we need to follow the characterization of the joint committee on taxation on this. i think that a one-off on rates will not move the economy and the country forward. we need to look at our tax code in a comprehensive way, not just on the individual side, but at the highest corporate rate in the world, the fact that we are still in a worldwide system of taxation. the president has a framework on corporate tax policy similar to the direction of the draft bill i have introduced goes. there is more than just the rate here. the rate is not going to be enough to have the impact we need to see after 41 months of 8% unemployment. we need to do more than simply a simplistic bumper sticker rate. americans want more. >> you are talking about a

middle-income tax cut. >> allow me to try to not take too much time here. i have a technical question, a broader question, and maybe a statement. i will be extremely brief for that too many cliches in the middle of this. i believe he said that 97% of small businesses make more than $250,000. >> last. >> less than 250,000. i wanted to know what the source was. >> the joint tax committee. the nonpartisan joint tax committee. >> is that/district? the irs in my district has a remarkably different version of taxpayers in my particular area, almost the mirror opposite. >> i doubt it can be done by district. let me say something -- >> i want to know from whence

that came. i realize you made one statement in there about this not being a zero sum game, which is somewhat significant. i have said this before. i am an old schoolteacher, which makes me one of the least wealthy people around here. one of the papers ranked us all, and i was 430 out of 441. i've heard on the internet that, after serving one year, i get my entire salary for life and will have health care the rest of my life -- which we might as well do, since everybody thinks we do that. i realize that is not true. [laughter] we would be voted out of office.

but i would have my money -- who cares? >> i think the chairman should lead and you should discuss that idea. >> let me assume that you guys are not the ones below me, whoever that happens to be, and that you are above the $250,000 level, as some people are. the thing i am having a hard time getting in this zero sum game -- if i taxed at a higher level, how does that help me monetarily? i do not get the money from you. it will go to a government entity that would expand something somewhere else. it is the one thing -- if you get more, it does not mean that i get more. i find that to be a unique concept we keep playing with, getting caught up in what is fair and not fair. let me just say my one problem that i have with both bills, including yours.

as long as the death tax exists at all, it is wrong. that is still the most abominable, unfair tax ever invented by mankind. i will not be satisfied until that is totally eliminated, until there is such a bill that we can -- >> with that, i yield back. >> thank you very much. i will forgo a substantial number of questions, primary among them, why the chair of the joint committee on taxation would have full power to determine our introduction of the expedited provisions. i cannot understand that. i gather that it is political calculus being employed. that is the prerogative of the majority. after 20 years --

>> both mr. levin and mr. kemp have referred to this as a nonpartisan committee on taxation. >> well, the provision i was speaking about allows the certification to be at the discretion of the joint tax committee chairman alone. that would allow, among other things, an opportunity to add other measures that are unrelated, such as health care repeal and a variety of other things. i do not want to go down that road. i want to simply say that if kicking the can down the road was a parliamentary olympic event, then the american congress, with its systemic cowardice, as i see it, would win gold, silver, and bronze and tin -- i do not understand

why we continue to not face up to the harsh reality that we are all confronted by, democratic and republican, liberal and conservative, in this country. i do not think that this gets us there. extending something, particularly for 25 million americans that are working families -- i do not see how this will help them at all. i for the life of me do not understand why we cannot pass the middle-class tax cuts that would allow for certitude, for at least 98% of americans. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i wanted to comment on the one point.

the model for that budget -- we look to other house procedures and congressional procedures. every day it is in the sole authority of the budget chairman to determine points of order. it would be done in the same way. however, relying on the advice of this budget committee staff, the budget chairman, just as the ways and means committee would rely on the nonpartisan recommendation of the joint committee on taxation as to what would be in order or not in order -- >> you understand my concern. >> i have heard others raise it. i do not think everybody has heard why it is done that way. this is already procedure of the house with regard to budget points of order. the nonpartisan staff of the joint committee would make that recommendation.

>> let me add, if i might -- we are talking about the second bill that would be way beyond technical. >> the supreme court has already done that. we have all the power we want. >> i will not belabor that point, mr. chairman. >> i would like to -- i am disappointed by the one-year. we were not serious about fundamental tax reform -- we wasted a year of all our lives. it sat on a desk never to be seen again. in the two years democrats controlled all the legislative branch, the executive branch -- tax reform movement was just as anemic. the truth is that there has been more movement in the direction of fundamental tax reform in the 18 months you have been chairman then i have seen

in two decades of watching the process around here. i applaud you for that. i would agree with mr. levin. i am not as much of a fan of the principles you laid out as the ones i have laid out, but the principles you have laid out are open enough that mr. levin can have his say and those of us who support the fair tax can have our say. to put it on an expedited process and say, let's stop talking about it and get it done. let's get the loopholes out that mr. mcgovern is discussing. i would like to ask you, mr. levin -- who you think benefits the most from the loopholes and carve out and exceptions? is it the middle-class taxpayers, or is it a different class of people? >> let me mention -- sometimes the word loophole was misapplied. the essentially, you talked

about the principle -- to get down, to have two brackets would reduce the revenues dramatically. in order to achieve that, you would have to diminished and probably eliminate -- >> let me make sure i understand. the principal chairman camp has laid out -- the only proposals that he is entertaining our proposals that bring in 18%-19% of gdp. you tell me this reform will lower revenue instead of increased it. what do i misunderstand? >> those two brackets would reduce revenues. in order to make up the revenues, you would have to eliminate or come close to it the mortgage interest

deduction, the church will contribution, the health exclusion, the education provision, state and local taxes. >> who benefits most from the state and local tax -- >> the answer, i would like to send you the charts from the joint tax. i would appreciate your looking them over. the mortgage interest deduction is more than anything else in middle-class policy, a middle- class policy. the same is true of the health exclusion. overwhelmingly middle-income. the same is true of the education -- health, education and mortgage interest deductions. they help to make the middle- class of this country and to simply say two tax brackets without explaining the impact, i do not call that comprehensive

tax reform. there are loopholes we need to address. i could give you some. >> i think comprehensive is a large term. it sounds like, from what you are saying, to get to the rates chairman camp has laid out we will have to deal with almost every provision in the tax code -- all of those loopholes will have to go. all of the exemptions will have to go. i would -- what about the corporate side? that is an even larger challenge. >> the joint tax committee said that if you eliminate all of the provisions that stimulate manufacturing in this country, you would not get down to 25%. my criticism is simply saying that there is a figure without saying how you would get there is not any effective way to approach tax reform.

>> i do want to make a comment about this joint study -- it was an incomplete analysis. there are 90 tax areas they then did not include. they said it was a preliminary study. they have not done a complete review on that. the reality is, if we can get comprehensive tax reform that creates jobs, we do not have to eliminate every tax. that is what the committee process will be about, both in the house and senate. as you point out, the principles we adopt say that revenue will have to be coming in between 18% and 19%. >> you mentioned the hearings the ways and means committee has had. i represent the fair tax folks. when the president's tax commission looked at that, they said no fundamental proposal did more to lift up the lowest

of than the fair tax. you held the first hearing on the fair tax in 12 years. i do not think that extending things when you are at a time is how to get things done. the kind of work and effort you put into this -- it means a lot to me. mr. levin, you took issue with the ernst and young study that said 100,000 jobs be lost if we implemented your proposal. -- 700,000 jobs --you had issues with the methodology and their conclusions. is it closer to 600,000 jobs that would be killed by your proposal? what is the right number? 500,000 jobs? >> the proposal to continue high-income tax cuts -- there is not evidence that continuing it will lead to economic growth. indeed, we had years and years

of taxation with that provision, and there is no evidence that it worked. indeed, it led to immense deficits. the bush tax cuts were not the only source of the deficit, but they were a significant source of deficit, and there is a $50 billion difference between the two bank bills in terms of the increase in deficit. >> i am trying to figure out what that $50 billion is worth. i accept your premise that the study may not be entirely accurate but, what is it? is it killing 500,000 jobs? the chairman is talking about one year so that we can get serious about something you and i both agree this congress has not been serious about since 1986. >> why don't we -- >> i do not know how many jobs it is.

>> i am not sure there is evidence. it may also be zero. there is an agreement -- >> does that mean ernst and young got it so wrong? >> the methodology is flawed. they assumed that none of the differential of 49 billion would be used for deficit reduction. it is a very flawed study, and i think there is strong evidence that extending the bush tax cuts for high-income families will not promote economic growth. we have before the ways and means committee proposals like accelerated depreciation, which republicans and democrats have supported, which would clearly promote economic growth. yet it does not come out of committee and we do not vote on it. why don't we vote this week on extending the accelerated depreciation to 100%? why don't we extend the middle-

income tax cuts and that, and have the argument about high- income tax cuts later? the answer is that the republican party is essentially stuck in cement on extending high-income tax cuts. that is what grover norquist says. we cannot get enough flexibility on your side to sit down and do the middle-income tax cuts and argue about high- income afterward. >> i fear that is not what we cannot -- i fear for his partisan statements like that which are why we cannot get things done. i am not a signatory of the grover norquist pledge, although i appreciate the work he is trying to do. there is not one member of the republican congress that does not believe in higher revenues for the united states america. you have said it not once, twice, but three times.

>> i was talking about higher taxes. >> you are talking about higher tax rates. you are saying that the chairman does not believe in higher revenue. he has said, if it does not happen, he will not have his name associated. >> as long as there are no tax increases. >> i look back at 1986 -- the gentleman may have been here in 1986. i was not. i'm tremendously proud of the work we did. individual income tax revenues were $340 billion. with the reduction in tax rates that you came together to implement, with the kind of comprehensive tax reform that eliminated loopholes, flattened rates, broadening bases -- three years later, 1989, income tax rates have gone up 33%. on the corporate side -- what

you did on the corporate side -- $63 billion. three years later -- it had gone up 66%. you did it once. i think you can do it again. i will tell you, speaking for the republican freshman class, we want to work in that direction. if we can do what you did in 1986, i will call that a huge success and applaud you both. >> you would support increases in taxes? >> i am committed -- my sights may be higher than the chairman's. he set a low bar -- 18% of gdp. i see constant spending 20%. 18% of gdp is about 15% better than what we are doing now. i will take that as a step in the right direction. >> i think it is unfortunate that we are having this

discussion in this way. there is strong bipartisan support for tax reform. we could be here talking about whether the marginal rate should be 27.5 for some sign or 30% or 25%. instead, this fix is it at 35%. we could be talking about corporate tax reform, where there is interest in making companies more competitive and preventing outsourcing jobs. we are presented with a rather odd hr 6169. its solutions to this problem -- it identifies your own committee as an impediment to tax reform and eric cantor as an impediment to tax reform. it is essentially says that tax reform, which it defines -- says, here is what it is.

with certain parameters that do not have bipartisan support. as if we cannot get it through the ways and means committee -- >> on all three accounts, that is not accurate. the impediment is on the other side of the gavel, where the threat of a filibuster is the region we are pursuing the goal but we have here to insure that we can actually have action taken. >> a follow-up question -- then why does the bill have expedited house procedures? >> that is so that we can make sure we work with the senate to get this done. the real impediment happens to be on the other side, as we know is often the case.

>> rules for the senate are something both sides of this house can agree on. what this bill provides, in addition to expedite senate rules, which would be less problematic, again, it bypasses this committee, bypasses your own committee and the majority leader, whereby, if the majority leader does not bring up the bill, any member of the house can then do so. i do not see this -- i see this as an avoidance of the discussion of tax reform. my only question -- why are we not talking about tax reform? why are we not talking about a marginal rate, a corporate rate -- why, instead, are we talking about a deficit-busting tax proposal with a marginal rate of 35% without any corporate tax reform to make american companies more competitive?

>> there are a few points. first, the fast-tracked process has been a discussion since 2011. it was something considered in the super committee. this is not like the super committee process. this is a process that is empowering the committee to do its work. revenue has to be between 18% and 19% of gdp. that is above the 40-year historical average and is higher than what is now. these processes are mirrored in the house and senate. they are very similar approaches in both bodies -- both sides have been talking

about this. senator baucus is quoted as saying he is very interested. this is working with the house and senate to fashion a way that we can have the house and senate act. regular order -- that is what we are trying to find a way to do. >> knowing the time is short, i would hope that your committee -- i wish it could take up tax reform in an expeditious manner and find a bipartisan path to a concept embodied in 1986, have the important discussions about the rate, make sure that we can have a fair tax code for our country that promotes growth -- i think it is doable. but we are not doing that. instead, we are talking about a rate higher than any of the

rates, even when i look at democratic proposals for tax reform, some might have a 30% rate. yours is a 25% rate -- but anybody talking about lower than a 39.6%, from what i've heard -- i hope this does not serve as an excuse not to pursue that. i hope your committee takes this opportunity to do something for our country, tax reform. i yield back to the chair. >> i appreciate where you are on this issue of tax reform. the new to this body -- you look back and go, why have we not been able to accomplish this in the past? 20 years ago?

longer? that was the last time you are able to even discuss it. when we hear discussions of extensions of tax cuts or increases, you are asking for a year. a year of no change in regards to tax policy implemented under the bush administration, rhee implemented under this administration, so that we can go to regular order. am i seeing this correctly? >> you are correct. >> how you see that proceeding over the next -- you have until april. >> we spent the last two years laying the groundwork. >> how many hearings have you had? >> more than 20. we have had to bang joint hearings with the senate. the first hearings between the

two bodies in more than 70 years. we have a third plan for the fall on investment taxes. we have a third one that we hope to complete this year. we will continue to work until the very end. then, the committees would begin to mark up legislation. you would have until april to do a. >> in regular order. >> in an open process. >> input from both sides? >> yes. and a vote. trying to fashion a bill we can move forward on. we have laid out principals -- when you look at what the rest of the world is doing, we need to be in step, given how mobile capital is. we are hamstringing our companies with double taxation. if we can simplify the code and get to two rates for individuals and have corporate entities at the same rate --

there is not a distortion there. those principles are there to create economic growth. if you just do one, corporate or individual, you cannot get the economic impact from the 1980's, which was significant revenue to the government, growth, and job creation. that is what we need after 41 months of 8% unemployment. >> could i respond very quickly? i think that whoever wins the election in november will take up tax reform. the principles that are mentioned in the republican bill would be very different depending on the election, but either way i think that we will have tax reform. the principles that are set out

in the republican bill, in many cases, are either very vague or are too explicit. having two -- >> even by washington speak -- >> some of them are very vague. they talk about certain things. for example, going over to a territorial -- that is vague. you have to filter it. there is no territorial tax system in the world. they are all hybrid. what is not vague is going down to two tax brackets, 10% and 25%. if we take over, that will not be the standard we use. that would lead to a huge tax increase for very wealthy families. it would also have an immense

impact, if you carry that out, on the mortgage interest deduction, on health care exclusion, on the education provision, on state and local taxes -- who would be impacted by the removal of the provision -- i do not think we have all the data on that, but we do have the data on some of them that it would very much hurt. the narrow class. we will take up tax reform, whoever chairs this committee, but it will be very different. >> could i respond? i have also introduced a draft territorial bill that is not incorporated into these principles that has been public since october and has received a lot of comment in hearings and informally. it is specific. it has several different types of provisions, how we prevent

companies going to the lowest- tax jurisdiction. we are competing with the entire world, so we need to look at a new way of our international tax policy. there are ideas out there that generated a lot of discussion and support. again, we want the committees to drop these bills. this will be an exercise the committees do, in the house and the senate. the senate can start on day one next year as well. their deadlines are different because of the constitution -- the house must act first. we would be the first body to act. that is where a process is set up in that way. >> what i like to hear is the fact that it will be an open process. even though you have the framework laid out. some are defined and some are not, but the framework is there

-- you can have honest debate in regards to what the final legislation actually looks like. correct me if i'm wrong -- it gives you the opportunity to craft it so that everybody has the opportunity. we do not know what the final legislation will look like. >> the structure is very much like what was developed in simpson-bowles. we are trying to get to a point where, if the rate is zero and there is nothing, and then there is bipartisan consensus, we must have, for the good of the country, for longstanding policy -- the rate goes to another level. we think that you can do pro- growth tax reforms not in all preferences at 25%. if there are many preferences that can be added back in, the rate will not be 25%.

people understand as they are supporting and voting, the costs, if you will, in terms of rates. certainly on the business side, many people have said we won 25%. they are willing to give up a lot. what is important is parity between corporate, pass- through, and individual. so that you are not penalized because you are a big company and get a different than some individual. there is a lot of misunderstanding about business taxes. we have a lot of carry-forwards. if businesses have losses and carry them forward, they might not pay any taxes in a later year. we need to look at all that and say, is that still the position you want to take, given the tremendous misunderstanding it has with the public? >> whoever chairs the ways and

means committee can give you this assurance. it will be an open process. >> that would be different than it has been in the past. is that correct? >> i would like to move forward. that is where we need to go. >> it was an open process in a real sense. >> ok. one of the things that my good friend from georgia brought up was the fair tax. i am co-sponsor of that. i wish the discussion was strictly on that issue. but it is not. when i am back in my district, i am talking to my small business people, those who will be hit by a tax increase if we were to do what our friends on

the other side of the aisle would like us to do. they are the ones creating jobs. i come from a district that has double-digit unemployment. when i hear people talk about the ability of small businesses -- i do not care if it is one job. that is one more person in my district to can get up and go to work, feel like they are accomplishing something, and go home to their family. when i have the same small businesses, and i am not talking 20 employees. i am talking to hundred, 300, 400 employees, those types of corporations that will be hit with a tax increase when we can least afford it on this job creators -- i do not know if ernst and young got right, got clothes, or were way off the mark, but i will tell you that in my district, those small corporations that would see a

tax increase, we would see a loss of jobs, not an increase of jobs. >> i have given you the joint tax analysis. 97% of businesses, small businesses, would receive a full tax cut. that is their analysis. 3% would not. if that 3% -- they are not all small businesses. the joint tax committee did its best. it is a mistake for any of us to take an example of one or two and ignore the joint tax -- >> mr. levin, i do not doubt their analysis, but i will tell you that real people, real

people that i sit and work with on a regular basis before i was ever in congress. when i was a sheriff -- these are real people that create jobs. these are real people. any study i here does not talk about the real people, at least in my district. >> we should not dismiss that the only real people are the 3%. 97% will get extra. >> i will just tell you that they are real people. those are the real job creators. it is more than half of all small-business income. there are two sides. the other part is that it is half of all small-business income. >> that is because the 3% have huge amounts of income. that is a false argument.

>> you can move the statistics anyway you want. all i can give you is my take on it. i yield back. >> i have the privilege of managing -- i will save my comments for tomorrow. thank you. >> thanks for so much time. >> we will proceed to mr. blumenauer. he appears to have left. mr. van hollen -- mr. van hollen is next. he does not appear to be here. mr. hoyer and ms. pelosi are next. please come forward, mr. hoyer. they are next. welcome back to the rules committee.

it is nice to see you. without objection, and he prepared statements you have will appear in the record in its entirety. we certainly welcome your summary. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ladies and gentlemen of the committee, ranking member, thank you very much. i appreciate this opportunity to appear before you. i will reiterate what others have said. the american people obviously are deeply distressed. they are distressed that, when they see agreement, that that agreement is not made into law. they here are saying, and i hear you saying, we are here -- for this. they hear us saying the same thing and yet nothing happens. the senate has passed a number of bills by votes of over 60 votes, some by over 2/3 votes,

and they have sent them here and they have not been passed. we have an opportunity in my view to make a statement to the american public that will raise their confidence and perhaps maybe a little bit of their respect as well. as has been noted on numerous occasions, i am sure, we have agreement. we do not have agreement on everything, but we do have an agreement. that agreement is that, let me yield to the leader, then, and i will continue my statement after hers. >> let me welcome the distinguished majority leader, my fellow californian, back to the rules committee, and say that you should feel very at home. your book ended by paintings of

the pacific ocean on my right and you are left, and the san gabriel valley. we have cameras full-time and the rules committee now. we are very pleased to have you joining us. without objection, and a prepared statement will appear in the record in their entirety. we welcome your summary. >> thank you very much, members of the committee, for your leadership and dedication to bring in legislation. we are happy to be here. hello to chairman camp. i extend my prayers to that fine person. i hope that the passage of this legislation will contribute to

that piece. i was listening attentively when i was in the room and when i was not. as the distinguished chairman said, there are cameras in the room. questions and observations being made by members and by the distinguished chairman and ranking member levin. people are sitting at their kitchen tables, having dinner, and part of what they will be talking about is how they are going to make ends meet. how do middle-income families in our country address the uncertainty they see in our economy? as i listen to questions about growth -- i heard the chairman say that growth was so important -- i think it is

important to go back to some of the history that mrs. foxx asked of mr. levin. in 1993, we passed a bill that increased taxes. we needed revenue. we needed growth. we needed to reduce our deficit. that is exactly what happened. there was an occasion where an increase in taxes created an atmosphere where the private sector could create over 20 million jobs. and take the deficit down to a place where it was on a trajectory to $5.60 trillion in surplus, which was quickly turned round under president bush with the bush tax cuts and other things like the medicare drug bill and two unpaid-for

wars. an $11 trillion swing. mr. hoyer knows these figures better than anyone. unheard of in our country. i referenced is here because you ask, but also because you are asking us to go right back to where -- how we got into this fix in the first place -- tax cuts at the height and which do not create jobs, which increase the deficit, and, on top of it, took us to the brink of recession and a meltdown of our financial institutions. the lack of revenue that sprang from the financial institutions contributed to the deficit as well. that is where the deficit came

from. tax cuts to the wealthy, medicare, wars, not down in the financial-services industry -- reductions in revenues coming to the treasury. disagreement on what supervision should have been there -- i do not think there is any disagreement in the fact that we all think that middle- income americans should have a tax cut. those making up to $250,000 a year should get a tax cut. if we just had we agree on -- people do not understand why you cannot do what we agree on and then continue the conversation on the rest. $250,000 -- what does that do? $250,000 and above -- you save $1 trillion. or you borrow $1 trillion from

the chinese and others in order to fund that debt. let's get back to that kitchen table. what does that mean to me if i am a middle-income person in our country? or a senior person trying to put families through school. the uncertainty as to their jobs, their income, whether they will be able to send kids to college, hold onto their home, the value of their pension -- it means everything. the uncertainty that is out there for the economy brings uncertainty to that kitchen table. in order to reduce the deficit, i believe you do have to have growth. we want to watch our investments carefully so that they produce jobs, help create jobs, help the private sector create jobs. also that brings revenue to the

treasury. $250,000 a year -- that is money they will spend. they will inject demanding to the economy. that will create jobs. jobs for them. what it also does is it takes $1 trillion that we do not have to further go into debt for and do not have to borrow from china and other lenders. it is hard to explain to anybody why we cannot agree on this. we also agree that we have to have tax fairness. we have to address the tax code in a way that is bipartisan, non-partisan, really, and does the right thing.

he has been such a champion on fiscal soundness, fair taxes -- fairness, that is really an issue for our country. it is the theme of america. the most enduring theme -- the american dream -- that is predicated on fairness and taking responsibility for each other from one generation to the next. i respectfully request your consideration of the alternative that ranking member levin presented earlier, which said that here is a place where we all agree -- we all agree. there has to be in middle- income tax cut. whatever else we have, we can continue that conversation, but do not hold the middle-income tax cut hostage for tax cuts to high-end that continue to inject uncertainty into the economy, which is not a healthy

thing for the economy, businesses, and working families. it is a bill that the cbo says 97% of small businesses will not be effected by. even speaker boehner has conceded that point. people come up with that and say, we cannot get lower taxes. in any event, let's do what we all agree on. let's give middle-class families a break. the difference between our two bills is as follows. this gives a tax cut to those making up to $250,000.

under the gop plan, people making over $1 million a year -- if you made $1 million a year, you would get $160,000 on average a year in a tax break under the republican plan. in order to help pay for that, middle-income families would on average have to pay $1,000 more. not only are we borrowing to cover it, we are taking from the middle class to get this tax cut at the high end. it is just not fair. i urge your consideration of mr. levin, who spoke for what the president is proposing. >> thank you very much for that. let me say -- i do not know if you were here at the time.

i indicated that i will request -- this will be the first time since 1999, when i was in this chair, that the majority has provided the necessary waivers on a measure like this to about the minority to have a substitute. i request of this committee do that. >> thank you. do you think you can convince the democrats to join and provide that waiver? >> your very persuasive. >> mr. hoyer. >> [inaudible] the issue in this presidential campaign -- the issue, which is very much related. [inaudible]

adopting a bowles-simpson plan that would put us on a fiscally sustainable path -- i hope that we will do that in the lame duck. i do not know that is possible, but i will work toward that end. secondly, i think that both want tax reform. if we are going to make it in america, we will make it in america -- it is profitable. regulations and taxes are items we need to address. we believe that the bill that we offered -- i thank you for making that order. speaker boehner had indicated he would do that. we had a colloquy about that. i think that'll be an important debate. but i would urge my friends and

the republican side to reflect upon the 1993 bill. that did, in fact, raise taxes on 1.5% of the highest earners, almost to a person -- mr. boehner, mr. kasich, mr. armey -- all of them said that we would explode the deficit and destroy employment and the economy by adopting that plan. exactly the opposite happened. we had a very robust economy. we created more jobs than any administration -- 22 million in eight years. for four years, we added nothing to the national debt. the last four years the clinton administration. it was a combination of republicans and democrats working together. there were also some constraints that republicans

gave and democrats gave on what we might do. the real issue is, how do we pay our bills? how'd we pay our bills? we can talk about taxes -- we incur obligations by buying things. we by social security, medicare, defense -- we have to decide how to pay for them. frankly, in the first part of the bush administration, you jettisoned pay-go. as a result, we did not pay for what we bought. as a result, the deficit was very substantially increased. by the way, as a percentage of gdp, you may be surprised to note that, during the four years of the first bush administration, the national debt was increased by a higher percentage of the g.d.p. then it has been under mr. obama to date.

in fact, under mr. reagan, the national debt increased by 189%, the highest of any president as a percentage of gdp. why? we did not pay for what we bought. that is our problem. that is the price of democracy, as some have said. here, we have agreement. i'm glad you make the amendment. is glad to give the waiver necessary. at least we ought to support that. we're offering a senate bill that will be signed by the president. we know it has to be an hr number. but it is at least that -- for 98% of americans, we can give them a sense of confidence that they will have the same revenues in the next year.

in addition, we will not do what the republican bill does -- put less money in the pockets of 25 million americans. less money in the pockets of 25 million americans a pass the republican bill. that is not good for the economy. that is not good for confidence. that is not good for the image of congress in the united states that has an agreement on a central principle -- let us debate that which we do not agree on. let us take it to the american people. let us move forward on that on which we agree and give certainty to our people -- all of our people. 100% of our people will not have any tax increase on the first $250,000. >> thank you to both for being here. by virtue of sitting here, your testimony will evoke some

response from members. every member of this committee is entitled to ask questions of you. i am going to ask you to come back at the beginning of the third boat -- -- third to vote. all time has expired and a few people have not voted on the house floor and we have a total of three votes. i will recessed the committee so it will be about 15 minutes and we'll come back. based on this testimony, there will be some questions and i understand people have obligations. i will ask you to come back so let's go downstairs and vote. at the beginning of the third votes which will be in a few minutes, we'll come back upstairs. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the committee voted in favor

of extending the bush tax cuts for the battle in -- the middle class. >> at the foot of that bridge, i was beaten. thought i was going to die. thought i saw death. >> in 1965, a 25-year-old john lewis took part in a voting rights march from selma to montgomery alabama on a route that would take them across the edmund pettitte bridge. >> a man identified himself as major john cloud of the alabama state troopers and said this is an unlawful march. one of the young people walking beside me said give us a moment to kneel and pray a major told the troopers to advance them across the bridge, author and congressman john lewis sunday at 8:00 on "q &a."

>> the house will take up the one- year extension of the bush does your tax cuts today. that will be at 10:00 a.m. for speeches and legislative work begins at noon eastern. live house coverage is a suspect. on c-span 2, cyber security legislation that creates security standards for digital infrastructure. live senate coverages at 9:30 eastern. the house armed services committee will talk about cuts from sequestration live at 10:00 eastern on cspan 3. coming up this hour, we'll talk to michael warren of the weekly standard about the election and judy waxman of the national women's law center to discuss some of w