you hear about class warfare. you heard it here today. i agree about competitive -- comprehensive tax reform. why don't we move to the fact that we can encourage our small businesses and businesses in america that can compete globally instead of under a tax burden and debt that we have here in america? we have the ability to move forward and do the right thing. . let's not get caught up in the semantics. let's allow small businesses, madam speaker, to create the jobs that we know they can. i've got confidence in small businesses. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, madam speaker. i am very pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from texas, my good friend, ms.

jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: i want to thank alcee hastings from telling us the stories of america, from spring cleaners to a family that have held their business for a long period of time, and i really wish i could join my friend. i know he's pleading for us to believe that any job will be created but frankly there is no requirement for jobs to be created under this tax bill. what this tax bill does is complicate any manner of tax reform which americans are begging for. it adds to the already budgeting -- growing bush tax cuts. now this added burden, $6 trillion in the combination package of the existing tax cuts under the bush administration. it adds to the deficit of human life, and let me just tell you

about some young woman, a caretaker, a mother, maybe a mother who's at home and works at home not only to take care of her children but has a home business. or maybe a person taking care of an elderly or disabled person. let me tell you what this tax cuts means. it equals almost $180 billion of cuts in food stamps where soldiers' families cannot eat and the caretakers cannot provide for their families. it equals to the increase in the stafford loans to 6.8% in interest where middle-class families are priced out of higher education. it cuts medicaid for women who need equal access to health care. i don't know why we have not addressed the friends in the restaurant industry. they could hire another staff person.

we are not doing anything for depreciation relief. no, we're sitting around giving the top 3% over one half of this tax break, a big christmas in the middle of april. 125,000 millionaires will get a check for $58,000, and then it will cost a budget-busting $46 billion. it my own state of texas, there is an article that says we're taxing the middle class, congressman hastings, out of higher education. tuition is going up and there is no relief, and the loans we get from the federal government, as i said, will be almost 7% in interest in just about 70 days. this is what this tax cut will do. i'm not afraid to stand up for small businesses, but you're absolutely need to look at the framework. 500 employees, you could be a big law firm. you could be a big engineering firm and god bless you, i want you to keep working. that's why i voted on the

transportation bill. but what i need to have happen is there is a requirement for jobs. the stimulus package created three million jobs because we had a mission of shovel-ready projects and in addition we gave money to people, put the money out on the streets, but not -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished gentleman. but not in this case. no requirement for jobs. well, you want to sit here and tell at-home moms, working moms like the young woman that i wanted to tell you about who gets up early morning, doesn't get into a car. gets onto a bus, rides that bus to get her child to the school. jumps off the bus, makes sure she can run to the front door of the school, drop the child before the bus turns around to get her back on the bus to go across town to go to a job or go to her work. you're cutting her access to health care because you're taking $46 billion. madam speaker, all i can say this is a budget buster on top

of $6 trillion, madam speaker, excuse me, of which we have in the bush tax cuts. we are doing nor restaurants, nothing for small businesses and nothing for the working young woman that i told you about this morning. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much. president obama even admitted that did not work. that shovel-ready proposition that he tried to sell across the country simply did not work . i would be for the president's ideas if they worked. what they're about is this supposed fairness which diminishes the economic opportunity for this country to grow and have jobs and make small business -- ms. jackson lee: will the gentleman yield? . mr. sessions: i thank the gentlewoman's time has expired. she had her time. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from west virginia, mrs. capito. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from west virginia is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capito: thank you. i'd like to thank the speaker and my friend from texas for

yielding me time. i wanted to come down and talk to. i support the rule. i support h.r. 9, the small business tax cut bill. this tax relief will go to 28,000 small businesses in west virginia. i'm from a small state. small businesses, i heard earlier the statistics, create 70% of the jobs. in my state it's probably 90% of the jobs. our small business owners, entrepreneurship and small businesses are going to drive us to recovery, not more spending and more debt. i heard the gentlelady talk about restaurants. that's who this is aimed at. it's aimed at us -- our top three small businesses in west virginia would be health care and service industry and the food industry. i spent the last two weeks traveling in my district and listening to the concerns of families and job creators and they're very frustrated, very frustrated by the high price of gasoline, rising health care costs and new regulation upon new regulation. it's making it difficult for our job operators to operate

and to -- our job creators to operate and to grow jobs. a recent study by the u.s. chamber found that 80% of small businesses reported that taxation, regulation and legislation from washington make it harder for them to -- for their businesses to hire more employees. this tax cut will have an immediate effect, i believe, on the economy and certainly in my state. just several weeks ago the senate, the house and the white house, we worked together to pass a jobs act, and i've already gotten very positive feedback from several people that their number one, glad we're looking at the real problem in this country which is the lack of job and job creation and, number two, we did something together. that we worked together to try to get ourselves out of this slow recovery we are in right now. i hope we can work in the same bipartisan spirit and pass this tax cut, to give our job creators the ability to hire somebody else, buy new equipment, expand their businesses, choose another location, all the things that i think this tax cut bill will

provide. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, madam speaker. i would urge my friend from texas that i'm going to be the last speaker and i'm prepared to close if he has no further speakers. mr. sessions: thank you very much. in fact, i would tell the gentleman we have no additional speakers other than myself. mr. hastings: thank you very much. madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: h.r. 9 is not about creating jobs or helping small businesses increase hiring. it is another in a long line of republican proposals that benefit those of us, including those of us in the house of representatives, that are the better off americans at the expense of the middle class. my republican friends rejected an amendment offered by our colleague, representative crowley, which i offered in the

rules committee instead which would have prevented businesses from eliminating jobs in the united states while creating jobs overseas under this bill. procedurally, it is also disconcerting that contrary to my republican colleagues' self-professed commitment to an open process, democrats have been allowed only one substitute in an otherwise closed process. h.r. 9 was not the subject of any hearing by either the full ways and means committee or the select revenue measures committee except for a brief question and answer session with the joint committee on taxation staff during the markup. finally, instead of taking real steps to address the very real need to create opportunity for businesses to succeed in a

stale economic recovery, house republicans have been more than willing to rush through another tax bill that could, if it were to pass, and it is not going to and they know that, only help those of us that are better off in society while sticking middle and low-income families with the bill and creating exactly zero jobs. and you call this opportunity? madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on this opportunity destroying measure and to defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the rule, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, madam speaker. and i appreciate the gentleman from florida not only for his vigorous defense of the democrat position to increase taxes, but i would like to, if i can, state what really are the facts of the case and what is in this bill. the claim is that tax cuts will be available for small businesses even if they ship jobs overseas. well, the fact is this legislation allows the 20% deduction for qualified domestic business income. dofpk. that's -- domestic. that's here. domestic business. it would not be allowed to include money that was earned overseas. so i think that's a good part of this bill. i think what mr. cantor did was understand we are trying to grow jobs. there have been statements made by our friends, but i think the american people need to hear

this about the bill and the substitute which was allowed in the rules committee. similar to h.r. 9, this bill, the levin amendment, which will be the substitute, does not include any provision addressing companies that continue to make foreign investment. it's void of that. both proposals do tie the small business tax deduction to domestic wages. so both bills do that exact same thing. so to accuse us of not doing something or something that would create or stop business from having jobs overseas, that's void in both bills. they're both consistent. it's about domestic work. similar to h.r. 9, the levin amendment does not require job creation to benefit from the tax deduction. no one says you have to go and create jobs. we understand enough about business to know this is what they're asking for so they can go and grow jobs. the levin amendment does

deviate from h.r. 9 in one very significant way and that is the amount of money that would be available to small business so that they could expand the economy, grow jobs and create opportunities for americans. obviously what we're here today to do is to grow the economy. madam speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to include in the record an article which was from "the wall street journal" of june of 2011. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: and i'd like to read just a little bit of this. this was from june of 2011, remembering the time frame, and it says, this past january, illinois governor pat quinn signed into law a 67% increase in the state personal income tax rate and a 45% increase in corporate taxes. by the way, all what is hear, but this was dun for -- here,

but this was done for fairness. the same thing that barack obama, our president, was trying to push in the campaign. illinois thought it sounded really, really great. so let's see what happened, what fairness resulted in. and i come back to the article. between its passage in june, six months later, illinois lost 56,223 jobs, according to statistics released by their own departments there in the state of illinois. but here's what's really amazing, not just that they lost the jobs but the hysteria that ensued therein. and i continue to read. to combat the job losses caused by higher taxes on businesses, the illinois department of commerce has already shelled out some $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep more than two dozen companies from fleeing the state. so they were not even going to

get $230 million worth of additional revenue. they put this tax on and now they're having to beg people to stay. madam speaker, i would be for what president obama and our friends, the democrats, are for if it worked the way they said it would. . the facts of the of case are simple, republicans understand, not just because we understandbys but we understand the ability to listen and give small business what it's asking for. they'll do their job. i know small business and i know it well. they'll get their job done and they'll do it quite well. they'll add employment. they'll hire their neighbors. they'll hire more women and minorities who can come in and provide real dreams for people and give them that not just entrepreneurship angle but the angle to make sure that we are adding revenue in this country. republicans get it and

democrats, too. we are for fairness in a different way and fairness comes from a job and job creation and the american dream, not losing jobs and explaining to people, i'm sorry, we just had to do this just to make things fair. fairness and not having a job is not fairness. we are aiming for job creation and the development of that. and that's why we are asking people to make sure that we pass this bill today. i applaud our republican majority leader, eric cantor, for introducing this legislation. it comes from him listening to people across this country. i encourage a yes vote on the rule, yield back the balance of my time. and i now move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: on that i ask the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and clause 9, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adopting house resolution 620, if ordered and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 234. the nays are 179. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution, as amended. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 234. the nays are 178. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their vote by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 290. the nays are -- on this vote the

yeas are 290. the nays are 118. with three voting present. the journal stands approved. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, seek recognition?

mr. camel: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 620, i callp the bill h.r. 9 and ask for ids meet consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 292, h.r. 9, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to provide a deduction for domestic business income of qualified small businesses. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 620, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means print the in -- printed in the bill is adoptsed. the bill is considered as read. after 70 minutes of debate, it shall be in order to consider further amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 112-447 if offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, or his designee which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 25 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each

control 35 minutes. and the chair would recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on h.r. 9. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today in support of h.r. 9 this legislation will allow small businesses with fewer than 500 employees to take a 20% tax deduction. small businesses are the engine of job creation and while we pursue comprehensive tax reform that will give all businesses certainty to invest and hire, this bill will help small businesses to reinvest, hire new workers or provide arace -- a raise to an employee. the policies put forth by president obama and congressional democrats have yielded more government spending, but have failed to generate strong economic growth and the jobs americans need. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct.

the chair would ask members to cease conversations and remove their conversations from the floor. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: instead of lowering unemployment, we got a lower credit rating. instead of massive job creation we got massive and unprecedented levels of debt and instead of higher wages for working families, we got higher gas prices. this bill provides real relief to american small businesses and the workers they employ. and it treats every small business equally. contrary to the political cronyism we've seen time and time again, this bill does not pick winners and losers. it provides relief to all small businesses, including those in my home state of michigan. michigan's been hit especially hard over the last three years with some of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. and while small business owners in my district need and want comprehensive tax reform, they also agree that we must take steps to spur investment in hiring today as well.

these business owners are the real experts who know what they need to add jobs back to our communities. take for example bob, president of merl tools, as part of the 400-employ merrill tess technology group. we know firsthand the ramifications of the recent economic turmoil. the best way washington can help energize economic growth is by making sure business owners are spending less on tax payments and more on creating jobs. bob's a larger small business owner but there are smaller businesses that feel the same way. jim, owner of mountaintown station in mount pleasant, has served the central michigan community as a restaurant owner for more than 15 years. he's especially pleased with the simplicity and ease of this legislative approach. he says the beauty of the small business tax cut act is its simplicity. if you're earning profits and contributing to the economy, then you can take 20% off your tax bill. no hoops to jump through. this is a great way for business owners like myself in

the great lakes bay region and across america to help jumpstart our economy. those are just two examples in michigan's fourth district, but they echo small businesses and the small business owners across the country. throughout our history, we've depended upon these industrious and innovative risk takers to help us move through tough economic times. and while we worked to provide the long-term, comprehensive tax reform they need, we can also take steps today to unlock new opportunities for them immediately. passing this bill will provide these much-needed immediate opportunities. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting small business and to demonstrate that they support them as well by voting yes on h.r. 9. and, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor, be permitted to control the balance of the time and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. without objection, mr. cantor will control the time and have the authority to dispense time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself such

time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: this bill needs to be graded and the grade it gets is f. a fat f grade. it fails all tests of sound tax policy. let me start with truth in advertising. a grade f. this is not a small business bill. it's small business in name only. it's totally untargeted, totally. it applies as long as an entity has under 500 employees, law firms, sports teams, financial consultants, lobbyists, corporate farmers. and regardless of what their annual receipts are, they can be tens of millions, hundreds

of millions of dollars. interestingly, when the s.b.a. looks at its loan program it has what's called a common standard. and what that is, that generally the businesses it serves cannot have more than $7 million in annual -- average annual receipts for most nonmanufacturing firms. this bill has no limits, none, as to function or amount of receipts. so really this bill mocks the use of the title small business. this isn't about mom and pop. it's about popping the cork for wealthy taxpayers. so, secondly, graded on tax fairness, f. according to the most cautious

estimate, 56% of the tax break under this bill goes to taxpayers making $250,000 or more annually. it provides 125,000 taxpayers making $1 million a year with a tax break of over $58,000 and another model says that 49% of this $46 billion revenue loss goes to people with incomes over $1 million. this is bush tax cuts on steroids. thirdly, in terms of job creation, another grade f. listen to the joint tax committee analysis. it says this bill's economic impact, i quote, is so small as to be incalculable.

so small as to be incalculable. he th only thing calculating -- the only thing calculating about this bill is its political nature. we've looked at the website of the majority leader, he uses mr. robins who was the one who advised herman cane on -- ca himbings n on 9/11 -- cain on 9 -9-9. this is what he says about this bill. he estimates that a one-year tax cut would create 39,000 jobs. this is on the majority leader's website. so according to the analysis that the leader is touting on his own website, h.r. 9 would increase the federal deficit by $1.1 million for every job supposedly created.

so, another big f. now let's talk about where these jobs would be created. the bill doesn't require that the jobs that are created here would really be created. because a company would get this benefit if it sheds jobs. or if it uses the deduction to hire workers overseas. let's next go to fiscal irresponsibility, another fat f in terms of responsibility. this bill adds a whopping $46 billion, $46 billion to the deficit in one year. and if it's made permanent, 1

1/2 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. so i say -- 1/2 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. so i say this to anybody who utters the word federal deficit, they will sell short the intelligence of their constituents because they know when someone is selling them a pig in a poke. now, let's talk about tax reform. another fat f. this bill is the an thigget sis of tax reform. and what it does is ridicule supporters who claim their feelt to tax reform. it doesn't simplify tax structures, it complicates it. and that's why i quote "the wall street journal" this morning, this is what they say about your bill. it's another tax gimmick.

just earlier today somebody got up here and read from "the wall street journal" some months ago. again, "the wall street journal" says the u.s. economy does not need another tax gimmick, end of quotes. so this is tax policy gone haywire. so i'm going to offer a substitute to -- after we finish debate here on general debate that's targeted, that will help create jobs, that's fair, that is fiscally responsible and continues a policy that both republicans and democrats have supported in the past. this flies in the face of anything bipartisan. it flies in the face of anything that is truthful in advertising.

it flies in the face of anything that is fair. it place to in the face of -- it flies in the face of anything that creates jobs. it flies in the face of fiscal responsibility and it flies in the face of tax reform. so, i more than urge people vote no and vote yes on our substitute. i really urge that the excise -- they excise their responsibility -- exercise their responsibility to try to get this country moving in the right direction, not with policies that deserve a total f on the test of sound tax policy. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor, the majority leader of the house. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. cantor: mr. speaker, we know jobs won't come back until small businesses recover. small businesses have generated over 65% of the new jobs in this country, but the economic downturn, red tape and higher taxes coming from washington have simply made it harder for small business to create jobs. tax policies should encourage economic growth, investment and job creation, not stifle it. we need to stop thinking about what kind of country we want to be, we need to stop and think about what kind of country we want to be and we want to be one with lower taxes, more growth and more jobs. or do we want to be one of more government control and fewer opportunities? this week when every american filed their tax returns, the other party in the senate voted to increase taxes. we should not be taking money out of the hands of those we are counting on to create jobs.

we need to let small business owners keep more of their hard-earned money so they can start hiring again. today, mr. speaker, we'll vote on the small business tax cut act, to give every small business with less than 500 employees a 20% tax cut. our bill puts more money into the hands of small business owners so they can reinvest those funds to retain and create more jobs and grow their businesses. plain and simple. according to a study, the small business tax cut act will help create more than 100,000 new jobs a year once fully in place. 1/3 of the firms that benefit from our tax cut are owned by women. 1/5 are owned by minorities. and our legislation wants to benefit small business owners, it benefits current owners -- workers by boosting wages.

mr. speaker, when i talk with small business owners across the country, i hear they need more opportunity to grow. i hear the taxes are siphoning away their income, i hear they can't access capital. one small business owner in virginia called the small business tax cut a win-win for him and other small business owners in the economy. he said with more money to invest in his businesses, he could afford to hire more staff, buy new equipment and expand. mr. speaker, while we continue to work toward tax reform that broadens the base, brings down the rates for everybody, and gets rid of loopholes that washington -- washington assumes the role of picking winners and losers, we need to take incremental steps to give job creators tax relief right away. this had small business tax act is a step in that right direction. president obama called small businesses the anchors of our

main streets. we agree. i hope we can all unite around helping the small businesses which are the engines of job creation in our country. and, mr. speaker, i say in response to the gentleman's assertion towards the definition of small business in this bill, this is the small business administration definition of small business. this is what every program that comes out of this government aims to help small businesses -- aimed to help small businesses is premised upon. the s.b.a. zeffnition of a small business -- definition of a small business is those of 499 or less. and as far as the gentleman's allegations about the potential for abuse under this bill, if he'd read the language of the bill, mr. speaker, it capps the ability to benefit from the tax cut to 50% of the w-2 wages that that small business pays out. this is straight up something to help small businesses keep more of their money while they're having so much

difficulty keeping the lights on and instead giving them the ability to grow. to grow, invest and create more jobs. . as far as the allegations that somehow this bill only affects those millionaires, billionaires and the rest i think he will see studies have shown that just 18.3% are those people in the categories of income he suggests, with 80-some percent in the middle class. 80-some percent the true small business owners that we are relying on to create jobs for the middle class to come back. and i would say to the gentleman as far as the allegation of gimmickry, the essence of supply side economics, the centrality issue of taxes is the reduction of marginal rates. that's what this bill does. does it provide it for long enough? does it provide permanency? no. but what we want to do in a

permanent way is affect broader tax reform. since we can't see eye to eye on that because we still got work to do, let's give the small businesses some help now. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: we have a statement of administration policy in total opposition to this. small business administration would not provide a loan for innumerable people who benefit from this. they have a seven million limit, sly side economics, we tried that for a number of years and we are losing 700,000 jobs a month when this administration took over. 700,000 and you raise supply economics as something we should embrace? no way. no way. i yield now three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from washington, a member of our

committee, dr. jim mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, members of the house, in five hours we are going to get on planes and go home. so we have to get the press releases ready to go. that's what this is about. this bill will be dead in the senate the minute it hits the desk. it's not going anywhere. it is a press release. and it is the most wasteful bill of the season so far. now, i'm sure that mr. cantor an others will find worse things to do down the way as we get closer to the election. this week has been a disaster in here. we started on tuesday by deeming the budget passed here and in the senate. it's a fiction. it never happened. that's how this week started. then we went to the ways and means committee yesterday and we cut $68 billion out of health,

children services, social services, foster care, and reconciliation to balance the budget. and then we get up this morning and here we have a bill that borrows $46 billion from the chinese or whoever to give it to small business. the fact is that 125,000 million yarings in this country will get an average tax cut of $58,000. that's what this bill does. it does not create jobs. it's supposed to create jobs. in fact, the job creation is so small, as you heard, it's incalculable. that wouldn't satisfy the majority. he had to go and find an economist somewhere who would give him a better number. so he found herman cain's guy. the guy who has a 9-9-9 tax deal. there's a solid citizen.

he really knows what's going. he comes up with 39,000 jobs will be created. 39,000 jobs. sounds like quite a bit, doesn't it, until you figure how many billions of dollars are going to create them. the figure is, each job will cost $1.1 million in tax cuts to get one job. do you think they are hiring somebody for $1.1 million? they are hiring them for $6 or $8 an hour. this is not a job creation bill. it is simply a press release. the republicans have not brought out a serious job creation bill. yesterday was as close as we came when we did finally heightway bill so we could at least keep highway infrastructure being created. otherwise there has been doing solid that has gotten through the congress. everybody knows it creates jobs. but this kind of stuff is simply

sinking it. what's really interesting, though, as i looked at that $1.1 billion per job, i remember when they came up with the phony claim, never proved, that the recovery act would cost $278,000 for a job. this is four times as much and it's from his own economist. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcdermott: vote no on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: i now yield one minute to the gentlewoman from washington, miss herrera butler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington. miss herrera butler: also week i met with businesses throughout southwest washington and i'm here to support the bill today that would niff every one of those businesses a much needed positive injection of capital. my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to have a hard time understanding is that seven out of 10 jobs in this country

over the last 20 years have come from small businesses. if we create an environment where they can grow and succeed, more people are going to find work and that's what this is all about. they need it. my district has endured multiple years of double-digit unemployment. and job providing small businesses haven't seen much from their government to give them hope or encourage them to grow their work force. for example, many small businesses that i met with are really worried about hitting that 50 employee threshold that's going to trigger the health care law's burdensome costs. they are staying under it. imagine that. a government rule that is deterring small businesses from hiring. this is a terrible time to send that message. another business owner talked to me about how he's exasperated by the government reaching out to him he had four days to put together a mountain load of paperwork or face a fine. mr. cantor: i yield an additional 30 seconds. ms. herrera butler: we need to remove those barriers. the bill we need to pass will

send a different signal that says government wants you to grow. you are not uncle sam's piggy bank. these businesses are going to put moms, dad, and hardworking taxpayers to work. let's allow them to do more of that. on behalf of small business owners in southwest washington, i stand in strong support of this bill. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. levin: i yield myself five seconds. was it worth $1.1 million a job in washington? i now yield two minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from oregon, an active member our committee, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: thank you very much. i listened to my good friend and colleague from the other side of the river from my hometown of portland, oregon, talking about trying to assist small business. and encouraging economic development. but the facts are that the vast majority of this aid as we have talked about is going to be

unfocused. it's going to go to people whether they need it or not, including some of the wealthiest individuals and partnerships, accountants, lobbyists, and to companies regardless of whether or not they add employment or reduce it. at this very time we have people on capitol hill who are begging us to get real about infrastructure investment. we finally are getting a bill to conference, but we are hung up on funding it. the republican budget would cut transportation funding 46%. $6.5 billion less than is necessary to keep current obligations. this week small businesspeople, including a number who visited my office, came in imploring us to stop the games, get on with

the re-authorization of the surface transportation act. if we really are going to borrow $46 billion from china or whomever, and add to the deficit, if we have that capacity, for heaven's sakes we should invest it in rebuilding and renewing america. this $46 billion added to the bipartisan senate bill that passed with 74 votes, half the republicans, you take that money plus $46 billion, we could have a robust re-authorization of the surface transportation act, create hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: create hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs, not picking winners and losers, but going back to the day when we used to work

together on a bipartisan basis to fund infrastructure and help strengthen every community around the country. reject this gimmick. if we have an extra $46 billion we are going to borrow, investing it in rebuilding and renewing america really helping small business and strengthening the environment in every community across america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield one minute to the gentlewoman from kansas, ms. jenkins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas. ms. jenkins: i thank the leader for yielding. job growth is my top priority and no one can deny that small business is the engine that drives our economy and our job market. since 1980 small businesses have accounted for 60% of job creation. their success is vital to the strength of this economy and the availability of jobs for all americans. as a c.p.a. and legislator, i

have heard from small business owners throughout my career and their message has been remarkably consistent. they need relief from the burdensome tax code and they need capital to hire and expand, which is exactly what the small business tax cut act provides. while our colleagues in the senate are devising new and creative ways to raise taxes, here in the house we have the opportunity to pass legislation that supports our small businesses, encourages growth and job creation, and lifts our economy out of the current economics of the day. we can and should do all this by passing the small business tax cut act today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield three minutes to another very active member of our committee, mr. m -- mr. becerra, from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california for three minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. when you hear from small

business, what comes up in your mind first? the corner drugstore, the tech troubleshooting start-up. my daughter's martial arts instructor. how about donald trump? trump sales and leasing. or paris hilton entertainment? what about larry flynt publications? not that any of these rather companies have volunteered to show me their tax returns, but by all accounts these are the business that is will devour the lion's share of the tax break in this legislation. mr. speaker, 3% of the businesses in america will get 56% of the tax breaks provided. the rich and famous will get most of the money. 125,000 millionaires in america will get $58,000 in tax breaks

this year alone. in their first year of this tax break. that's how targeted this particular bill is. more than that, what we find is that most americans don't believe that our tax system is fair. they believe that it is screwed torts the very wealthy. -- towards the very wealthy. h.r. 9 proves that they are right. 70% of americans believe that the tax system is skewed against them and favors the very wealthy. paris hilton we understand has five employees based in beverly hills can take advantage of this tax cut. or donald trump or larry flynt or kim kardashian or oprah winfrey. all small business people ep can take advantage and get $58,000 in tax break while most small businesses will get barely

anything. i think the american public is correct. remember, most businesses in america are sole proprietorships. most of those have no employees. under this bill if you're a sole proprietor and have no employees, you get zero of the tax break benefit. now, another example, two companies, both have 500 employees, one company decides to hire more americans, 10 more americans to put on the payroll. the other company, 500 employees, decide i think it's easier for me to make more money if i take some of those jobs an put them overseas, so i'm going to fire 10 americans here in america and start those jobs overseas, outsource those jobs. guess who gets the tax break? the company that hires 10 new american employees? no. they get nothing. the firm that fires 10 american employees here and outsources those jobs to another country? that company will get the benefit of this tax break. .

the american public is correct. today's tax system is skewed toward the wealthy and that's why we have to vote against this legislation. let us have job creation legislation, let us focus on small businesses. this does neither. i urge my colleagues to vote against h.r. 9. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the allegation of those who benefit from the small business tax cut act. i would ask the gentleman to perhaps look at the language of the democrat alternative on the motion to recommit because it as well provides the same benefit it's trying to provide to others, it -- all those people, the so-called rich and famous, that he says are the only ones that benefit -- also benefit -- >> would the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: i will not. with that, mr. speaker, i would say, you know, we're here to provide the kind of relief to the small business men and

women that will benefit from this and with that i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, mr. leader, for allowing me to be here today. and i have spent the last year and a half traveling throughout the sixth congressional district that i represent, talking to small, medium and large-sized businesses and what i have asked them is, what is it that would help you be able to grow your business? what i hear from them is that there's a lot of uncertainty out there. and they are concerned already about large burdens, increasing taxes, more regulations, more mandates, and they really fear what washington will do to them next. well, what if, what if we said to small businesses that really are the engine of our economic growth that we're going to do something for you instead of to you? what if washington encouraged growth instead of causing small

businesses to live in fear, that one more tax might sink them? over 0 years ago my family started a small business -- 20 years ago my family started a small business ands i can tell you that if the conditions like they are today were then, we probably would not have taken the risk to put everything on the line to start our small business. and that's why i'm supporting leader cantor's 20% small business tax cut that would allow small business owners to, one, retain more capital, two, invest in their business, and, three,, and this is the key, to hire more workers. in the state of tennessee we have over 96,000 small businesses that employ over 1.38 million individuals. and in particular we have 12,000 small women-owned businesses which has been, until recently, the fastest growing sector of our small business economy. and so, it's not just a cliche that getting small business

growing again is the key to our economic growth. it's a fact. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. with the -- what the leader said is not correct. the substitute provides some help to those who invest in property, plant and equipment. that's not paris hilton. and also, also -- mr. cantor: will the gentleman yield? mr. levin: let me finish. you didn't yield at all to us so let me finish. so it has to be a factory, it's built here. i yield to the gentleman from california. i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. >> what the gentleman is saying is correct. i want to talk about mr. cantor. mr. becerra: the democratic alternative requires that a small business make an investment in plants and machinery. if paris hilton wishes to invest in plants and machinery, then perhaps she'll qualify.

if larry flynt would want to invest in plants and machinery for his business, perhaps he'd qualify but otherwise this is a giveaway, ours requires you to make investments in america. mr. levin: now i yield -- who's next? i yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. neal from the great state of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from the commonwealth of massachusetts -- mr. levin: i'm sorry. i'm from michigan. the commonwealth. you're from the state of ohio? the speaker pro tempore: i am from the state of ohio. mr. levin: the commonwealth of massachusetts. mr. neal: i think it's the great state of the commonwealth of massachusetts. thank you, mr. levin. mr. speaker, i stand in opposition to this proposal today. just a couple of thoughts, having had long-term membership here. this is not the way to write legislation. and the members on the other

side, they know. this the chairman of the of the ways and means committee should be here with us today to discuss this. this should have been vetted into the full committee. this should have had an active markup with full participation. i revere this institution and i revere that committee. members spend their careers trying to become members of the ways and means committee. to bring this legislation to the floor today without a hearing is ill-considered. from a historic perspective, why don't we talk about how we got into this situation? this bill today adds $46 billion to the deficit. without a hearing? why don't we just do these proposals by unanimous consent? bring it up to the floor. we miss the point of what the vetting process does where people stand in front of the committee and offer expert testimony. but our friends on the republican side, they call this a small business tax cut, this is about the theater of the election year and everybody knows it. this is the same group that would have you believe

incidentally that tax cuts pay for themselves. even though you can't find an demift who will adhere to that position. they have run up the deficits in this country recklessly and in the name of a political campaign they're prepared to do it again. they want to power syrup on the plate, not even bother to serve pancakes with it. in our current fiscal situation, to have not vetted this sort of proposal in front of the committee is a mistake. you want to talk about helping small business with tax policy? count me in. count me in. we've worked on some good bipartisan legislation over the last 20 years to help small businesses. not to do it in this manner or way that this legislation has been brought to the floor. we had a markup in the committee yesterday, cuts are being proposed to senior citizens, to low-income families and they want to eliminate funding for meals on wheels. if they bring this proposal up today with a straight face.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself 30 seconds. just want to set the record straight, mr. speaker. ways and means committee had two small business hearings in the implication of tax reform in which this proposal was raised. in addition, the gentleman well knows that there was a markup -- mr. neal: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: if i could finish, no. there was a markup in committee in which even the gentleman offered an amendment then withdrew it because it was ruled nongermane. so, of course there was a markup, of course this idea has been the subject of discussion in committee. so again i just wanted to set the record straight, mr. speaker. and with that i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: i thank the majority leader for yielding and, mr. speaker, tuesday was tax day, when americans everywhere were reminded just how much uncle sam takes out of

our pockets each and every year. but it was also a reminder that not all of our tax policies are created equal. some in washington want to raise taxes simply to feed their federal government spending addiction, even when higher taxes on things like capital gains and investments would only discourage growth and shrink revenue in the long-term. i think our tax code should be designed to promote simplicity, a competition in economic growth. we can do this by reducing the burden on small american businesses that are responsible for the majority of new jobs created in our country every day. this bill will provide an immediate 20% deduction for millions of small businesses, 1/3 of which by the way are owned by women and 1/5 of which are own -- are minority-owned. let's allow small businesses to reinvest in new jobs, new opportunities and new products that will grow our economy. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to listen as i have

done to the voices of their small business owners and operators back home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i ask the distinguished gentleman from the state of ohio how much time there is on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, from the state of michigan, has 15 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from virginia, the majority leader, has 20 1/2. mr. levin: we have 15 1/2? the speaker pro tempore: yes, sir. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, another active member of our committee, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. doggett: i thank the gentleman. the republicans are always so much better in the names they give these bills than what's in them. and i think in considering this one, we have to look at what it is and what it is not. it is not an economic recovery measure. a nonpartisan analysis has shown that the economic benefits are considered to be so small as to be incalculable.

it is not helpful to soul propriorer tos who do not benefit at all from this benefit. it is not a way to reduce the deficit or the national debt. indeed, this is a measure that will add immediately $46 billion to the national deficit. we were told only yesterday that because of a pressing national debt, we can no longer funds who males for seniors through the meals on wheels program in texas. that we could not afford to provide federal resources that are necessary there on child abuse or on keeping a child with disability at home or helping a senior maintain their independence, that there just aren't the resources to do that, but today we are told there is $46 billion we can add to the debt for a nice-sounding bill. what is this bill? it is another failed republican retread. it is a measure that will help

those at the top rather than those who are really struggling to get at the top. i'm concerned about the ice house on the west side of san antonio. about the beauty shop in lockhart, about the auto repair shop in san mars could. but those are not the places that will receive the principle benefits of this measure. indeed, 125,000 millionaires in this country will get more in tax benefits out of this than many of the owners of those businesses earn during an entire year. in fact, more than the median income throughout san antonio and austin and central and south texas. what this measure is is a boone to highly paid -- do you have another minute? mr. levin: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doggett: it will be a boone to highly paid professionals, private equity firms, hedge fund managers and professional sports teams. i think they've received enough

economic benefit in the past with the bush tax cuts. we ought to be focusing our support for small businesses, not on those who are already at the top and should be contributing a little to the shared sacrifice necessary to get our national debt under control and meet basic human needs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself 30 seconds. again, mr. speaker, just to correct the record. the gentleman from texas indicated that this bill doesn't benefit soul propriorer tos. they are in fact the disproportion at beneficiaries under this bill, according to the joint tax committee on joint taxation, 17.9 million, almost 18 million soul propriorer tos benefit under this bill, again, to set the record straight, mr. speaker. and now i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, not only the chairman of the

subcommittee on trade, but as well the vice chairman of the joint economic committee, mr. brady. mr. brady: thank you. i want to first thank leader cantor for his leadership on economic issues, especially those along main street. and that's what this is about. this isn't about paris hilton or larry flynt or even hillary rosen. the president's top advisor who recently denigrated women who choose to work at home. it's not about celebrities. it's about small business people. they're the ones who have been left behind in the obama economy. think about this. we have literally tens of millions of americans who can't find a full-time job. millions more who just give enough, they don't even look for work anymore. here we are, it's hard to believe there are fewer americans working today than when the president took office. bailouts, stimulus, cash for clunkers, housing bailout, solyndra bailout, all of that, fewer americans working, 700,000 fewer women with a job.

small businesses have borne the brunt of this terrible recovery and it's time we helped. instead of raising taxes on those who succeed, why don't we let them keep 20% more of the income they earn? the sales they make, the weekends they work, the charges they put on their credit cards, all they do to survive and succeed in this economy. republicans are determined to give them a chance to succeed until this economy can get back to work. to hire new workers to keep new workers. and i have to tell you, i remember in the ways and means committee, the debate on obamacare, republicans offered an amendment to shield small businesses from tax increases and our democrat friends said, they can't do that because small businesses have had it too easy all these years. . small business vs. had it too easy all these years. it's time to give our small business as break. time to get this economy back on track. it's time to let them keep what they have worked so hard to earn. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to another active member, very active member of our committee, mr. pascrell from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, we are really in the middle of the theater of the absurd. i'm not opposed and apparently the other side's not opposed to stimulus spending for the economy. but i don't know where they have been for the last 18 months. let's make effective stimulus. since you mentioned the c.b.o., mr. cantor, through the chair, they rank this bill next to last in bang for the buck in job creation. you didn't quote c.b.o. about that. through the speaker, the joint committee on transportation say the economic impact is so small as to be incalculable.

you have an analysis on your website, it's very clear. it's going to cost, add $1.1 million for every job created to the deficit. i rise in strong opposition to this legislation. just yesterday in order to comply with the majority's budget that violates the deal speaker boehner agreed to last year, that is clear, the ways and means committee cut $53 billion in health care tax credits, child tax credits, social services bought credits. you cut it yesterday. for the disabled, for the elderly who are most vulnerable, in new jersey, they could lose millions of dollars for meals on wheels. foster care. this is unacceptable.

we are voting to add $47 billion to the deficit today with the give away to professional sports teams. you didn't know that. or hedge fund operators or managers, whatever they call themselves. and multimillion dollar partnerships and corporations. yes, $47 billion goes to 125,000 millionaires. but each of them gets a tax cut, mr. speaker, of $60,000. this is wrong. the same report found that the best options for job growth include aid to states and increased safety net spending. something i know that the other side opposes. in fact, the agricultural committee just voted yesterday to cut food stamps, get this, by $34 billion. like all of those people on food

stamps want to be on food stamps. all those people that are poor want to be poor. and that's your anthem. they can't find reality. it has no foundation. and it is immoral. immoral. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. soy i thank the gentleman. i ask all members to heed the gavel. mr. cantor: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from ised is, miss nome. miss in a moment: it never seizes to amaze me -- ms. nome: it never seizes to amaze me what comes from my colleagues. wunl is only the rich and famous would benefit from this piece of legislation. i have been sitting back here and trying to think of even a handful of nameous people in south dakota that are going to benefit from this. i got over 20,000 jobs in the state of south dakota and 20,000 different businesses that are going to benefit from this piece of legislation. that's why i'm supporting it. my constituents in south dakota, so many times, only look at

government as an entity that costs them money and makes it very detrimental and hard for them to succeed. when the government can step in and do something that makes it easier for them to succeed and drive that success, that is something we should be behind. that's why this small business tax cut is a perfect example of that situation. small businesses create jobs and they also employ almost half of all the private sector employees in this contry. this bill is going to free up the cash so that those small business can keep people employed when they hit tough times and maybe reinvest in their businesses. i hope we can all come together and support this good legislation before us. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i thank the gentleman. my friend from michigan for

yielding the time. i rise in strong opposition to this bill. there are a number of reasons to oppose this legislation. one it's still not targeted towards job creation. frankly it is not targeted at all. it will provide 99.6% of all business was a tax break, regardless of whether or not they create one american job or not. two, this bill does not prevent business from taxing -- taking a tax cut even when they lay off workers. three, this bill fails to help the businesses most in need, such as new businesses or start-ups. they are not eligible for any provisions in this bill. fourth, this bill will add billions to the deficit which will hurt economic growth in america. five, and most egregiously, this bill provides companies who are in the midst of offshoring jobs with a tax break. during committee consideration of this legislation, i offered an amendment to deny this tax deduction to any company that reduces the number of american workers and jobs while correspondingly increasing in

foreign work force. additionally the amendment stated, if a company offshores u.s. jobs next year, after this one-year tax expenditure expires, the funds would be recaptured or taken back by the treasury. this is so a company cannot take the money this year and run away with american dollars and jobs next year and put them overseas. my amendment enjoys the support of every democrat on the committee on ways and means. unfortunately it was not supported by oneble on that committee. americans and their -- one republican on that committee. americans and their tax dollars should not be subsidizing the destruction of american jobs. let me state, democrats recognize we live in a global economy. we recognize many of our companies need to operate internationally to remain competitive and expand their markets and market share. but americans should not have their hard-earned tax dollars, $46 billion in this case, mr. speaker, taken away and used to

subsidize this kind of business activity. democrats worked hard while the majority -- 15 additional seconds? mr. levin: yield an additional 15 seconds. mr. crowley: democrats worked hard in the majority to end the practice of incentivizing offshoring u.s. jobs in the tax code. we closed a number of loopholes and reinvested the revenue into initiatives focused on creating u.s. jobs and assisting america's small businesses. defeat this bill. it is immoral. we should not be spending u.s. tax dollars in this way. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself 30 seconds just to respond to the gentleman. i think he put his finger on the problem here. the problem with his kind of amendment is the problem with the tax code today. because it means that if you are a business, under his rule, you'd have to come to washington to seek eligibility for a tax

break. or seek eligibility for a tax favor. if you are on the approved list in washington, then you can go and benefit and have an advantage over others. that's not what we believe. we believe in helping all small businesses. with that i yield, mr. speaker, two minutes to the gentleman, the small business committee chairman, the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, tax seen reminds us that -- season reminds us that taxes have high tax rates. the small business administration says the average tax compliance cost per employee for small businesses is almost three times the cost of larger firms. according to the nfib, tax issues are the single most significant regulatory burdens for most small firms. the small business tax deduction act is simple, fair, and gives small businesses access to badly needed capital to invest this their caps while providing a little more certainty to help plan for the future. as chairman of the small business committee, i hear from

small business owners every single week about their regulatory and tax burdens. small business open mike, we have heard that tax policies may drive some firms out of business. on tuesday, wendy, said, i quote, we are headed to hire new employees but fear what new tax turds would have. we -- tax burdens would have. last saturday debbie, owner of a fabricating distributor company wrote, and i quote, any additional taxes will only stop any chance of recovery and the government knees needs to realize we need every penny to increase staff. i can go on and on about examples like these. yesterday our committee held a hearing on the flood of new taxes just around the corner such as new taxes from the health care law and massive tax increases that's going to occur in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. all of these majors could send the economy in a tailspin

costing thousands of jobs. that's why the small business tax deduction act is necessary and going to provide tax relief for america's most robust job creators. with that, mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues support this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield three minutes to the ranking member of the budget committee, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland, three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. levin. mr. speaker, here we go again. this bill provides a windfall tax break to hedge fund owners, to big washington law firms, to the very wealthy, even, even if they don't hire a single person. not one. in fact, in a cruel hoax and twist on this wealthy individuals can qualify for this tax break even if they fire people this year.

and in some cases they could also get a bigger tax break if they do not make their investments this year. that's why the nonpartisan joint tax committee -- mr. speaker, this place sometimes gets to be a fact-free zone. we have the nonpartisan joint tax committee, saying, i quote, the economic activity generated by this is so small as to be incalculable. that's why bruce bartlett, former economic advisor to president reagan said, and i quote, it will do nothing whatsoever to increase employment. unquote. so what's this all about? it gives a big tax break to the wealthiest individuals while adding $50 billion, about $50 billion to our deficit and debt. now, mr. speaker, this week highlights the unfortunate doublespeak from our republican colleagues when it comes to the deficit. on the senate side a majority of

republicans voted against a bill to apply the buffet rule, meaning that we are going to ask millionaires to pay the same effective tax rate as many of their employees paid and use that $50 billion towards deficit reduction. here in the house we are providing a $50 billion tax break that adds to the deficit and this one is targeted disproportionately to very wealthy individuals. there's another sort of strange irony here. when we were debating the payroll tax cut for a year that would benefit 160 million americans, our republican colleagues dragged our feet and then they said, this was all a gimmick. it was a one-year thing. it was a sugar high. well, at least the nonpartisan congressional budget office said it would generate economic activity. they ranked near the top. this is a one-year pay that's going to give them a sugar high.

but it's ranked near the bottom by the nonpartisan congressional budget office in terms of economic activity. you know another irony? when it came to providing a tax break for 160 million americans payroll tax cut? we paid for it. we offset the costs of that. when it comes to providing a sugar high $50 billion tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthy, we don't offset it. we put it on our national credit card. we increase the debt. who pays for that? we have heard on a bipartisan basis that's our kids, grandkids. we are all going to be paying for that debt. so, mr. speaker, this is worse than a gimmick. it's not good for the economy. it adds to the deficit. and i urge that we reject this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, be permitted to control the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the chair would advise that the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, now controls 14 1/2 minutes. and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 5 1/4 minutes. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. >> i thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding. i rise in support of the small business tax cut. louisiana alone will see 80,000 small business that is will be able to benefit from this and over 890,000 workers that will benefit from this. yet my colleagues on the democrat side maybe think it's their money, they don't want those small businesses to be able to keep it and they think that washington can spend it better than the small businesses. how is that worked out? they don't want small business tobs able to keep some more of the hard earned money they make to invest in their business, they would rather keep it here for critical washington spending like the $535 million they blew on solyndra, or maybe the $850,000 that obama's g.s.a. blew on the vegas junkets.

that's the kind of things they would rather see. they don't want those small businesses to be able to keep more of their hard-earned money, they want to keep taxing businesses. they have over $1.9 trillion. mr. scalise: we tried it their way. more than two million americans have lost their job since president obama took office. how about we actually try letting small businesses keep more of their money to create more jobs for hardworking taxpayers. i yelled. -- i yield back the balance the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: how much time is there again on each side? the speaker pro tempore: 13 1/2 over here and 51 fourts over here -- 5 1/4 over here. mr. levin: i now yield three minutes to our distinguished whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland for three minutes. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, ladies and gentlemen of this house, it is hard to call us to responsibility but that's what our public wants. our public wants it on the

right, they want it on the left and they want it on the middle. this is a fiscally, totally irresponsible piece of legislation and you know it. and i know you know it. and america ought to know you know it. ladies and gentlemen, what this bill does is blows a $46 billion hole in the deficit this year alone. but, ladies and gentlemen, mr. speaker, the people of america need to know that we use 10-year figures for the most part. so this means $460 billion. now, i know all of you on your side of the aisle, because i've been here for a substantial period of time, are next year going to say, we're going to raise taxes on small businesses and put that 20% back. that may -- you're going to say, if we did that it would be the largest tax increase in the history of small business. so you're going to do it year

after year. and one of the previous speakers said, we're taking money from small business. let me tell you who you're taking money from today. my children, your children. my grandchildren, your grandchildren. and, yes, my two great-grandchildren. that's who's going to pay this $46 billion hole that you're creating today. and what does bruce bartlett, economic advisor to ronald reagan, not a democrat, a republican, an economic advisor , somebody who advised ronald reagan of how to get this economy moving, unlike george bush, i might add. and what did he say? what did he say about this bill that you have brought to the floor, which by the way "the wall street journal" today called a tax gimmick? "wall street journal" called this bill that you are offering today a tax gimmick. and so what did bruce bartlett say? and i quote, it will do nothing whatsoever to increase employment, point number one. this is not a jobs bill, it

will not grow the economy, it will not do what all of us think needs to be done. and they went on to say, it is nothing more than an election year giveaway to a favored republican constituency. a political gimmick, a tax gimmick that will cost us $46 billion over this year alone and $460 billion, let me say, round that to a half a trillion, as inflation puts us -- pushes it up, a half a trillion-dollar hole adding to the budget deficit that cronlts this country, that all american -- confronts this country, that all americans know we must address. my colleagues, it takes no courage to vote for this bill. what takes courage is to pay for things. what takes courage is to say, we have an obligation. what took courage was to make sure that we paid our debts, we didn't do it so what happened?

wea almost took this country to the brink -- we almost took this country to the brink of default. ladies and gentlemen of this house, summon the responsibility and judgment and intellectual honesty that our public expects. vote against this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would again ask all members to heed the gavel and also address their remarks to the chair and not other members in the chamber. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. mr. mccarthy: i thank the distinguished chairman of the ways and means. it's an honor to be able to speak on this floor. it's an honor to listen to the debate on both sides. and what's so ironic, when you listen to the debate, you wonder what happens here becomes law, but more importantly, do we ever measure, do we ever measure what creates jobs? do we ever measure in america

who creates jobs? some of you know my story. i actually grew up in a family of democrats. i got that unfortunate, i didn't have great grades, so i went to junior college. i worked through the summer, i took my money and i created a small business. in the end of two years i then had enough money to pay my whole way through college so i sold my business. i applied for a summer internship with my local congressman and he turned me down. but today on this floor, i sit elected to the seat i couldn't even get an internship that a small business paid my way through college. but when i sit and measure and talk and listen to my constituents, they talk about jobs. they know that there's been 11 recessions since world war ii and every other recession we have come out of it stronger and faster. even the greatest recession of 1982 when interest rates were

double-digit and you measure it until today, we'd have 13 million more jobs, but the policy holds it back. so i thought i would go back and i would analyze, just the nearest time in america's culture of where we created jobs. so i went back to the end of the last recession, 2001, to the beginning of this recession in 2007. people look at america, they think that's a pretty good time in america, that jobs grew, the economy was strong. people are able to buy houses. and i analyzed who created the jobs. do you realize during that time in america small business added seven million jobs? large corporations cut a million. so to hear somebody on the floor, mr. speaker, say there's some special constituency, well, i'm very proud to stand with the constituency will that will grow jobs -- that will grow jobs. mr. speaker, i will stand proudly behind this bill because statistics and the facts and the history of

america have proven we are the strongest when small business is strongest, we are strongest and create jobs through small business. not through more politics. policy matters, small business matters, jobs in america matters. that's why i ask members on both sides of the aisle, this is an american bill for american jobs, for small business to be strong again in america, america will be strong again. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguish ed the gentlewoman from washington state. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. chairman -- mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. chairman. small businesses are the foundation of our economy. it's small businesses that drive job creation in america. and every time i'm home in eastern washington, it is such a privilege to sit down with small business owners. i'm always inspired by these people who have an idea to

improve our lives and they turned it into a reality. one such business that i recently toured was called made naturally. two stay-at-home moms who had an idea to come up with natural cleaning products two years ago. they put together a business plan and they have now executed it, hired 13 employees, and they are doing well in spokane, washington. and when i toured their business, what they told me was that it is the tax burden and the regulatory uncertainty that is preventing them from hiring any new employees right now. and just like these two business owners in spo can, washington, there are many -- spokane, washington, there are many and -- men and women all across this country who face the same challenges when it comes to growing businesses. as someone who worked in a family business more mother -- for more than 13 years, i can say they are certain he will right. so i'd like to -- certainly right. so i'd like to shed some light, especially on the women. the entrepreneurial women right

now whose businesses are hurting because of this administration's policies. it's important because two out of three businesses right now are being started by women in america. they're actually the fastest growing segment in our u.s. economy. and every dollar they save in taxes is one more dollar they can spend in hiring a new employee. the current path is both unacceptable and unsustainable. it's time to change course. it's time to give america's small business owners tax breaks, not tax burdens. it's time to give them relief, not just rhetoric. it's time to give them flexibility and freedom, they -- freedom they need to create jobs. so it's time to move forward with the legislation that will do just that. i strongly support this bill. and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield one minute to the distinguished woman from north carolina, ms. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina.

ms. foxx: i thank the gentleman for yielding time. i want to say that our colleagues reveal their attitude toward taxpayer money when they say, this will cost us. the attitude of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, mr. speaker, is that all the money that hardworking taxpayers earn belongs to the government. this doesn't cost us, this allows some people to keep more of their money. i rise today in support of h.r. 9, the small business tax cut act, which would provide america's private sector with the resources it needs to help supercharge desperately needed hiring. it's worth mentioning how this bill will benefit women since 1/3 of the firms directly benefiting from the act are owned by women. in north carolina small businesses with between one and 500 employees employ 205,490 individuals, 23,348 of those

businesses are women-owned. mr. speaker, it's for these reasons i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 9 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. levin. mr. levin: housm time is there, -- how much time is there, please? the speaker pro tempore: 7 1/2 over here. 2 1/4 over here. mr. levin: i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. schilling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. mr. schilling: thank you, mr. speaker. and thanks to leader cantor for giving me the opportunity to be here today and speak in favor of the small business tax cut act. as illinois has followed their -- filed their tax returns, folks in my district felt the pinch of the tax increases imposed on them by our states' lawmakers who last year raised personal income taxes by 66% and corporate taxes by 45%. state lawmakers told us that taxes would be used to pay illinois debts and prevent budget deficits down the line. but the truth as many of us

feared is that these tax hikes have done nothing to help our state. in fact, illinois unemployment has remained above 9% for 36 straight months since march, 2009. and thanks to illinois tax hikes, rising gas prices and federal tax rates as high as 35%, our small businesses are strapped for cash. as a small business owner, i know the pain all too well. rather than advancing partisan and show votes, votes that don't lower gas prices, don't encourage economic growth and don't impact our deficit, we in the house want to ensure more opportunities for job seekers and job creators. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. levin. mr. levin: i now yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. israel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. israel: i thank my friend. mr. speaker, we keep hearing that this is a small business tax cut. it is not. it is a bait and switch. 1/2 of this so-called small business tax cut will go to millionaires. so you call it a small business tax cut and they give away the

store to millionaires, mr. speaker. they are saying that we have to dismantle medicare because they say we can't afford it on the one hand and on the other hand they are lavishing millionaires with a $46 billion tax cut. if you're one of $125 -- 125,000 millionaires in america, you get $58,000 from this bill. if you're a senior on medicare, it costs you an additional $6,000 for your medicine. i oppose this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from north carolina. mrs. ellmers: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i would like to speak today on the intellectual responsibility of h.r. 9. back in my hometown of dunn, i have friends who are pharmacists, they own and run an independent pharmacy started by their father 60 years ago. i'm speaking of page houston and kathy blackman. page told me the other day that in in in this recession they

were missed because people were not afraid to go without their medications and they were willing to pay the money even though their economy was starting to take a turn. today things are so bad that people are going without their medications which as a result is a decrease in the number of customers they have and the number of revenue coming in. now their accountant has told them that they're going to have to have no choice but to cut contributions to their employees' 401-k plans and their health insurance premiums or be forced to lay off employees. page told me, this 20% tax cut will keep more money in their business, allowing her to maintain benefits for her employees. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan reserve? mr. levin: i'd ask the chairman, do you have additional speakers? mr. camp: i do have additional speakers at this time. mr. levin: i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentlewoman

from michigan, mrs. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, we all understand that american small businesses are the engines of small creation. i think the democrats are waging a war on small business. i've spoken to many small business creators in my district and they share the samestifling their ability to grow. today we're going to act decisively to give small businesses a tax relief that they need to grow. allowing small businesses with less than 500 employees 20% deduction for capital, it will create the jobs we need. i was disappointed that president obama has threatened to veto this bill. because, mr. speaker and, mr. president, i would say small manufacturing firms in michigan who are struggling new equipment, to grow their businesses are not among the

corporations with the biggest profits. and those small businesses would benefit from this bill. and you can contrast that with general electric which made over $14 billion in profits in 2010 and yet paid no federal income tax. and we need to remember the c.e.o. of general electric -- mr. camp: i yield an additional 15 seconds. mrs. miller: we need to remember that the c.e.o. of general electric is the head of president obama's jobs council. i have to say we can trust the american small businesses to spend mayor money more wisely than government will ever do and, again, it's mistifying to me that the democratic party seems to be waging a war on the small business community of america. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. speaker. you all know the saying, money is power, right? i think we all can agree in this chamber that the one thing we want to do is empower small

business. how do you empower small business? you let them keep more of the money they earn so they can go out and they can invest in new products so they can hire people. i'd love to get people back to work. i'd love to empower small business. that's why we want to let them keep more of what they earn. i had an initiative called the one more job initiative where i asked small business owners, what do you need from the federal government to create one more job? a noble concept instead of pontificating. the number one answer i got, mr. speaker, the number one answer was, let us keep more of the money we earn. and let us hire people. give us tax certainty. that's why i rise in support, today, of this tax cut package because this is exactly what small business needs to continue to be successful, to pull this country out of this recession we're in and continue to reclaim our mantle as the most powerful country in the world. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. camp.

mr. camp: at this time i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the chairman for yielding. our nation is at a crossroads. this president wants to take more money from the private sector and continue the exponential growth of the federal government. we want to make sure that job creators are able to reinvest their hard-earned money back into their businesses to expand and grow the economy and get this job creation cycle going again. that's why we support a 20% tax cut for small businesses. the president on the other hand wants to raise taxes on small businesses and job creators. there are 22 million small businesses helped by this bill, and i think it's necessary that we pass this bill today and i urge my colleagues to support a 20% tax cut for small businesses so we can create

jobs and make a more prosperous america. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair would advise both sides, the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 2 1/4 minutes and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, and 1 3/4 minutes. mr. camp: at this time i have two additional speakers. one of them will close. so i have one speaker before closing. mr. levin: i'll reserve. mr. camp: at this time i yield one minute to the distinguish gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama for a minute. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this recession is different, and the difference is there's no recovery and that is an historic difference. now what is different about this recession and our other recessions when we had a recovery? it's government policy. government policy has stifled job creation. normally at this time in our

recovery, 65% of the jobs were being created by small businesses. but two million jobs aren't there because of obama's health care policies alone. regulatory policies, tax policies. small businesses struggling. now, let me tell you, congress cannot create jobs. we're not going to create jobs with this bill. we're going to allow small businesses to create jobs. you'll either choose government or you'll choose the people. you'll choose government to continue to create jobs like with solyndra and we saw the disaster there, or you'll allow the people to create those jobs. i'm putting my trust in the people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. camp: at this time we're prepared to close. mr. levin: you are? mr. camp: yes.

mr. levin: i yield to a distinguish member of the committee, mr. thompson from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 3/4 minute. mr. thompson: a $46 billion price tag and it's unpaid for. moreover, one year is not tax certainty if you're a small business person. i rise also as a small business person. equally troubling as this bill, unpaid for, $46 billion bill is the fact that yesterday in the ways and means committee the majority passed a bill that they said was to reduce the deficit. but instead what they did is they cut programs that were incredibly important to the elder, to children, to the disabled, programs that allowed people help with their daycare so they could go to work. most people don't have daycare, they are not going to be able to go to work. at the same time the ag

committee passed a bill to cut food stamps. these actions are hard to understand even in these most difficult times. but even harder to understand is in light of this fiscal irresponsible bill today, those bills were passed. i said yesterday that it was a bad day to be poor. well, today is a bad day to be fiscally responsible because this bill is anything but fiscally responsible. and it's wrong to claim on wednesday that you have to cut daycare for low-income people or put seniors at risk, disabled people at risk and children at risk to cut the deficit but then turn around on thursday and add $46 billion to the deficit. that's just wrong. the joint committee on taxation said that this bill's economic impact is, quote, so small as to be incalculable. i tell you people will be hurt

across the country from this bill. that hurt won't be incalculable. i strongly oppose this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from oregon, mr. walden. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon has 75 seconds. mr. walden: i thank the speaker and i thank the chairman. i rise today, my wife and i were small business owners for more than two decades, and we still retain part of that business. so i know what it's like to meet a payroll. i know what it's like to employ people. we only had 15 to 20 people on our payroll over the course of 20 years, but i worked a lot with small businesses. and in small business it really is about, how do you grow? how do you have the positive cash flow, mr. speaker, to grow your business, to invest in new technology, new equipment, to take your ideas and spin them forward and grow jobs? that's your whole nature as an entrepreneur in america and as it should be. in oregon we have 86,000 small

businesses employing more than 375,000 people. this legislation will help those small businesses have what is called positive cash flow. that is from when jobs flow. if you can retain it rather than give it all up to the government, then you're going to make wise choices in your business to grow your business because it's your competitive nature to grow your business which is to create jobs and help the economy. my friends on the other side of the aisle had no problem a few years ago spending $1 trillion to have the government borrow the money and pick winners and losers and waste it. this is a good way to spur jobs and growth in our economy. i urge its passage. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired on the bill. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, seek recognition? mr. levin: i offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. the speaker pro tempore: clerk. the clerk: amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 112- 447

offered by mr. levin of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan will control 12 1/2 minutes as will a member opposed to the substitute. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: the democratic amendment in the nature of a substitute offers a one-year extension of 100% bonus depreciation for certain u.s. businesses. most importantly, the amendment offers a stark contrast to the majority's untargeted giveaway to the very wealthy americans. first, bonus depreciation is available only to businesses that make investments in deappreciateable property. as a result, most of the benefit from the bonus depreciation provision will flow to businesses such as manufacturers that make

significant investments in property, plant and equipment. these are the types of businesses that create good jobs here in our country. in contrast to the majority's mistaken bill, very little, if any benefit, would go to lawyers, lobbyists, hedge fund managers and entertainers to mention just a few. these service professionals simply do not make large investments in depreciable property. bonus depreciation is only available for property used in our country. so a business that builds a new factory only gets the deduction if the factory is built in this country. in contrast, the majority's bill provides a benefit to businesses regardless of where they're expanding or investing. businesses that cut jobs in the

u.s. and expand overseas could get the benefit of h.r. 9. in practice, they would get no benefit from this amendment. third, the incentive to purchase depreciable property provides a benefit to all of the businesses that produce the property. the result is a more general and widespread economic stimulus. fourth and finally, bonus depreciation is a proposal that has had bipartisan support, unlike h.r. 9. h.r. 9 is going nowhere. nowhere. and it should not. vote for and pass this substitute. it is sound policy and can become the law of the land. i re-. -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, rise? mr. camp: i yield to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, claims the time in opposition and he yields to the gentleman from illinois. mr. schock: i appreciate my distinguished chairman yielding time. you know, you can understand why the american people are frustrated, but we have a president who from day one campaigned on raising taxes, raising taxes. then became the president of the united states and his party in the house and his party in the senate, they talked about raising taxes all the while we've had a down economy, all the while we've had unemployment at 8%. yet, the interesting thing is when the same democratic party controlled the house of representatives and controlled the united states senate for two years, they decided not to implement the buffett tax. they decided not to increase taxes on americans.

why? because they know what we know and they know the truth and that is raising taxes will hurt the economy, raising taxes is not what you do when you want to put people back to work. it's bad policy. and it's why a year ago, despite all the rhetoric against the bush tax cuts, despite all the rhetoric against the 2001 and 2003 rates, this same majority in the united states senate, this same president said what? president obama said, now is not the time to increase taxes on any american. a year ago. well, if that was good policy a year ago, i might submit to you that's good policy today. i don't know many americans who believe a year ago the economy was in any worse situation than it is today. raising taxes is not good policy. on any american. and if ever there was a starker contrast between the two visions for america, if ever there were a starker contrast between the republican party

and the democratic party vision on how to get the economy going, it's what's happening today in washington, d.c. across this hallway in the united states senate, they are attempting to raise taxes on america's small businesses. yes. pass-through entities that pay a rate and take that capital away from them and their ability to invest in capital, their ability to hire workers. and here in the house of representatives, we're trying to do the opposite. we're saying, we're listening to these job creators, we're listening to these people that actually do the hiring up. know what they're saying? their access to capital is drying up. their cash in their bank account doesn't quite meet their needs each month. and they need more capital to be able to go out and hire people, they need more capital to go be able to go out and buy equipment. and so that's what this targeted tax cut is. it's not for the big corporations, it's targeted at people that have less than 500 employees and guess what? you can have whatever opinion

you want on the political ideology, you can't have your own facts. and the facts are this, over the last two years seven out of the 10 jobs created in this country were created by people who employ less than 500 people. the very people that this tax bill is targeted at. second, you can't pull up your hands and wonder why americans' job creaters are not hiring, why unemployment continues to be above 8% for the longest time in our country's history, at the same time advocating policies that will drive a stake into the heart of our economy and our small businesses. this tax policy, targeted at america's small businesses, will give them the capital they need to stay in business, to hire those additional workers, to invest in additional capital and maybe even prevent layoffs. maybe even prevent somebody from having to go in the

unemployment line. it's the right policy and i wish that our friends on the other side of the aisle would embrace the policy that they had a year ago, which is tax increases on any american is a bad policy in a down economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. the gentleman is correct. the contrast is very stark. they've tried to raise taxes on millionaires in the senate, so they pay like the people who work for them. this bill would provide a tax break of $58,000 who make over $1 million, 125,000 taxpayers. that is a stark contrast. have people very wealthy pay a fair share on the one side, in this house give them a big break. i now yield two minutes to

another distinguished member of our committee, the gentlelady from nevada. ms. berkley: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of the levin substitute and on behalf of the middle class families of nevada who are struggling to make ends meet. i'm talking about the house keepers and the car dealers, the teachers, the nurses, the cops on the beat, the ones who work hard to take care of their families, put-foot food on the table, fill their -- put food on the table, fill their cars with gas, buy new sneakers for their kids and make the mortgage payments on time. yet in spite of these challenges, washington asks them to give a little more. washington republicans ask them to make additional sacrifices, asks them to carry the extra burden for wealthy wall street millionaires not paying their fair share. why on earth should a waitress in nevada pay a higher tax rate than a yacht owner? why should a janitor pick up slack for a big oil executive? why should a car dealer sacrifice more than a wall

street hedge fund manager? that doesn't make sense. it's not fair. wall street corporations shipping american jobs overseas and big oil companies making record profits don't need our help. working men and women in this country do. this piece of legislation would be destructive to them, their futures and their families. it's time we started siding with middle class families who do most definitely need our help. and that starts by passing the buffett rule. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from oregon, mr. walden. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i'm intrigued by my colleague's comments a few minutes ago about how we needed to support this substitute to help small businesses and all. but what troubles me is first of all, it's highly complicated. it further complicates the tax code. the real beneficiary will be

your accountant because you've got to go through all these machinations to figure out which side of this you qualify for andality the end day, according to the giant committee on taxation, because of the imposition of the additional restrictions called for by the democrats in their substitute that we're debating at this moment, the entire relief would be something in the in order of $287 million nationwide to small businesses. so there's your alternative. you've got -- the democrats saying, boy, $287 million, that's going to solve the problem this year. that's really going to help. and we're saying, no, we want to do something that really affects small businesses, middle class, small businesses, people like my wife and i when we were in small business, worked with other small businesses in small communities who want to keep some of their cash flow home where they can invest it in their businesses, in their employees, chase these ever-rising costs of health insurance and all these other things that you do in small

business, that adding government cost of regulation, all the things that drive up your cost, you need cash to pay for. and so we want to help those small businesses. because that is the heartbeat, the growth, where innovation comes from of jobs in america. is small business. so this is targeted specifically at small businesses in america who can keep some of their money. by the way, it's not the government's money first, the government wasn't your best business partner, you went out, you earned it, you ought to be able to keep more of it. that's the difference in philosophy working out here on the floor and those of us who met payrolls, paid bill, have dealt with government regulation get that. those who haven't have a hard time understanding why at the beginning this is the business' money, the individual's money who has worked hard, not the government's money, it's the individual's money and i urge defeat of the substitute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, i support the substitute amendment and oppose the underlying bill. but i think my democratic friends actually have it all wrong about this bill. i could be mistaken but i think there was a drafting error in this legislation. when introducing this bill, the sponsor said, and i quote, it would put more money into the hands of small business owners to reinvest those funds, to retain, create jobs and grow their businesses, plain and simple. well, this bill does nothing of the sort. for starters, it does not target small businesses as the title claims. rather than maximize assistance for those employers who need it most, less than half the tax cut go to legitimate small businesses. what's more, there's no requirement that this taxpayer subsidy should be used to hire new workers or expand facilities to grow the economy. i'm further puzzled, mr. speaker, when looking at the bill before us today and previous drafts. you see, earlier drafts

excluded certain businesses like liquor stores, can sinows and strip clubs -- casinos and strip clubs from receiving any tax relief, but the current draft does not have such exclusions. further, this bill is not offset and would actually increase the deficit by $46 billion. which i know runs contrary to the intent of the sponsor who believes that even in emergencies federal assistance should be offset. so you see, mr. speaker, i know nye wleegs are very -- my colleagues are very busy and perhaps distracted with issues like compromising women's reproductive health rights which is why i can only assume that these simple drafting errors have come to characterize this bill. i urge itsry jex and let's start -- i urge its rejection and let's start over. mr. camp: mr. speaker, how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: 6 1/2 on both sides. mr. camp: thank you. at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, a member of the ways and means committee, mr. roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. you know, i want to speak for just a minute on the substitute

and i think speaking of drafting errors, you can only assume that there was a drafting error on the substitute and, look, that happens. whether it's a drafting error, the best thing to do is take the bill out of the record and start again, and i think the notion of comparing $287 million in tax relief to $47 billion in tax relief is simply a nonstarter. it's as if the minority is saying, yeah, we sort of accept part of the premise of this tax cut, but we're going to cut it down and then we're going to cut down the tax relief a little more and we're going to cut down the tax relief a little more and a little more and a little more and a little more until finally it's this obscure little bit of nonsense that isn't going to do anything. here's what we need to do. we need to give relief to the small business, mr. speaker, in my district that i was touring a plant and the owner-entrepreneur who started the company said, look, the smart move for me, congressman, is to put 3/4 of $1 million into this new production line,

it would mean that i would expand production, bring in more people and so forth, and have a very simple ripple effect, but i'm not going to do it and the reason i'm not going to do it is because washington, d.c., tells me i'm rich. i'm not rich. i'm just a prudent businessman who's built a successful business and what we need to do, mr. speaker, is create an environment where that business owner, that entrepreneur says to him or herself, i'm willing to invest. and they need relief. they're begging for relief in suburban chicago from their tax liability. and this is an opportunity now with this language that is authored by the majority leader and that is on the house floor. i urge its passage and i urge a rejection of the substitute. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. levin. mr. levin: how much time is there on each side? the speaker pro tempore: 6 1/2 for you. 6 1/2 for mr. camp. mr. levin: i yield two minutes

to mr. kind from wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. mr. chairman, mr. speaker, just to set the record straight, the amendment that was offered by mr. mcdermott at the rules committee and what our ranking member levin and us democrats in the ways and means committee supported offered an immediate expenses, a bonused appreciation for capital investment for small businesses that was fully offset. and fully paid for by eliminating the tax breaks that large oil companies are receiving today who are sitting on record profits, with record high prices and it wouldn't add a nickel to the deficit. and that's why i adamantly oppose the underlying bill before us today. it's the here-we-go-again central drom down here. how deep are -- syndrome down here. how deep are we going to create this hole? a tax cut that's not paid for will go straight to deficit reduction, close to half of it going to millionaires and an average tax savings of over $58,000 is not the way to get this economy out of a hole that

it's in. in fact, the joint committee on taxation, the congressional budget office when they analyze the republican underlying bill, said this is probably the worst thing for the buck that we can invest in the economy, that creates the jobs that we need today. and yet this is a syndrome that happens over and over again from the other side. they support huge tax cuts without paying for it. driving our nation deeper into debt. if they think it's worth while enough and important enough to invest in, then pay for it. find offsets in the spending and let's have that discussion. as far as our priorities. but don't go down the easy route of trying to offer this illusion of tax relief to all americans, especially the iconic small business owner out there, without paying a nickel for it. and adding to the budget deficits that are accumulating today. i tried to explain to folks back home, how do we get into this hole? certainly the most important driving factor is the underperforming economy, the huge recession that we're trying to climb out of right now. but you also look back in previous policies, not so long

ago, supported by the other side. two huge tax cuts that weren't paid for, two wars that weren't paid for. the largest expansion of entitlement spending of the prescription drug bill that wasn't paid for and it's little wonder we're facing huge deficits. i reject the underlying bill, support the levin amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman, mr. camp. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: thank you, mr. speaker. i think it needs to be reiterated once again, the sponsor of the underlying bill, the gentleman from virginia, believes that we need to find pay-fors. we need to pay for and not add to the deficit when it comes to disaster relief. now, let's put that in perspective. a hurricane hits, wife's out of town, the american government

cannot go to health and rescue and help those people and pay for that without finding a pay-for in order to substitute for that payment. when tornados hit middle america and people's lives are destroyed, homes are destroyed, and cities and towns are eviscerated, the congress has to come up with pay-fors in order to help in that disaster relief. but not when it comes to a tax break for companies that will offshore american jobs. those tax breaks, we have to pay for. mr. cantor doesn't believe you have to pay for those, but for disasters that hit america and cities and towns that are annihilated, they must be paid for. i just think that needs to be pointed out to the american people. the levin bill is a far superior bill.

it incentivizes growth within small businesses, without burdening the american taxpayer at the same time. and whose money are we talking about? this is not the small business person's money, this is money that otherwise would be revenue to the country. this is the american taxpayers' money that we're just giving back to millionaires. hardworking americans who work every day to give a tax break to millionaires. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair asks members to please heed the gavel. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: how much time is left? the speaker pro tempore: you have three minutes and mr. camp has 4 1/2. mr. levin: do you have any other speakers? i now yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, i

heard my good friend from chicago talking about people begging for investment. well, business is looking for assistance, but nobody has come seeking an inefficient effort like this, digging ourselves deeper into debt and not having the impact. we have offered alternatives that would not have added to the deficit and would have helped business right away. i'm honored to be joined on the floor with a young friend, johnny hammer, who in looking at this assessment said this will be adding to the deficit. well, that's right. and we didn't need to do that. instead, we should be focusing on things that are deficit neutral, that will give american business things that will add productivity right now. i strongly urge my colleagues to reject this proposal and think about the young johnny

hammers of this world investing in our future in a way that's responsible and sustainable. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp's going to close. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. camp: i believe mr. levin has the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: mr. camp has the right to close. mr. levin, it's his substitute. mr. camp is defending the position of the committee. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: two minutes. mr. levin: you know, there's a criticism that the bonus depreciation provision doesn't go far enough. well, my answer to that is, let's pass this and then join together.

you have supported bonus depreciation in the past. you haven't acted on it. we do. let me say what's at stake. this bill isn't going anywhere. it's going nowhere, but it says everything about the majority's priorities. they oppose raising taxes on the very wealthy. they take a pledge that applies to the very wealthy so they end up with a bill they won't pay for. they make all the rhetoric about the deficit. empty rhetoric. empty rhetoric. so essentially what they're coming here today is to make it worse by giving a tax break to

the very wealthy through this bill. we've said it many times. nobody refutes it. you're stuck on a pledge not to raise taxes even for the very wealthy, and you come today with a proposal for a tax break for 125,000 taxpayers making more than $1 million with a tax break of $58,000. and then to make it still worse , you cut necessary programs for lower and middle income families, from childcare, meals on wheels. where's your conscience? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 4 1/2 minutes. mr. camp: well, thank you, mr.

speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i appreciate at least hearing some of the new-found fiscal responsibility from my friends on the other side since the obama administration has come into office with help from democrats on the other side of the aisle have increased the debt by $5 trillion with a t. let me just comment on this substitute. there -- it's not that the bonus depreciation in this legislation doesn't go far enough. it's that it doesn't provide bonus depreciation. it does limit the bill based on the concept of bonus depreciation, but this bill isage a'sed by the joint committee on taxation. and rather than providing the $46 billion of tax relief, this only provides a small fraction of that. 6%. under the underlying legislation, millions of small businesses will be able to make

investments, be able to buy equipment, would be able to hire workers. this substitute guts the bill and will result in no economic impact in this country. i would urge a no vote on the substitute. i would urge support for the underlying bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair would note while the house is pleased to have the attendance of young johnny hammer and other guests during the gallery, it's inappropriate to recognize any specific's attendance. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]