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 havworked 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 wlthiest 6,600 estates an average tax break of $1.7 million 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 negoated by the white house is defensle, 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 20 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 geneman 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 cha. 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 u these great deficits, including the wars in iraq and afghanistan thaw supported so ll 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 ven 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 peoe who die to the richest in our nation, we give em 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: theentleman 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 isrying 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 majity party had 60 votes in the senate, ha a clear majority in the house, you could have passed something and re 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 is bill isn't passed. now there are a lot of tngs 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 nate 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 whais 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 whoave 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 wateclean, 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 leadship of barack obama, the people of america carest assured they won't get a tax increase. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: t 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. scot thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen of the congress, the time is now for us to ask the one fundamental qution 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 he here today and raise taxes on the american people. we've got to cut the taxes, ke 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 allnow 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 gentlem 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 whear 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 cabe. 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 whatif 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 inow 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. thgentleman 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 ineusable. 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, reding 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. th legislation on the democratic side of the ledger

does create jobs. and the demand helps redeucethe 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 $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 leer 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 n 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 alof 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 publicans said, that is the lim. 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 allotaxes 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 credi 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 ficit 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 ll 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

misreprentations that had been made about what this legislation is about. and again, i sale president obama for getting in the bill at is in there. i'm sorry the price that has to be paid by our children d 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. thchair: 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 s 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 ilure 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 t 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 d 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 regnized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the chair: the gentlewoman from is recognized. ms. hakowsky: 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, combed 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 thawe 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 probm weave is too much debt. and without going into the history of how we went from a record surplus to a record defit, we went from the inton tax rates to the bush tax rates, from that surplus of 20 million jobs createdto eight million jobs lost, we have a debt now that is approaching $ 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 amican 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 day, they will have to repay it. their sons, their daughters. the bond holders will be ok, but the middle class will pay. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp is recognized. mr. camp: does the gentleman have further speakers? if not, i'll close. mr. levin: we have at least one, if not more. mr. camp: then i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: we have one additional speaker who will close. you can go ahead, mr. camp. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume.

we've heard a lot of debate on the floor this evening but let's look at what employers and economists are saying about this legislation and this agreement. the national federation of independent business, the largest organization in the country representing small businesses, senate passage of the tax compromise is a good step. the first stope encourage the certainty that the ha small business community needs and has repeatedly asked for. knowing their tax liability will remain low and including a workable estate tax compromise that will not threaten the family business are key components to a small business' ability to move forward, grow their business and create jobs. changes to this compromise would jeopardize the needed relief and certainty small businesses need. we encourage the house to take up this measure quickly and pass this bipartisan bill in its current form. the business round table says, restoration of these provisions lifts an uncertainty for businesses that will improve their ability to employ more

workers and grow the economy. the u.s. chamber of commerce, enacting this bipartisan framework forged by the president and congress is one of the best steps washington can take to eliminate the uncertainty that is preventing our employers from hiring, investing, and growing their businesses. what does economist mark zandee say, frequently cited by the speaker as an important voice in economic matters? the compromise reached this week by the obama administration and congressional republicans would be good for the economy next year. we really -- it's too risky to play games with the economy. we need to stop this massive tax increase in its tracks. support this legislation in its current form, oppose the pomeroy amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yieldhe balance of our time to our distinguished majority leader, mr. hoyer of maryland. the chair: the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. hoye i thank the gentleman for yielding. we have just come through a wrenching election. wrenching in large part because of the pain being experienced by our constituents. some more than others. a pain that they're experiencing in part because they are unemployed or underemployed or working two or three jobs to support themselves and their families. we all heard that pain, we all

heard that concern. at the same time as we heard the concern about the pain of economic uncertainty, we heard the concern and the fear about deficits and debt. so, my colleagues, we are confronted with two twin challenges. growing our economy, creating jobs, and confronting this gargantuan deficit that puts at risk our economy and the future of our children. the american public would hope that we would come together and pass that on which we can agree. that owhich we can compromise. this house in fact passed two

pieces of legislation. weeks ago and months ago. months ago, we passed legislation which would give certainty, and my republican colleagues talk about certainty and i agree with them. we need to give certainty to families, certainly to businesses, and yes, certainty to those whoever worried about estates. they'll expect that of us. and we passed 12 months ago the continuation of then-existing law, $3.5 million per spouse or $7 million per couple exemption. and a 45% rate. but that language -- languished in the united states senate. it languished because, frankly,

there was not a majority or at least not 40 votes to extend certainty. that was unfortunate in my view. because i think that was an appropriate rate and i will vote for it on this floor. embodied in the pomeroy amendment. and then we passed just a few days ago legislation which would say to all americans, you will not receive any tax increase on the first $250,000 of your income if you're a married couple or $200,000 if you're an individual. all individuals. no matter how rich or no matter how poor, all individuals would have their tax capped. and very frankly, there were

only a few members on this floor on either side of the aisle who disagreed with that proposition. but as too often happens because we don get everything we want, we will take something we want. that's not good for the american people. and it's not good for our country. and very frankly, only three or four members of the republican side of the aisle chose to vote for that legislation, knot withstanding the fact it carried out part of what they thought was appropriate. and we agree. it was not enough. the president of the united states has a responsibility to all americans and like every president, he can't get everything he wants. to that extent, he's like us. we don't get everything we want.

this bill does not represent everything i want. those of you who have heard me debate time after time know how concerned i am about this debt and deficit. you have seen me vote on this floor, sometimes in the small minority against steps that i thought would exacerbate the budget deficit without a proper return. this bill, the president of the united states believes, and i believe, will have a positive effectn the economy and i think we need that. and unlike some of my colleagues whose views i share but i have reached a different conclusion, i will vote for this bill. i don't want to see middle income working people in america get a tax increase. that will be a depressant on an economy that needs to be lifted up.

but i'm also concerned about the deficit and i know we're going to borrow every nickel in this bill. i'm for pay-go. my children, you ask them, would say they're for pay-go because they don't want to pay our bills. they're going to have their own bills. unfortunately, the president and we when confronted with alternatives, do we extend unemployment insurance when employment is at db when unemployment is at a 9.6% to 9.8% rate or do we let them languish with uncertainty. not certainty about planning wlortheir $7 million estate can be planned.

we don't have a deal on upper income taxes or estate taxes increased from $7 million to $10 million per couple. my friends on both sides of the aisle, we need to come together, we need to come together in dealing with this debt, we need to come together in dealing with tax reform, we need to come together in growing jobs. that ought to be the agenda of this next congress and every congress thereafter until we accomplish those objectives and the american people havehe certainty and confidence that we want them to have. now, ladies and gentlemen, on the republican side, very frankly, i have not seen your economic philosophy work. jack kemp and i served on the committee, but i don't think supply side as worked -- supply

side has worked. it has the proposition if you do less, you get more. nothing i have done in life instructs me if i do less, i get more. and because of that, because of the concept if you simply cut taxes on those who are wealthiest in our society, somehow, magically, the deficit will be eliminated. not one year did that happen. it happened, frankly, when we said the upper 1% were going to pay just a little more in 1993 and all of you opposed it. all of you, to a person. you said it would destroy the economy. your leader at that point in time, dick armey, said that this would tank the economy. he was 180 degrees wrong. in fact, we experienced the best economy we've seen in this country in my lifetime.

22 million new jobs in eight years. 216,000 jobs per month. in the private sector. but unfortunately, under the economic program that we adopted in 2001, we saw the worst econom the worst job production since herbert hoover. now i'm going to vote for this bill. i think it does help the economy. we are paying too great a price for it. frankly, i don't need a tax cut. that's not to say i don't want a tax cut. but it will not affect my life. and it will not affect the economy. and it will exacerbate the debt. that's not good for my children or for our country. i would urge all of us as we vote on this piece of legislation, whatever decision

we make, to understand the message that we all received about growin the economy. that's why the president has made a deal a lot of us don't like. because we think that it was unnecessary to adversely affect the deficit with $700 billion and because we limited it, in terms of that, just the upper income, that we did not have to pay the price. we needed to borrow the money to get this economy moving. having dollars in their pockets to grow the economy. that's worth the price. we will not solve the deficit problem if we don't get our economy growing so we cannot depress at the same time we tie to gw. -- we try to grow. but we grow in the short-term and we solve the deficit in the

longer term. i'm going to vote for the pomeroy amendment. then in the final analysis, i'll vote for this bill. i believe that folks need certainty. as has been said. i urge my colleagues as we vote on this leslation to commit ourselves on both sides of this aisle to do what america wants us to do. come together as we did in 1993 -- as we did. in 1993 we didn't. some people lost their jobs because they votedith courage and conviction and correctness. ladies and gentlemen, there probably is nobody on this floor who like this is bill. and therefore the judgment is,

is it better than doing nothing? some of the business groups believe it will help. i hope they're right. not only do i hope they're right, i hope they respond and create the jobs. that we know they have the resources to do. this is a jobs bill, in my view, which is why i will vote for it. it could be a better jobs bill if we invested the money that we're giving to the wealthiest in america in job growth. it's a bill that will help those who have been unemployed for week after week after week. and whose arnings has grown and grown and grown. ladies and gentlemen, each of us ladies and gentlemen, each of us will do our duty as we see it.