money? he said, well, there might be an opportunity to reduce that and i'm looking forward to voting on the pomeroy amendment. so that we can reduce some of that money that they're going to keep in their pockets, put it into the treasury so that we can help the poor people in chicago

who are cold and don't have any heat. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i recognize the gentleman from nebraska. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the pomloy roye amendment as it would increase the death tax. it is vital we do not stymie any economic recovery by failing to extend current tax -- the pomeroy amendment as it would increase the death tax. our country needs real economic growth which can't happen if washington doesn't prevent the tax increases on farmers, ranchers and small businesses. mr. smith: the sooner we can provide certainty to small business the sooner we get back on track and hiring again.

i would hike to highlight the importance of helping farnlers and ranchers in my district with lower estate tax rates. despite the rhetoric from some, they aren't millionaires and billionaires. they want to leave their children and grandchildren the land they use to raise food to feed americans and others. the value of nebraska farmland has increased 9%. continuing a trend in which the value has doubled over the last decade. without an estate tax indexed for inflation, they will be forced to sell the land against farming traditions which have in many cases been passed on for generations. grieving families should not be forced to deal with the i.r.s. in a time of mourning. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is

recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the distinguished member from pennsylvania, ms. schwartz. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. schwartz: i rise in support of middle class americans as families in america continue to face economic challenge, we should extend tax cuts for americans. yet republicans insist that tax cuts apply to all incomes, even multimillionaires. they are insisting even tonight on including an additional tax break for just 6,600 wealthy estates at the expense of tax relief for middle americans. the goals of the tax relief package should be to help middle income americans and promote economic growth and because of the president and democrats in congress most of this bill accomplishes just that. i commend the pro-growth business provisions, particularly the acceleration of business appreciation and extension of research and development tax credit which encourage innovation and

investment. i strongly support the extension of tax breaks for middle class families. unfortunately, the senate republicans' last-minute estate tax provision does not meet the goal of economic growth or tax relief for the middle class. it is simply a bonus to the wealthiest few that is not fair, not justifiable, and not fiscally responsible. instead, the estate tax proposal we offer as a substitute saves $25 billion. the house should vote for this proposal because it promotes economic growth, extends tax cuts for all americans and provides sensible estate tax relief for 99.75% of the nation's small businesses, families and farms. vote for the tax cuts, vote for fair estate tax policy, vote for this legislation as amended. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is are recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> our number one goal should be to get our economy back on track. sadly in the last two years this body has done little to help the record high unemployment this country has faced this tax bill will give us an opportunity to change that. in two weeks, our country's small businesses will see a huge, job-killing tax increase imposed on them. but all know small businesses have been the back bone of our economy for a long period of years. they served as our nation's top chief job creators, generating seven of every 10 new jobs created. mr. paulsen: according to the national sfed ration of independent business minnesota, recessionnary optimism is at a low level. only 4% of firms are planning to create new jobs. stonning these tax increases in

january 1 will add jobs to the economy. on the other hand, imposing these job killing tax increases delay economic recovery denied to the american people. we must act now to prevent this from happening. this bill also has a cig cabot impact on our nation's family. voting against this bill will lead to a $100 tax increase on every hardworking american family every single week. these are families already struggling to make ends meet in tough economic times and increasing taxes on them is only going to make matters worse. this bill is not perfect. would i like to see the tax rates made permanent? yes. would i like to see the spending provisions paid for? yes. but well over 80% of this bill is tax relief. it prevents income tax rates from increasing, it preserves the child tax credit and prevents the marriage penalty

from being put in place. unless we act on january 1, we will see job killing taxes but tonight and today we have an opportunity to support american families and small businesses that employ them. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to control the time until mr. levin returns. the chair: without objection. ms. schwartz: i yield one and a half minutes to mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is are recognized. mr. holt: i'm most concerned this bill will undermine the very idea of social security by taking money out of social security and promising to make it whole with general revenues. when f.d.r. and others created social security in 1935, it was a political master stroke. social security was created as an insurance program and has remained intact for 75 years because americans have a real sense of ownership for the program. f.d.r. said social security should not use general tax

revenues. this bill puts social security on the table with tax breaks for the top 2%, with estate tax, alternative minimum tax, accelerated depreciation, making it essentially another bargaining chip. if we allow social security to become another bargaining chip for dealing with politicians, it will not be long for this world. in good economic times and bad, this sense of ownership that americans will get their due from social security has allowed it to survive despite determined efforts by determined enemies. we can find better ways to boo our economy that do not add billions of debt to pay for tax cuts for the privileged few and do not jeopardize social security. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

>> i'm amazed how my friends across the aisle have found religion when it comes to fiscal issues. mr. lee: where were they with the $1.2 trillion health care bill they all promoted. where were they when the speaker chose not to enact a budget resolution this year, first time in 36 years, and now they're preaching fiscal responsible. -- responsibility. when we're out promoting a bill that's not cutting taxes, it's helping to ensure every american citizen who pays taxes won't be seeing an increase this year. it is truly, truly amazing. simply put, the bill before us today will allow taxpayers to keep more of what they earn and will allow small businesses the engines of our economy to invest in themselves and invest in jobs. this bill will provide much-needed certainty that

businesses have been screaming for and they're looking to invest in themselves and truly what they want to do is hire more workers, tell us what the rules are going to be. currently today, businesses are sitting on close to $2 trillion in cash and liquid assets, waiting to know what the rules are going to be. this bill is not perfect but it will help set the stage for businesses to get some confidence and certainty in this economy and go out and start investing in u.s. workers.im congress is long overdue in providing certainty to small businesses and it's one of the best ways we can start turning around this economy. i ran a manufacturing business before coming to congress. i know what it feels like to look at a production line and not knowing if you will be able to operate it the next month because washington is dragging its feet. by acting now, we can ensure

that small businesses and family farms aren't hit with a 55% death tax. we reaffirm our commitment to providing incentives for manufacturers to invest in research and development help every american family by extending the child tax credit and the marriage penalty relief. is this bill perfect? no. few things are that come out of washington. but the bottom line is that this bill will allow families to keep more what they earn and help small businesses grow and invest in themselves. this is a proven recipe for job creation and urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation so we can protect taxpayers and get onto the tough work of cutting spending next year. with that's correct i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. . the gentleman from mitch is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one munt to the the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tonko: this bill is a bad

deal for the middle class. if you work hard and play by the rules you should be rewarded. this bill ignores this and lines the pockets of the rich at the expense of everyone else. our top priority right now should be job creation. we tried the tax proposed today for the last decade under the illusion they would create jobs. so i ask, where are the jobs? just where are the jobs in this recession wasn't an act of nature, it was manmade. shame on us if we do the same thing again and expect different results. i will continue to fight to strengthen the middle class and extend unemployment benefits who are out of work. i have voted in favor of both in recent weeks. however, we should not support a giveaway to millionaires and billionaires at the expense of future generations. mr. speaker, this bill needs more jobs and less debt. with that, i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from louisiana. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: mr. speaker, there are a number of things that have been talked about here that ought to be addressed. one i want to address point blank is this concept, this myth that somehow preventing a tax increase adds money to the deficit. only in washington with some liberal politician think that allowing someone to keep money in their pockets and not have a tax increase somehow adds to the deficit. if you want to see growth in this country, if you want to see more money coming into the federal government, something that has always been proven is having lower tax rates coupled with controlled spending and that's the problem is we don't have those issues being addressed here today and hopefully we will address that and in the new republican congress. we should make these tax rates permanent including a complete

repeal of the death tax and will see real growth in this country. there is a moral imperative here too. there has been talk about class warfare and people talking about certain people having a tax increase. and that is the moral imperative, because who is the greedy one here, the single mother struggling to make ends meet or the liberal politician who is trying to saddle her with a 50% increase in her tax rate if this bill doesn't pass. is it the greedy one, the small business owner struggling in tough economic times. or is it the liberal washington politician hoist going to saddle them with thousands of dollars in new taxes that will make it impossible for them to create jobs? that's the moral imperative. time for the liberal washington politician to get their hands out of the hands of the taxpayer and hard-working americans in

this country so we can get real job growth. when the gentleman from michigan becomes the chairman of the ways and means committee wants to address the long-term problems. we need to prevent any american from having their taxes raised and that's what this debate is all about. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield to the the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. lynch: i society myself with the remarks of the the gentleman from arizona who spoke earlier. and the number that is important is $119 billion. you might ask why that number is important. that is the amount of money in a this bill will rob from the social security trust fund if

it's implemented, at a time when more and more of our seniors rely on social security as their sole source of income, at a time when more of our seniors are vulnerable and on fix incomes and can't get a second show, at a time when more american workers are desperately needing social security benefits because their pensions have gone away. in spite of the gentleman's remarks from louisiana who just spoke, it's easy to forget that on most of these issues, democrats and republicans agree, we agreed that 98% of americans needed a tax break continued. we are fighting about that 2%. that's where the argument is. we are arguing about people who have $10 million in an estate, in a windfall to them should they pay taxes.

it's interesting that in this bill, those people have been protected, but the folks on social security and the solvency of the social security trust fund is fair game. vote no on this measure. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: most of the three hours is dedicated to pushing this bill, but the fact is falling on social security tax is reduced by 2% from 6.2% for two years which affects social security. when i proposed the payroll tax holiday, i was going to pay for that, it's in the bill, pay for that with tarp. take that money from the wall street bailout and give it to the people that actually earned it. this isn't paid for. we were elected into the

majority to stop the deficit spending. we do need to extend the current tax rates so we can give some stability to this economy. but two years analysts say aren't going to push businessmen to fix the economy. this is a mistake. we can do much better for the economy. this is no time to sell out just to get some extensions. we can do better. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from maryland, ms. edwards. ms. edwards: in 2006, warren buffet wrote, there is class warfare but it's my class making war and we are winning. in this bill, mr. buffet's sentiment rings true today as it did four years ago. i rise in strong benefit that

will benefit the wealthiest americans that will put billions of dollars of debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. our tax policies have concentrated a third of this nation's wealth in 1% of our population leaving only 80% with a 16% of our nation's wealth. the proposal on the floor today only exascerbates that trend. mr. speaker, we staked our reputation in the legacy of this 111th congress on fighting for working families. i don't understand how we can saddle the same families with unsustainable tax cuts for the wealthy and estate tax that benefits 6,600 families and payroll tax that without question raises social security -- raids social security. if this is war, let's put away this white flag. i refuse to surrender to those who want to benefit the 2%ers at the rest of us. to do that would surrender their

dreams and paychecks of families all across this country. it's time to put away the white flag and fight for working families. and with that, i yield. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: what is the time remaining on both sides. the chair: the gentleman from texas controls 35 minutes. the gentleman from michigan controls 52 1/2 minutes. mr. brady: at this time, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. . the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, ms. sanchez of california. ms. sanchez: i rise today in strong opposition to this reckless legislation. there is no question that i strongly support some of the items in this bill. unemployed americans desperately need their benefits extended and i have voted to do so every time i have had the chance. this bill contains tax ruts for

hard-working american families, tax cuts i voted two weeks ago on this very floor. but this bill holds these good policies hostage to a giant hand out to those who need it the least. political bullying and afront to american families waged by republicans whose irresponsible decisions got us into the mess in the first place. this is a change to the inheritance tax that will concentrate wealth and power. in a country that prides itself, such a giveaway is irrational and doesn't allow us to invest in people and infrastructure. this is a tax break for people who makes $250,000, breaks when america can ill afford. when those who have been unemployed for the longest are losing their safety net and men and women are being asked to serve and die in iraq and

afghanistan. the payroll tax cut is another bad idea. not only does it make social security less secure, many public servants including california teachers won't see any tax cut at all. this bill adds $1 trillion to the deficit while doing little to create jobs, spur economic growth or invest in america's future. because i'm committed to creating jobs, making retirement secure and investing in this country, i cannot in good conscience support this bill. compromise is one thing and surrender is is another and i will not surrender in the fight that america remains the land of opportunity for all. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. altmire. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for

one minute. mr. altmire: i rise in support of this bill because it strikes the right balance between support of the unemployed and those who continue to suffer in the economic downturn. the continuation of pro-american and pro-family economic policies and providing the much needed certainty for american job creators to make the long-term strategic decisions to help grow our economy. now is not the time to raise taxes for anyone in america. one of the key factors that has stalled our economic recovery is the uncertainty about the regulatory environment and tax rates that will face small businesses in the coming years. with passage of this legislation, we can provide the certainty these businesses have sought enabling them to be able to make the long-term, strategic and hiring decisions they were reluctant to do before they knew what the playing field would look like. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation

compromise that will help kickstart our economy and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. . the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sherman: let me correct the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, when he says this bill would take money and make the social security trust fund less solvent. every penny that the social security trust fund doesn't receive from payroll taxes, it gets from the general fund. but let me correct him when he says the other way to pay for this is by canceling the tarp bill. we canceled the tarp bill six months ago. he voted against the bill, but the bill was returning $225 billion to the treasury. having done that once, we can't make money by doing it again. the republican senators held this country hostage and held the middle-class tax cuts

hostage and the economy hostage, president obama agreed to pay the ran some. now the question before this house is do we block that ran delem som payment. if we do not make the payment this month, president obama will be willing to pay just a little bit more next month. so we will do what we have to do. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> i reserve at this time. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank -- i think for americans tonight their urgent

priority is to find a job. i think our priority should be helping them. i support him perfect bill because it will help create jobs. i think a tax cut will help spending. i think that not raising taxes on people who sell real estate or teach school or drive a school bus is the right thing to do. mr. andrews: i think that some degree of tax certainty for business people and investors over the next two years will help spur investment. i know that every penny that people receive in an unemployment check will be spent as soon as possible because people have to. that helps spur the economy as well. i also hope that the bipartisan agreement tonight to do the easy thing to reduce people's taxes, will be followed by a bipartisan agreement to do the hard thing, to reduce spending in a way that is sensible, exquit -- equitable, fair and necessary. this is not a perfect agreement but it's a necessary one. i urge a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i yield fur minutes to the gentleman from virginia who has been a leader on lowering taxes and fighting the expansion of government and expanding liberty, four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. cantor: i urge my colleagues to put politics aside and focus on the facts. we are crawling out of the worst economic downturn in generations. working families and businesses remain gripped by an economic uncertainty and to this day, washington has only made the problem worse. if we want to cut in to the 9.8% unemployment rate, mr. speaker, we have to instill confidence in the economy. and begin to foster an environment for job creation. today, we take our first step

toward achieving that goal. this tax deal is not perfect. and nearly all of us, myself included, disagree with certain elements of this bill. but let us not forget what we're fighting for. the reality is, mr. speaker, that on january 1, one of two things is going to happen to all taxpayers and most small businesses. their tax rates are either going to go up or they'll stay the same. the choice is to act now or impose the onset of a $3.8 trillion tax increase that will crush the fadge ill are recovery and cost tens of thousands of jobs nationally. this is an indisputable fact and an unacceptable result. mr. speaker, this tax increase would punish families and small

businesses that cannot afford to pay it. middle class families will see their taxes go up by $100 per week. let me be clear. there's only one path out of this economic crisis and it's economic growth. but by transferring vast sums of cash out of the private sector and into washington, congress would be taking a club to investment, entrepreneurship and innovation. the very building blocks of what we need to foster economic growth and job creation. about 84% of this package, mr. speaker, is either tax relief or extension of current tax rates. so while not perfect, this is the kind of action that most americans voted for last november. in addition to preserving all

marginal tax rates, it would kill the making work pay credit and replace it with a payroll tax credit for all workers. it would deal with the alternative minimum tax that would begin to hit individuals making well below $100,000 and would head off a punishing increase in the death tax. mr. speaker, we could try to hold out and pass a different tax bill but there's no reason to believe that the senate will pass it or the president would sign it if this fight spills into next year. meanwhile, mr. speaker, the uncertainty associated with the prolonged debate would cause grave economic harm and possibly send us back into a double dip recession. with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to pass this current legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. --

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: mr. chairman, we're voting on a tax package that gives away $139 billion to tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of americans over the next two years in exchange for $57 billion in unemployment compensation benefits over the next 13 months. the math doesn't add up. many members are opposed to this bill because it's bad economic policy but it's also morally wrong. last friday, the congressional black caucus, led by congressman bobby scott, a member of the budget committee, proposed a fair deal by eliminating the state fax giveaway to the richest in our country and eliminating temporary assistance to needy family, build america bonds, affordable housing provisions and the earned income and child tax credit. our proposal would also protect

social security by offering a tax rebate instead of a payroll tax holiday to ensure that social security is not cut in the future and it would create the same amount of jobs at half the cost. i ask unanimous consent to put our proposal into the record. we should let the bush tax breakers in rich expire. period. extending them for two years dig us deeper into the deficit hole and we know who will end up paying for it, it won't be the rich, it'll be the poor, low income communities and communities of color who lack lobbyists here on the hill. i'm reminded of what dr. martin luther king jr. called to our attention, a bad check written today will come back marked insufficient funds. instead of stuffing the stockings of the super rich, we need to stim lit job growth efforts. we should not leave the chronically unemployed, those who exhausted their 99 weeks of unemployment compensation, out of this deal. they should not be left out in

the cold due to insufficient funds. we should in the allow the other side of the aisle to shove these tax breaks for the super are rich down our throats in exchange for middle income tax breaks. as afl-cio president richard tump said yesterday in opposition to bill, he said working families must not continue to bear the cost of unnecessary giveaways. mr. brady: at this time i yield two minutes to mr. dent. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dent: of course this is not a perfect bill but it is a good bill. we've heard the policy and political arguments against this bill. let me be very clear. it's time to stop the $3.8 trillion tax increase that awaits the american people. it's time to take yes for an answer. it's time to get on board. if this bill fails, taxes go up on american savings,

investments, income, estates, small businesses, we know what's coming. we know what's awaiting the american people. as it relates to the estate tax, think about that one moment. after january 1, we know people will die. and if this law is not enacted, we know what will happen. lifetimes of hard work, sacrifice and thrift will be punished. punished. and this federal government will compensate money from people at 55% who have less than $5 million in assets. it's terribly unfair to family farms and family businesses. let's be clear. if you're voting no, you're voting to raise taxes. again, if you're voting no, you're voting to raise taxes by $3.8 trillion. if you're voting yes, you're voting to stop, to stop a $3.8 trillion tax increase. this is the vote that counts. the political games are -- political games are over, no

more posturing, train is pulling out of the station, it's time to get on board. vote yes. stop the tax break. >> will the gentleman yield. mr. dent: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is are recognized. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield one minute to the gentlelady from wisconsin. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. moore: tonight by extending the bush era tax cuts the greedy will prevail and the needy will desperately -- fail to receive desperately needed help going forward. even the so-called era bush -- bush era tax cuts will deliver six times the benefit. how many times do we have to hear republicans boldly declare, we'll starve the beast and deny the least. social welfare. frankly this trillion-dollar tax cutting and social security gutting feeds right into the

75-year republican sentiment to eliminate entitlements. the trillion-dollar debt, good-bye social safety net. lower them with short-term gain and usher in long-term pain. colleagues, bae beware. tonight begins the undermining of social security and medicare. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: at thistime i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance. mr. lance: i rise in support of the underlying bill that assures that taxes will rise on no one in america on new year's day, 15 days from now. what a terrible new year's present that would be to the american people. this bill creates greater certainty in the business community so that businesses across america can create the jobs this country so desperately

needs. especially given our current 9.8% unemployment rate. new jobs will lower our annual deficit. almost 85% of this bill provides tax relief including preventing the job killing tax hikes, enacting the a.m.t. patch, extremely important to the district i serve and to new jersey as a whole. reducing the federal estate tax from the scheduled 55% rate on january 1, down to the 35%, also extremely important to new jersey where residential real estate is so expensive. the bill has been endorsed by leading conservatives, including our new reform governor in new jersey, chris isaak tee. it will give us time in the -- chris christie. it will also eliminate the federal estate tax. i yield back the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: can i ask how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman controls 46 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from texas controls 28 1/2 minutes. mr. levin: to it's my real privilege to yield one minute to the distinguished jet from -- gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: i rise in opposition to the bill because it's passage would make it impossible to ever balance the federal budget. this compromise will add about $900 billion to the national debt, that's more than tarp, more than the stimulus package. the two-year cost of the bill is about the same as the 10-year cost of the health care reform bill. at least we paid for that. we need to make tough, unpopular choices to balance the budget. obviously letting tax cuts expire would be unpopular but when we ever decide to get serious about the deficit, we'll find the alternatives are more unpopular because after today's vote, choices will necessarily

include cuts in social security, medicare, education and other popular programs. mr. speaker, we don't have the political will to end the disastrous bush era tax cuts now, we won't have that political will during the middle of a presidential election. the job creation in this bill is paltry. it's $400,000 a job. it's -- we can do better than that. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to make the tough choice and defeat this bill. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it is now my privilege to yield two minutes to a very active member of our committee, the gentleman from california, mr. becerra. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: thank you the gentleman for yielding. for more than 200 years, america

has worked hard to earn a reputation around the world that when the going gets tough, america gets going. we could lead in tough times, we could withstand adversity, we were prepared to sacrifice. as our country matured, we were prepared not only to do all those tough thing bus to do it the right way and we were able to somehow figure out where the sweet spot was for prosperity in america. building the middle class. the g.i. bill for our troops. social security and medicare for our seniors. the best universities for our kids.jpas we invested in the mi class, our prosperity bloomed. fast forward to the bush recession and tough times we find ourselves in today. americans are hanging tough, fighting to hold on to their jobs and homes. but is everyone in america sharing in the sacrifice? this proposal giffles millionaires $139,000 in tax breaks each year and on top of

that, 6,600 will receive a tax break of $23 billion and more than $100 billion that it diverts from the social security trust fund and borrows from places like china to replace those dollars. everyone in america is willing to sacrifice. this bill doesn't ask all americans to sacrifice. the day should come when the days come when all of us are prepared to sacrifice. this is not the bill and not the time to change america's history. let us work together to pull together and let everyone in the world know that we are prepared to sacrifice. america's wealthy are ready to sacrifice as all americans trying to hold on to their jobs and homes prepared to sack cry files. let's do it together and we know how to do it. adversity doesn't concern us.

we can do much better than this bill. it's our chance to prove it to america. i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: reserves. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to another member of the ways and means committee, mr. etheridge of north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. etheridge: permission to revise and extend. the chair: gentleman's request will be covered by general leave. mr. etheridge: there is much in this bill that concerns me. specifically at a time when our budget deficit and national debt continues to hold back our economic growth. we should not be passing bonus tax breaks for the wealthiest few in this country and handing the bill to our children and grandchildren and the language that provides estate relief in a responsible manner.

additionally, i worry that the payroll tax provisions, while good for working families in the short run could undermine the fin evenses of social security in -- finances in the long run. doing nothing is not a very good option. for far too long in this town, shortsiringted partisanship has prevailed against the best interests in this country. we need more bipartisanship in washington, d.c. to tackle our nation's most pressing problems. i commend the president getting us beyond stale mate and laying the groundwork and economic progress for the american people. there are many provisions that are going to help working families. i support the middle-class tax cuts or keep them going, child care tax credits, marriage penalty relief, the jegs initiatives will help families make ends meet and invest for a brighter future and more secure

economic growth. congress needs to pass the extension of the unemployment benefits contained in this legislation. in my home state of north carolina, thousands of workers have lost their jobs in the recession caused by the misguided policies of the previous administration. i met with many of these people and looked them in the eye and they told me their stories. these are good people. they have worked hard and played by the rules. they are depending on these unemployment benefits to get them through these tough times until the economy picks back up and creates good jobs. we are here a week before christmas and the last thing we should do is cut off their lifeline. i urge my colleagues to join me in doing so. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: pleasure to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: what we are about to do here is extraordinary and the impact will be felt by our kids and grandkids. with one vote we are going to increase the already projected record deficit of $1.3 trillion to $1.7 trillion. every penny tonight will be borrowed, much of it from china and some of it from our social security trust fund for the first time in our history. for what? for continuing the failed economic policies of the last nine years. we have these tax cuts in place today. how many jobs are they creating? but you tell me we can't afford to invest and can't rebuild our nation's crumbling infrastructure. we know we have the money.

we can increase the productivity of our nation and we can compete better worldwide if we invest in our infrastructure, our education system and our people. but no, we are going to have debt financed, consumption-driven recovery as people buy goods made in china and of course $112 billion taken out of social security. and the republicans made it clear that the temporary cut in social security income is not temporary. they have said it time and time again. there is no such thing as a temporary tax cut. i hope the white house is listening. they are about to spring the trap and next year, they will say, mr. president you are going to raise taxes on every american? you can't do that. and by the way, we are tired with subsidizing that program with money we are borrowing. that is horrible. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i would point out our democrat friends have run the

first and second highest deficits in american history and have raised taxes $625 billion and how much wept to reduce the deficit, not one dime. all that money was spent twice. no one seriously believes they would lower the debt but to grow and expand the government. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to mr. deutch. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. deutsch deutsch i raise with deep concern about the bill before us tonight. we must provide relief to the americans. our nation's most successful domestic program. in a year in this very chamber, many of our colleagues will work to make this tax holiday

permanent just as they are tonight for the bush tax cuts. jeopardizing social security will open retirement benefits to budgetary attacks for the first time and pave the way for a chance to privatize social security. we could give tax relief without threatening social security. the truth is, we will not accomplish that here tonight as we provide families with a lifeline that they desperately need. but we must commit ourselves to the fight. we must be ready to protect social security and defend our seniors and working americans from the attacks that are sure to come. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield to the distinguished the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi.

mr. garamendi: request to revise and extend. the chair: gentleman's request will be covered by general relief -- leave. mr. garamendi: the test is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it's whether we provide enough for those who have little , president roosevelt. on december 2, the democrats in this house honored those words. we passed a middle-class tax cut and we passed unemployment insurance and we provided for those who have little. tonight, because of the ransome that has been demanded by our republican colleagues, we are left with a different option, we are left with providing

abundance to those who already have much, $130 billion, every dollar borrowed, probably from china. is that fiscally responsible? i think not. and furthermore, furthermore, president roosevelt, we are in this bill about to destroy your greatest heritage, the social security system. the republicans are opening the door to the destruction of the social security system and thereby carrying out their 74-year task. it cannot happen. we provide an alternative and we must not let that happen. i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman from

michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the active member of mississippi, mr. taylor. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for one minute. mr. taylor: our country is going bankrupt. on may 9, 2001, mr. camp, our nation was $5 trillion in debt with 4.3% unemployment rate. guys like you came to the floor and said let's pass the bush tax cuts. they did. i didn't vote for it. eight years later when the president left office, our debt increased by $4,983,609,000 and the unemployment rate had gone up to 7.7%. the argument that these tax cuts are going to put people to work is bunk.

since the bush tax cuts we are $8,204,749,000 deeper in debt and the unemployment is a shocking 9.8%. how much debt is enough? how many more bills are we going to stick on my kids and my grandkids so that you and others can get re-elected? it is time to draw the line, mr. camp. i do believe in a balanced budget and i would beg my colleagues, i would beg my colleagues to defeat the measure. the chair: members should direct their remarks through the chair. mr. camp is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california. >> we yield one minute to the the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i strongly oppose this so-called

tax compromise because it represents a windfall for the wealthy and result in one thing and one thing only, insufficient funds for all other social programs. by holding assistance for the unemployed and giving tax breaks to the billionaires, tax breaks actually that create absolutely no jobs, we will create a big hole, a big hole in all of the support that we need for our children, for women, for veterans, for education and health programs, and that only names a few, mr. speaker. rather than tax breaks for the wealthy, we need policies that create jobs, jobs that will help our working families. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues, oppose this flawed tax package because it will yield only one thing, and that is insufficient funds for any of

the social programs we need in our country. the chair: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. becerra: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: revise and extend. mr. speaker, i ask that we send this bill back to the drawing board and work with the president so we can really help the unemployed, 999ers and not just grow the deficit. where are the good samaritans. we voted for tax cuts. i believe in them. the tax bill is a budget buster and just growing the deficit, the same deficit that we are going to be called upon to do something about. i want america to thrive so they

cannot be giving tax cuts to billionaires who do not want them. we cannot cut into the social security costing us $120 billion and impacting firefighters, teachers and police who do not get a benefit from the holiday. i want the republicans to stop holding us hostage for hard-working americans to get a dime from this country. they work hard. i offered an amendment to ensure that the corporations that are getting the tax cuts really do save a job or hire the people who are unemployed, with billions being spent and trillions in the deficit, it is time now to work for middle class america. do -- do -- the chair: regular order. the gentlewoman's time has expired. >> i yield one minute to the

gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy. mr. murphy: my constituents are willing to support this but only if the money is all targeted to saving jobs. we're going to give $140,000 in tax cuts to somebody who makes $1 million. we're going to reduce the estate tax so only 3,500 families pay it next year. sure there are important provisions in this bill that pep the -- that help the middle class like extending tax cuts and unemployment benefit bus the benefits will be greatly outweighed by the crushing debts those same family -- families will have to carry in order to finance those tax cuts. my constituents want a bill that's 100% focused on jobs. unfortunately, 20% of the money goes to almost 1% of americans. not a deal to create jobs. not a deal we can afford. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is

recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. buyer: we are not voting simply on whether to keep tax cuts but on whether or not we raise taxes. to let our current tax law expire is to raise taxes on americans. some say the tax cus -- cuts will cost the government $700 billion. i say that allowing the current tax cuts to expire will cost taxpayers $700 billion. who needs that money the most? our government? or the people? if this bill fails and taxes go up in the middle of a fragile economy, we risk any potential job growth and recovery from this great recession. mr. stutzman: refusing to take more of taxpayers money is not

spending we wish we could afford. taking taxpayers' money is spend mung the taxpayer can't afford. we cannot punish taxpayers with a massive tax increase to pay for the massive spending problem in washington. let's let americans keep more of their money and let's start cutting spending and be responsible with the money they've entrusted us with. should we increase taxes to bring more money into the government so we can pay for the spending that's happened over the last several years? i say no. the message we need to be sending to the citizens of our great nation is this, we get it. we are not going to live beyond our means and ask you to foot the bill. we are going to cut spending, eliminate waste and reduce our national debt responsibly. let americans keep their money and see what happens to the economy. let americans keep their money and see what happens to the unemployment rate. let americans keep their money because it's the responsible thing to do. i yield back my time. >> would the gentleman yield? the chair: the gentleman from

california is recognized. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. wu. mr. wu: i rise in strong opposition to the obama tax billism strongly support middle class tax cuts and extending unemployment benefits to working family whors struggling to find jobs. however this bill is not balanced. it extends tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires for two years yet unemployment insurance is extended only one year. why are we providing tax cuts to the very wealthy while literally leaving unemployment -- unemployed americans out in the cold. further this bill is fiscally irare responsible and as a result bad for jobs and bad for our economy. the bill costs over $800 billion over the next 10 years. the bond markets are already reacting to this, interest rates are going up and this will swell. -- squelch what anemic job growth we do have.

the cost and length of this tax giveaway so that interest rates rise less and job growth can continue. thank you, please defeat this legislation. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expire. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky. >> i ask unanimous consent to control the time until the gentleman returns. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. yarmuth: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> when families around this country try to -- mr. yarmuth: they say, we may have to borrow money but we're going to borrow it for survival, meaning necessities, or we're going to borrow it to make an investment that will pay off over time. there are many things in this package that represent those two standards. unemployment benefits represent

necessities. those are things our citizens need to survive for them and their families. and there are business tax credits in these bills that represent investments to create jobs and stim lit economic activity. all those are good things. on the other hand, there are expenditures in this bill that don't meet either of those standards. these are the expenditures that give over $100 billion to the wealthiest citizens of this cubtry. the ones whose net worth has dramatically increased over the last decade, who now, 1% of this country control a vast majority of the wealth of this country. they have done extremely well. to give them more money is not -- when we're borrowing it -- is not the kind of priority we need to set. it does not represent an investment in jobs or in stimlative activity and it does not represent necessities.

these are bonuses to people who don't need them. lots of good things in this bill. unfortunately, the price for getting them is much too high. this is like beginning to the hospital, when you're very sick, and the doctor says, you know, i'm going to give you $250,000 of care that's going to be really effective for you. it's going to make you well. unfortunately, you're going to have to eat $100,000 worth of candy which will do nothing for you. this is the price we're being asked to pay by republicans in the senate for the many good things in this bill. always government is about choices. governing is always about choices and priorities. this is the wrong set of priorities for this country. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes.

mr. hensarling: i had not thought i'd come here to speak. i have been watching this debate in my office. i have envy for my colleagues that bring such passion and certainty in their vote as they come to the floor. i look at this legislation and listen to my colleagues, i must admit, i consider it to be a successful negotiation because i am not sure i heard anybody who really likes the bill. perhaps that's the hallmark of a successful negotiation. i look at the legislation, it's the classic challenge, is the glass half full or half empty? i for one have decided it to be half full. mr. speaker, clearly there are items in this legislation that i find not just empty, but frankly, atrocious. yes, there's tax pork in this legislation. there's unpaid for extension of unemployment benefits. mr. speaker, at some point, i

would hope the majority soon to be minority, in this institution, would realize we've got to concentrate on the paychecks, the paychecks americans want paychecks, not unemployment checks. if we're going to have them, they need to be paid for. worst of all, yes, what's happening to social security with the payroll tax. without putting any fundamental reform on the table, what i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it is you who brought that to the table. mr. speaker, i made a pledge to my constituents, i told them i would fight any tax increases. i hold them i would try to bring certainty to this economy because that's what businesses need. trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines waiting to come into this economy, but yet the

party who has been in control of congress for four years had the white house for two years, waits until almost christmas eve and we still don't know what tax rates are? there's no certainty. the only thing i am certain of is that if we don't pass this legislation, there's about to be a $3.9 trillion tax increase on the american people on school teachers, on farmers, on single mothers, on small businesses, on job creators, and yes, even the vilified wealthy. you know, mr. speaker, we've heard the class warfare rhetoric for quite some time now. look what it's got us. almost serial double digit unemployment and human suffering. mr. speaker, i ed have held a lot of jobs in hi life. i used to bus tables at the

holiday inn in college station, texas. i used to work on the loading dock, loading windows. i used to clean out chicken houses, which to some extent was sufficient training for the present occupation, but that's a subject for a different time. mr. speaker, in all those jobs i've held no poor person ever hired me. it was somebody who went out and risked capital and took a chance and built something. yet the left and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to vilify this person. that somehow it's bad to go out and be successful and create jobs so that people can put roofs over their heads, put food on the table, send their kids to college. i don't get it. my friends on the other side of the aisle say, this will add to the deficit. why didn't i hear that argument during the $1.2 trillion failed stimulus? i didn't hear the great angst and anxiety from my friends on the other side of the aisle at this point when we passed an

almost $400 billion omnibus spending bill. i didn't really hear it. will the gentleman yield two more minutes? mr. camp: i yield the gentleman two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: i didn't hear this angst and anxiety when my friends on the other side of the aisle brought us the first terror-dollar deficit in america's history butted back it up with the second trillion-dollar deficit in america's history. i didn't hare this concern. i only hear it now when we're talking about letting the american people keep what they earn. we're not even talking about a tax cut here. we're talking about preventing a tax increase. so i don't quite understand all of a sudden this great angst and concern about the deficit. and i might remind all of my colleagues, it is the deficit which is the symptom, it is spend chg is the disease.

we can clearly get rid of the deficit tonight. let's increase taxes 60%. 60% on all americans. let's more than double taxes on our children and destroy the american dream. sure, we can balance the budget that doesn't take care of the fiscal insanity. so to avoid a further job meltdown, and let me make it clear, mr. speaker, this is not any great economic growth package that's put before us. i don't believe this is going to be the cornucopia of jobs. what we're trying to do here is avoid further damage to a crippled economy that again has almost double digit unemployment on a serial basis. i wish we had at least 10 years of certainty of these tax rates. i'm sorry it's only two. i would say to my friends on this side of the aisle, who say, well, we could have got an better deal, i don't know.

i wasn't in the room. i didn't negotiate the deal. maybe their crystal ball is clearer than my crystal ball. here's what i see in my crystal ball. i'm absolutely for certain in my crystal ball that come january, barack obama is still going to be president of the united states. in my crystal ball, harry reid is still going to be senate majority leader. that's what i see in my crystal ball system of maybe the friends on my side, maybe you're right. but you have a degree of certainty and clarity of the future i do not have. so personally, i'm not willing to take the chance. i'm going to cast the aye vote. i'm going to stop the job-killing tax increases, i'm going to add at least a modicum of certainty two years certainty to the tax code. and i'm going to fight to put this nation back on the road to fiscal sanity because in this

legislation, i see the glass half full. i yield back. the chair: the type of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it's my privilege to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo. the chair: the yom is -- the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. eshoo: i'm deeply disappointed in the recently negotiated tax deal by the white house. while one can find items that are politically and practically attractive, in its totality, it borrows just shy of $1 trillion to pay for, amongst other items, expiring tax breakers in top 2% of our country. fear is that th bush tax cuts will become permanent and our future bill be dim. as america struggles with the largest transfer of wealth. we should be investing in

capital formation, technological innovation, job creation and education. these are the real building blocks for a strong future for all americans. i'm also deeply, deeply concerned about borrowing from the general fund to cover social security payroll taxes. this is the first time in the history of social security that the firewall between the general fund and social security is being taken down. this is dangerous. it's about a bad precedent and one i believe we will all regret. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to a member of our committee, mr. van hollen, who has been working day and night on this issue. the chair: the gentleman from

maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to have worked with congressman pomeroy and chairman levin on the amendment we will be voting on later tonight. while this house recently passed and democrats have been fighting to ensure that tax rates do not go up on 98% of the american people, senate republicans made it clear that they will raise, that they will raise taxes on every american if they don't get a special bonus tax break for the very top 2%. in order to break that, president obama concluded he needed to cut a deal. what this amendment we will be voting on later tonight is give the american people a better deal. specifically it asks all of us to consider this question. in an era of $1 trillion deficits, with our national debt approaching $14 trillion, barely two weeks after the bipartisan fiscal commission's moment of

truth report, should we really be borrowing $23 billion from china to give the wealthiest 6,600 estates an average tax break of $1.7 million a year? think about it. $23 billion for the wealthiest 6,600 estates at a time in fiscal challenge in a nation of over 300 million people without any benefit for job creation or economic growth. mr. speaker, much of the deal negotiated by the white house is defensible, but i would say to my colleagues, if we can't agree now, that now is not the time to be giving the top 3/10's of 1% who are not clearly serious about bringing down the deficit. there is another way. we can adopt the amendment and will provide $.5 million exemption and 45% maximum rate.

that's identical, identical to the rates and exemptions that were in effect in 2009 and significantly better than the rates that will take place if we take no action on january 1 when the exemption would go to one million and the rate to 55%. in fact, if enacted, this amendment would represent the lowest estate tax in 77 years up through 2009. mr. speaker, we have to level with the american people. we got to start somewhere bringing down the deficits. and if we can't settle on the estate tax exemptions and rates that were in place in 2009, which is the lowest in 77 years, if we can't do that and say to the very wealthiest estates and we are going to give you $23

billion to benefit 6,600 estates, how can we look the american people in the eye and say we are serious. i hope when this amendment comes up later today, we can make a deal that benefits all the people in this country. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from michigan. the gentlman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to mr. farr. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. farr: the sirens of the election that were about the deficit and you want to add $1 trillion to that deficit. wake up and listen to the sirens to the people who are needing of help. i can't believe that you talked about this bill as fiscal sanity. it's fiscal insanity, putting us in another $1 trillion of debt

and the concept if you give the rich more money, it will trickle down. to the people that need to be rescued aren't paid for by trickle-down economics. the rich never paid for that. there isn't an ambulance in the country that is paid for by the rich, there isn't a sold year that is paid for by the rich, a school teacher. you are putting our country into debt and that's the biggest issue in national security and what's the debt commission said we couldn't do. this is insanity, we fix this debt by closing these tax loopholes and you want to give them away. shame on you. the chair: he members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from michigan. the gentlman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan.

mr. levin: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, sir. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. to my friends on the republican side, we did this 10 years ago with the bush tax cuts and it didn't work. it's been mentioned over and over again and built up these great deficits, including the wars in iraq and afghanistan thaw supported so well and created the deficit that threatend our country to make us look like a future ireland, a future portugal, countries that are in great deficit problems that we are putting our country into. we don't need to be insane and try to do this over again. i feel like it's return to christmas past. christmas past. and you know, there is a book that says, from those who are given much, much is expected. but in this congress, from those who have much, we are expecting

little, we get little from it and giving them the biggest tax breaks of all. and to the people who die to the richest in our nation, we give them the steinbrenners who died with $1.1 billion and we will be giving them a free ride and the differences in the taxes 35% or 45%, $100 million. that is wrong and that is why i oppose the bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield five minutes to the the gentleman from ohio. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. tibtib what an honor and privilege it is to be a member of this house and to hear this debate that i have heard so much in the past. the road to prosperity is not through tax increases. the road to prosperity in america is not through class warfare.

my mother and father came to an america, a united states of america for a better life, for an opportunity, not a guarantee. an opportunity for their kids to be successful. for their kids to do well and pay taxes and do well for their kids. when you're voting on a bill tonight that extends current tax rates, the current tax code that represents, mr. speaker, three-quarters of this bill, that represents three-quarters of the quote, spending in this bill, and members of this body say we have to borrow to allow people to keep the money that they earn, where have we come? my father was a steel worker who loved john f. kennedy, who

proposed similar types of tax increases. my mother was a seamstress and neither graduated from high school. do they believe in class warfare? certainly not. the question is now, do we allow on january 1, the largest tax increase in american history? that's the question. i didn't negotiate this bill. if i were king, i would have certainly negotiated it differently. the chair: the gentleman has a right to be heard. the gentleman is recognized. >> can only people keep what they have today. does it cost the government money. think about that. the farmer, the farmer who is sick, who is trying to plan his estate.

would i support it being permanent? absolutely in the estate tax and let's eliminate it. but if this bill doesn't pass, a $1 million exemption occurs for that farmer planning his estate. how about the single mom with two jobs? trying to provide for her two kids. her taxes will go up. how about the teacher and the police officer raising a family, the marriage penalty? how about the small business owner who pulled me aside on monday and said i can't even plan my business. i would like to hire somebody and you folks in washington have known for how long that these tax rates were going to go up? last year, the majority party had 60 votes in the senate, had a clear majority in the house, you could have passed something and here we are 15 days before christmas and the grinch is about ready to steal it. for so many americans who will

see their taxes go up, mr. speaker, if this bill isn't passed. now there are a lot of things in this bill that i don't like, but the question today, mr. speaker, is do we let the perfect be the enemy of the good. i could sit up here and pick apart this legislation, but when three fourths of this is the current tax code, three fourths allow for the current rates to continue so taxes don't go up on millions and millions of americans, mr. speaker, it really comes down to this simple logic, we cannot tax our way to prosperity, we cannot tax our way to fiscal responsibility. we must pass this bill. give two years for this congress, this president, this senate to come up with a better way, a more simple way to tax americans, allow them to keep more of their money, provide for a way for capital to work in

america's favor and allow america to be more competitive again with a tax code that makes sense. but the question today is, do we allow taxes to go up or allow americans to have some certainty for the next two years. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. green: i thank the ranking member and chair for allowing me to support. i support maintaining the estate tax, exemption of $3.5 million. that's not what is in this legislation. i believe in the value of hard work and those who are able to succeed. some perceive the estate tax as undermining these values. americans with multi-million dollar estates are not the only hard workers. we have social security recipients who have worked but

see their benefits have deliped for two straight years now. what message does it send that we are giving 6,600 families a tax break on the average of $1.5 million each but can't find it appropriate to give our seniors on fixed income more breathing room a $250 check to allow them to pay their bills. the government's calculation tells us that the cost of living has not increased over the last two years but seniors in my district have done their own calculations. the cost of electricity, gas, health care have risen dramatically. i hope to support a bill that will benefit my constituents, but this bill does not and i hope the amendment will make it better. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to

mr. polis. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: there are a lot of people that democrats believe for american values, keeping our water clean, our let and let live social policies but somewhere in the back of americans' minds they are worried that democrats will raise taxes. the democrats are going to deliver one of the largest tax cuts in history. here's a $20, for every $20 an american family earns, they'll get an extra dollar, an extra dollar for every 20 they earn. those earning millions may get 60 or 70 cents for every dollar they earn, but that extra dollar will help keep people in their homes. in addition to that, every american with a paycheck will get a 2% raise this year 2,% off

the payroll tax every paycheck. i know a lot of companies have frozen their salaries, federal employees have their salaries frozen. thanks to the leadership of barack obama, the people of america can rest assured they won't get a tax increase. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen of the congress, the time is now for us to ask the one fundamental question before us -- what is in the best interest of the american people at this time. by american people, i mean every american from the top of the economic ladder to the bottom. especially those at the bottom. this is basically a 24-month stimulus bill. by getting money to those who need it most, who will put it in

the marketplace the quickest, which will help us create jobs. 70% of this entire $853 billion package will go to the low income and the middle income. there's no other way you put it. you talk about race, we dare not go home here today and raise taxes on the american people. we've got to cut the taxes, keep it down. ladies and gentlemen, you've got to realize that that lowest economic ladder, the lowest tax rate, is 10%. if we don't move, those people at the bottom that we care about, especially us on the democratic side, their taxes will go up 5050%. we've got to move this bill in the best interest of the american people. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the sfrelt from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized.

mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kay began. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kay began: tonight, well-meaning members of congress have been debating who will pay to clean up the mess left behind by president bush's failing economic policies, policies that included two tax cuts to the richest americans, at the very same time we're prosecuting two wars at the same time. we all know there is no free lunch. yet the senate is asking the house of representatives to designate this bill as an emergency for purposes of pay as you go, thereby failing to live within our means and driving our children deeper into debt. the senate also seeks to fix this more than by immediately turning over $129 billion of money we don't have to the very wealthiest americans. wrongly thinking that the republican inspired idea of trickle down economics will work today when it failed miserably in the recent past. responsibility must begin

somewhere. let it begin here with me. the reality is, there is no emergency that justifies handing out tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires at this time. instead, we should bring our children home from wars overseas and after paying for these wars, then determine if we with have any money left over for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. america cannot afford tax cuts for the rich. we don't have the money, they do. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. wiener. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. weiner: thank you, mr. levin. it doesn't take a great deal of courage to come to the floor of the house and say i'm in favor of low taxes. yeah, i think we'd all like no taxes, we'd like to have no communal needs that we have, no national defense, no concerns about clean water.

what we hear the fight about in leches and frankly every single day on the floor is who do we stand for? who are we defending? on this side of the chamber, we believe that those people in the middle class and those struggling to make it with through each and every year for the past two decades have been getting pushed further and further down need help. on the other side of this chamber are people who quite literally stood up all day today and say, i want to give tax cuts to people who make $1 million and $1 billion a year and wait for it, ladies and gentlemen, we want to borrow the money from the chinese to give it to them. i want the wealthy to be as wealthy as they can be. any of grudge against that. i want all of us to be that wealthy. but we should be a country that fights for those who need the help. we should not be a country that says you know what, if you're a billionaire, we want to give you a little bit more. who is going to pay the bill?

who is ultimately going to pay for this tax cut? it's going to be our children and grandchildren. to come to the floor and say, well, i want to help hardworking americans, i have to tell you, when the top 1% in this country are making as much as the next 25%, i think i know who we want to help. on this side, we want to help those middle class people and those struggling to make it and my republican friends all over this evening have been standing up for millionaires and billionaires. that's fundamental choice we have to make here. i believe this tax bill has fundamental flaws. if you believe you should be borrowing from social security to pay for a payroll tax, you like this bill. but i know a lot of americans don't believe that. i think what we should do, what we should do is make sure we fix the estate portion of this and then take a step back and say, you know what we should do? stand up for the middle class. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized.

mr. camp: i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman from new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. >> as a new member, we have to stop putting difficult decisions, continuously put off until we are forced to make a decision in crisis mode as the clock clicks to zero hour. this vote has profound ramifications for every american and we are backed into a corner. where the current tax rates expire on all taxpayers if we do nothing. it didn't need to be this way. mr. reed: shame on the politicians whose inactions forced us on this precarious ledge. shame on the leadership of the past two years who put us into this box corner. good policy cannot be handcuffed by this sort of last-minute political guerrilla warfare. the process which brought us to this point is inexcusable. so much so that the average

middle class family in my district will pay more than $1,500 if we fail to act. our economic recovery in upstate new york continues to lag. preventing the pending income and estate tax hike that will hit every family and business in my district is paramount at this time. once this bill is passed, we must begin in the next congress to eradicate out of control spending. we cannot be put into this position again. i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of my time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield one minute to the house's speaker of the house, ms. pelosi. the chair: the gentlewoman from california, the speaker of the house is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you -- the speaker: thank you very

much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding, i thank him for his leadership on fairness, for growing the economy, reducing the deficit and creating jobs. that's some of what is done in this bill. i think i want to use my time to make some distinctions here. president obama and the democrats have supported initiatives to protect the middle class. we are fighting for the middle class, we are wanting to grow the economy, and to create jobs and reduce the deficit. so we must subject whatever legislation that comes before us as to how it meets those tests. this legislation on the democratic side of the ledger does create jobs. and the demand helps redeuce the deficit. for example, unemployment insurance provisions in the legislation, economists across the board tell us, return more money to the economy than almost any initiative you can name.

people spend that money quickly, these are people who are looking for work, who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, their unemployment insurance is spent immediately injecting demand into the economy, creating jobs. low income tax credit, refundable. child tax credit, refundable. all of this placed in the hands of working class people -- working families in america, again, spent immediately, injecting demand, creating jobs. college tuition tax credit, very important for america's working families and their children. so here we are with a bill on one side of the ledger that benefits 155 million americans. we have tax cuts for the middle class across the board. everybody gets that tax cut. but in order for the middle class to get that tax cut, the republicans insist that those

who make the top 2% in our country, that they get an extra tax cut. adding billions of dollars to the deficit and not creating any jobs. to add insult to injury, they have now added this estate tax provision. an estate tax provision, new mind you, the democratic side of the ledger benefits 155 million americans. in order for the president to get those terms accepted, republicans insisted that $23 billion in benefits go to 6,600 wealthiest families in america. 6,600 families. holding up tax cuts for 155

million americans. is that fair? does that meet any test of fairness that we have? again, this $23 billion, not creating jobs. this $23 billion increasing the deficit. by 8% in the fiscal year. think of what we could do with that $23 billion. we could triple our research in cancer and diabetes. i think that means something to all americans, including those 6,600 wealthiest families. we could give a $7,000 raise to every public schoolteacher in america. we could create investing in new technologies 780,000 jobs. 780,000 jobs. instead, we're giving a bonanza to 6,600 of the wealthiest people in america who really

don't need the help. it's just amazing to hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about deficit reduction when everything on their side of the ledger increases the deficit and does not create jobs. tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%, most egregious of all, the estate tax provision they have that benefits not 1%, not .5%, but .25% of the american people. we have to borrow that money from china and send the bill to our children and our grandchildren. and that is not good policy. it does not have a favorable impact on the deficit. it does not create jobs. it does not grow our economy. it does not stimulate growth in our country. so i hope that our colleagues

will vote favorably for the pomeroy amendment to bring some fairness and clarity to the estate tax issue. on that, the 99.7% of all americans are exempted. 99.7% of all americans are exempted from paying estate taxes under pomeroy. but we had to get that up for 3% -- get that upper 3% in this legislation in order to benefit 155 million americans. these figures have to be engraved in our being. 155 million, you can't have that unless 6,600. i've said it other and over. then on top of all of that, on the democratic side of the ledger, we have the green initiative, 1603, that the senate put in the bill.

this is just a very positive provision. for renewable energy, wind, solar, etc. but the republicans said, that is the limit. we won't accept any more. until all of the initiatives for innovation that have been passed in the past few years that should have been extended, we said no to innovation, we said no to the future, we said no to keeping america number one for encouraging our competitiveness. so if we're talking about growth, we have to talk about investments in the future. if we're talking about being number one, we have to be -- to have an innovation agenda to do it, the republicans said no to that. they only said yes to tax cuts for the wealthy. mr. speaker pl weiner says, we recognize -- mr. wiener says, we recognize success, we all want to be part of it. god bless them for having the wealth they have, whether it's

inherited or earned. we recognize success and the job that wealth does to create jobs, etc. but we also want to reward work. we want to reward work. in order to reward work in this legislation, we had to have a big payoff to the top one quarter percent of america's wealthiest families. i hope my colleague as they review this, this is very difficult. nobody wants taxes to go up for the middle class. everybody gets a tax cut in this. we don't see why we have to give an extra tax cut to the wealthiest and extra extra estate tax benefit to the top one quarter percent. as members have to make up their mind about this, i hope they will vote for the pomeroy amendment to this legislation and they have to make their own decisions as to whether it is

necessary to be held hostage to pay a king's ransom in order to help the middle class. we cannot allow taxes to go up come january 1. previous speakers said, we have to look to how we were forced to this ledge. yes, let's look at how we were forced to this present car youse ledge. this situation, we were in a deep recession, president obama was a job creator from day one with the recovery act and pulled us back from that recession. the financial crisis that they created, president obama pulled us back from that. and, oh, by the way, remember the financial crisis? remember the banks that all that money went to and they didn't extend credit. now those same people are giving out over $100 billion in christmas bonuses.

and these republicans in this house of representatives are saying, we don't want you to be taxed to the proper extent on that $100 billion, more money in giving bonuses on wall street, think of it, over $100 billion and we want to give them a free ride in terms of paying their fair share. so when it comes to creating jobs, growing the economy, reducing the deficit, investing growth and competitiveness and innovation to keep america number one, i applaud president obama for his side of the ledger. i'm sorry the price that has to be paid for this is so high at a time when everybody is preaching the gospel of deficit reduction, the republicans come in with an increase in the deficit to the tune of over $100 billion for people in our country who need it the least and again, where it

does not create jobs. so members will have to make up their mind as to how we go forward on the bill. but i hope all of them in their consideration of it will vote for the pomeroy amendment, which addresses the most egregious, with stiff competition mind you in this bill, the most egregious provision when it comes to fairness, reducing the deficit and not creating jobs. i commend the chairman of the ways and means committee, all of our colleagues who have had to explain to all of the misrepresentations that had been made about what this legislation is about. and again, i salute president obama for getting in the bill what is in there. i'm sorry the price that has to be paid by our children and grandchildren to the chinese government to pay for the increase in the deficit that the republicans insisted upon. with that, i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: the majority party has had large bipartisan majorities in the senate, in the house and controlled the white house for the last two years. and as we know in the house, the majority can pretty much do what they want which was demonstrate with the stimulus bill, obamacare, yes there is explaining to do. why wasn't this issue dealt with before the election? why didn't the majority bring a bill to the floor before the election? now as americans face these tax increases, now a few short days before the end of the year, and now because there is a bipartisan compromise and passed the senate 81-19, there is a

recognition that there is no time to be playing games with our economy. the failure to block these tax increases would be a direct hit to families and small businesses and employers and further delay our economic recovery, and for those reasons, i support this bill and i reserve the balance of this -- time. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from iowa, mr. braley. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. braley: the house will vote on a bill that will explode the deficit. while this package includes several programs i have supported, i cannot support the underlying bill. as recently as last week, i voted to give every american a tax cut by making the middle-class tax cuts permanent to american families, consumers and business owners who drive our economy and i voted to

extend unemployment insurance to assist families who are struggling in this difficult time. those were some of the good things included in this deal. unfortunately, the merits do not outweigh the bad things. i cannot justify mortgaging our children's future to provide a christmas bonanza and i refuse to increase the deficit by $81 billion to provide a tax break to the westiest people in this country and balloon the deficit by $23 billion and provide an average tax break of $1.5 million to 66,000 a year and i urge no. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the chair: the gentlewoman from is recognized. ms. schakowsky: the speaker was

talking about how republicans held hostage in favor of 6,600 families who will get this inflated break on their estate taxes. who are the families? the tea party movement have a vast and under the pomeroy amendment that family would realize over $2 billion extra dollars. the walton family, wal-mart, combined worth, $87 billion, his family will pay less -- $7 billion in taxes, republican proposal versus the pomeroy. the gallow family, the campbell soup giants, combined wealth, $6.5 billion, the mars candy company, $33 billion in wealth.

their estate taxes will go down $2.5 billion. are these the people that this congress is supposed to represent? let's vote for pomeroy. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: two pieces of legislation tell us about the value of our republican colleagues. this bill will take $114 billion in revenues out of social security, helping them make the case in a self-fulfilling prophecy that we can't pay everything we want. earlier this session, they voted overwhelmingly and killed a proposal to give each social security recipient $250, not $2

50,000 or $250 million. people who are going to be face ing an increase in medicare because we learned there wouldn't be a cost of living. we couldn't afford $250 to older people who are having trouble paying their heating bills but can afford to $114 billion who will get eight times $250. the values of the republican party are revealed by this and we are in this situation because of dishonesty. when they passed the tax cut in 2001, they didn't want it to -- mr. levin: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. frank: not simply are they showing their values, they said by the way, are you going to give $250 to warren buffet. they want to give $250,000 to

warren buffet. but the reason we are in this bind, in 2001 and 2003, george bush and the republican majority wanted to pass very large tax cuts despite the professed concern about the deficit, we now see from this bill that the slogan is deficit smepificit. they made very bad tax policy and i voted against it. they made major changes in the tax code and they did that roller coaster with the estate tax. that was their effort to hide the true amount. so they have only themselves to blame. but let me return. they couldn't afford $14 million to give $250 mill -- 250 to but $114 billion out of social security.

mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to a gentleman hob active on this issue, mr. well shall of vermont. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. welch: what we have before us is two problems facing america, one is too few jobs, 9.8% of americans who want work are out of work. millions more so discouraged that they are the underemployed, we have got to find a way to put them back to work sm the second problem we have is too much debt. and without going into the history of how we went from a record surplus to a record deficit, we went from the clinton tax rates to the bush tax rates, from that surplus of 20 million jobs created to eight million jobs lost, we have a

debt now that is approaching $14 trillion and with the passage of this bill, will be approaching $15 trillion. and the question for us to the american people is if we are going to borrow a dollar for any reason, will there be a job bang for that dollar borrowed? that dollar borrowed is coming from china and what this legislation will do is literally ask the american middle class to borrow $200 billion to pay for tax cuts. this is not an objection to wealthy people. they are generous and can create jobs. it's about whether that job -- that dollar borrowed will produce a job for an out-of-work american and it won't. so there are other alternatives to what is before us. we should not be borrowing money that will be productive.

what we should do is the very simple alternative that isn't even considered. we can extend the middle-class tax cuts as president obama wants to, but stop it at $250,000. invest the savings in deficit reduction in half and infrastructure development. we can, as mr. frank said, provide $250 one-time payment to the folks on social security who haven't had a cola increase in two years. we can have a piece of legislation that will borrow less, reduce the deficit and create more jobs. our responsibility fundamentally is to the american middle class and they know at the end of the