would be horror find. -- horrofide. democrats are willing to work with republicans and all of our colleagues to enact meaningful, fair tax reform. but this bill doesn't get us an inch closer to that goal. if my friend on the other side were sincere about achieving comprehensive tax reform, they would reach out to us in the drafting of a bill like this. they would have consulted with us. . this legislation before us was referred exclusively to the house rules committee. not a single democrat on the house rules committee was consulted about this bill. and my guess is not a single democrat on the ways and means committee was consulted about this bill. so, you know, we will go through this exercise today. my friends often the other side of the aisle have the votes to pass it. but i want to tell you, mr.

speaker, this is much ado about nothing. because this is not meaningful tax reform. this is a very partisan, very partisan approach to this issue. i regret that very much. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i have no further requests for time and am prepared to close. if my friend has speakers i certainly sit here patiently and look forward to hearing any thoughtful comments they might make. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for three minutes. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding. mr. speaker, today we are -- we have the opportunity to talk about our vision for the future and the path our country must be set upon in order to remain

competitive in the global economy and also get our fiscal house in order. the tax reform proposal that we are debating today could not be in starker contrast. today i will vote against the republican plan that is before us and instead i will vote for the democratic plan which i believe is a balanced approach to move our country forward, to give everyone the opportunity to succeed. now, mr. speaker, this debate is about choices. the republicans want to give us more -- give more tax cuts to the wealthy. at the expense of everyone else. democrats on the other hand propose a balanced plan that asks the wealthiest to sacrifice just a little bit more so that we can provide tax relief for the middle class taxpayers. we can bring our debt down. and invest in economic growth. we will protect our most vulnerable. we will repeal the alternative mism tax. we'll discourage a tax haven

abuse and eliminate the tax break that shift jobs and profits overseas. for far too many of us, mr. speaker, have experienced the hardship and loss of employers shuttering their operations in our district and we know that when a business closes it's not just direct jobs that are lost. no, but an entire community, which is affected. the grocery store has less business. people don't go to the movies. not going out to eat at the local diner. they postpone home repairs. and they don't buy that new car. but this has resulted as a result of republican tax policies that quite frankly have incentivized companies moving their jobs overseas. democrats propose to change that. that's why we made promoting domestic manufacturing such a top priority. we want to rewrite the tax code in such a way it incentivizes job creation here or bringing jobs back from overseas. that means that not only are we going to create jobs in that

particular business that comes back to america, or that starts up here in our country, but also the ancillary jobs that are created as a result throughout the community. one job is created in manufacturing, for example, there is at least four or five jobs that are created in other industries. we all agree that comprehensive tax reform is urgently needed. where democrats and republicans fundamentally disagree is how we get there. i urge my colleagues to vote against the republican plan that is before us and vote for the democratic substitute to reduce our debt, protect the middle class, promote american products that made by american workers, and invest in our national priorities. infrastructure, secretary of education, research and security. let's keep america competitive and create jobs the right way. right here at home. with that i thank the gentleman for yielding. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: let me ask are

there any other speakers? i will close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me repeat some of what i said in my opening statement because i think it's important for my colleagues to understand this. the republican pathway to this tax reform is a path, as i said, for the chairman of the ways and means committee to draft and to certify a bill that would receive extraordinary fast track procedures with virtually no limit by what could be contained in it. republicans have promised that this fast track bill would contain at least four proposals based on the ryan budget in addition to the repeal of the a.m.t. and together these four provisions would shift the tax burden from the wealthiest to the middle class and will ship jobs overseas. let me just read one of the proposals in this bill. republican proposal, i quote, a consolidation of the current six individual income tax brackets and to not -- into not

more than two brackets of 10 and not more than 25%, end quote. what does this mean? it means that the average millionaire would lock in an annual 3 -- $,31,000 tax cut. to pay for the tax cuts the ryan plan would potentially eliminate provisions vital to the middle class, including tax deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and chashtible contributions, as well as the tax, -- charitable contributions, as well as contributions to 401-k plans. and the plan would necessarily have to raise taxes on middle class families by approximately $4,500. another proposal in this bill, i quote, a reduction in the corporate tax rate to not brown-waite greater than 25%, end quote. what does this mean? it means eliminating every corporate tax credit and deduction would generate only enough savings to recuse the corporate tax rate to 28%.

to get to 28%, the republican tax plan would require wiping out every provision of the tax code that encourages domestic job creation, investment, and innovation. in order to raise additional revenues for corporate tax cut, the republicans will go after individuals or small businesses. mr. speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle have made their priorities known in the budget that they all voted for. i think it's a radical approach to our economy. it's an approach that i believe and my colleagues on the democratic side believe will be devastating to middle income americans. and it is really unfortunate that we are here. not in the spirit of bipartisanship, not in the spirit of compromise or trying to find consensus, but in a very partisan way moving this bill forward. and at the end of the day we are leaving here really doing nothing to the american people. we just -- i was listening to the debate on the drug relief

and -- drought relief and listening to democrats and republicans both lament there is no farm bill. we are going on vacation and there is no farm bill. there is no jobs bill. no jobs agenda. no tax cuts for the middle class. we all agree we should preserve the tax breaks of people earning up to $250,000. my republican friends are saying, no, we are going to hold that hostage until you make sure that donald trump and the people that give these exorbitant amounts to super p.a.c.s they get their tax breaks. we could agree to that. no farm bill. no violence against women act. no cybersecurity plan. no bipartisan plan to prevent sequester. i hear my friends on the other side of the aisle complaining about the sequester which, by the way, they caused that terrible idea to be a reality. when they brought this economy

almost to a collapse during the debt ceiling debate. we are leaving. we are leaving town today. they gave away tomorrow. we are leaving town with all the unfinished business. we are leaving town not doing anything meaningful for the american people, especially for those in the middle and those struggling to get into the middle. this has to be one of the least effective, least productive congresses i think in the history of our country. and when -- there's a reason why when you read these public opinion polls, there is a reason why congress is held in such low esteem. it's because people watching what we are doing here and wondering why we are not on their side. people who are struggling to hold on to their jobs or get jobs are wondering why aren't we moving forward with a jobs agenda? why aren't we passing a middle class tax cut? instead we are here basically to pass a press release that

says that at some point we are going to do tax reform and they don't want to tell you the details of the tax reform because i think that would be very unpopular and frighten a lot of people in this country when they see the devastating impact on the middle class. having said that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yealed myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: i want to congratulate my distinguished rules committee colleague for his very thoughtful, warm, and loving mischaracterization of where we stand on this issue. this is not about donald trump. this is not about donald trump at all. we continue to hear the two words donald trump invoked on the tax debate. what this is about, mr. speaker, is the 25 ,484 women-owned small businesses in this country who are seeking to

assure they can continue to have the ability to hire people and grow their businesses. this is about the potential of losing 710,000 jobs based on the ernst & young report that has come forward. this is about ensuring that we turn the corner on our economy. now, mr. speaker, when i came here in 1981, one of the first bills i introduced was a bill calling for a flat rate tax. people talked about that all the time. the standard joke out there was, well, simple tax form was, how much did you earn last year? the second line was, send it to washington. those are the kinds of things that people said might be in the direction of tax reform. what we need to do is we need to recognize that everyone has talked about the problem of taxes. famously the former chairman of the senate finance committee, senator long, would say don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the

guy behind the tree. we all know, democrats and republicans alike, there is a desire to make this happen. there is always talk from democrats and republicans. again, president obama has said we need to bring about tax reform. president obama has said we need to reduce the top corporate rate from that 35% level. i congratulate him for acknowledging we have the highest corporate tax rate of any nation on the face of the earth. now that japan has lowered theirs, mr. speaker. so everybody talks about it but the question is how do we actually get it done? now, my friends said that will if we really wanted to do it we could have done it. well, there are specifics in this measure. there's specifics, we have five, included among them, engshuring that we repeal the alternative minimum tax. everyone acknowledges how terrible that is. ensuring that we have two rates of not more than 10% and 25%, and, yes, doing what president

obama has said we need to do and that is reducing the top corporate rate. this calls for 35% to not more than 25%. also dealing with the global aspect. so this has specifics in it and what it has, mr. speaker, at the end of the day is, let's get the job done. action, action, action. we can continue to hear all kinds of talk. press release, all this sort of talk -- sort of stuff, talk about what this is. this is about actually doing what democrats and republicans say needs to be done. and so i think that working with our colleagues in the senate we ensure, by the way, under this structure, that no democrat is denied the opportunity to offer amendments . my friend said that we don't have this great bipartisanship. we are pursuing a bipartisan goal of demeff tax reform and the structure to make -- comprehensive tax reform and the structure to make that happen. but as this process begins we

will have clearly amendments in both the house and senate offered by any member who wants to participate in this process. at the committee level. as it goes through. we have many thoughtful -- i see we have the ranking member, ranking member democratic member of the ways and means committee, my very dear friend, mr. levin, here on the floor. i'm sure that as we proceed with tax reform under this structure that mr. levin will be offering many thoughtful amendments to this measure. his right is guaranteed under these expedited procedures. what we are arguing, mr. speaker, is that we need to make sure that rather than simply talking we get things done. i think we have got our chance to do that now. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this measure. we are going to go in to debate now with our friends on the ways and means committee and from there we will have a vote on the substitute, which many' happy to say we made in order, that will be offered by the distinguished ranking minority

member of the committee on rules and then we will proceed with a vote on this measure. so i urge my colleagues to support action, action, action over talk, talk, talk when it comes to the imperative of growing our economy and reforming taxes. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one hour. mr. camp: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 6169, the pathway to job creation through a simpler, fairer tax code. republicans and democrats voted to extend tax cuts until the end of next year. it provides congress a time to enact and pass comprehensive tax reform. without risking further damage to a fragile economy. the failure to stop the tax hike looming at the end of the year could push us over a jobs cliff. i know many democrats want to raise taxes but an independent study by ernst & young said it would eliminate over 700,000

jobs. we can't afford to lose more jobs in the united states and that is why we voted to extend current tax policy. instead of raising taxes on small businesses and making it harder to create jobs, as the democrat plan did, republicans are focused on creating jobs, reforming the tax code to make it simpler and fairer for all americans and strengthening our economy. the bill before us today provides a pathway to that goal. this bill forces congress to do its job. something i think all americans will support. it provides a specific timeline for the house and senate to enact next year on comprehensive tax reform. it ensures an open process. the bill is introduced and then the appropriate committees may amend it. democrats and republicans alike will have an opportunity to debate and offer changes. and this bill tells the american people exactly where we want the debate to start.

we say tax reform should eliminate special interest loopholes, to reduce rates for families and employers, reducing the current six tax brackets down to just two, 10% and 25%, help america be competitive in the economy by setting a corporate rate of 25% and updating a 50-year-old international tax code to a modern and more competitive territorial system. and get rid of the alternative minimum tax. it's currently lombing over 31 million middle class families. we also don't think we should ask taxpayers to bail out washington's wasteful spending. tax reform should not result in the federal government taking more out of the economy and more out of taxpayer pockets than the tax system historically has. it's not about making the government bigger. it's about creating jobs. that's why this bill says federal tax revenues should

remain within historic norms of 18% to 19% of gross domestic product. independent economists have noted when paired with appropriate government spending cuts, comprehensive tax reform that includes these policies could lead to the creation of one million american jobs in the first year alone. compare that to the democrat plan offered yesterday. a tax hike that would eliminate over 700,000 american jobs. the choice could not be clearer. do we want and does america need democrat tax hikes that destroy jobs or do we want and does americans need republican-backed tax reform that creates a simpler, fairer code and one million jobs in the first year alone? today, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have one more opportunity to stand with families and job creators by joining house republicans to demonstrate their commitment to passing and enacting comprehensive tax reform next year. we can and should work together

to revive our economy and get the unemployed back to work. and, mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this legislation and in doing so take an important step to creating a simpler, fairer tax code and more jobs for american families, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: yesterday, republicans voted to put tax cuts for millionaires as their priority over giving 114 million middle-class americans certainty. today they are doubling down on that agenda.

the so-called principles laid out in this bill would rig tax reform to shift the burden of taxes further onto the middle class and ship jobs overseas. the joint economic committee analysis as described here found that the average millionaire would get another $331,000 in tax cuts while middle-class families making less than $250,000 would see their taxes go up by an average of $4,500. for millionaires a tax break, $331,000. for middle-class families, taxes more at $4,500. that's the joint economic committee analysis. and why? because the only way to finance these massive tax cuts for the

highest earners is to eliminate or significantly curtail provisions that support the middle class. these are not loopholes. these are policies that in many cases help make the middle class of this country. 70% of the benefit of the mortgage interest deduction, for example, goes to those who make less than $200,000. 82% of the benefit of the exclusion from employer provided health insurance goes to those making less than $200,000, and likewise, the provisions relating, for example, to education. republicans like to say they will eliminate loopholes, and we just heard that language, and special interest provisions to pay for lower rates. but the provisions i mentioned

are not loopholes. they are policies that help to build the middle class of america. they are basically, as i said, middle-class provisions, and now they're on the chopping block under this republican plan. there is one way to describe it. h.r. 6169 is grover nor gallons -- norquist on steroids. we need to not sock it to the middle class and help the very wealthy. yet, that's exactly what republicans in congress want to do. and now we've received recently an analysis of the plan of governor romney. it's also a plan highly

offensive to the middle class. a report from the nonpartisan tax policy center yesterday made no bones about what it would do to the middle class. they wrote that it is not mathematically possible to write a plan like the one drafted by governor romney, in quotes, that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower and/or middle income taxpayers, end of quote. the plan to lower the corporate rate to 25% would require eliminating every provision, every provision that encourages american manufacturing, the r&d credit, accelerated depreciation, the manufacturing

deduction. every one of those. and the joint committee on taxation has found that even if you eliminated everything you could only lower the rate to 28% on a revenue-neutral basis. we need tax reform. indeed we do. but not a tax rewrite that discourages companies from making it in america and that would move us to a territorial system that taxes no businesses overseas in terms of their income and helps to ship jobs overseas. well, surely a plan this radical, that's really what it is. a radical republican proposal should be subject to the full scrutiny of regular order and full debate. but not under this bill. under this bill the pathway republicans are setting up is

really a railroad to shift the tax burden onto the middle class and shipping jobs overseas. it creates a tax czar, and i'm opposed to any of us being a tax czar. republican or democrat, mr. camp, myself or anybody else. it would be a tax czar who creates the plan and then certifies their plan that achieves their goals. it would allow him or her to add any other proposal to this high speed train through congress. social security, that could become not part of this fast track but railroad. repeal of health reform or anything else. we should reject that path and

adopt the slaughter substitute which would articulate principles for tax reform that would strengthen the middle class, create jobs in the u.s. and reduce the deficit. you know, we continue to hear about small businesses. 97% would receive the full tax benefit under what was rejected yesterday and that we put forth. and in terms of this report about 700,000 jobs, every fact checker has said it's essentially bogus. and i think that's how bankrupt a majority is coming forth. i'd like them to answer the joint economic analysis. i'd like them to answer the

study that came out from three people about governor romney's proposal. oh, one of the spokespersons said, oh, it's a liberal think tank that analyzed it. two of the three authors served in republican administrations. it's not a partisan analysis. it's a bipartisan analysis, and it shows essentially what's being proposed here and what governor romney is proposing is sock it to middle-class america in order to help the very, very wealthiest. that isn't the america that we want. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, i yield myself 15 seconds. i would just say to my friend,

i don't know whose plan that is. a plan to increase middle-class tax hikes isn't -- middle class taxes isn't something we could agree with. what we envision is a open process that republicans and democrats could offer amendments on. but the point is this, comprehensive tax reform that creates jobs and gets the economy moving and gets us back on track can be accomplished. so with that i yield three minutes to the distinguished chairman of the trade subcommittee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. . mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. vice chairman of the committee i would point out that that was a partisan report, very partisan report on the republican tax proposal. developed by the ways and means committee and included in the republican budget. but let me ask you this, because here's the question, it's hard -- as hardworking americans when you open a mailbox and see a letter from

the i.r.s., what do you think? how frightened are you? if you are a small business owner and get a call from the i.r.s. saying it's time to audit you, how fearful are you? the truth of the matter is americans are frightened of their own tax law, their own tax code. they know it's unfair. they know it's too complicated. they know if they make a mistake who knows how damaging it would be for them. we now have one special loophole so complicated the best tax lawyers in america, including the i.r.s., don't quite understand it. now we have gone from first to worse in the world. america's tax rate is are the worst among our competitors. this is why jobs are going overseas. you'll hear members of congress, you'll hear the president, you'll hear candidates for congress say, we need to fix this tax code. but they don't do it. house republicans are going to act to fix this broken tax code. the chairman of the ways and means committee, dave camp, has

held 24 very thoughtful, very solid hearings to find ways to move forward on tax reform. today the house has the opportunity to not only lay out principles for a far more simple tax code, far more fair tax code, one that doesn't frighten us to death, and one that doesn't frighten our jobs overseas. more importantly, in this bill is a simple provision that says congress, you also have to do your job. it sets up a timetable for the house and senate next year to have a guaranteed up or down vote on comprehensive tax reform. so no more stalling. no more delaying. no more talking about the need to fix this tax code. in the house today we will act to guarantee the congress must take this up. it's about time because we are losing jobs. we are dragging our own economy down. we are frightening hardworking taxpayers. we are just trying to live by

the law but no one actually understands this tax code. we are determined to act. and when we do act, both today and next year, fundamental reform is lower and fairer and simpler, our economy is going to grow, this nation's going to grow, we are going to be back on top of the world when it comes tohe best business climate and strongest economy in the world. but today we first have to act. i strongly support this bill. and i encourage members of this house to do so as well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: the gentleman from texas talks about loopholes. is the mortgage interest deduction a loophole? is the charitable contribution deduction a loophole? state and local tax as loophole? municipal bonds a loophole? the health care provision a loophole? you keep using that word i

think demagogically. i now yield four minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from washington is recognized for four minutes. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, the house of representatives is a wonderful body. it's one of the most amazing places in the whole world. it's where we make decisions for 300 million people. we make them for a lot of other places that we are going to influence around the world. and every once in a while you come here and think i have seen everything, and then, we got one more. here we are today, the last day of the session. with no debate whatsoever on this bill anywhere. just brought out here de novo, i guess it came from god or from the speaker's office or someplace.

i don't have any idea where it came from. but it seems to me that the house of representatives is working hard to forget every positive lesson we have learned in the history of governing this country, about how to get things, big things done for the american people. today's bill sets up a process to ram through what every bill congressman levin writes in 2013. because he'll be chairman of the ways and means committee. he'll sit in a closed room using arbitrary rates with no input and no debate. it will be a disaster. did i say levin? i meant camp, what am i talking about? it would be a disaster to have one person sit somewhere in a room and decide what the bill

is and bring it out and this power grab will destroy any attempt that we have or any chance we have of having tax reform. we used to know better. i got here in 1988. that was two years after the tax reform of 1986. now, roll back the clock a little further, 1980, ronald reagan won 44 state mandates. he was in power. but there were also strong majorities on the democratic side in the congress. just like today. in 1980, just like today, the government was divided. and just like today both sides wanted to get tax reform done. it wasn't any different in 1980 when president reagan came in. but today we are debating a power grab bill where it's

introduced by one republican member, guess he didn't have time to get anybody else to sign it before he had to drop it in and bring it out here to discuss it. scored by one member. and given an up or down vote by one member. unfortunately the lot falls to mr. camp. i don't think mr. camp did this. this isn't mr. camp. i know him. this isn't the kind of bill he would sit down and write because we have seen him when he writes bills. this is written somewhere and this is how we are going to ram through the house of representatives and the point of the sword is mr. camp. this procedure is the worst try to get anything done in the house of representatives. i can't be more clear. comprehensive tax reform simply will not happen if the process and the bill are autocratic and rabidly partisan. that's the end of it right there. back in the 1980's both the republicans and the democrats

knew that this was true. tip o'neill sat up here, he was democratic speaker of the house, and ronald reagan sat down on the end of pennsylvania avenue as the president and they fiercely disagreed with each other on just about everything. when they started. but they knew that they had to find there is an agreement and compromise to get anything done as big as tax reform. mr. levin: two minutes to the gentleman. mr. mcdermott: thank you. these two were not cut from the same piece of cloth. tip o'neill was working class irishman, he was passionate about fairness, knew how to get things done, and well, he liked to have a glass of whiskey now and then. ronald reagan, believed that a pure sense of individualism and to ronald reagan tax reform was about lowering taxes. he also liked to take -- tell jokes and occasionally have a class of whiskey. they both liked to play golf.

then there was row stankowski, he also played golf and he liked a class of whiskey occasionally. they all got to know each other . they pulled other people in. they discussed issues in detail. it was bipartisan. it was not done on one side or the other or simply by one person. wouldn't, couldn't, never would have happened in those days. they did the people's business that way. lots of voters are angry these days. they don't think washington works. it doesn't work when you get this kind of legislation brought out here. if people from both sides -- it took ronald reagan and tip o'neill and rostenkowski six years from 1980 to 1986 talking about this issue. by the time they finally got it all done. here we have a bill that -- i guess this could pass by --

when we get back from labor day, it will be a couple days. that's not going to happen. you know it's not going to happen. i know it's not going to happen. and the public is angry about this because washington is not dysfunctional because members of congress aren't extreme enough, they are not getting things done because we are not working together. to do tax reform well, to do it right, in fact, to do it at all, we would have to work together t will take time. it will take debate. it will take thoughtful consideration. there is no other way, this bill we are considering today guarantees failure. it's bad for america. i ask my members to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee and chairman of the budget committee, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is

recognized for three minutes. mr. ryan: i thank the chair for yielding. i enjoyed listening to the stories of lore from my colleagues that harkin back to the good old days where we had smoke filled rooms where laws were written. that's not what we are interested in achieving here. what we want to achieve is a process done in plain view, transparent in the public, and maximize the opportunity for congress to fix the best that has become the united states tax code. at the end of the day, mr. speaker, i think there is a difference in philosophy here. one side likes to think of the idea everybody sending their money to washington, then we go into a backroom and we slice up the money and send it out to favorite groups, favorite constituents, people that we want to be as winners versus those who might be losers. we've got to get out of the game of washington picking winners and losers in the tax code. because what we do is we stifle that entrepreneur who has an idea who might not have connections but can actually

have an idea and make a business and grow. we want to remove those barriers to opportunity. we want to remove those barriers to upward mobility. we want a system of entrepreneurs where we have true entrepreneurial capitalism, not this crony capitalism. mr. speaker, both political parties are guilty of this. republicans and democrats for decades were party to the process of tucking into the tax code all these various special interest loopholes which end up rewarding a few while raising tax rates on the many. well, we've got to get through those days because if you haven't noticed we are in global competition. 97% of the world's consumers live in other countries. if we want to have a good, strong, growing, entrepreneurial economy, we need to make things here and sell things overseas. but if we keep taxing our

successful small business, our businesses all around, at much higher tax rates than our foreign competitors tax theirs, they win, we lose. i come from wisconsin. we are a manufacturing statement -- state. that's how we survive. we grow things and make things in wisconsin. our chief competitor is right over lake superior, the canadians. can in a da just lowered their tax rate to all of their businesses to 15% last january. well, the substitute that the gentleman brought to the floor, the substitute the president is asking for, will bring the effective top tax rate to those most successful small businesses in wisconsin to as high as 44.8%. mr. speaker, how on earth are our bhisses -- business, our manufacturers going to compete while we are taxing them at a federal level almost as high as 45% and our competitors are at 25 or 15 or lower? we won't. that's why we want to reform

the tax system. the different philosophy is basically this. if i could ask for an additional minute. mr. camp: additional minute. mr. ryan: the difference is this. some here like the idea of bringing more money out of people's paychecks, more money out of our successful small businesses, and parsingly it out in favors. we prefer the opposite. let people, let families, let businesses keep their money in the first place. so they can decide what they want to do with it. by having high tax rates with lots of loopholes, all we end up doing is we say, you can have some of your money back if you do what we approve of in washington. even with the best of intentions behind such ideas, it gets corrupt. the powerful and the connected are the one who is call the shots. so, yes, we need to clear the brush out. and, yes, there are popular provisions in the tax code and that is why we want to have a process in front to debate those things.

there will be things left for charities and the like. let's have a clear, in public, not backroom process where we debate just how best to go forward. and what we want is a clean up and down vote so we can get this country going again, we can get this economy back on track, and look at our children and know that we left them better off. with that i yield. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. left. mr. levin: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: the republican bill indeed picks winners and losers. the winners are the very wealthy. the losers are the middle class of this country. i now with pleasure yield five minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: mr. speaker, first, i note that the chairman of the budget committee said that we want to get this out of the back rooms, and i mean the

bill, and the bill says one person that chairman of the ways and means committee will draft this bill, certify it and present it to the congress with very limited time to debate. so it is true. they do want to replace the back room but with a telephone booth. that's hard to do. there aren't many phone booths left, but there apparently be one which the chairman of the ways and means will single handedly draft this bill without a great deal of input. what is it they are going to draft? what we're told is it will include deductions in the rates paid by the wealthiest and it alludes in the most -- not even close but in specific terms getting rid of some loopholes. we don't know what those are. this great courageous effort to deal with the special interests begins by ignoring it, by promising goodies to the wealthiest people and will somehow make it up in a big way. with how?

they don't know. they don't want to say. procedurally and substantively, the bill's a disaster. that's the bad news. the good news is that no one thinks it's a serious legislative effort. this is one little bumper sticker from the gang that cannot legislate. we are here today with the republican leadership having backed down on passing a bill that the agriculture committee came forward with. now, it's popular on the republican side to talk about the senate. oh, the democrats in the senate and they're choging everything off. exactly opposite is the case. the senate passed a transportation bill. the house couldn't. house couldn't take one up because there is such division within the republican party. so here in a procedural maneuver they sneaked into conference a conference report came with the senate transportation bill the only bill that passed the house and

then members obediently passed an omnibus bill, including a transportation bill, that this house never got to concede. even that looks good compared to postal issues. the postal service is now in default. yeah, it is default. it's default of the republicans who are again so ideologically driven, so unable to deal with the basics of government because of their dominance by a faction that does not understand the role of our coming together and do things in a society. that's a pretty controversial one. that radical george washington set it up and it's a great unifire in the country. and it continues to be. one of the things we do at it scoff at it. i have to say with all of the new communications nobody has named an ipod after anybody. we use the post office. the senate passed a postal bill. this house can't take one up once again because this

republican party is so divided between their extremist wing and other people that -- so we got transportation. we have postal. they can't do a postal bill and the postal service is now in default. while we debate this bill that no one takes serious. that the chairman of ways and means will single handedly put on his cape and fly down here with this bill that will help the rich and it will do some unmentioned things regarding popular tax breaks because they don't want to mention them. and then we have the agriculture bill. so on the fundamental functions of government, an agriculture bill, a transportation bill, a postal bill, the party that couldn't legislate didn't legislate. again, because they can't get people on their own side what we -- we need a postal service, we need a transportation, we need an agriculture bill. although i'd like to see something different than what the committee put out. instead we get a bumper sticker. oh, we're going to cut taxes for the wealthy.

i did notice, too, they said they're going to get the taxes -- should be 18% or 19% of the g.d.p. we have mr. romney committing that we will spend 4% of the g.d.p. on the military. whether that's what's needed or not. whether we go to more wars or not. so look at what's left. take what they want to put in taxes. take what romney wants to commit to the military, and there's no room for anything else. there's not much room for a medicare program. social security gets squeezed. the environment, clean water, transportation, that's why they can't legislate, because they're locked into a mindset that reduces, they say, the revenues, and increases the military beyond what is needed and leaves us unable to do those things which a civilized society wants to come together to do. so, yeah, the bad news is that this is a crazy bill but the good news is that after today's bumper sticker waving no one will pay attention to it.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, every single day we see more proof of the president's failed economic policies. we just heard that last quarter's g.d.p. was revised down. it's probably 2/3 of what it ought to be. 41 straight months of 8% plus unemployment. millions can't find jobs. millions more only can find part-time work. real disposible income of working families down under this president's failed policies. and because these policies have failed, it results to the politics of diversion, division and envy. change the subject. let's talk about taxes. let's divide americans into smaller groups and make them envious of each other.

so the president comes and says, let's increase taxes. let's increase taxes on a million small businesses. fact. ernst & young said this will cost our economy 700,000 jobs. fact. small businesses now say for the first time in almost four years the greatest threat is not lack of sales. it's taxes. and that's why house republicans voted yesterday to stop the tax increases. stop the tax increases. today we take the next step. and in the end it is to create a process for a fairer, flatter, simpler tax code, one that will ensure that the family budget doesn't go broke paying for the federal budget. one that ensures that the success of working families depends on how hard they work in their hometowns and not the

size of their tax loopholes in washington, d.c. now, my friends from the other side of the aisle, mr. speaker, they have great theories that we're going to tax our way into economic growth. if only we tax small businesses more that somehow they'll create more jobs. beatings will continue into morale improves is their theory. well, we have history. we have history. go to the coolidge administration, the kennedy administration, the reagan administration, the bush administration. every time we lowered marginal rates, every time we have simplified the tax code, not only have we ignited economic growth but we've actually received more tax revenues. and yet my friends on the other side of the aisle and the president, they want to defend the status quo only more so. and now i wake up this morning to discover that as they defend the global system that even our olympians are going to be taxed

on their olympic medals. so we had a president who told every small business man in american and every small business woman, you didn't built that. by defending -- you didn't build that. they're telling our olympians, you didn't win that. that's what it is about today, more taxes, fewer jobs. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i now yield four minutes to the distinguished member of our committee, mr. thompson of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. thompson thompson i thank the gentleman for -- mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in opposition to the bill. this is the first anniversary of the budget control act and that came about and left us with this impending sequestration.

so let us remember why we passed the budget control act. we passed it because it was a compromise. the debt ceiling the house majority refused to allow to raise. this were refusing to raise the debt ceiling because they said that they were concerned and they cared about our nation's debt. but just yesterday that same house majority passed a bill that will add over $400 billion to our national debt and just one year. a bill that continues tax cuts that added $3 trillion to our debt over the last decade and that history has shown didn't help economic growth. now we have this bill on the floor to mandate strict parameters of tax reform. i want to do tax reform, mr. speaker. there isn't any one of us who doesn't want to do tax reform. but this is the wrong way to go

about it. locking in certain rates and certain rules is not how tax reform is done and can lead to very serious unintended conyou is againsts. like exploding our national debt. yesterday, the tax policy center released a review of mitt romney's tax plan which is not dissimilar to the principles in this underlying bill. the study found, and i quote, it is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for the highest income tax payers and a net tax increase for lower and middle-income taxpayers, end quote. the joint economic committee confirmed today that the plan in this bill would mean that people who make under $200,000 a year would see their cases

raised, in this case, by $4,500. while millionaires would see tax breaks over, hold on to your hat, over $300,000. and there's nothing in this bill that says that tax reform will not increase our debt. we should do tax reform and we should do it in a deliberative, thoughtful way rather than by passing bills saying we should do tax reform. for this reason i strongly urge everyone to vote no on this piece of legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i just yield myself 15 seconds and say that the plan the gentleman refers to is a made up plan. what we're looking at here is the model set up in the bowles-simpson commission way has been endorsed in a bipartisan way that will be an open process, that will allow amendments so we can allow those in that process, not this made up bill that they went and

are discussing on the nor today. so at this time i yield three minutes to the distinguished chairman of the health subcommittee, the gentleman from california, mr. herger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. herger: thank you. yesterday, this house voted to stop the job destroying tax hike that threatens to hit every american taxpayer at midnight on december 31. today, we have an opportunity to build on that. we have an opportunity not only to do the right thing for jobs and job creators in the short term but to begin building the foundation for a more stable and prosperous economy in the future. few would argue that our current tax code is ideal. it's far too complicated with taxpayers spending over $160 billion each year just to

figure out what they owe. even the commissioner of the i.r.s. has acknowledge that he hires a professional tax preparer to do his own taxes. it's often unfair with some taxpayers enjoying the benefits of narrow tax breaks that are not available to others. it has increasingly become a patchwork of temporary rules that fail to provide america's small businesses and job creators with the certainty they need to plan for the future. and many of those features actually penize the work, investment and savings that are necessary to economic growth. furthermore, an outdated international tax system combined with the highest corporate tax rate in a developed world places american countries at a disadvantage over their competitors based in

europe and china. the bill before us lays out a pathway to a simpler, fairer and more pro-growth tax code. with the right kind of tax reform, our tax code can become a means to support job creation rather than an obstacle standing in the way. in fact, it has been estimated that the tax reform would free up american businesses to create as many as one million new jobs in the first year alone. . i want to commepped chairman camp for his outstanding leadership on this issue and making it clear that house republicans are serious about tax reform. today's vote would send a strong message that tax reform is moving forward. i urge all members to vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan

reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. levin: i now yield five minutes to the gentleman from new york, a veteran of negotiations on taxes and tax reform, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. rangel: first let me thank ranking member levin for giving me this opportunity. and thanking the chairman for bringing up the idea that this congress is concerned about taxes. i say that because some of us will if home and our friends and constituents would say, well, how long are you going to be home? and i guess we have to say for close to a month. they say, so you mean, thursday, today, was the last day? yes. what were you doing? we were doing taxes.

oh, what are you doing about taxes? were you talking about reforming it? i would say, i heard the word reform being used, but, no, we are being asked by the republican majority to vote for a pathway to reform. 78 -- to reform. i wish i had the republican statements on this floor stamed to my press release so i could explain what the heck is a pathway to reform. since 1986 what we had thought reform was was to cut out from that tax code object seen -- obscene provision that is some shouldn't have been there, certainly there is no reason for them to be in there now, to save trillions of dollars and to take that savings by reduce -- reducing the high rate we pay corporations so that we can be competitive in the

international market. someone outside of the congress said that, to close these loopholes and to raise revenue is the wrong thing to do. so i don't know where this weekly path is to reform, but i know one thing we are not going to be dealing with this path in august or september, and it's hard for me to believe we are going to to it this year. so what the heck we need a path for when the american people are jobless and looking for a way to some type of relief, and all they think they believe is somewhere along the line the republicans want to get rid of obama. and they don't care how they get rid of him. they don't care whether it's jobs, education, air pollution don't be cooperative and be involved with anything that's good for the country, that congress, sloppings the

president gets the chance to sign it for the united states of america. how in the heck we could be on a path of reform with basically what we are talking about is that tax reductions that were supposed to be temporary expire at the end of this year. what reform is there for those people who see a dramatic increase in their taxes, that liberals and conservatives say we don't want that to happen. what we don't want that to happen, why don't we do something about it today so that they and businesses would know what tomorrow's going to look like beyond today which for all practical purposes is the end of our legislative session. it's my understanding that 98% of the people will get dramatic in-- increases under this pathway, this roadway, their taxes will go up. now, we have to admit that some

wealthy people belong to the less than 2%. and it's abundantly clear that if the reason why they have to hold hostage to 98% is because they have created all of the jobs. well, they certainly haven't proven it in the past. they are not proving it now. and very few of them hold small businesses so they would be adversely affected. but i would assume that that is controversial 2%. i would assume that's what we should fight about. but i hate to be a republican that has to go back home to my district and explain that the reason 98% of hardworking taxpayers are going to get an increase in their taxes is because we felt so strongly about the top wealthiest people that we said the heck with them. we are not giving that up until we make certain that you are protected. wow.

sometimes the party asks too much of its members. and i really hope that somewhere along the line that will the hatred and animosity for this president at least will be reduced to the voting booth and not to the country. someone once said that the goal of the republican party is to get rid of obama and to make him a first term president. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rangel: more time, mr. chair? mr. levin: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rangel: said to get rid of obama. i understood that. i started saying these things about nixon and bush and all of those things, but i never dreamed that it meant having the country to go down with the captain. i never dreamed that it meant that you don't let the president increase the debt ceiling.

i never dreamed that it included millions of jobs and tax relief for people as it seems that they mean. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rangel: thank you for the opportunity. i hope -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. three minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i was listening to the gentleman from new york and i sincerely appreciated one heartfelt advice for the republican party. i would -- i am amazed at the characterization of opposition to a president's policies as somehow as opposition to the country. i fundamentally reject that. i think that's a gross characterization. and i think on behalf of everybody on the g.o.p. side that is an absurd argument.

that being said, i want to pick up on a thread and a subtext of what we heard from our friends on the other side of the aisle. it's a very interesting thing. i'm not being sarcastic. it is a very hopeful thing. it's this, mr. speaker. did you notice today that there is nobody who is defending status quo of our current tax code? nobody. we will not hear any voice from our friends on the other side defending the current tax code. we will hear no voice today on this side -- i haven't listened to our friends on the other side of the dome, but i'm hunching there is nobody on the other side among all those members who are defending the status quo. what does that mean for us today? that means there is an unbelievable opportunity. there is an opportunity that is born of recognition of a failed system. some characterize it as crony capitalism. that is if you're connected, if you're somebody of means, if

you're able to come in to this town and with a sharp elbow, insert something into the tax code, and manipulate it, you get an economic win at the expense of everybody else. the gentleman from new york asks a rhetorical question a couple minutes ago, i joted it down. he said, what do we need a path for? we need a path to get out of this. that's what we need the path for. with all due respect to the president, the president is not leading on a pathway that shows us how to get out of this. so, what do you have the chairman of the committee, what do you have the g.o.p. in the house doing right now? they are saying, look, let's not defend the status quo. let's instead completely transform this debate and let's focus in on one word and that is the word of competitiveness. how do we create in this country the most competitive tax jurisdiction in the world? could you imagine how great it could be? could you imagine what it would be like if our tax code were a

foundation upon which what could happen. you could have entrepreneurs who are willing to take risk because there is a possibility of reward in the future. right now they are being told from this town that if you built it, you didn't really built it and we don't want to have you take credit for it. that's ridiculous. that's absurd. that's a view that we should shun and reject and move away from. we need to pass this. we need to pass this urgently. i urge an aye vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. levin: i now yield four minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. neal of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for four minutes. mr. neal: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. neal: i don't know if quick reference to the previous speaker how you can say how do we get out of this, and then simultaneously embrace the romney tax plan whichle is $5

trillion more of tax cuts and propose at the same time the extension of the bush tax cuts. that's a $7 trillion tax cut proposal. has anybody heard about those million new vet rants we have? the -- veterans we have? the 45,000 that have been wounded? what's going to happen to the veterans system for years to come? a $4 trillion cost of the war in iraq when you factor all of that together. now we had some really good hearings this year on both sides. we talked fundamentally about the best path forward to tax reform. and we all agree that the current system is creaking under its own weight. but that's contrary to the idea of fast tracking what needs to be a deliberative procedure for understanding what the elimination of some of these expenditures really means.

despite the talk here today, i'll bet you this, a year from now we will not have eliminated the homeowner deduction. and a year from now we will not have eliminated employer-based health insurance. and we will not have eliminated the tax expenditure for charitable deductions. so the question is, what's the framework that we are taking up today? and the response to that is, not much. let me start by saying that what's striking about this proposal is that we all acknowledge that over $6 billion -- six billion hours a year and $160 billion is too much to comply with the current system. my favorite target is the alternative minimum tax. i proposed eliminating that tax for a decade and actually come up with pay-fors for addressing

it by shutting down some of the offshoring accounts that currently companies who decide to expatriate and give up their american address take advantage of. they are not former citizens of the united states. they are currentcies zens of the united states and sophisticated tax avoidance should be addressed. a.m.t.. it was enacted in response to -- by the way there were only two republicans in congress who voted against it. it was a bipartisan assault on a.m.t. when first addressed. 155 high income individuals weren't paying any taxes. so congress responded and president reagan also embraced the idea that people ought to pay something. today 30 million middle class families are caught in alternative minimum tax. and we patch it each year. here's where the american people really should get upset.

since 2001 this is what the patch has meant. i want you to listen to this number. we have spent $400 billion patching alternative minimum tax. the romney proposal coupled with the republican proposal to extend the bush tax cuts will take us in 2012 and 2013, which surely we are going to patch this again, to $00 billion of patches for a $1.2 trillion problem. we have spent $50 billion of patching it. you know what that's like? that's like taking your credit card and saying i'm only going to make the minimum payment every month. and trying to figure out why the principal has not been reduced. if we all agree that tax reform

needs to take place, and we need to assess what current expenditures mean in the system, but also have some enthusiasm for taking up the offshoring issue, and taking up those that willfully hide money overseas, in bank accounts and they don't want the i.r.s. to know what they have setaside, that's part of fundamental tax reform. there is an opportunity here to do something similar to what ronald reagan and speaker o'neill did in 1986. . in a bipartisan fashion, with both sides getting together in an effort to figure out what to do about building a tax system that keeps america as the former speaker noted, competitive going forward. this is not the procedure, mr. speaker, to undertake that sort of initiative. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves his time. >> i yield one minute to the the house will be in order

gentleman from virginia, the majority leader of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker, thank the gentleman from michigan. mr. speaker, the choice before us is very clear. the priority for all of us is jobs. and the chose of how to best create an environment to create jobs is, are we going to have taxes go up or not? mr. speaker, the house republicans have put forward solutions to stop the tax hike so we can help create jobs for small businesses and jond. given that economic growth has stalled under president obama's policies, it is downright puzzling that he and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, would push for raising taxes on working families and small business owners. nearly two years ago, president obama opposed the same small

business tax hike he now supports. back then, he acknowledged that raising tacks was the wrong thing to do if you want to breng about job creeeags in a tough economy. this raises the question, does the president actually think that the economy is doing so well that we should now tax job creators? our democratic colleagues offered their own tax proposal. enstead of offering a plan to spur economic growth, the minority put forward the president's small business tax hike. but as we saw, mr. speaker, the only plan with bipartisan support that passed this house this week was a plan to ensure that taxes do not go up on any american. as many on both sides of the aisle have made clear, the last

thing small businesses need right now is a tax hike. there's no mystery as to how small business owners will respond when feased with higher taxes from washington. they're rational actors, mr. speaker. when something costs more, you get less of it. with less money to the bottom line, small businesses won't be able to grow as much and they will not be eable to expand as easy. now as was said before by my colleague from michigan, and from illinois, i think all of us agrow on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the capitol. we need tax reform. now this bill before us paves the way for the pro-growth tax reform. this measure puts us on a path toward a simpler, flatter, fairer tax code. if you support comprehensive tax reform that will spur

economic growth and make this country more competitive, you'll vote for the bill. it's that simple. mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from michigan and his leadership this week and many others and his shepherding the movement for tax reform in this body. ultimately, today's vote on his bill should be the easiest vote we take all year. do we believe small business owners are the back bone of our economy? do we want them to grow their businesses and create jobs? if the answer is yes, then you will support this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. the majority leader continues to use a tool of propaganda,

grabbing small business as his mantra. i want to repeat a fact given to us by joint tax. under our bill, 97% of small businesses would keep all of their tax cuts. 97%. i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas, a member of our committee, mr. dodd. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. doggett: the tax -- >> the tax code is unfair, it violates equal justice, exclusions, deductions, credits and special rules make up -- mr. doggett: make up amounts that add up to over $1 million

per year. then i correct fld -- reflected on who has been in charge of this tax code for 14 of the last 18 years and it is the very people who offer us this resolution today. of the other four years, two of those, president bush, was in charge of our country. so we've had ample opportunity to correct these deficiencies in our tax code but the problem is that rarely over the course of the last couple of decades have they met a lobbyist pedaling a loophole that they could say no to. they talk to us about a fast track. well that would endeed be a new track for them because they've had almost two decades to put in place a tax code that would resolve the problems of which they complain today and they've been inactive through that period. oh, yes, there was a time when republicans controlled

eensrblely all three branches of the american government and they flirted with a flat tax. it had great appeal to the flat earth society that dominates the republican caucus on most issues but they couldn't make it work. and then they said they wanted a fair tax. and a fair tax sounded like something all of us could be for. the only problem was, it was going to hike the cost of just about everything we buy from food to a car to a home by over 0%. and when you -- by over 20%. when you get into the details, it wasn't all that fair, except to those at the top who benefited so much if the code that we have. so republicans have been in charge now for another year and a half in this congress, they've had an opportunity to come forward not with a pathway to something they would do after the election, but with a specific plan of how they would reform our tax code.

and instead of that specific plan for this tax code that has grown by hundreds, if not thousands of pages under republican rule of complexity and exception for those lobbyists who were powerful enough to have their voice heard and acted upon in this capitol, instead they come forward this flimsy resolution of principles that most americans could agree with all of themming it's just the action that counts. they say we want to go on a fast track but we'd rather wait until after the election to start the track. haven't we heard that story before when they were talking fair, when they were talking flat? today they're just talking about what they might do in the future. and so we have to look for clues within this flimsy resolution of what in fact they would do if they were in authority with president romney, heaven forbid.

we got clue number one yesterday when they said what they wanted was to extend all of the tax breaks that president bush approved for the very most privileged people in our society. and the effect of what they proposed and the approach they took was that those who were sitting comfortably atop the economic ladder, they would gain. if they were a millionaire, they'd gain by more in their tax break than a police officer or a nurse or a small business owner in san marcos or new braunsfels or lockhart, more than they make in a well year, these people would get in a tax break. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentleman. mr. doggett: but the marine corporal, the single mom who is trying to get her daughter or son through college, they would actually see their taxes go up under this simplified fast

track republican approach. so those who are trying to get their toe hold, their foothold on the first or second rung of that economic ladder, they end up having to pay for more tax breaks for those at the top. and now today through this resolution, we see that what mitt romney was part of in exporting jobs abroad, he was really just getting started because what they propose is a territorial tax system. what is that? a territorial tax system is when you create jobs in somebody else's territory. here's how it works. here's the plan they're talking about. you're a manufacturer, trying to decide where will i create my new plant? and locate it? i can locate it in san antonio, texas, i can locate it in shanghai. under their territorial plan if you locate it in shanghai, it's tax-free.

guess where the incentive is under their plan to create new jobs? it's not in texas, it's not in america, it's someplace else. that's what the territorial tax system is all about. but of course with all the loopholes that the lobbyists have been able to get through the decades, corporations aren't paying 35%. many of our largest corporations like general electric, they're not only paying less than the hardware store in lockhart or austin and selling their products, they're paying less than the creaning crew that cleaned up the boardroom at general electric pays in terms of a tax rate. because they found all these loopholes, we have hundreds of large no-tax corporations that are paying next to nothing in terms of their taxes already. the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. mr. doggett: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan

reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. camp: i would say that the gentleman from texas described current law, as long as you don't bring it back. what we're looking for is really, we are at a crossroads. we have a choice. do we follow their path of a tax hike that cost us 00,000 jobs? or do we follow our path of comp rehence i tax reform that grows our economy and creates up to one million jobs. at this time, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from nebraska, a member of the ways and means committee, mr. smith, i also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, be permitted to control the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from ohio is reck -- the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. smith: i rise in support of the underlying bill and i think the american people expect us to have a debate here in washington that is about better policy and not one-upsmanship

and various 30-second sound bites. we know that there are many barriers in our economy, barriers to moving our economy again going forward, and we know the comp rehence i tax reform is one of the most important issues we need to feas. not always the most popular issue, not always the most tangible issue, but we know whether it's farmers or ramplers, small businesses everywhere, or anything relating to the economy, we know we have work to do. we know that our current tax code as we have heard most recently is very costly, confusing, and complicated. the current tax code is comprised of more than 10,000 pages of ever-changing laws and regulations. it's a patchwork of various credits, deductions, exemptions, tax hikes and expiring provisions. that make responseable business and financial planning next to impossible they feel cost of compliance is a burden. compliance costs with the current tax code falls

disproportionately on small businesses which spend an average of $ 4 per hour on tax-related compliance. making it the most expensive paperwork burden they'll encounter. additionally, our system is a system out of control spending addiction that's dominated washington for far too long, under both parties, i would add. it is time for a system which lowers the rate, broadens the base and addresses global competitiveness. the ways and means committee has held a series of hearings solicitting input on tax reform and we will continue in that direction toward fundamental tax reform. the bill before us today provides an important path forward to ensure congress acts in a timely manner to reform this convoluted tax code and it outlines a framework for comprehensive reform. i urge my colleagues to support the pathway to job creation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise?

mr. levin: it is now my pleasure to yield four minutes to a veteran of many battles on this floor, mr. markey of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. . as americans watch their olympic favorites this week, house republicans are handing out gold medals to all their favorites right out here on the house floor. in london, speed, agility, and strength determines who gets the gold. but in the republican-controlled house, it's the wealthiest americans and the most profitable corporations who secure all of the gold medals. two weeks ago republicans awarded the golds to america's defense contractors by actually increasing defense spending.

despite sequestration, despite our ballooning deficit, despite the looming fiscal cliff they increased defense spending. then last week oil companies scored a gold medal by securing new drilling rights off of america's coastline, off of our beaches in california and new england and maryland to drill. and the republicans refused yet again even though big oil's margin of victory was enormous on that issue, the republicans refused to end $4 billion in annual tax breaks to the oil companies. we cannot afford despite the fact that the oil companies made $137 billion in profits last week, last year. the most profitable industry in the history of the planet. and today it's millionaires and

billionaires who will cross the finish line and secure the biggest gold medal of all. as the republicans double down on the bush tax cuts by rewriting 78 -- the tax code to include $331,000 in additional tax cuts for the average millionaire in this country, a tax break they do not need and america cannot afford. house republicans are setting a world record in rigging the tax system for the ultrarich while cutting middle class priorities like education and investing in good american jobs. the big losers in the republican olympics? the middle class whose taxes will go up. the middle class where the medicare guarantee for millions

of seniors will ultimately be destroyed. the big losers, investment and finding cures for alzheimer's and cancer an parkinson's which will have to be drastically cut so that the republicans can crown billionaires, big oil, and nuclear bomb builders the big gold medal winners. the losers, the american people. and their families' health and well-being. vote know on this fixed republican olympics. vote no to take care of the billionaires in our country. as ordinary families suffer. nostalgia for a past that never existed has overtaken the ideaism which should animate our debates here on the house floor for the poor, the sick,

and the elderly, the path that shuts the memory and their future is their hard reality. and this republican budget makes that future all the more difficult. for the middle class in our country. vote no on this fixed republican olympics. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i recognize the gentlelady from kansas, ms. jenkins, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized for two minutes mr. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yielding. tax reform may not be as exciting as watching a team u.s.a. win a gold medal but a c.p.a. who specialized in tax, comprehensive tax reform is olympics and we want to win a gold medal for the american taxpayers. our tax code is a disaster. at around 15,000 pages it's too long, too complicated, and it's chock-full of loopholes favoring some taxpayers at the

expense of others. temporary tax provisions alone have increased from 14 in 1986 to 132 today. u.s. taxpayers and businesses spend . billion hours simply complying with the code. tax compliance as an industry is one of the country's largest, requiring 3.8 million workers. that's just too much. we need a code that is more fair, equitable, and efficient. we need to broaden the base, lower rates, and ignore special interest whose fight to block reform. reform that will save us billions of dollars and create a million jobs. our friends across the aisle believe increasing the top rate will restore fairness, but how can further complicating the code with more exclusion for certain folks while making it more complicated for others, high does that make it more fair? we have the -- how does that make it more fair? we have the means and tools to

reduce the tax rates here and we need to get busy. overhauling the entire tax code is the only way to restore fairness. and what we have learned from the 1986 reforms is that broadening the base, eliminating loopholes, and lowering the rates will grow the economy and raise revenues. this bill not only supports comprehensive tax reform but it lays out a plan to ensure that it actually happens. tax reform's a no-brainer. it's a win-win for the economy. our businesses and our hardworking american families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from ohio reserves thele -- the balance of his time of the for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise. mr. levin: it's my real pleasure to yield four minutes to the ranking member of the budget committee, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. levin, for all your good work here. mr. speaker, let's start with a point of agreement.

we should simplify the tax code. we should reform the tax code. it's an overly complicated mess and it needs to be streamlined and reformed. we could start with some really simple things like getting rid of the special tax breaks and give aways to big oil companies , but our republican colleagues on this house floor have voted time and again against that. what we should not do, what we should not do is what we are hearing from a lot of our colleagues today. which is use the language of tax reform as a trojan horse to providing another huge wind fall to the wealthiest americans at the expense of the rest of america. yet that's exactly the direction that this bill takes us in. the main principle in trying -- in this bill is the old republican principle of trickle-down economics. the failed idea we need to give more tax cuts to the folks at

the very, very top and somehow those benefits are going to trickle down to everybody else. the problem, mr. speaker, is the american people have seen this movie before. that's no longer a theoretical idea. we ran a real world experiment on that idea. it was called the eight years of the bush administration. we had tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy in 2001 and 2003. at the end of those eight years, what was the state of the economy? net loss of private sector jobs . less than zero. the one number that did go up, it wasn't jobs, it was the deficit. that number went through the roof and the rest of the country is left to pick up the tab. and that's what the american people are beginning to focus on, mr. speaker. that these tax cuts for the wealthy are not a free lunch for the rest of the country. but that they come at the

expense of everyone and everything else. because the math is pretty simple. if you refuse to ask the wealthiest americans to pay one penny more for the purpose of deficit reduction, everybody else gets harder. seniors on medicare have to pay more even though their median income is under $23,000. it means deep cuts to investments in our economy and kids' education. in science and research. and in infrastructure. now, with today's bill our republican colleagues, as mr. levin said, are doubling down on an idea that we know does not work. they are providing another round of tax cuts to millionaires and directly asking middle class taxpayers to pick up the tab. let's do the math. let's do the math. that's what we try to do in the budget committee. when you drop the tax rate from 35% to 25%, first of all you

provide huge breaks to the folks at the top, but that loses $4 trillion over 10 years. in other words, the deficit grows by $4 trillion. now, our republican colleagues say no, we don't want to do that. we care about the deficit. we are going to make up those $4 trillion through tax reform. of course they won't tell us one thing about what they would do in tax reform, but the good news is the tax policy center, an independent group here in washington, has told us what the romney plan would do. plan very similar to this plan. and what they made clear is that when you start removing all those deductions and all the benefits, for example, for health plans or for more mortgage interest deductions, what you end up doing is providing a big tax increase to middle income taxpayers. financing tax breaks for the fokets at the stop by increasing -- folks at the top

by increasing -- mr. chairman, if i could have another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: that's the simple math of the situation. now, i know that we heard from the romney campaign that that's a liberal think tank. well, here's what the romney campaign spokesman said about an earlier analysis from the same tax policy center when they liked the result. then they called it an objective third party analysis. romney spokesman of an earlier tax policy center analysis. and that, ladies and gentlemen, is a group here in washington that does good, nonpartisan work. that is the result that they found. and it makes common sense. you try to make up $4 trillion, $5 trillion through tax reform. are you going to switch that burden. -- you are going to switch that burden. we have also heard that this is somehow going to help make it in america. that this is going to

incentivize companies to do more business here in america. the reality is just the opposite in this bill. you movele to a pure territorial system, your slogan might as well be, make it overseas. offshore american jobs. and again let's just look to the analysis done by another nonpartisan group. mr. levin's talked about the joint committee on taxation analysis. they have already said if you move to a pure territorial system, and i quote, you will erode our domestic tax base and increase our deficits. why will you erode our domestic tax base? because more companies will ship their investments and operations overseas. that means more american jobs overseas. in fact, another nonpartisan study found that this particular proposal, republican proposal, which mr. romney also supports, would create 100,000 jobs. the problem is, they found it

would create 100,000 jobs overseas. not here in america. by setting up companies in places like the cayman islands and switzerland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: let me say. let us come up with a tax reform plan that works for all of the american people. let's come up with a plan that will help grow our economy from the middle out not this failed idea of trickle-down economics from the top down. and that is what this debate is all about. because what we want to do through tax reform is empower the middle class and empower small business men and women. you do not empower the middle class by creating a situation where by giving tax breaks to the wealthy you increase the deficit for the rest of the country. because when you increase the

deficit, you are asking everybody else to pay for those breaks at the very top. and people will pay by fewer investments in education, fewer investments in science and research. fewer investments important to power our economy. and everybody else will be left to pick up this deficit tab while folks at the very top get another break. let's not do that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. tiberi: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tiberi: the gentleman from maryland is attacking two republican plans that are not our plans. and the gentleman knows that, for instance, the proposed territorial system that we have proposed is not a pure territorial system, for instance. it has anti-abuse rules. we can broaden the base by getting rid of deductions and credits without impacting middle class taxpayers. i yield with that, mr. speaker,

two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, the new acting chairman of the income security subcommittee of the ways and means committee, mr. paulsen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. paulen: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. paulsen: thank you, mr. speaker. that is really in reality 3.8 million words that make up the entire u.s. tax code. over the past 10 years alone, congress has found itself to make over 4,428 changes to the tax code averaging about one change each and every single day. . it's time we find consensus, prvide a simpler, fair tax code for everyone. over the past two year the ways and means committee has held 20 hearings laying the groundwork for comprehensive tax reform. we've done the meetings jointly with the senate as well this legislation we vote on here today gives us a path forward

to allow small businesses and all american families the opportunity to have a simpler and fair tax code, not one that only picks winners and losers. we need to close loopholes, we need to eliminate and reduce the number of expenditures and reduction -- and deductions that bestow favor to certain interest groups. business leaders and economists agree to create more jobs, we have to make america globally competitive, but the complexity of the -- complexity of the tax code has made that difficult. back in 1960, 90% of the top companies were in the united states. by the 1980's, it was 3%, then it was cut in half again so now

it's 6%. this means fewer small businesses, less manufacturing and fewer jobs. today's vote shows we are serious about moving forward on tax reform to help get our economy back on track. let's make the united states the number one destination for entrepreneur, for innovators, for job creators, let's put this measure in place. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from hi reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. tiberi: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north dakota, a member of the ways and means committee and distinguished member of the select revenue subcommittee, mr. berg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. berg: i rise to support this critical piece of legislation, to stop the tax hike. we have a choice to make here. we can support job creators

like small businessmen, farmers and ranchers, that have made north dakota's economy so strong. or we can abandon them and allow our nation to go over the so-called fiscal cliff. i have to remind my friends on the other side, this is something we talked about in a recent ways and means hearing. small businesses are not the wealthy. they're not pocketing huge profits. they're trying to grow their businesses by reinvesting back into their business. that's what's creating jobs. and at a time like this, we need to create jobs. we can't afford the democrat plan. which will increase taxes and decrease over 00,000 jobs. we need stability, we need certainty, and we need to pass this legislation. so we can provide stability and certainty to our job creators.

until we complete comprehensive tax review. thank you and i yield back the remainder of my teem. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves the balance of his time. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. tiberi: how much time is remaning? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 30 1/2 minutes, the gentleman from michigan has nine minutes. mr. tiberi: i'd like to yield three minutes to the ways and means committee, from new york, mr. reed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman for yielding the time. mr. speaker, i rise today to stand in strong support of the proposed legislation before us this afternoon. the reason bhy is we have to stop with the rhetoric down

here in washington, d.c. hardworking taxpayers across america demand that we get this right an we get the business of the people done. we need to listen to our fellow americans. that our tax code that we both, on each side of the aisle, have argued for the last hour have agreed, is broken. it's time to set a path forward. i would -- a picture here, mr. speaker, that i would like to display to all of us in this chamber and across america, there's a clear path forward that we need to go down. and it is a path to go forward on a republican plan that sets forth comprehensive tax reform in an open and honest fashion. and making sure that we get comprehensive tax reform done in the upcoming year and do it in a way that brings the american people into the bedebate and we listen to the american people. we no longer can pick winners

and losers in our tax code. we need to focus on a tax code that is simple, that is fair, that is competitive. like it or not, we live in a world economic upon which all hardworking americans have to come pet and our tax code needs to be updated to make sure that we put our individuals and our corporations in the most competitive position possible so that when they go out on the world economic stage, that they can compete and win and we stand with them rather than engage in the bitter rhetoric and partisan divide that is on display in my opinion today. mr. speaker, with that, i ask support for the underlying legislation and i ask my colleagues to join us, and join hands and engage in a substantive, spirited debate

but at the end of the day come up with a comprehensive tax reform package that's going to protect americans and preserve america for generations to come and with that, i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. tiberi: i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock, the distinguished member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. schock: i thank the speaker. here we are, 20 months removed since december, 2010. when we last had this debate. 20 months removed from the president and 91 current house democrat members, 39 sitting democrat exsenators, 91 house democrats, all agreed that our economy couldn't survive a new round of tax increases. 20 months. since unemployment of .9% has

continued, quarterly g.d.p. growth of just 2.5%, and 20 months from a president who proclaimed it wasn't wise policy to raise taxes during a recession. well, what has changed, mr. speaker? not much. unemployment is still over 8%, g.d.b. growth has worsened to 1.5% and politicians and presidents from both sides of the aisle are once again saying it is not wise economic policy to increase taxes. yet one thing has changed. earlier this summer, the president reversed his decision, decided our economy has undergone some sort of significant improvement, and called for a mass i tax increase on american small businesses. a call which senate democrats responded to and which according to independent analysis would shrink our economy by 1.%.

the rhetoric used is the same grand standing we've been hearing for years. everyone needs to pay their fair share. we need to increase taxes on millionaires and billion nears. only % of america's job creators will be affected. the late senator daniel patrick moynihan once said, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. just like before, none of the claims made by those on the other side of the aisle are supported by facts, but only by campaign commercials. here are the facts by the independent analysis. according to the independent committee on joint taxation, 900,000 small businesses are subject to higher taxes. 5 % of small business income would be hit by these tax increases. 710,000 fewer jobs in america if this tax increase is

implemented. investments, many of which senior citizens lived on, dividend income will increase by as high a 40% with the tax increase. simply put, there's no bigger pants on fire argument than that being put forward by our president claiming that these proposed tax increases would only affect 3% of our small businesses. the decision is clear, we can vote no on both proposals, h.r. and h.r. 6169, follow the president and senate democrats toward a vision that is proven to cost our economy jobs and growth or we can vote yes on these two proposals which will ensure that the bush-obama tax rates stay in effect for a year and we get the time for the tax reform we're looking for. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman michigan rise? mr. levin: i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. without objection, the gentleman michigan will control the balance of the time. mr. camp: at this time i yield to the gentleman from new jersey for purposes of a colloquy. >> i want to say how much i appreciate your leadership on this subject, i've been watching this body for 20 years, enge some of the criticisms of my friends on the democratic side were on target. a lot of lip service has been paid to doning it. what you've accomplished in your 18 months makes me believe that fundamental tax reform is right around the corner for all americans. mr. woodall: i have two gos -- questions about this bill before us today, this expedite procedures bill. it does lay out a framework but it seems to me to lay out a framework that's broad enough that we will have a robust discussion about how to bring,

what to bring in terms of fundamental tax reform to the floor. do you view this framework as one that's broad enough to have a full discussion of fundamental tax reform? mr. camp: i do, mr.wood awl. i envision it in open debate, one that will entertain a variety of proposals and one that will include amendments so we can move forward as a congress on enacting comprehensive and bipartisan reform. mr. woodall: i thank the chairman and i know in the ways and means committee, you'll have robust debate. i thank my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle for mentioning it earlier, but even if we can't all win in terms of our different ideas, america will win in the end as fundamental tax reform is passed but lots of competing ideas, even as only one idea can be certified within this framework to again in your committee, you view even after

that, the introduction by the joint tax committee, a full and robust discussion in your committee? mr. camp: absolutely there will be a full and robust discussion because as i said, there will be amendments in committee and an opportunity for members to weigh in. obviously this will be a national debeat. this is about getting us on that path, moving forward, because as we know, the alternative is, do we have taxes go up and cost us 700,000 jobs or try to get on a path of reform that will create the million jobs that we need to get this country moving again? absolutely. mr. woodall: i thank the chairman. i like my cloge's chart down there, the path to two futures, there's no question our future is in good hands with the chairman of the ways and means committee. thank you very much. mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to mr. hearts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized if two minutes. mr. hearts: i rise in support

of the house plan to stop the massive tax hike on the american people set to take place at the end of this year. mr. hurt: unemployment is high, high fuel prices have left lasting damage to our economy and the government takeover of health care is happening at a time we can least afford it. now the president and senate say they want to raise taxes and tig deeper into the pockets of hardworking american people. i have said time and again that we have a spending problem in d.c. we don't have a we-don't-tax-people-enough problem. this is now more clear than ever as our national debt ticks upward toward $16 trillion. this is not the time to raise taxes on anyone, it will only lead to more job loss and more spending at a time when the american people are counts on tissue counting on us to get our economy back on track. while we addressed this issue in the house for today, it's equally pressing we address the issue of our long-term

prosperity. this country has long needed comprehensive tax reform. history has shown that temporary tax exto -- extensions won't fecks the problem, they simply apply a band-aid. that's why the house plan has taken a thoughtful approach to stopping the impending tax hike and laying out a framework for reforming the tax code in a way to make it simpler and fairer. it also puts in place expedited procedures to ensure that congress does its job once and for all and addresses the need for comprehensive tax reform. i was proud to support the legislation yesterday to stop the massive year-end tax hike and i'm proud to support this bill today to reform our tax code. it's the right thing to do for our country and for our children and grandchildren. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. . >> we just have one final speaker to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. camp, we're ready to close. i yield myself the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i can be very brief in part because so many of us have come forth on the democratic side with real conviction, with real passion and not basely reading from prepared -- basically reading from prepared speeches that simply go over and over the same themes. but we're really talking about what's at stake for this country. and why this proposal is worse than flawed. it's flagrant.

i bring back this chart, no one has refuted it. it's based on the work of the joint economic committee. essentially what this bill will do is to say to america, if you're very wealthy you get a $331,000 tax cut. but for the typical family it's a $4,500 tax increase. and so tax cuts for the very wealthy is essentially this republican plan. tax increases for the middle class, more and more deficits, jobs overseas instead of making it in america. this is the republican plan and

essentially it's governor romney's plan. it's, as i said, worse than misguided. it would be a terrible mistake for this house to adopt it. and even a worse mistake for the american people to embrace it. i don't have confidence in the house republicans. i have confidence that the american people will say no. vote no here today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. camp: at this time i yield to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from ohio, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership. you have done more to advance the cause for comprehensive tax reform and stopping tax

increases on americans than anyone in america. mr. tiberi: and we certainly appreciate your leadership. mr. speaker, the gentleman from illinois reminded us, reminded us that after the election in 2010 the president of the united states said, in this economy we cannot let tax rates go up. for any american. because the economy was too weak. well, today, ladies and gentlemen, the economy is weaker than it was in december of 2010. in fact, it's been weaker in the last four months than it was, with little hope that it will get better soon. ladies and gentlemen, americans are long overdue in having comprehensive tax reform.

they want it, nine out of 10 americans, nine out of 10 americans now use a tax preparer. my father, a retired steel worker, my mother, a retired seem been seamstress, use a tax preparer. and ironically, mr. speaker, my father came to america, my mother came to america for a better life. and when i got my first job, my first job at mcdonald's when i was 16 years old, my dad said, son, we have a really crazy tax code that doesn't encourage you to save, that doesn't encourage you to invest. and you know what? you're going to save a little bit of that paycheck because it's the right thing to do. even though we have a crazy tax code. well, my immigrant dad today thinks we have even a crazier tax code than we did back in the early 1980's.

and it's time that we change that. the process in this bill will force people in this town to do what we haven't done for over 25 years and that's fix the code. there's been talk on this floor about small business owners. i was a realtor. i had small business income. i didn't employ anybody. i'm proud of what i did. but there's a guy that i know, his name is r.j. he's a small business owner. he would be impacted tremendously and so would his 50 employees if we allow his taxes to go up on january 1. or william, a small retailer, who hires people. he would see his taxes go up. ladies and gentlemen, house

republicans believe that jobs are created not in washington -- washington, d.c., but by entrepreneurs and risk takers throughout america. and there are two roads, there are two roads that we can choose to go down and this chart couldn't be better in showing everybody out there those two roads. one road leads to danger. one road leads to a failing and falling economy. with 700,000 jobs to be lost. we don't want to go down that road. we've seen too much misery already. no, mr. speaker, the road that we want to go down, being led by our chairman of our committee, is one to the right, now hiring in green, with a million new jobs, not created in washington

but created by people like r.j. and william. entrepreneurs, risk takers. and, ladies and gentlemen, people like my dad who came to america with nothing, who understand that hard work and risk taking should be rewarded, not penalized. that's why today the process that this bill puts in motion will lead us finally to say to the american people, yes, we heard you, loud and clear, and we're going to simplify our tax code, we're going to simplify it for every american taxpayer so we can have an economy that creates jobs, doesn't pick winners and losers and, ladies and gentlemen, gets us to a place where we have a tax code that people like my mom and dad don't have to go hire a tax preparer to do their taxes. with that, mr. speaker, i urge passage of this bill and yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back. mr. camp: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate on the bill has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i have an amendment the at the desk. -- at the desk. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part a of house report 112-641 offered by ms. slaughter of new york. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 747, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter, and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes. the chair will recognize the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, we all agree that the tax code needs to be updated and reformed. and my democratic colleagues and i are ready to work in a bipartisan manner to accomplish that goal. but the flawed and entirely partisan priorities reflected in this majority bill makes a very

bad start. their principles seem to point in one direction, less fairness and less of the burdens shouldered by the people who have the most. fewer brackets, lower top rates, lower corporate taxes, less revenue and higher deficits. my democrat colleagues and i have a different vision for tax reform. a vision that is reflected in our alternative proposal today. my amendment would replace the principles found in the majority's bill with a different set of priorities for a fairer and simpler tax code and i'd like to take a minute to outline these priorities. first, we must identify sources of revenue that in combination with smart and targeted spending reductions will provide the long-term needs to reduce the national debt significantly. while making investments in national priorities such as infrastructure, education, research and defense that are

critical to the future of american competitiveness and job growth. i would note that nothing in the republican bill says tax reform needs to lower the deficit. or even to hold it level. on the contrary, there are indications that republican tax reform would make the deficit worse. i think that they believe, along with vice president cheney, whom said, quote, deficits don't matter, end quote. my democrat colleagues and i disagree with that approach. second, my -- we believe that there should be a rate structure that distributes the tax burden in a more progressive manner. we supported tax -- support a tax code that discourages tax avoidance, including the use of entities as tax haven jurisdictions such as swiss bank accounts or assets hidden in bermuda or the kaman islands. all done simply to avoid paying

the united states taxes. we believe in preserving and improving the provisions of the tax code that support middle class homeownership, education, retirement savings and health care. in addition we agree the time has come to repeal the alternative minimum tax. and we want to improve refundable tax credits that encourage work in education, while lifting millions of americans out of poverty. we support eliminating tax breaks for businesses that move jobs and profits overseas in combination with a reduction in tax rates for american manufacturers which are vital to the innovation and job growth and in other words reward the people who stay here. finally, we want to preserve and improve the incentive for small business investment and growth. these businesses are the engine of job creation and we must do all we can to support this success. mr. speaker, the republican bill can -- be explained in one -- can be explained in one

sentence. house republicans want special procedures that allow them to force the right-wing legislative agenda through the senate. why are we wasting time to try to change the rules of the senate? trying to force the other body to accept partisan republican priorities, rather than just sitting down together and working out the bipartisan path forward? it's a major question i think in this congressional term that is the poorest productive in history. our amendment will remove the flawed expedited procedures and misguided republican principles and replace them with the principles that i have laid out. let me end by expressing my utter disbelief in how difficult house republicans are making it to pass the middle class tax cuts right now. they made clear they intend to hold the middle class tax cuts hostage, the tax cuts for the top 2% of americans, though we agree that earnings of $250,000 and below should not see any tax increases.

yesterday i offered a simple amendment that would say we would delay our departure for august break until we got this proposal signed into law. it was defeated. cutting taxes should not be that hard and i hope my colleagues will join me to support my amendment and help in our effort to create a fair and simple tax code that works for all americans. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'd like to begin by extending congratulations and to associate myself with the very thoughtful remarks of my dear friend from rochester, the distinguished ranking minority member of the committee on rules, as she at the beginning said, the democrats and republicans alike agree on the need for comprehensive tax reform. she's right on target when she says that, mr. speaker.

and that's exactly what wear doing. the problem that we have is -- what we're doing. the problem that we have is that the amendment she's proposing undermines the ability for us to get that done. now, as i think about this issue that is before us, we have virtually everyone talking about the need to get this done. we have democrats talk about it, we have republicans talking -- democrats talking about it, we have the republicans talking about it, we have the president of the united states talking about it. in fact, it's very interesting, as i heard my friend characterize the quote-unquote misguided principles set forth by the republicans, i'm struck by the fact that at least, at least one of those principles has been called for by president barack obama. . he said we need to reduce the top corporate rate from 35%. he acknowledges that we have the highest corporate tax rate

on the face of the earth, now that japan has wisely reduced their top corporate rate. what my friend from rochester describes as misguided is actually one of the proposals submitted by president obama. so, again, talk is great. i talked about tax reform myself for the three decades that i've been privileged to serve here. and my friend has talked about the need for tax reform. but there's a time, mr. speaker, when we need to step up to the plate and take action. and the framers put into place a very, very good structure, different shation between -- differentiation between the rules of the house and the senate. we know that the house of representatives is the coffee cup into which the coffee simmers. and as president washington said so eloquently to thomas jefferson as they were sitting down at the -- what's the hotel

down there where they were sitting? the one down on pennsylvania by the -- the willard. they were sitting down at the willard hotel. we had thomas jefferson and george washington sitting at the willard. they decreebed the senate, jefferson was -- washington described the senate, jefferson was the smart guy but washington was describing to jefferson what that saucer is. it's the -- it's where the simmering of the coffee takes place. that's what the senate is. that was a great vision put forth by our framers, mr. speaker. but there comes a time on some important issues where we need to streamline operations. expedite procedures. and that what we're doing. we're saying, my friend from rochester said it, we need to bring the comprehensive tax reform. i iagree with that. now let's get it done. we put forth some guidelines, we say two rates, no more than

10% or 25%. let's deal with the globalization issue by shifting from a worldwide to a territorial tax system. let's do what we can to obliterate the alternative minimum tax which we all know has impact sod many of our federal working americans who are -- fellow working americans working to make ends meet. it was never designed to do that as president obut ma has said, let's reduce the top corporate rate. so mr. speaker, as we look at this issue, we can talk about tax reform until we're blue in the face. but this structure is one that's going to actually get it done. and i say very sadly that this measure that is being proposed by my friend is a measure which simply extends the talking. and it undermines the ability for us to actually take action.

so let's move ahead, obviously we need to make sure we have tax -- maintain the tax structure for everyone, the tax cuts for all. we did that yesterday. this notion of saying that, you know, we -- let's just proceed with what we all agree on. we agree on keeping taxes lower for those in the middle class. well, mr. speaker if we do what it is that they're saying, what we would end up doing is we'd actually be imposing a massive tax encrease on job creators. so we can't come to an agreement on that. as president obama, again, has said, increasing taxes during difficult economic times is bad public policy. so mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues, i urge my colleagues to vote against this measure. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, this afternoon, all this discussion is about priorities. we all agree the tax code has

to be reformed but the majority has not come to the floor today with a serious proposal to get us there. my amendment would put us all on record in favor of the priorities of the middle class, more fairness a simpler tax code, a lower deficit and incentive to keep jobs here in the united states. i ask my colleagues to support my amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. dreier: i yield myself the balance of my time to say, i've said it all and i urge a no vote on my dear friend's amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the previous question is ordereded on the bill by the gentlewoman from new york ms. slaughter. the question is on the amendment offered by the yom from new york, ms. slaughter. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes visit. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. slaughter: may i have a recorded vote, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlewoman ask for the yeas and nays? ms. slaughter: i would like a

recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 176, the nays are 196, the amendment is not adopt. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing for comprehensive tax reform. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the -- if the members will please clear the well. members will please clear the well.

the house will be in order. the house will be in order. if members will please take their conversations from the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> in its current form, i am. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. bishop of of new york moves to recommit the bill h.r. 6169 to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendments. in section 3-a, strike and at the end of the paragraph, at

the end of paragraph one. strike the period at the end of paragraph 2 and insert semicolon and and add at the end othe following. three, which does not repeal, redeuce or otherwise eliminate the existing deductions for mortgage interest or charitable contributions. the speaker pro tempore: the ulous b -- the house will be in order. if members will take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to h.r. 6169. it will not kill the bill, nor will it send it back to committee. if adopted, h.r. 6169 will

immediately proceed to final passage as amended. my amendment is simple and straightforward and is a reasonable additional parameter to a bill the purpose of which is to set the parameters for tax reform during the 113th congress. mr. speaker, my amendment simply preserves two of the most important, popular, and widely supported deductions -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. if members will please take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman may continue. mr. bishop: thank you. my amendment preserves two of the most popular and widely supported deductions in the package to be considered under expedited procedures in the house, the mortgage interest

tax deduction and the charitable contribution tax deduction. the mortgage interest tax deduction helped millions of american families achief that american dream, home ownership. nearly every member of this body benefited from this deduction and nearly every homeowner in our district has used this to buy a home for their family and become part of the larger community. 199 members, including 114 republicans are co-sponsors of h.res. 25, a resolution expressing the sense of congress that the mortgage interest tax deduction should not be restricted in any way. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman deserves to be heard. if members will please, please take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman may continue. mr. bishop: let me repeat what i just said. 114 republicans support a

resolution expressing the sense of congress that the mortgage interest tax reduction should not be restricted in any way. i ask for unanimous consent to sub met for the record a list of co-sponsors of h.res. 25. the speaker pro tempore: without objection so ordered. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. as we head home for the august work period, i urge every member who votes against this amendment, especially those members who are co-sponsors of hres. 25, to return to their district and tell their constituents, many of whom still struggle to pay their bills or to put a child through college, why they oppose protecting the mortgage interest tax deduction. as chairman camp suggested, it is critical we do nothing to undermine the housing market as our economy marches toward recovery. because the very of the mortgage interest deduction is capitalized into the price of housing, curtailing or eliminating it would reduce the very of housing across the united states, put more homeowners under water and take the wind out of the recovery. simply put, this congress

should not be throwing up obstacles to the american dream. mr. chairman, my amendment also seeks to preserve the charitable contribution deduction that is essential to the economic viability of thousands of organizations both large and small, national and local, to advance important causes or provide critically needed services to our most vulnerable constituents. if the neighborhood church to the local food pantry, to international organizations like the red cross and salvation army, these organizations play a crucial role in the lives of millions of americans as well as the international community. we've heard many times from our republican colleagues how charitable organizations can and should relieve the federal government of some of its responsibilities, especially those responsibilities of assisting the most vulnerable americans. the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. the gentleman may continue.

mr. bishop: thank you. with thousands of families slowly regaining their footing after the housing crisis, now is not the time for congress to make it more difficult for charitable organizations to provide meals, clothing, job training, temporary shelter and other vital aids to our struggling neighbors. repealing the charitable tax contribution could result in a loss of as much as $150 billion or 69% of annual charitable giving. by one report, private giving must already multiply more than 10-field by 2016 just to keep up with the proposed house republican budget cuts. if a member votes against my amendment, i would urge that member to go home to his or her district and visit a local food pantry or place of worship and tell their volunteers why they will need to slash their program and reduce their outreach to the community. our republican colleagues have proposed deep cuts to snap, to child nutrition programs, affordable housing and job

training. will they now vote to create another obstacle for organizations that by their own reckoning should fill the void of reduced federal investment for social investment? my republican colleagues can't have it both ways. they claim they'll lower everyone's taxes by closing loopholes and capping or eliminating the ducks. when pressed for details about which deductions they plan to cap or eliminate they refuse to give spefpks. now is the time for specifics. the underlying bill establishes the parameters of the upcoming tax reform debate. will my republican colleagues protect homeowners and the nation's most vulnerable or will the richest americans enjoy another tax cut at the expense of the middle class. there's one way to find out, a vote for my amendment is a vote for the middle class. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. dreier: mr. speaker, nice try. let's not be drawn in by this kind of gimmick. vote no on the gentleman's amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. bishop: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. 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.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 188, the nays are 235. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill passed. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. >> 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. this will be 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 232, the nays are 189.

the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five deleggetive days to revise and extend their -- legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 6233 will now resume. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 6233, a bill to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance available for fiscal year 2012, with the cost of such assistance offset by changes to certain conservation programs and for other purposes.

>> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed to this legislation in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. costa moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 6233, to the committee on agriculture with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 1, beginning line 3, strike section 1 and insert the following new section, section 1, short title, findings and sense of the house of representatives, a, short title, this act may be cited as the agricultural disaster assistance act of 2012. b, findings, the house of representatives makes the following findings. one, family farms and livestock producers are suffering from the worst drought facing the united

states since the 1950's and this drought affects almost every state. two, this act does not help pork or poultry producers and provides only limited assistance for dairy producers. three, many producers of fruits and vegetables may not have crop insurance available to them as a risk management tool and they too need some type of help which this act does not provide. four, most of the disaster related provisions of the widely popular food conservation and energy act of 2008, the current farm bill public law 110-246, have expired. c, sense of the house, in light of the findings expressed in subsection b, it is the sense of the house of representatives that a five-year farm safety net will provide greater certainty and stability for america's farm families, then legislation expanding farm policy for one year or authorizing short-term disaster assistance. page 20, after line 12, insert the following new paragraph,

five, foreign corporations. >> i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the clerk: of the food security active 1985. 7--- 7, u.s.c., or any provisions shall apply with respect to assistance provided under this section. page 21, after line 19, insert the following new subsection. j, no duplicative payments. in implementing any other program which makes disaster assistance payments except for indemnities made under subtitle a of the federal crop insurance act, 7, u.s.c., 1501, and section 196 of the federal agriculture improvement and reform act of 1996. 7, u.s.c., 7333, the secretary shall prevent duplicative payments with respect to the same loss for which a person receives a payment under

subsections b, c, d or e. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is reserved. the house will be in order. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. costa: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill. it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. i repeat, it will not kill the bill, nor will it send it back to committee. if adopted, however, the bill will immediately be amended and proceed under final passage. in the republicans' rush to legislate, they have missed some important pieces that the motion to recommit would address. first the bill h.r. 6233, the

agricultural assistance act of 2012, allows disaster payments to go to corporations incorporated under state law. but there's nothing to stop these corporations from being wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign corporations. under current law, for much of the farm safety net, foreign corporations defined under current law, where more than 10% of the beneficial ownership is held by a non-u.s. citizen, cannot receive farm payments. this bill fails to do that. the farm bill we passed in committee addressed the current law. passed by a bipartisan vote of 35-11. it includes the same provisions that are in this disaster package. it also ensures that payments do not go to foreign corporations. this motion to recommit fixes

that. additionally, under current law, there is provision to prevent duplicative payments from being made to producers under disaster programs. in other words, double dipping. this provision was included to prevent producers from collecting payments for multiple programs for the same disaster. we want to treat those people fairly -- >> mr. speaker, how it's is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. costa: we want to treat people fairly under this disaster but we don't want people receiving double dipping payments. again, the republicans rushed to legislate the provision insurers against duplicative payments that, under this proposed amendment, somehow it does not address. in other words we've missed the boat. this motion to recommit fixes that oversight as well.

finally and more importantly, the motion to recommit also gives every member here an opportunity to take a position on what ironically i think could be called the elephant in the room. and that is the house is going to consider whether or not the house is going to consider a five-year farm bill to provide certainty and security to rural america and its agriculture economy. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct, the house is not in order. mr. costa: the motion to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. costa: this expresses the sense of the house that a five-year farm safety net is far better for certainty and security, for farmers and farm families, than this bill or even a short-term extension is.

after all, the farm bill is traditionally one of the most bipartisan things we do around here. in a statement regarding the underlying bill, a broad-based coalition of farm organizations said that they would support finding a path forward to reaching an agreement on a new five-year farm bill, before the current program expires on september 30. they go on to say that we are disappointed that the house republican leadership has decided not to move forward with the house agricultural committee's bill before adjourning for the august recess. that bill would have provided disaster relief for our farms and ranch families needed at this time. those organizations are among them, the american farm bureau federation, the national corn growers association, the national farmers union, the national milk producers association, united fresh produce, and western growers. to mention but a few. now, member, we have a chance to

take a stand. are you for regular order or for political messaging. are you for doing our work or kicking the can down the road? should we take up a comprehensive farm bill before the september 30 or add this to the growing list of unfinished business to be considered in a lame duck session? i hope not. all in all the motion to recommit makes important fixes in the underlying bill, making it consistent with current law regarding the treatment of foreign corporations and protections against duplicative payments. otherwise known as double dipping. it puts the house on record that we need, we need to consider a five-year farm bill before the current one expires on september 30. i urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit. traditionally the farm bill is one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation that we act on. the bipartisan support was in the senate and the bipartisan

support was in the house agriculture committee by a vote of 35-11. we have a crisis and we ought to properly respond. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i withdraw my point of order and i yield myself as much time as i might use. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. speaker and thank my colleagues. everyone in this will room knows that i and the colleague, the ranking member, and all members of the agriculture committee have worked very aggressively to try to move the process forward to craft a comprehensive five-year farm bill, a farm bill that addresses all commodity

routes and meets the needs of all of our producers so we can, as farmers and ranchers meet the needs of the great american consumer. the motion to recommit before us, one of the key points addresses the question of doing a five-year farm bill. sense of congress, i happen to think already that is the sense of congress, and i would suggest to all of you that if you want as badly as i want a comprehensive five-year farm bill, then the process here is to take these points and they may be valid. but to take these points and bare them in mind. go home and see your constituents in the next five weeks and see the drought. go home and explain to them why that there is no assistance in the bill they were promised when

it was put together in 2008. go home and explain that and build the momentum to come back here and do the farm bill. and then in regular order, on the floor -- i know it's kind of a strange concept -- regular order on the floor, we'll debate these and many more amendments and we'll make refinements to what the committee has done. but right now, let's reject this motion. let's go home and prepare for a farm bill debate when we come back. but most importantly, let's just go home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. a recorded vote has been 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. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill if ordered and motion to suspend the rules with regard to the house concurrent resolution 127. 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 189 and the nays are 232. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ace have it. -- ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maine seek recognition? ms. pingree: request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking

this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 223, the nays are 197. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill h.r. 6233. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker.

mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i understand the adjournment resolution has arrived from the senate. and i just want to advise not only my members but all members that there will be a vote following the next vote which was scheduled to be the last vote, but buzz the -- but because the adjournment resolution is now here, i want to advise my members and obviously other members as well, i've talked to mr.