H5578 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

Middle East, and to the entire international 

community. Both President Obama and the 

United States Congress have unequivocally 

stated that Iran must not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. 

On his visit to the Middle East this week, 

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated 

that ‘‘sanctions are having a serious impact in 

terms of the economy in Iran.’’ Iran is now 

struggling to conduct international trade, losing 

markets and trading partners. Its currency has 

lost over half of its value. 

Meanwhile, the administration continues to 

expand sanctions against Tehran. Earlier this 

week, President Obama signed an executive 

order to extend sanctions to anyone, using 

any method of payment, who purchases Iranian crude oil—preventing Iran from circumventing sanctions by using bartering and other 

unconventional payment options. It also expanded sanctions on buyers of Iranian petrochemical products, and authorized penalties 

for entities seeking to evade U.S. sanctions. 

Also this week, the U.S. Treasury sanctioned 

the Bank of Kunlun in China and Elaf Islamic 

Bank in Iraq for providing financial services to 

Iranian banks. 

Today, Congress is acting to further tighten 

the economic noose on the Iranian regime. 

The bill under consideration today, H.R. 1905, 

strengthens and expands existing sanctions, 

banning any commercial activities with Iran’s 

oil and natural gas sector, including helping 

Iran ship its oil under the flag of another nation. This bill increases sanctions targeting entities involved with the Iranian Revolutionary 

Guard Corps and sanctions human rights offenders. 

When coupled with existing sanctions, today’s bill represents the strongest-ever effort 

to financially isolate Iran. This is critical, because we must persuade the Tehran government to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. I strongly support utilizing our entire diplomatic and economic arsenal to ensure that 

Iran does not develop nuclear weapons. 

Today’s bill is a critical step towards increasing pressure on the Iranian government. 

I urge my colleagues to join me in strongly 

supporting this legislation. 

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reaffirm my support for sanctions to be placed 

upon Iran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali 

Khamenei are once again stressing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles within Iran’s borders and we must take 

swift and strong actions against these measures. 

Iran is not just a threat to the United States, 

but to all free countries around the globe. As 

a country that harbors terrorists, foreign leaders must stay vigilant and recognize Iran’s 

practices as a national security concern. 

Lastly, we must stand up against the human 

rights abuses the Iranian regime is supporting. 

Its citizens have continually been sheltered 

from outside information and ideas due to 

strict governmental control. We need to inform 

the regime that the Iranian citizens deserve 

the basic human rights as laid out by the 

United Nations. I am proud to support H.R. 

1905 and I encourage the President to sign 

this into law promptly. 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 

I rise in strong support of the conference report to H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction 

and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012. This bipartisan legislation represents the strongest 

set of sanctions to isolate any country in the 

world during peacetime. 

It is imperative that our nation takes all 

steps necessary to isolate Iran, force them to 

end their dangerous pursuit of nuclear weapons, and secure that the regime in Teheran 

will no longer be a threat to peace and prosperity in the Middle East. 

Once this legislation is passed and signed 

into law, virtually all of Iran’s energy, financial, 

and transportation sectors would be subject to 

U.S. sanctions. Companies conducting business in these industries would face the possibility of losing access to U.S. markets. 

I also applaud the inclusion of sanctions 

against human rights abusers in Iran and 

Syria in this legislation. The deplorable actions 

by the political and military leaders in Iran and 

Syria against their own people must come to 

an immediate halt and deserve global condemnation. 

Important allies, such as the European 

Union, Canada, Australia, Japan, South 

Korea, India, and Israel, have joined the 

American people in enacting sanctions against 

Iran. 

It is important that this Chamber say with a 

strong, unified voice that we stand with Israel 

during these difficult times. 

As co-chair of the Democratic Israel Working Group, I call on Members from both sides 

of the aisle to vote in support of this bipartisan 

resolution. 

I would also like to take a moment to thank 

the President for his leadership on sanctions 

on Iran. Yesterday, President Obama signed 

an Executive Order that imposes new sanctions against the Iranian energy and petrochemical sectors, as well as sanctions against 

those who are providing material support to 

the National Iranian Oil Company, Naftiran 

Intertrade Company, or the Central Bank of 

Iran. These measures will help strengthen the 

existing sanctions regime and bring Iran that 

much closer to ending its heedless quest for 

nuclear weapons. 

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I 

rise today in strong support of the House 

amendment to the previous Senate amendment to H.R. 1905. In his 2002 State of the 

Union Address, former President George H.W. 

Bush said that Iran was pursuing weapons of 

mass destruction and exporting terror. A decade later, Iran’s global threat is greater than 

ever. 

We are currently embroiled in a standoff 

with Iran over its pursuit of nuclear capability. 

We find ourselves on the brink of conflict over 

potential Iranian armed interference with oil 

and other shipments through the Strait of 

Hormuz and its persistent threats against 

Israel. Even prior to 9–11, Hezbollah, supported by Iran, was responsible for more 

American deaths around the world than any 

other terrorist organization. Since 2001, Iran 

has embarked on more direct efforts to harm 

American interests as evidenced by last year’s 

foiled Iranian-backed assassination plot 

against the Saudi ambassador to the United 

States. 

The current state of Iranian sanctions clearly 

has not worked to reduce Tehran’s threat to 

global peace. That’s why we need the enhanced approach this legislation will take in 

countering efforts by Iran to evade the impact 

of international sanctions. H.R. 1905 as 

amended tightens reporting on countries violating sanctions on these countries and 

strengthens measures against those who 

would aid and abet these disturbers of global 

peace. 

It also effectively blacklists Iran’s energy 

sector and anyone doing business with it. By 

preventing Iran from repatriating the proceeds 

from its oil sales, this rogue government will 

be deprived of 80 percent of its hard currency 

earning and half of the funds used to support 

its national budget. 

Iran has used many tricks to subvert current 

sanctions—from oil for gold swaps to selling 

energy bonds to other trading and bartering 

schemes. They have been successful because 

there are governments who care more for 

making profit from doing business in Iran than 

in preventing threats to world peace. International efforts to rein in the nuclear ambitions 

of Iran have been stymied particularly by 

China. 

Despite expressing formal support for 

United Nations Security Council sanctions 

against Iran since 2005, China has stepped in 

where other nations have curtailed trade with 

Iran. China’s Bank of Kunlun and the Elaf Islamic Bank in Iraq have facilitated transactions 

worth millions of dollars for Iranian banks already under sanctions. Stronger sanctions will 

make such unsavory alliances more difficult. 

This is why the reformulated bill we consider 

today is so vital in eliminating to the extent 

possible all avenues for Iran’s allies to play 

enabler to its nuclear ambitions and to its patronage of terrorist operations. 

I want to congratulate House Foreign Affairs 

Committee Chairman ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, 

Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs 

Committee Chairman TIM JOHNSON and other 

members for their hard work in crafting a bipartisan, bicameral bill that works. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 

ROS-LEHTINEN) that the House suspend 

the rules and agree to the resolution, 

H. Res. 750. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, 

on that I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

f 

JOB PROTECTION AND RECESSION 

PREVENTION ACT OF 2012 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 

House Resolution 747, I call up the bill 

(H.R. 8) to extend certain tax relief 

provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and 

for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 747, the bill is 

considered read. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 8 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012’’. 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5579 

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF 2001 AND 2003 TAX RELIEF. 

(a) EXTENSION OF 2001 TAX RELIEF.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 

Act of 2001 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2012’’ both places it appears and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2013’’. 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall take effect as if 

included in the enactment of the Economic 

Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

2001. 

(b) EXTENSION OF 2003 TAX RELIEF.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 303 of the Jobs 

and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

2003 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 

2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2013’’. 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by this section shall take effect as if 

included in the enactment of the Jobs and 

Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

2003. 

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF INCREASED SMALL BUSINESS EXPENSING. 

(a) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—Section 179(b)(1) 

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (C), by redesignating subparagraph (D) 

as subparagraph (E), and by inserting after 

subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(D) $100,000 in the case of taxable years 

beginning in 2013, and’’, and 

(2) by striking ‘‘2012’’ in subparagraph (E) 

(as redesignated by paragraph (1)) and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

(b) REDUCTION IN LIMITATION.—Section 

179(b)(2) of such Code is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (C), by redesignating subparagraph (D) 

as subparagraph (E), and by inserting after 

subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(D) $400,000 in the case of taxable years 

beginning in 2013, and’’, and 

(2) by striking ‘‘2012’’ in subparagraph (E) 

(as redesignated by paragraph (1)) and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

(c) APPLICATION OF INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Section 179(b)(6)(A) of such Code is 

amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘calendar year 2012, the 

$125,000 and $500,000 amounts in paragraphs 

(1)(C) and (2)(C)’’ in the matter preceding 

clause (i) and inserting ‘‘calendar year 2013, 

the $100,000 and $400,000 amounts in paragraphs (1)(D) and (2)(D)’’, and 

(2) by striking ‘‘calendar year 2006’’ in 

clause (ii) and inserting ‘‘calendar year 

2002’’. 

(d) COMPUTER SOFTWARE.—Section 

179(d)(1)(A)(ii) of such Code is amended by 

striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2014’’. 

(e) SPECIAL RULE FOR REVOCATION OF ELECTIONS.—Section 179(c)(2) of such Code is 

amended by striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting 

‘‘2014’’. 

(f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2012. 

SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM 

TAX RELIEF FOR INDIVIDUALS. 

(a) EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE

MINIMUM TAX EXEMPTION AMOUNT.—Section 

55(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$72,450’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2011’’ in subparagraph (A) and 

inserting ‘‘$78,750 in the case of taxable years 

beginning in 2012 and $79,850 in the case of 

taxable years beginning in 2013’’, and 

(2) by striking ‘‘$47,450’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2011’’ in subparagraph (B) and 

inserting ‘‘$50,600 in the case of taxable years 

beginning in 2012 and $51,150 in the case of 

taxable years beginning in 2013’’. 

(b) EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM

TAX RELIEF FOR NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL

CREDITS.—Section 26(a)(2) of such Code is 

amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘during 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 

2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2011’’ 

and inserting ‘‘after 1999 and before 2014’’, 

and 

(2) by striking ‘‘2011’’ in the heading thereof 

and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2011. 

SEC. 5. TREATMENT FOR PAYGO PURPOSES. 

The budgetary effects of this Act shall not 

be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 

hour of debate on the bill, it shall be in 

order to consider the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute printed in 

part B of House Report 112–641, if offered by the gentleman from Michigan 

(Mr. LEVIN) or his designee, which shall 

be considered read and shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes equally 

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. 

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 

CAMP) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN) each will control 30 

minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Michigan (Mr. CAMP). 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 

legislative days in which to revise and 

extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 8. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

I rise today in support of H.R. 8, the 

Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act. In doing so, I and my fellow 

Republican House colleagues have 

made an important choice—the choice 

to focus on job creation. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle who oppose this important 

piece of legislation have made a different choice—the choice to focus on 

tax hikes that destroy jobs. 

The Job Protection and Recession 

Prevention Act stops the tax hike we 

face at the end of the year and provides 

a 1-year extension of the low tax policies originally enacted in 2001 and 2003 

and then extended again in 2010. The 

2010 bill was supported by 85 current 

House Democrats, 40 current Senate 

Democrats, and President Obama. 

Importantly, this legislation allows 

Congress time to pass and enact comprehensive tax reform without causing 

undue harm to our fragile economy. 

Economists have noted that comprehensive tax reform, when paired 

with appropriate government spending 

cuts, could lead to the creation of 1 

million American jobs in the first year 

alone. 

The choice Republicans have made is 

to pass this bill, work toward comprehensive tax reform, and create jobs. 

In contrast, my Democrat colleagues 

have proposed raising taxes. They 

claim the tax hike will only affect the 

rich. What they don’t want to tell you 

is that, in reality, this tax hike will hit 

nearly 1 million small businesses and 

53 percent of small business income. A 

study conducted by Ernst & Young concluded that the Democrat tax hike 

could lead to the loss of over 700,000 

jobs. That is the choice the Democrats 

have made—to raise taxes on families 

and small businesses and to destroy 

jobs. 

As this chart illustrates, America is 

at a crossroads. The question is: Which 

path will our country take? The Democrats’ path includes tax hikes that will 

cause small businesses to lose 700,000 

jobs. The Republicans’ tax reform path 

will make the Tax Code simpler and 

fairer, and it will lead to the creation 

of more than 1 million jobs in the first 

year. 

What is even worse is that, in their 

quest to raise taxes on the so-called 

‘‘wealthy,’’ several of my Democrat 

colleagues have made it clear that they 

are willing to hold low- and middle-income Americans hostage by threatening to let all income tax rates rise as 

scheduled at the end of the year if they 

don’t get their way. These massive and 

imminent tax hikes are part of the fiscal cliff, or ‘‘jobs cliff’’ as I often refer 

to it, that we face at the end of this 

year. The nonpartisan Congressional 

Budget Office estimates that going 

over the fiscal cliff could cost America 

2 million to 3 million jobs. This would 

be a devastating blow to almost 13 million Americans who are unemployed, as 

well as to middle class Americans who 

have been struggling in the Obama 

economy. 

Mr. Speaker, the choice, to me, is obvious. Let’s pass this bill. Let’s work 

toward comprehensive tax reform that 

creates a simpler, fairer Tax Code for 

all Americans and, most importantly, 

that creates the jobs that we so badly 

need. 

I urge my colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle to reconsider their 

choice to increase taxes and destroy 

over 700,000 jobs. Now is not the time to 

dig the hole we are in any deeper. Instead, Democrats should take the advice of people like President Bill Clinton and former economic adviser to 

President Obama, Larry Summers, and 

join Republicans to stop the tax hike, 

work to strengthen our economy, and 

get our country back on track. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

There is a choice to be made here, 

and it isn’t what the chairman has put 

forth for one second. Everyone in this 

body agrees that we should extend the 

middle class tax cut. The Senate passed 

a bill that does just that. The President is ready to sign it this week. 

b 1530 

The middle class families of this 

country need certainty, not some 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

vague promises about something to be 

done in the future. The question is: If 

everybody agrees that we should continue the middle class tax cut, why 

don’t we come together? The answer is 

this: The Senate bill continues all of 

the tax cuts for every American household on their first $250,000 of income; 

114 million families would see their tax 

cuts extended in full; 97 percent of 

small businesses would keep all of their 

tax cuts, according to the Joint Taxation Committee. Why don’t the Republicans join us in acting? 

I think the answer is clear. This 

chart shows it. They’re insistent. Their 

priority is cutting taxes for the very 

wealthy. They want to give households 

that earn more than $1 million a year 

a tax cut on average of $160,000. This 

chart shows it. What we have here for 

middle class families, $2,200; for the 

very wealthy, $160,000. That’s over 70 

times more of a tax cut for millionaires than for typical families. What 

makes it worse, if possible, is it would 

add $49 billion to the deficit. 

This Republican bill also would raise 

taxes on 25 million families. Those who 

benefited from the EITC, the child tax 

credit, and a higher education tax credit, that they would eliminate altogether. It’s still worse. The bill we’re 

going to discuss tomorrow, the socalled ‘‘tax reform,’’ essentially would 

provide someone earning more than $1 

million a $331,000 tax cut. 

This debate is not about tax reform. 

It’s about whether or not we protect 

the very wealthy at all costs—at all 

costs at the expense of middle-income 

families, and everybody except the 

very wealthy. This talk about 700,000 

jobs being lost, that study was financed 

by special interest friends, and it’s 

been discredited by every fact checker. 

They’re talking about 70 times more 

for the millionaire than for middle-income families on average, when in 2010, 

93 percent of income growth went to 

the top 1 percent of wealthy households. And they come here and say that 

their first priority is protecting the 

very wealthy. 

This isn’t about tax reform. We need 

to work on this. This is about whether 

the first priority of the Republicans is 

protecting the very wealthy, holding 

hostage middle-income families. Let 

the middle-income family hostages be 

released. Join together for what everybody says they’re for. Let’s pass today 

our substitute and give a middle-income tax cut to everybody, including 

97 percent of small businesses. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 

minutes to the distinguished chairman 

of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. HERGER). 

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, this 

House must act to stop the midnight 

tax hike that threatens to hit all 

American taxpayers on December 31. 

This midnight menace includes a 50 

percent cut in the value of the child 

tax credit, higher taxes on dividends 

for seniors living on fixed incomes, the 

return of the infamous marriage penalty for working families, and the alternative minimum tax, ensnaring 

middle-income taxpayers. 

An average family of four with an income of $50,000 could see a tax increase 

of almost $2,200 a year. The President 

says he wants to stop the midnight tax 

hike for some taxpayers, but not all. 

He claims that he merely wants the 

wealthy to pay more. The truth is that 

his tax increase proposal would especially hit small business owners. As 

someone who comes from a small business background myself, I understand 

that many small businesses pay taxes 

as individuals. Their income includes 

money that they reinvest in the business to expand and hire more workers. 

A big tax increase could harm the very 

businesses we are relying on to create 

more jobs. In fact, a new study by 

Ernst & Young suggests that the President’s tax proposal would cost more 

than 700,000 American jobs. 

Mr. Speaker, what lane will you 

choose? I urge the House to pass H.R. 8 

and prevent a tax hike for all Americans. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. 

When you look at Mr. HERGER’s district, he’s standing up to protect 180 

people who have income over $1 million, sacrificing a middle-income tax 

cut for 285,000. 

I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished former chairman and a gentleman from New York (Mr. RANGEL). 

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I’ve 

never been so fortunate in this House 

to have the Republicans state the argument as clearly as they have this afternoon, and I think WALLY HERGER said 

it. It is possible that we’re not talking 

about a tax cut. People working every 

day trying to make ends meet, they 

don’t know the wonderful tax cut that 

they are enjoying, but you bet your life 

if we don’t come together, if we don’t 

reach agreement, they’ll understand 

what a tax hike is. That’s exactly 

what’s going to happen to 98 percent of 

the tax-paying people of this great 

country. 

Taxpayers, who work every day, who 

raise their families, who buy from the 

local merchants that keep small business alive, are going to find out, probably too late, that the Republican 

Party says you don’t deserve the lower 

tax rate. Then they may ask: What’s 

holding this up if everyone agrees that 

they should have it? 

We’re going to have to explain to the 

middle class what the Republicans are 

explaining to us: that somehow we are 

to believe that less than 2 percent of 

the population is creating the jobs and 

really supporting the economy. I don’t 

know where they’ve been or how 

they’re going to come back, but they 

haven’t been creating jobs, and they 

haven’t been spending and investing 

money. Even if there was a controversy, why the heck are we holding 

hostage 98 percent of the people? 

If Republicans agree and Democrats 

agree and liberals and conservatives 

and even Tea Party people agree that 

these people who work hard every day 

should continue to have this tax cut, 

then why the heck don’t we agree to 

give it to them? If it ever becomes that 

we’re in a political debate, and it’s 

only about less than 2 percent of 100 

percent, then let’s fight like the devil 

over that and see who prevails. But it’s 

not going to be hard for us to explain 

this. If you do this to the hardworking 

American people, shame on you. 

b 1540 

Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to the 

gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ROSKAM), 

a distinguished member of the Ways 

and Means Committee. 

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding. 

I would like to pause and just listen 

and think through a couple of the arguments that we’ve been hearing over the 

past couple of weeks from our friends 

on the other side of the aisle and from 

the President of the United States, and 

one is that people should pay their fair 

share. Now, that’s an interesting argument, Mr. Speaker, and let’s look at 

that a little bit closer. 

So, if the President’s will were to 

prevail on this, in other words, if this 

tax hike goes into place, then the top 

tax rate for some small businesses 

would be over 44 percent. Now, contrast 

that to the top tax rate that President 

Obama is proposing, which would be 28 

percent. 

All afternoon you are going to hear a 

lot of things go back and forth, but you 

won’t hear anyone contradict those 

numbers and that disparity, Mr. Speaker, because they are true. There is no 

sense in telling corporations, You get a 

28 percent rate, and the top rate for 

small business is 44 percent. There’s 

nothing fair about that. 

All right. Well, let’s look at another 

argument. 

Another argument is that this somehow closes a budget gap and this is deficit reduction, and we’re all about deficit reduction and let’s have at it. Well, 

a little secret on the deficit reduction 

is, at best, the most generous estimate 

is this would take care of—what?— 

maybe 7, 8, 9, 10 days of spending, 

maybe. But who would pay the cost for 

that? I’ll tell you who pays the cost for 

that. The job creators and the people 

that are looking for jobs right now, Mr. 

Speaker, according to Ernst & Young 

and others that have looked at this. 

Some estimates are that it would cost 

700,000 jobs. 

Now, I know nobody that is willing to 

say, You know what? We’ve just got 

too many jobs. Let’s just thin the herd. 

There are too many people working. 

Let’s thin the herd. There are too 

many people working. And let’s do it 

because of Democratic dogma. 

We have got leading Democrats on 

the other side of the rotunda who have 

said, Let’s embrace the fiscal cliff. 

Let’s just grab onto the dogma and go 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5581 

right off the cliff, regardless of the outcome. 

Well, you know what? That’s ridiculous. 

And we have an opportunity here to 

make some certainty to move to the 

next year—not to move to the next 

year just for the sake of another year, 

but to move to next year to fundamentally reform our tax system, to create 

a more competitive Tax Code that is 

broad and fair and wise and well 

thought out and that does what—that 

creates the most competitive Tax Code 

in the world right here in the United 

States. Mr. Speaker, it could be great. 

We could have a great Tax Code, but 

what we’ve got to do is create a year of 

certainty to move forward. 

I urge passage of this. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds. 

You know, it’s ironical that the gentleman from Illinois minimizes adding 

$50 billion to the deficit over 10 years, 

if continued, which is your policy, continued the high income. A trillion dollars, that’s something you just shrug 

your shoulders at? 

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, EARL BLUMENAUER, another distinguished member of our committee. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is an interesting question: Which lane are we 

going to choose? 

The study that has been offered by 

our friends on the other side of the 

aisle is bogus, and I invite people to actually look at it and look at the critiques that have been offered up. 

But we’ve had a real-life experiment 

because these tax rates that are being 

talked about were exactly what we had 

in the Clinton years, at which time 

some of our good friends on the other 

side of the aisle predicted calamity, job 

loss, and that the economy would 

crash. What, in fact, happened is that 

we created 22 million jobs. 

What has happened is that, when 

they had a chance to experiment with 

their vision in the Bush years, where 

they put in place these tax reductions, 

if they would have worked, what would 

have happened? Did employment even 

match what happened in the Clinton 

years? No. In fact, it was less than 5 

percent of what happened in the 8 years 

of Bill Clinton. 

In fact, the Obama administration— 

after the first few months when it was 

in office and could be credited with responsibility for the economy—has produced more private sector jobs than 

the entire Bush administration in 8 

years. The job loss that’s gone negative 

has been slashing in the public sector, 

primarily teachers and firefighters and 

police officers at the State and local 

levels. 

Mr. Speaker, the strategy here is to 

continue punting. My Republican 

friends are punting on the farm bill. 

My Republican friends are punting on 

SGR. They are now proposing a budget 

solution that gets us past the election 

because they can’t face up to their own 

Tea Party extremists, and they’re 

split. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an 

additional 15 seconds. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. That’s what is 

at stake here. 

I would suggest that we take what we 

ought to be able to agree on, the 98 percent of this tax reduction, agree on 

that, not punt, give some real certainty, and then have an honest debate 

about their proposal to increase taxes 

on the middle class at the expense of 

being able to provide for the richest of 

Americans. Let’s have that debate. 

Let’s not hold people hostage in the 

short term. 

Mr. CAMP. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 

from Texas (Mr. BRADY), the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee. 

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

appreciate Chairman CAMP’s leadership 

on this important jobs issue. 

For America, this recovery is the 

weakest since World War II. It’s dead 

last. Millions of Americans can’t find 

work. Millions of Americans have 

given up looking for work. Businesses 

along Main Street are struggling. Business confidence is down. Consumer confidence is down. This economy is not 

working, but yet the President has a 

plan. He gave it to us a couple of weeks 

ago. He said, I want to raise taxes on 

small businesses and professionals. 

But here is the cost in real terms for 

our economy: 700,000 more Americans 

will be kicked to the unemployment 

line; the economy will grow slower, in 

fact, it will shrink; paychecks will 

shrink; there will be less investment in 

America. 

What kind of plan is that for a recovery? 

And also, seniors are going to write 

more checks in capital gains and dividends to Uncle Sam, the dividends they 

live on. Small businesses will be able 

to expand less often because of this. 

Republicans think there is a different 

choice for America’s economy. We 

want to stop the tax hikes. We want to 

grow this economy by 1 million new 

jobs. We want to make sure that when 

you, as a senior, save your whole life, 

you invest in dividends in a home and 

land, that you keep it to survive in 

your retirement years. We want to 

make sure the death tax doesn’t come 

back to life. 

Think about this: You work your 

whole life to build a family-owned farm 

or business, and when you die, Uncle 

Sam swoops in and takes more than 

half of everything you’ve worked a lifetime to earn. 

That’s the choice between the Republican plan to stop the tax hikes and 

grow this economy and the President’s 

plan to raise taxes and hurt this economy. It is a clear choice. The House is 

going to act. And more importantly, 

we’re going to make sure America has 

the best tax system in the world again 

so that we can compete and win so that 

our kids and grandkids have the opportunity for the strongest economy in 

the world. It’s a clear choice. 

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to 

the gentleman from the great State of 

New Jersey (Mr. PASCRELL), another 

member of our committee. 

Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the ranking 

member. 

Mr. Speaker, this bill makes it as 

clear as day just what the priorities of 

the majority are. Instead of working 

with us to shift the tax burden away 

from the middle class—who haven’t 

gotten a raise in a long time—and 

small businesses, this bill does the 

exact opposite. 

And for you to continue to say that 

this is going to be a burden across the 

board on small businesses is delusional. 

Ninety-seven percent of small businesses won’t be affected by our bill. 

To the antitax crusaders, this bill 

will raise taxes on the middle class— 

your bill—and working poor—your 

bill—by an average of $1,000. In New 

Jersey, this bill will make 3.2 million 

middle class and working poor families 

pay more taxes so that 231,400 millionaires can get a bigger tax cut. 

b 1550 

It’s as simple as that. You can shake 

your head all you want; those are the 

facts. This bill would add almost $1 

trillion more to the deficit than the 

Democratic bill. My Lord, I don’t hear 

you talk about that. I don’t hear you 

say that. I wonder why? Just so that 0.3 

percent of the taxpayers can get an average tax cut of over $74,000? 

At least the last time the Republicans took this shortsighted, trickledown approach, we had a $5.6 trillion 

surplus, thanks to Bill Clinton. In 2008, 

we were $11 trillion, over $11 trillion in 

debt. We quite simply can’t afford to 

gives millionaires another tax break 

and make our children and our grandchildren foot the bill. 

The proof is in the pudding. In 2000, 

when we first tried this supply side 

voodoo, unemployment was 4.2 percent. 

By 2008, it had doubled. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an 

additional 15 seconds. 

Mr. PASCRELL. To those Members 

concerned with tax fairness: today, 

wealth concentrated with the top 1 percent is at the same level as the period 

immediately preceding the Great Depression. So you shrunk the middle 

class with your great economic ideas 

between 2001 and 2008, and what you did 

was made the rich richer. I salute you 

if that’s what you think America is 

about. We are all job creators, not just 

the rich. 

Mr. CAMP. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 

BOEHNER), the Speaker of the House. 

Mr. BOEHNER. I thank my friend for 

yielding, and remind my colleagues 

that for the last 18 months when we’ve 

been in the majority, we have focused 

on jobs. Now, the American people are 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5582 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

still asking the question: where are the 

jobs? And that’s why we’ve got over 30 

jobs bills now pending over in the 

United States Senate. And after today, 

we’ll have another bill sitting over in 

the Senate that will help create more 

jobs in America. 

Two years ago, the President said we 

shouldn’t raise taxes in this time of a 

slow economy. I agreed with the President. The Congress agreed with the 

President. All of the Republicans and 

119 Democrats voted to extend all of 

the current tax rates. And here we are 

some 18 months later, economic growth 

is actually slower than it was when 

President Obama made those remarks, 

and yet the President wants to go out 

and raise the taxes on the so-called 

rich. 

Well, let me tell you who the socalled rich are. About a million of 

those people who you want to increase 

taxes on are small business owners, 

small business owners who pay their 

business taxes through their personal 

tax return. I know all about this. I used 

to be one of them. I had a subchapter S 

corporation, and whatever the company’s so-called profits were, I had to 

pay taxes on those, whether I actually 

got the money or not. 

So when you look at what the President wants to do, you want to tax a 

million small business owners. Ernst & 

Young has come out and made it clear 

that if you do this, 750,000 jobs are 

going to be destroyed, at a time when 

the American people are asking: where 

are the jobs? 

It’s time to put the rhetoric aside. 

It’s time to put the politics aside. I 

know we’re in an election year, but my 

goodness, raising taxes at this point in 

this economy is a very big mistake. Extend all of the current tax rates, which 

our bill does, for 1 year, so we’ve got 

time to revise our Tax Code. Lower 

rates, fairer rates for all Americans, 

which is what needs to happen if we’re 

truly going to make America more 

competitive. Put more Americans back 

to work. And bring some of those jobs 

that have been shipped overseas back 

home. We all know that we need to revise our Tax Code and reform it from 

top to bottom. But that’s not going to 

happen overnight. So extending all of 

these rates for 1 year will provide certainty. Certainty for whom? Certainty 

for small business owners, people who 

can make decisions about what they 

want to invest in terms of new plant, 

new equipment, whether they want to 

hire new employees. This is the most 

commonsense thing that we can do, 

and there’s no reason that we 

shouldn’t. 

When we look at the proposal coming 

from our colleagues across the aisle, it 

raises taxes on dividends. Probably not 

a smart thing to do. When you look at 

senior citizens, many of them who depend on their dividend income, they’re 

going to get whacked by your proposal. 

And under your proposal, not only do 

we tax small business people, but, oh, 

yeah, the death tax comes back in full 

force because it fails to address one of 

the most penalizing parts of our Tax 

Code. 

I believe that the proposal that my 

colleague Mr. CAMP and his committee 

have brought forward is a reasonable, 

responsible approach, and I would urge 

its passage. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds. 

Look, no one here should distort the 

facts. From Joint Tax: 97 percent of 

small business people would keep all of 

their tax cuts. And in the Speaker’s 

district, there are 144 people with income over a million, compared to the 

300,000-plus. He’s sacrificing the middle 

class for a few with over a million dollars. 

I now have the pleasure of yielding 2 

minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. CLYBURN). 

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank 

Mr. LEVIN for yielding me this time, 

and for his leadership on this very important issue, and I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. 

South Carolina, my home State, is 

home to many military installations— 

Fort Jackson in Columbia; Shaw Air 

Force Base and the 3rd Army Headquarters in Sumter; the Joint Air Base 

in Charleston; Parris Island; and the 

Marine Air Station in Beaufort. I 

proudly work to represent these military communities, and I oppose H.R. 8 

because of the hurt it would visit upon 

middle-income and military families. 

A new report out today by the Center 

for American Progress documents the 

harsh impact that H.R. 8 would have on 

many military families. For example, a 

private in the United States Army in 

his first year of service who is married 

with an infant child would have a $273 

increase under H.R. 8. That’s real 

money to a young soldier. 

A marine corporal with 4 years of 

service who is married with two children would see a tax increase of $448 

under H.R. 8. That family is already 

struggling to make ends meet. 

And finally, Mr. Speaker, a military 

police sergeant in the Air Force with 8 

years service, a spouse, and three 

young children would get a whopping 

tax increase of $1,118 under H.R. 8. 

Mr. Speaker, these are just three examples of how the Republican bill 

would negatively impact our military 

families. The Senate has passed a middle class tax cut, and the President has 

told us he will sign it. The only thing 

standing between the middle income 

and their tax cut is the Republican 

leadership in this House. 

Mr. Speaker, it is time that we come 

together and extend to the middle class 

in this society an income tax cut that 

is fair, that will create jobs, that will 

offer security to families and stability 

to communities. I urge a vote against 

this bill. 

b 1600 

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself 15 seconds. 

I would just say that the gentleman’s 

remarks refer to the stimulus bill, a 

failed stimulus bill that was promised 

to create unemployment of under 8 percent. Frankly, it’s never been there. 

For 40 months, we’ve been over 8 percent. These are spending items that 

were failed, that failed in the stimulus 

program. That program did not work. 

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 

distinguished member of the Ways and 

Means Committee, the gentleman from 

Louisiana, Dr. BOUSTANY. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

in support of this very important legislation. 

The administration and congressional Democrats seek to raise taxes on 

America’s families, small businesses, 

and job creators. There’s a very clear 

choice here: either we can let small 

business owners, the job creators, 

America’s entrepreneurs, create jobs, 

or we can follow the path they’re advocating over here and tax small businesses. 

I stand in strong support of creating 

American jobs. Over 940,000 business 

owners will see higher taxes if the 

President and Washington Democrats 

are allowed to raise the top two rates. 

This means over half—over half—of our 

Nation’s small businesses will see higher taxes at a cost of over 700,000 fewer 

jobs for Americans—over 700,000 fewer 

jobs for Americans. 

Allowing these tax cuts to expire will 

hurt middle class families. If we pass 

this, the average taxpayer in my State 

of Louisiana will see tax relief of almost, on the average, about $1,800. The 

average family of four earning $50,000 

per year can face tax increases of over 

$2,200 per family if these cuts expire. A 

single parent earning $36,000 per year 

could see tax increases of $1,100 if these 

provisions expire. 

Mr. Speaker, this administration 

continues its assault on the American 

family and American businesses with 

its tax-and-spend policies. Our country 

can’t afford it. Certainly, America’s 

families and businesses can’t afford it. 

What we need is this: a 1-year extension to allow us to move forward with 

a real comprehensive approach to tax 

reform. 

We have a real opportunity to do 

what’s right for America, to promote 

American competitiveness. This is the 

moment. Let’s seize it. Let’s do it. We 

need to take this step today to get us 

where we can move to that next step, 

that next point. 

So I urge my colleagues on both sides 

of the aisle, let’s quit dilly-dallying 

around with this. Let’s show some 

leadership for the American people. 

They want us to step up and be leaders 

and solve these problems. Let’s step up 

and be leaders. Let’s extend these provisions and move forward with a 21st 

century Tax Code. 

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to 

the very distinguished member of our 

committee, Mr. CROWLEY, from the 

great State of New York. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my good 

friend from Michigan for yielding me 

this time. 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5583 

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8. 

The reason I oppose this bill is because 

this bill will impose taxes on hundreds 

of thousands of U.S. military families, 

our heroes. That’s right, of the millions facing a tax hike, hundreds of 

thousands are U.S. military families. 

Let’s call this bill what it is, the ‘‘Republicans’ Tax Hike on Our Heroes 

Act.’’ 

Now, I know those on the other side 

of the aisle will come down here one by 

one and claim they are extending tax 

cuts for everyone, but you’re extending 

cuts for people earning over $1 million 

a year and raising taxes on families 

earning under $45,000 a year. This bill 

scales back tax breaks put in place by 

President Obama and directly aimed at 

benefiting working families. 

Let’s take a moment to put a face on 

the 25 million Americans whose taxes 

will go up, including hundreds of thousands of U.S. military families. 

If you’re an Air Force Staff Sergeant 

with 8 years of service, a spouse and 

three young children here stateside at 

home, the Republicans’ Tax Hike on 

Our Heroes Act will raise their taxes 

by $1,100. A new recruit, a private in 

the U.S. Army in their first year of 

service earning a little over $18,000 a 

year—$18,000 a year, men and women 

on the front line defending our freedom—if they’re married with an infant 

child at home, they will see an increase 

under this bill of $273, a tax increase 

under the Republicans’ Tax Hike on 

Our Heroes Act. 

It begs the question, how are my colleagues who represent Fort Hamilton 

in Brooklyn going to vote on the Republicans’ Tax Hike on Our Heroes 

Act? Are you going to stand with your 

military family constituents or with 

the 2 percent? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an 

additional 15 seconds. 

Mr. CROWLEY. How are my colleagues who represent Fort Dix in New 

Jersey going to vote on the Republicans’ Tax on Our Heroes Act? My colleagues who represent Fort Bragg in 

North Carolina? Fort Detrick in Maryland? Fort Monroe in Virginia? Rock 

Island Arsenal in Illinois? Beale Air 

Force Base in California? 

Today, the choice is clear. Stand 

with Democrats and the President who 

have put forward a plan that simply 

asks America’s wealthiest to support 

this great land. 

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 1 

minute to a distinguished member of 

the Ways and Means Committee, the 

gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. PAULSEN). 

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank 

the chairman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, last week, I took part 

in a roundtable conversation in my district with over 20 small business leaders. They discussed the devastating impact that these looming tax hikes 

would have on job creation, not only 

across the country, but in Minnesota. 

The sentiment that was echoed 

throughout that entire conversation 

was that Washington should not be 

raising taxes when our economy is still 

struggling to recover. 

These job creators understand all too 

well what our country is facing as we 

approach, on January 1, this tax cliff, 

this fiscal cliff and this jobs cliff. The 

message from all of these entrepreneurs was simple: Job creators and 

business leaders alike were saying, 

very directly, stop the tax hike. 

Studies have shown that this looming tax hike would negatively impact 

half of all small business income, a loss 

of 700,000 jobs, potentially, and 14,500 of 

those jobs are in my home State of 

Minnesota, Mr. Speaker. But if we extend these rates and we move toward 

tax reform, we can have a positive impact on our economy of 1 million new 

jobs. 

Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear. With 

the national unemployment rate of 

over 8 percent for 41 consecutive 

months, we must stop the tax hike. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds. 

Look, I want to repeat, Joint Tax 

says 97 percent of small businesses 

would keep all of their tax cuts. And in 

Mr. PAULSEN’s district, there are 1,345 

people with income over 1 million compared with over 325,000 households. 

That’s the equation at stake here. 

That’s the equation. 

I now have a real pleasure to yield 2 

minutes to the very active gentleman 

from Massachusetts (Mr. NEAL). 

(Mr. NEAL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. NEAL. There’s one indisputable 

fact in this debate today, and that is 

that the Bush tax cuts used borrowed 

money. 

How much sense did that make to 

borrow the money to give tax cuts to 

the wealthiest people in America, the 

top 2 percent? The argument at the 

time was simple, that we should give 

tax cuts to the people at the top because they create jobs for the people in 

the middle and at the bottom. Fact: 

the slowest economic growth at any 

time since Herbert Hoover was President of the United States. 

The argument, or the assault on the 

Clinton Presidency was that he raised 

taxes of the top bracket, 39.6 percent— 

22 million jobs; the greatest economic 

growth spurt in the history of America; 

a reminder to our friends, an unemployment rate of 3.8 percent. 

So borrow the money during the 

Bush years for tax cuts so that we can 

give the wealthy—and, my goodness, 

what a ride they’ve had for these 12 

years. It is unbelievable when you look 

at what those rate cuts did to people at 

the top. 

We have a responsibility here to protect the middle class from a big tax 

hike next year. Last week, the Senate 

passed a bill that would extend tax 

cuts for 98 percent of the American 

people, the middle class, and now it’s 

up to the House to provide some certainty to the middle class that their 

taxes are not going to go up next year. 

But instead of doing so, what are we 

doing today, once again? We are having 

an argument about what to do for that 

top 2 percent of income earners in 

America whom our Republican friends 

can never seem to do quite enough for. 

Even more troubling, this tax package ends President Obama’s tax cuts 

that make college more affordable and 

help working families with children. So 

not only are we attempting, with their 

package today and proposal, to hold 

the middle class hostage to extending 

tax cuts for the wealthiest, but they 

want to raise taxes on 25 million families, with an average increase of $1,000. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an 

additional 15 seconds. 

Mr. NEAL. We need to extend the 

child tax credit and the earned income 

tax credit, and that’s what we should 

be doing today for middle income 

Americans and provide them with some 

sense of security and support. 

And, my God, can we do any more to 

help the wealthy in America than what 

our Republican friends have done? 

b 1610 

Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 1 

minute to a distinguished member of 

the Ways and Means Committee, the 

gentleman from Texas (Mr. MARCHANT). 

Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

today in strong support of the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act 

of 2012. 

Businesses in my district in Texas 

and across the country are reluctant to 

hire and make investments due to an 

uncertain economy and an impasse 

over taxes. This bill is a thoughtful 

step to bolster our economy and bridge 

the gap to tax simplification. This bill 

provides a serious game plan and a 

timetable that shows the American 

economy how to move forward. 

If we don’t act, the looming tax hike 

could destroy an estimated 700,000 jobs, 

according to an Ernst & Young study. 

And it’s no surprise, then, that the Institute of International Finance said 

there was a strong case to extend lower 

Bush-era taxes due to expire at the end 

of the year in order to avert a fiscal 

cliff. 

I’m proud to support—and urge my 

colleagues to support—this bill that 

helps U.S. job creators and gives businesses more confidence to put Americans and Texans back to work. 

Mr. LEVIN. Could the Speaker indicate how much time there is on each 

side? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN) has 

11 minutes remaining. The gentleman 

from Michigan (Mr. CAMP) has 133⁄4

minutes remaining. 

Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, at this time 

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5584 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska 

(Mr. SMITH). 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the bill that we are 

facing here today. It’s been an interesting debate that we’ve had now for 

some time. 

I learn a lot traveling around my district, but it was especially compelling 

when I was at a manufacturing plant, 

less than 40 employees, and they told 

me—unprovoked—they said the estate 

tax going up to 55 percent would devastate their business. Those were their 

words, ‘‘devastate their business.’’ It’s 

not just farmers and ranchers that 

would pay the estate tax, it would also 

be small businesses—and very thriving 

small businesses who put people to 

work, who provide benefits, health 

care, and otherwise. 

Truly, the 35 percent rate is a compromise. I would prefer to see no estate 

tax, given the fact that it is double 

taxation—and certainly 55 percent is 

what many folks would consider confiscatory in nature. So I rise in favor of 

the bill that we are debating here 

today. I think that it is better policy— 

certainly better for our economy that 

we would not raise taxes on the American people. 

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to 

another distinguished member of our 

committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. BECERRA). 

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, when 

the Wall Street banking crisis of 2008 

hit, causing the worst recession since 

the Great Depression, it was the middle 

class that took it on the chin. More 

than 8 million Americans lost their job 

through no fault of their own. And as 

millions of Americans were losing their 

jobs and their homes, the big banks received bailouts and CEOs continued to 

receive million-dollar payouts. 

While too many middle class Americans are still out looking for work, this 

Congress is voting again to give over 

$160,000 a year in tax breaks to the 

richest 2 percent of Americans while 

the average American will be lucky to 

get about one-100th or maybe two100ths of that. Can anyone in this 

Chamber blame the middle class for 

thinking the system is rigged against 

them? 

Mr. Speaker, we all admire financial 

success, but when we give away trillions in tax cuts that we cannot afford 

to those who need them the least, it’s 

the middle class who has to make up 

the difference. To pay for these tax 

cuts, our Republican colleagues have 

voted to end Medicare and would force 

seniors to pay $6,400 more for their own 

care. On top of that, Republicans propose changing Social Security, slashing its budget by over $800 million. It’s 

an ideological agenda that chooses millionaires over the middle class. Regular folks pay more so that folks like 

Donald Trump and Mitt Romney can 

get yet another tax break. 

Einstein is credited with saying that 

the definition of insanity is doing the 

same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Eleven years 

after the Bush tax breaks became law 

and drove us deeper into deficits, let’s 

not repeat these mistakes. Rather than 

having these debates about whether 

the richest 2 percent of Americans deserve extra breaks, we should stand 

with the middle class. 

Mr. Speaker, this should be an allhands-on-deck moment. America works 

best when the middle class in America 

is working. Let’s start talking about 

how we can get all Americans back to 

work and strengthen our economy. 

I urge my colleagues to reject this 

bill and support the Democratic alternative, which is focused on the middle 

class. 

Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield myself 15 seconds. 

We have a note here from Stan’s Two 

from Rowland Heights, California, a 

small business. They were asked: How 

would increased taxes impact your 

business? ‘‘Less hiring, more struggle 

to pay for expenses and payroll.’’ If 

rates were allowed to increase, would 

that affect your ability to hire new employees? ‘‘Absolutely. We’ve done nothing except cut staff for 4 years now. A 

tax increase could spell disaster.’’ 

At this time I yield 3 minutes to a 

distinguished member of the Ways and 

Means Committee, the gentleman from 

Washington (Mr. REICHERT). 

Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, most Americans think 

that the economy is moving in the 

wrong direction. And most of them 

think it’s Congress’ fault, and that 

we’ve not done enough to help them 

take care of their families and give 

them financial security. They don’t 

want political rhetoric today. They 

don’t care who’s wrong or who’s right. 

They want to know what we’re doing 

now, what we’re doing today to make 

buying groceries and gas and paying 

the electric bill affordable. 

Mr. Speaker, if we don’t act, a family 

of four that earns $50,000 a year will 

have an increase in their taxes of $2,200 

every year. That’s real money, Mr. 

Speaker. That’s the difference between 

buying an extra box of Cheerios and 

paying the gas bill and saving for college. And for the job creators, the 

mood is even worse. 

We all know that small businesses 

create jobs—every one of us in this 

House knows small businesses create 

jobs—but the Democrats would raise 

taxes on them, killing 700,000 jobs. I 

refuse to raise taxes on small businesses while they struggle to bring our 

country out of this recession. I refuse 

to destroy over 700,000 jobs that support families who need and want breadwinners, not handouts. 

We must ask ourselves every day: 

What else can we do for these families? 

We can offer them some long-term security so that when they die, their 

families, their farms, and their small 

businesses will survive and thrive. But 

tax increases don’t even stop when you 

die. If we do nothing, the death tax increases to 55 percent. We pay tax when 

we earn the income; we pay when we 

invest our income; and we pay again 

when we leave it to our kids. You want 

to talk about a fair Tax Code, Mr. 

Speaker? So today, I’m voting for a 

clear path forward. 

After 41 months of unemployment 

above 8 percent, we must stop the tax 

hike. I’m committed to tax reform that 

will create jobs, grow our economy, 

and support families. I am voting today 

for working families, for small businesses, for entrepreneurs, and for family farms, Mr. Speaker. This bill puts 

America back on the right track. 

Mr. LEVIN. Could you tell us, please, 

again how much time there is remaining? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN) has 

9 minutes remaining. The gentleman 

from Michigan (Mr. CAMP) has 93⁄4 minutes remaining. 

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to 

another active member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 

DOGGETT). 

Mr. DOGGETT. Now is not the time 

to let the Republicans raise taxes on 

thousands of Texas families in order to 

provide more tax breaks for a privileged few. Republicans would hike the 

taxes by almost $500 for a married marine corporal with 4 years of service 

and two children living in Schertz. 

b 1620 

That’s wrong. Nor is this the time for 

Republicans to tax opportunity. A single mom, working as a nurse, helping a 

daughter attend the Alamo Colleges or 

Texas State or ACC, would be denied 

the $2,500 higher education tax credit 

that I authored, all of this, in the very 

same bill that would give a Republican 

who earns $1 million a tax cut that is 

larger than that marine or that nurse 

will earn in an entire year. 

If there were an Olympic medal out 

there for protecting those sitting atop 

the economic ladder at the expense of 

those trying to get a foothold on one of 

the first rungs, these Republicans 

would have no competition for going 

for the gold. 

Nor has this trickle-down Republican 

approach grown our jobs and our economy. Extending tax breaks for those at 

the very top, it was done in 2010, over 

my objection; it hasn’t grown jobs in 

the past year anymore than it helped 

to avoid the Bush/Cheney recession. 

And as for this much ballyhooed 

Ernst & Young report, it was bought 

and paid for by the same millionaires 

that would get a tax break bigger than 

what the nurse or the marine earns all 

of next year, along with a few large 

corporations who paid for the report. It 

is not credible. 

It is not just to see many Americans 

pay higher taxes in order to help the 

few gain even more tax breaks. 

Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to the 

gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. 

BLACK), a distinguished member of the 

Ways and Means Committee, 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5585 

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, you know, 

when nearly 23 million Americans are 

struggling to find full-time employment, President Obama and his Democrat allies seem to think that now is 

the time to raise taxes on small businesses. 

And the President may be satisfied 

with an 8 percent or more unemployment rate for 41 straight months, but 

I’m not and, more importantly, the 

American people are not. The American people don’t need to settle for a 

country with fewer and fewer opportunities and a diminished future. 

So the House today will vote to stop 

the tax hike for all taxpayers, and tomorrow we will vote to move forward 

with a comprehensive tax reform. This 

is a critical step in providing the certainty that our small businesses desperately need to grow and create jobs. 

Now, the Democrats’ proposal to 

raise taxes on nearly 1 million small 

businesses will cost more than 700,000 

jobs, and they have not even offered a 

plan on tax reform. This is more of the 

same failed leadership that has given 

us the weakest economic recovery 

since the Great Depression. 

Democrats think that we are just one 

more tax increase away from prosperity. But when has a nation ever 

taxed its way to prosperity? Prosperity 

is built by the American people, not 

the government. American entrepreneurs and small business owners are 

the lifeblood of our American Dream, 

and they’re the backbone of our economy. 

It is clear that we must stop this tax 

hike and reform our broken Tax Code 

to revive our struggling economy and 

keep the American Dream alive. 

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to 

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 

Maryland (Mr. VAN HOLLEN), our ranking member on the Budget Committee. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it’s 

very important everyone understand 

the choice that’s facing the House 

today. The Democrats will offer an 

amendment that will immediately extend tax relief to 100 percent of American people. The Senate has already 

passed that proposal; and if our Republican colleagues vote for it today, we 

can send it down to the White House, 

the President will sign it today. 

Someone asked what we’re going to 

do today. We could provide immediate 

tax relief to 98 percent of the American 

people. 

Now, let’s be clear. The Democratic 

proposal provides tax relief to everybody up to $250,000. What our Republican colleagues are saying is they will 

deny tax relief to 98 percent of the 

American people, unless people making 

over $250,000 get a bonus, an extra tax 

cut. In other words, unless the top 2 

percent get an extra tax cut, nobody 

else gets anything. 

It gets worse. We’ve heard a lot of 

talk here about small businesses, that 

we need to adopt the Republican plan 

in order to support small businesses. 

It’s just not true. 

The Democratic proposal, according 

to the nonpartisan Independent Joint 

Tax Committee, provides tax relief to 

97 percent of the businesses that we’re 

talking about here. In fact, they point 

out that the other 3 percent of businesses include about 20,000 passthrough businesses that make over $50 

million a year. 

Now, they may be good businesses, 

but these are not mom-and-pop businesses. The language we’re hearing 

from our Republican colleagues would 

use small businesses as a cover to providing breaks for firms like Fortune 100 

Pipeline Company Enterprise Products 

Partners; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 

good business, not a mom-and-pop; 

KKR Investment Banking; and guess 

what, Bain Capital, Bain Capital, the 

kind of small business that our Republican colleagues are trying to protect. 

This is all really in service to the 

trickle-down ideology. We tried it in 

the Bush administration. At the end of 

8 years we actually saw a net job loss. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an 

additional 15 seconds. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We tried trickledown. We lived it; we saw a net job 

loss. But who picked up the tab? The 

rest of the country because it drove a 

huge hole in our deficit; and in order to 

deal with that, if we don’t ask folks at 

the top to pay a little bit more, the 

rest of the country ends up picking up 

the tab. That’s just not right, and it 

doesn’t help the economy. 

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself 15 seconds. 

I would just say that my friend’s proposals just aren’t bold enough. The 

economy isn’t growing. Unemployment 

is still above 8 percent for 40 consecutive months. 

We need to get on a plan for comprehensive reform, not just raising 

taxes on a segment, not just pitting 

one group of Americans against another. But let’s get a comprehensive reform so we can get certainty, we can 

get job growth, we can get economic 

prosperity and get Americans back to 

work. 

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 

gentleman from New York (Mr. REED), 

a member of the Ways and Means Committee. 

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today 

in support of the proposed legislation 

to make sure that we do not increase 

taxes on any Americans come the end 

of this year. I think it’s prudent, it’s 

responsible, and it’s the right message 

to send to America, that we are going 

to stand with every American and 

every small business owner across the 

country and say, end of the year, no 

tax increases. 

And I appreciate my colleagues on 

the other side of the aisle and their 

passion and their commitment to raising taxes. They get to choose which 

threshold, 200, $250,000 or more. But it’s 

clear to me that there’s a clear distinction that the American people will 

have an opportunity to decide come 

this November between my Democratic 

colleagues across the aisle and this side 

of the aisle. 

My Democratic colleagues across the 

aisle raise taxes as part of the solution 

going forward. This side of the aisle, 

I’m proud to stand, Mr. Speaker, to say 

‘‘no’’ to raising taxes on any American 

moving forward. 

Now, the gentleman had recognized 

and said that some of these tax increases that we’re talking about in regards to businesses are not the momand-pop shop. 

Well, I’ll tell you something. I just 

had a conversation with Dick Clark 

from my district, an owner of Villager 

Construction. That’s a mom-and-pop 

shop. Sterilator Company out of Cuba, 

New York, in my district. That’s a 

mom-and-pop shop. Those are people 

that have told me that one of their 

greatest concerns as small business 

owners is the tax burden that they’re 

going to face next year. 

Let’s not stand for rhetoric. Let’s do 

the responsible, prudent thing and say 

‘‘no’’ to tax increases. And I leave it up 

to the American people who I believe 

are hardworking taxpayers who are not 

stupid. They know what the distinction 

will be by the end of this year and next 

year when they come to the voting 

booth in November, that we stand for 

no tax increases, and my colleagues on 

the other side of the aisle are going 

down the path of let’s raise taxes. 

Now is not the time to raise taxes in 

an economic climate when people are 

struggling and we’re trying to have the 

job creators have the capital so that 

they can put people back to work for 

today and tomorrow. 

b 1630 

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to 

the gentlelady from New York (Ms. 

VELA ́ ZQUEZ), who is the ranking member on the Committee on Small Business and who has toiled in the vineyards and beyond on behalf of the 

small businesses of this country. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Ranking Member, for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 

the bill before us today. 

Republicans love to focus on small 

businesses when it’s convenient for 

them. They claim it is imperative to 

pass today’s bill because, if we don’t, 

small firms will be harmed. However, 

today’s bill is only good for millionaires and billionaires, not the Nation’s 

job creators. 

The argument that a partial extension of tax cuts hinders small business 

hiring relies on distorted facts. Republicans are using a warped definition of 

a ‘‘small firm’’ that counts Mitt Romney as a small business owner. I don’t 

think the average person considers 237 

people whose incomes average more 

than $200 million as small business 

owners. 

Contrary to Republican claims, this 

is not what the American taxpayers 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5586 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

think of when they hear ‘‘small business.’’ When most people think of entrepreneurs, they envision small manufacturers, architects, Main Street restaurants, and hardware stores—those 

Americans who risk their savings to 

create jobs in our communities. Tax 

cuts should go to real small businesses 

that are creating jobs, not to people 

who are simply moving money around 

for their own profits. 

Instead of addressing the top concern 

of small business owners—a lack of demand for their goods and services—this 

bill simply gives more tax cuts to the 

very rich. The numbers don’t lie. Over 

80 percent of the value of these cuts 

goes to millionaires. That is an average 

tax cut of $164,000. 

Let’s call this bill what it really is— 

a tax cut for the rich, not for small 

businesses. That is not what our economy needs. Vote ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, how much 

time is remaining? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CAMP) has 

51⁄2 minutes remaining. The gentleman 

from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN) has 23⁄4 minutes remaining. 

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the 

distinguished gentleman from Illinois 

(Mr. DOLD). 

Mr. DOLD. I certainly thank the 

chairman for his leadership on this. 

Mr. Speaker, I’m confused. I think 

my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle haven’t read what H.R. 8 is. They 

keep talking about how my colleagues 

and I are looking to try to raise taxes 

on a segment of the population. Actually, what this does is extend current 

tax rates for everyone—for every single 

American. I can tell you that, for people all across the country right now, 

foreclosures are up. They’re concerned 

about how they will send their kids to 

school. We’ve got energy prices that 

are on the rise. We want to make sure 

that the government is not taking 

more from them. 

I have to tell you that I think what 

we’re talking about right now is trying 

to empower the American people. We 

want to make sure that we have upward mobility. We want to try to create growth in our economy. 

Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the President of 

the United States came before the 

American public and said that our 

economy was too fragile. The President 

said that our economy is fragile and 

that we should extend these tax rates. 

That’s when the economy was growing 

at 31⁄2 percent, Mr. Speaker. The Commerce Department just came out with 

statistics that we are growing at 11⁄2

percent today. There is no way in the 

world that we should be taking more 

out of the pockets of the American 

public. It’s just not feasible. 

Two-thirds of all net new jobs are 

created by small businesses, but this 

isn’t just for small businesses—this is 

for every single American. We’re running the experiment today. If you want 

to talk about higher taxes—more taking in the State of Illinois—if you want 

to take a look at what’s going on in 

the State of Illinois, we are dead last in 

too many categories. We are not creating jobs. Jobs are picking up and 

they’re going to neighboring States. 

They’re leaving because we’ve decided 

to take more from hardworking taxpayers in the State of Illinois. 

What we want to do is to make sure 

that we extend these for an additional 

year so that we can have real tax reform. That’s what this is about. We 

want to talk about pro-growth tax policies so that we can get the American 

public back to work. This is about jobs 

and the economy. 

Frankly, I tip my hat to my colleagues because, when I talk to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 

they also indicate to me that the number one issue is jobs and the economy. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an 

additional 15 seconds. 

Mr. DOLD. Let’s come together. 

Let’s not talk about how we want to 

raise taxes on the middle class because, 

frankly, that’s just inaccurate, not 

true. We are looking to try to make 

sure these get extended for an additional year so that we can talk about 

pro-growth tax reform and get people 

off of the unemployment lines and back 

to work. 

So I applaud you for trying to get up 

there and plead your political point, 

but we need to come together. We need 

to make this happen for the American 

public. 

Mr. LEVIN. How much time is left on 

this bill? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN) has 

23⁄4 minutes remaining. The gentleman 

from Michigan (Mr. CAMP) has 31⁄4 minutes remaining. 

Mr. LEVIN. We have one more speaker on this. 

Mr. CAMP, do you have more than 

one? 

Mr. CAMP. I have one more speaker 

and then myself. 

Mr. LEVIN. Why don’t you call on 

the one, and then Mr. HOYER is going 

to wrap up on this bill. 

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the 

distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. LANKFORD). 

Mr. LANKFORD. There has been a 

tremendous amount of rhetoric and hyperbole in the conversation today—all 

this energy about how we are trying to 

raise taxes on different groups. Let’s 

clear this up. 

This is about keeping the rates the 

same for another year for all Americans. Really, this debate is not about 

tax rates. What my colleagues on the 

other side of the aisle seem to identify 

as the problem is that some people in 

America have too much money and 

that the solution to fix this problem is 

for people to go down the street and 

find someone with a bigger house and 

take some of their stuff and bring it to 

the other house. Then the problems in 

America would be solved. Things would 

be fair. 

The issue is not whether we should 

tax one group more and then distribute 

that to another group. That doesn’t 

create more jobs, and that doesn’t create more stability. That doesn’t pull us 

out of a recession. That only makes 

one group feel better that they took 

money from another group and gave it 

to another. 

There are really two philosophies 

that are at work here. We want to 

make this debate about taxes, but it’s 

really a philosophical issue. One group 

says that the purpose of taxation is to 

take from one group and redistribute 

to another one to make America fair. 

The other group, that of the Republicans, says the purpose of taxation is 

to collect as little as possible in order 

to efficiently run the government so 

that individuals are able to keep their 

money. We became the most powerful, 

prosperous nation on Earth because 

Americans were able to keep what they 

earned, were able to invest it into 

other things and were able to grow it. 

Here is the real proposal: one, keep 

tax rates the same for another year; 

two, fix the broken Code. 

There are 70,000 pages—3.8 million 

words—in this Tax Code. It needs to be 

fixed. It’s miserably complicated. No 

Americans feel confident that when 

they file their taxes they got it all 

right. We’ve got to fix this Code and be 

able to simplify it dramatically. It’s 

going to take time to do that. So let’s 

extend rates for another year, and then 

let’s spend next year fixing the Code. 

Let’s get this right for all Americans, 

not just for some. 

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield the balance 

of my time on this bill to the distinguished whip, the gentleman from 

Maryland (Mr. HOYER). 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 

for the remaining 23⁄4 minutes. 

Mr. HOYER. Designed to fail. That’s 

what this bill is. It is designed to fail. 

Very frankly, you made sure that it 

was going to fail when you passed the 

amendment that added the reform bill 

and this bill together. 

Designed to fail. How sad. 

I don’t think you want to raise taxes 

on anybody. I understand that. I’ll accept that premise. What we ought to do 

is to make sure, in the agreement that 

we have with the Senate and the 

House, that at least the 98 percent of 

Americans who make less than $250,000 

have no increase in their taxes. At 

least we ought to do that. America 

knows we have agreement on that. 

They’re wondering why, when you have 

agreement, you don’t take that agreement and give the assurance and certainty to 98 percent of the American 

working people that they won’t have 

an increase in their taxes so that 

they’ll have the confidence that they’ll 

have that money in their pockets to, 

perhaps, purchase that refrigerator 

that they need or that oven that they 

need or perhaps a new car or so that 

they can help their kids go to college. 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5587 

Why don’t we give them that confidence, I say to my friends. Mr. Speaker, I wish we would do so. 

Today, we could embrace the agreement that the Senate has come to and 

tell the 98 percent, ‘‘You’re safe.’’ In 

addition to that, by rejecting this bill, 

we will reject taking money out of 25 

million people’s pockets that they rely 

on to support themselves and their 

children. 

b 1640 

That’s what the Senate bill does. It 

protects the wealthiest in America 

while telling some of the poorest in 

America, the least well-off in America, 

you’re going to pay more, you’re going 

to get less. How perverse. How undermining of our economy. How undermining of the confidence of our people. 

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, 

we’re better than this. 

Newt Gingrich talked some years ago 

in 1998 about the ‘‘Perfectionist Caucus.’’ Mr. Speaker, he said embrace 

agreement. He was agreeing with President Clinton and Newt Gingrich at that 

point in time on a budget which adopted PAYGO one more time, which is one 

of the reasons why we balanced the 

budget 4 years in a row. The House 

Ways and Means bill leaves 98 percent 

of our people at risk, while our bill 

gives 100 percent of the people a tax 

cut. 

Let us reject the House bill. Let us 

adopt the substitute. Let us send it to 

the Senate and make it law. The President will sign it, and it can become law 

and give confidence and help to those 

98 percent of Americans. 

This Republican proposal, is not the 

straight-forward tax cut extension middle-class 

families and small business owners are asking 

for. 

Instead it extends tax cuts to even the highest incomes, a plan already rejected by the 

Senate and which the President has said he 

would veto. 

Moving forward with this legislation will only 

prolong the uncertainty the American people 

have asked us to end. 

What we ought to do—before the August 

district work period—is pass the extension 

where we have agreement—for earnings 

under $250,000, which is a tax cut for 100 

percent of Americans. 

Ninety eight percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses will see no change to 

their taxes. 

Let’s pass what we agree on now and afterward debate what we disagree on. 

Instead, we’ve seen Republicans insist on 

an all or nothing approach, which has held 

middle-class tax relief hostage to tax cuts for 

the top 2 percent. 

Now, they are doing so once again, with a 

rule on this bill that makes it harder for us to 

reach an agreement to prevent a tax hike on 

the middle class. 

This is not the regular order or open process Speaker BOEHNER and Republicans campaigned on and pledged to uphold in this 

House. 

At the same time, this bill would impose an 

average tax hike of $1,000 on 25 million working families by allowing the expanded Child 

Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit to 

expire while eliminating the American Opportunity Tax Credit. 

That lies in stark contrast to the $160,000 

tax cut this bill would deliver to the average 

millionaire, according to the National Economic Council. 

Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to join me 

in defeating this bill, and I call on Republicans 

to work with us to pass the tax cut extension 

for the middle class on which we all agree. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. 

I would just say this isn’t just about 

taxes. I would agree with my friend 

from Maryland, Republicans do not 

want to raise taxes on small businesses, job creators, or investors because it’s also about the economy. 

This has been a dismal recovery, the 

worst since the Great Depression; and 

unemployment has been above 8 percent for 40 consecutive months. Their 

answer is to raise taxes on the small 

business sector, the area where we need 

to have those jobs to begin to be created. What we’re saying is let’s keep 

the law the same for 1 year. We’re the 

only Nation in the world that has all of 

these tax provisions expiring year in 

and year out. Let’s leave this the same 

for 1 year, then let’s move and adopt 

comprehensive tax reform in an expedited procedure to do that so we can 

finish that next year. 

If we go down their path of raising 

taxes on small businesses, 700,000 jobs 

will be lost. If we go down our path of 

extending current law for a year, bringing certainty, extending that law for a 

year, moving forward on comprehensive reform, addressing some spending 

problems we know this Nation has had, 

3 years of trillion-dollar deficits, if we 

do that, we create a million jobs. 

Vote for H.R. 8. 

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I 

rise in strong support of H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012. 

In August of 2009, President Obama told NBC 

News, ‘‘You don’t raise taxes in a recession.’’ 

Quite frankly, I agree with the President and 

would take it a step further. We should never 

raise taxes at all, period. 

Unfortunately, if we do nothing before the 

end of the year, we risk raising taxes on 

Americans by $384 billion over the next ten 

years according to the Joint Committee on 

Taxation. For my home State of Georgia 

alone, this would represent a tax increase of 

$3,010 per tax return. At a time when we have 

had 41 straight months of unemployment, it 

would be irresponsible to place an additional 

burden on working families and job creators, 

particularly when Ernst & Young recently released a study stating that this tax increase 

would destroy 700,000 jobs. 

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have a 

simple solution. H.R. 8 will prevent this looming tax increase on all Americans, especially 

the 1 million small business entrepreneurs that 

would likely feel the pain the most. 

To all of my colleagues, we have a clear 

choice today. You can either support H.R. 8 to 

prevent a $384 billion tax increase, or you 

could oppose this legislation, endorse these 

tax increases and destroy 700,000 jobs in the 

process. The choice is yours. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 

opposition to the Republican tax proposal. 

Their plan will give more tax breaks for the 

richest 2 percent, providing $160,000 for the 

average millionaire—on top of the $1 million 

that they received over the last 9 years. 

A hundred and sixty thousand dollars 

means different things to different people. For 

464 Rhode Island veterans, it means access 

to employment and job training services; for 

2,340 Rhode Island parents, it means immunizations for their children against Measles, 

Mumps, and the flu; and for Rhode Island’s 

youth, it means 25 more students get a leg up 

through Head Start. But for millionaires, 

$160,000 simply represents the additional gift 

they receive under the Republican tax proposal. 

A hundred and sixty thousand dollars is a 

lot of money, and it can go a long way towards improving the lives and opportunities of 

Rhode Islanders. While every program I mentioned is on the chopping block, Republicans 

seem complacent to mortgage our children 

and grandchildren’s future to preserve these 

tax cuts for the wealthiest top two percent at 

a cost of $1 trillion. These are tax cuts we 

simply cannot afford. In fact, if we want to talk 

about responsible deficit reduction, this would 

be an excellent place to start. 

Democrats and Republicans do agree on 

one thing;—the need to extend tax cuts for the 

middle class and small businesses, which is 

exactly what the Democratic proposal will do. 

Under the Democratic plan, every single taxpayer will receive a tax cut on income earned 

up to $200,000 if you are single, and 

$250,000 if you are married. 

For our middle class families, this translates 

to an extra $2,200 in their pockets. And even 

high-income households will continue to receive a tax cut averaging more than $10,000 

on their first $250,000 of income. 

No one thinks raising taxes on the middle 

class is a good idea. Right now, my top priority is giving middle-class families and our 

small businesses the security and certainty 

they deserve by extending tax cuts they desperately need. This should be an issue where 

Republicans and Democrats can work together to do what is right for hard-working 

Americans. 

I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican plan that continues down the same fiscally irresponsible path. Give our small businesses and working families the certainty they 

deserve, and support the Democratic plan to 

cut taxes for everyone and help move the 

economy forward. 

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8. I cannot support legislation that 

prioritizes millionaires over middle class families. By bringing this legislation to the floor, 

Republicans hold hostage the middle class tax 

cuts in order to help those who need it least. 

If enacted, this bill would give millionaires an 

average tax cut of $160,000 next year. Hedge 

fund managers and corporate CEOs who 

make up the wealthiest 2 percent of this country do not need a massive tax break. The Republican tax plan on the floor today not only 

favors millionaires, it takes away tax programs 

that help working families. Under this legislation, 25 million families and college students in 

this country will lose as much as $1,000 because of cuts to the Earned Income Tax Credits, the Child Tax Credit, and the American 

Opportunity Tax Credit. It is these lower and 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5588 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

middle income families that deserve our help. 

It is time to start creating a tax code that reflects our values by ensuring that every individual pays their fair share. 

I stand with the House Democrats, the Senate and the President in supporting an extension of the middle class tax cuts. Working 

Americans are facing high unemployment and 

stagnant wages. They should have the certainty to know that they will not face a tax increase next year. Extending the middle class 

tax cuts means helping 114 million middle 

class families, including 13.2 million in California. If the House extends the middle class 

tax cuts—already passed by the Senate— 

these families will save an average of $2,200 

on next year’s taxes. 

This country cannot afford to keep giving 

out tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations. This Republican bill adds another 

$50 billion to our deficit in just one year. This 

is the wrong approach and is just plain irresponsible. We need to strengthen the middle 

class, put people back to work, and grow our 

economy. The first step is introducing fairness 

to our tax code and helping the middle class 

Americans who work hard and play by the 

rules. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the Republican giveaway to the 

most wealthy and to instead support the 

Democratic substitute which protects the middle class. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

BASS of New Hampshire). All time for 

debate has expired. 

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

OFFERED BY MR. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I now call up the substitute amendment. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Clerk will designate the amendment. 

The text of the amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as 

the ‘‘Middle Class Tax Cut Act’’. 

(b) AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.—Except as 

otherwise expressly provided, whenever in 

this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 

section or other provision of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986. 

(c) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; etc. 

TITLE I—TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 

TAX RELIEF 

Sec. 101. Temporary extension of 2001 tax 

relief. 

Sec. 102. Temporary extension of 2003 tax 

relief. 

Sec. 103. Temporary extension of 2010 tax 

relief. 

Sec. 104. Temporary extension of election 

to expense certain depreciable business 

assets. 

TITLE II—ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX 

RELIEF 

Sec. 201. Temporary extension of increased 

alternative minimum tax exemption 

amount. 

Sec. 202. Temporary extension of alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable personal credits. 

TITLE III—TREATMENT FOR PAYGO 

PURPOSES 

Sec. 301. Treatment for PAYGO purposes. 

TITLE I—TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF TAX 

RELIEF 

SEC. 101. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2001 TAX 

RELIEF. 

(a) TEMPORARY EXTENSION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 901(a)(1) of the 

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

2013’’. 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by this subsection shall take effect as 

if included in the enactment of the Economic 

Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

2001. 

(b) APPLICATION TO CERTAIN HIGH-INCOME

TAXPAYERS.— 

(1) INCOME TAX RATES.— 

(A) TREATMENT OF 25- AND 28-PERCENT RATE

BRACKETS.—Paragraph (2) of section 1(i) is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(2) 25- AND 28-PERCENT RATE BRACKETS.— 

The tables under subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), 

and (e) shall be applied— 

‘‘(A) by substituting ‘25%’ for ‘28%’ each 

place it appears (before the application of 

subparagraph (B)), and 

‘‘(B) by substituting ‘28%’ for ‘31%’ each 

place it appears.’’. 

(B) 33-PERCENT RATE BRACKET.—Subsection 

(i) of section 1 is amended by redesignating 

paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 

paragraph: 

‘‘(3) 33-PERCENT RATE BRACKET.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2012— 

‘‘(i) the rate of tax under subsections (a), 

(b), (c), and (d) on a taxpayer’s taxable income in the fourth rate bracket shall be 33 

percent to the extent such income does not 

exceed an amount equal to the excess of— 

‘‘(I) the applicable amount, over 

‘‘(II) the dollar amount at which such 

bracket begins, and 

‘‘(ii) the 36 percent rate of tax under such 

subsections shall apply only to the taxpayer’s taxable income in such bracket in excess of the amount to which clause (i) applies. 

‘‘(B) APPLICABLE AMOUNT.—For purposes of 

this paragraph, the term ‘applicable amount’ 

means the excess of— 

‘‘(i) the applicable threshold, over 

‘‘(ii) the sum of the following amounts in 

effect for the taxable year: 

‘‘(I) the basic standard deduction (within 

the meaning of section 63(c)(2)), and 

‘‘(II) the exemption amount (within the 

meaning of section 151(d)(1) (or, in the case 

of subsection (a), 2 such exemption 

amounts). 

‘‘(C) APPLICABLE THRESHOLD.—For purposes 

of this paragraph, the term ‘applicable 

threshold’ means— 

‘‘(i) $250,000 in the case of subsection (a), 

‘‘(ii) $225,000 in the case of subsection (b), 

‘‘(iii) $200,000 in the case of subsections (c), 

and 

‘‘(iv) 1⁄2 the amount applicable under clause 

(i) (after adjustment, if any, under subparagraph (E)) in the case of subsection (d). 

‘‘(D) FOURTH RATE BRACKET.—For purposes 

of this paragraph, the term ‘fourth rate 

bracket’ means the bracket which would (determined without regard to this paragraph) 

be the 36-percent rate bracket. 

‘‘(E) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—For purposes 

of this paragraph, with respect to taxable 

years beginning in calendar years after 2012, 

each of the dollar amounts under clauses (i), 

(ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (C) shall be adjusted in the same manner as under paragraph (1)(C), except that subsection (f)(3)(B) 

shall be applied by substituting ‘2008’ for 

‘1992’.’’. 

(2) PHASEOUT OF PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS AND

ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS.— 

(A) OVERALL LIMITATION ON ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS.—Section 68 is amended— 

(i) by striking ‘‘the applicable amount’’ the 

first place it appears in subsection (a) and inserting ‘‘the applicable threshold in effect 

under section 1(i)(3)’’, 

(ii) by striking ‘‘the applicable amount’’ in 

subsection (a)(1) and inserting ‘‘such applicable threshold’’, 

(iii) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively, and 

(iv) by striking subsections (f) and (g). 

(B) PHASEOUT OF DEDUCTIONS FOR PERSONAL

EXEMPTIONS.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 

151(d) is amended— 

(I) by striking ‘‘the threshold amount’’ in 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting ‘‘the 

applicable threshold in effect under section 

1(i)(3)’’, 

(II) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph 

(C), and 

(III) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F). 

(ii) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Paragraph 

(4) of section 151(d) is amended— 

(I) by striking subparagraph (B), 

(II) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) of 

subparagraph (A) as subparagraphs (A) and 

(B), respectively, and by indenting such subparagraphs (as so redesignated) accordingly, 

and 

(III) by striking all that precedes ‘‘in a calendar year after 1989,’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(4) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the case of 

any taxable year beginning’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as otherwise 

provided, the amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning 

after December 31, 2012. 

(d) APPLICATION OF EGTRRA SUNSET.— 

Each amendment made by subsection (b) 

shall be subject to title IX of the Economic 

Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

2001 to the same extent and in the same manner as if such amendment was included in 

title I of such Act. 

SEC. 102. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2003 TAX 

RELIEF. 

(a) EXTENSION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 303 of the Jobs 

and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

2003 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 

2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2013’’. 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by this subsection shall take effect as 

if included in the enactment of the Jobs and 

Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 

2003. 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5589 

(b) 20-PERCENT CAPITAL GAINS RATE FOR

CERTAIN HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 

1(h) is amended by striking subparagraph 

(C), by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and 

(E) as subparagraphs (E) and (F) and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following 

new subparagraphs: 

‘‘(C) 15 percent of the lesser of— 

‘‘(i) so much of the adjusted net capital 

gain (or, if less, taxable income) as exceeds 

the amount on which a tax is determined 

under subparagraph (B), or 

‘‘(ii) the excess (if any) of— 

‘‘(I) the amount of taxable income which 

would (without regard to this paragraph) be 

taxed at a rate below 36 percent, over 

‘‘(II) the sum of the amounts on which a 

tax is determined under subparagraphs (A) 

and (B), 

‘‘(D) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital 

gain (or, if less, taxable income) in excess of 

the sum of the amounts on which tax is determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C),’’. 

(2) MINIMUM TAX.—Section 55 is amended 

by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(f) 20-PERCENT CAPITAL GAINS RATE FOR

CERTAIN HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any individual, if the taxpayer’s taxable income for 

the taxable year exceeds the applicable 

amount determined under section 1(i) with 

respect to such taxpayer for such taxable 

year, the amount determined under paragraph (2) shall be substituted for the amount 

determined under subsection (b)(3)(C) for 

purposes of determining the taxpayer’s tentative minimum tax for such taxable year. 

‘‘(2) DETERMINATION OF 20-PERCENT CAPITAL

GAINS RATE.—The amount determined under 

this paragraph is the sum of— 

‘‘(A) 15 percent of the lesser of— 

‘‘(i) so much of the adjusted net capital 

gain (or, if less, taxable excess) as exceeds 

the amount on which tax is determined 

under subsection (b)(3)(B), or 

‘‘(ii) the excess described in section 

1(h)(1)(C)(ii), plus 

‘‘(B) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital 

gain (or, if less, taxable excess) in excess of 

the sum of the amounts on which tax is determined under subparagraph (A) and subsection (b)(3)(B).’’. 

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

(1) The following provisions are each 

amended by striking ‘‘15 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘20 percent’’: 

(A) Section 531. 

(B) Section 541. 

(C) Section 1445(e)(1). 

(D) The second sentence of section 

7518(g)(6)(A). 

(E) Section 53511(f)(2) of title 46, United 

States Code. 

(2) Section 1445(e)(6) is amended by striking ‘‘15 percent (20 percent in the case of taxable years beginning after December 31, 

2010)’’ and inserting ‘‘20 percent’’. 

(d) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided, the amendments made by subsections 

(b) and (c) shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. 

(2) WITHHOLDING.—The amendments made 

by paragraphs (1)(C) and (2) of subsection (c) 

shall apply to amounts paid on or after January 1, 2013. 

(e) APPLICATION OF JGTRRA SUNSET.— 

Each amendment made by subsections (b) 

and (c) shall be subject to section 303 of the 

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation 

Act of 2003 to the same extent and in the 

same manner as if such amendment was included in title III of such Act. 

SEC. 103. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 2010 TAX 

RELIEF. 

(a) AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 25A(i) is amended 

by striking ‘‘or 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘2012, or 

2013’’. 

(2) TREATMENT OF POSSESSIONS.—Section 

1004(c)(1) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 is 

amended by striking ‘‘and 2012’’ each place it 

appears and inserting ‘‘2012, and 2013’’. 

(b) CHILD TAX CREDIT.—Section 24(d)(4) is 

amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘AND 2012’’ in the heading 

and inserting ‘‘2012, AND 2013’’, and 

(2) by striking ‘‘or 2012’’ and inserting 

‘‘2012, or 2013’’. 

(c) EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.—Section 

32(b)(3) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘AND 2012’’ in the heading 

and inserting ‘‘2012, AND 2013’’, and 

(2) by striking ‘‘or 2012’’ and inserting 

‘‘2012, or 2013’’. 

(d) TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF RULE DISREGARDING REFUNDS IN THE ADMINISTRATION

OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS.—Subsection (b) of section 

6409 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 

2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2013’’. 

(e) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

paragraph (2), the amendments made by this 

section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. 

(2) RULE DISREGARDING REFUNDS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN PROGRAMS.—The 

amendment made by subsection (d) shall 

apply to amounts received after December 

31, 2012. 

SEC. 104. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF ELECTION 

TO EXPENSE CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

(1) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—Section 179(b)(1) is 

amended— 

(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (C), 

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as 

subparagraph (E), 

(C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the 

following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(D) $250,000 in the case of taxable years 

beginning in 2013, and’’, and 

(D) in subparagraph (E), as so redesignated, 

by striking ‘‘2012’’ and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

(2) REDUCTION IN LIMITATION.—Section 

179(b)(2) is amended— 

(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (C), 

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as 

subparagraph (E), 

(C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the 

following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(D) $800,000 in the case of taxable years 

beginning in 2013, and’’, and 

(D) in subparagraph (E), as so redesignated, 

by striking ‘‘2012’’ and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

(b) COMPUTER SOFTWARE.—Section 

179(d)(1)(A)(ii) is amended by striking ‘‘2013’’ 

and inserting ‘‘2014’’. 

(c) ELECTION.—Section 179(c)(2) is amended 

by striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2014’’. 

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2012. 

TITLE II—ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX 

RELIEF 

SEC. 201. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM 

TAX EXEMPTION AMOUNT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 

55(d) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$72,450’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2011’’ in subparagraph (A) and 

inserting ‘‘$78,750 in the case of taxable years 

beginning in 2012’’, and 

(2) by striking ‘‘$47,450’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2011’’ in subparagraph (B) and 

inserting ‘‘$50,600 in the case of taxable years 

beginning in 2012’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2011. 

SEC. 202. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR 

NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 

26(a) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘or 2011’’ and inserting 

‘‘2011, or 2012’’, and 

(2) by striking ‘‘2011’’ in the heading thereof 

and inserting ‘‘2012’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2011. 

TITLE III—TREATMENT FOR PAYGO 

PURPOSES 

SEC. 301. TREATMENT FOR PAYGO PURPOSES. 

The budgetary effects of this Act shall not 

be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 747, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN) and 

a Member opposed each will control 10 

minutes. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I claim the 

time in opposition. 

Mr. LEVIN. Could the Chair be clear 

as to who has the right to close on this 

amendment? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CAMP) has 

the right to close. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN). 

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to 

another Member of our committee, the 

distinguished gentleman from Georgia 

(Mr. LEWIS). 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to 

thank Mr. LEVIN for yielding. 

After 2 years of talking about spending cuts and deficit reduction, Republicans somehow believe it is wise to fill 

the pockets of each and every millionaire in America with an additional 

$160,000 tax cut. We’ve been here before. 

This is the same picture. Mr. Speaker, 

we all know what this is about. This is 

about two competing visions of America. The Democratic vision is opportunity for all Americans to prosper, 

while the Republican vision reserves 

prosperity for the select few. 

That is not right, Mr. Speaker. That 

is not fair. That is not just. American 

hardworking families need tax relief, 

and they need it now. Not tomorrow, 

not next week, not next month, not 

next year, but now. If you believe in a 

strong, solid middle class, vote ‘‘no’’ on 

this bill. If you believe in American opportunity, vote ‘‘no’’ on this bill. If 

you’re serious about reducing the deficit, vote ‘‘no’’ on this bill. I urge all of 

my colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’ on this bill 

and to vote ‘‘yes’’ on the Levin amendment. It is simply the right thing to 

do. 

We can do much better by voting for 

the Levin amendment. It is the right 

thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. It 

is the just thing to do. We should do it 

and do it now. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Let me just say that this substitute 

increases taxes, and it increases taxes 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5590 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

on small businesses, the very sector 

that we need to be growing to bring us 

out of this recession. It does not include tax reform. There’s no path to 

tax reform. Our Tax Code has had 5,000 

changes in the last decade. The complexity is making it difficult for Americans to know what their responsibilities are. They suspect others get a better deal under the Tax Code because of 

the complexity. If we can take that 

away and move to a system that has a 

lower rate, revenue neutral, that closes 

off some of these 5,000 changes that 

have been made in the last few years, 

we can create a million jobs in the first 

year alone. 

One of the things that led us into this 

recession is the housing crisis. Here we 

have a letter from the National Association of Home Builders saying that 

housing can be a key engine of job 

growth that this country needs. However, the recovery we’re seeing remains 

fragile. As the rest of the economy is 

experiencing softening conditions, now 

would be the worst time to raise taxes. 

The National Association of Home 

Builders believes that lower rates, simplification, and a fair system will spur 

economic growth and increase competitiveness. That’s good for housing, because housing not only equals jobs, but 

jobs mean more demand for housing. 

This is just one area that if we raise 

taxes, as this substitute attempts to 

do, we’re going to really close off what 

little recovery we’ve been seeing, and 

obviously it’s been very anemic. Economic growth is just over 1 percent. 

We need to be the best country in the 

world. We need to have the strongest 

country in the world. We need to have 

the best Tax Code in the world. Raising 

taxes on one segment, one group of 

Americans against another is not the 

way to get America’s greatness back. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to 

the gentleman from New York (Mr. 

CROWLEY). 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 

support of the Democratic substitute 

on this tax provision. 

I have tremendous respect for Chairman CAMP and the members of the 

Ways and Means Committee, but I 

would like to note that not a single one 

of my colleagues on the other side of 

the aisle refuted what I spoke about before, about the fact that if the Republican tax bill were to pass, as opposed 

to the Democratic tax bill, there would 

be an increase in taxes on 225,000 military men and women, many of whom 

are in Active Duty overseas as we 

speak. 

I mentioned in my remarks that 

under the Democratic bill, the EITC 

rate, the earned income tax credit 

under the bill would afford a sergeant 

in our Army today with 8 years of service, married and with three children, 

and has a basic pay of $34,723, would receive under the Democratic plan an 

EITC benefit of $3,508. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

b 1650 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman 1 

additional minute. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I want to be very 

clear about this, Mr. Speaker. The 

earned income tax credit under the Republican bill would only be $2,390. Now 

when I do the math, that means that 

under the Republican bill, that sergeant and his or her family would have 

a $1,118 tax increase. You can’t get 

around it. Those are the facts. Those 

are the numbers. They speak loud and 

clear. And not a single one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

refuted that. 

We have refuted the $250,000 issue as 

it pertains to small business owners. 

The reality is, the men and women on 

the front lines defending this democracy, defending our freedom, defending 

our way of life, allowing for small businessmen and -women to prosper in this 

country, they’re not worth a tax break. 

Your bill increases taxes on our military men and women. There’s no getting around it. A vote for the Republican bill is a vote to increase taxes on 

military men and women. A vote for 

the Democratic substitute is a tax cut 

for our military men and women. 

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time 

as I may consume. 

I don’t have to refute what the Member from New York said because the 

nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has already done that. They’ve 

said the matters the gentleman is talking about are not tax increases. Those 

are spending through the Tax Code. 

That spending was put into the stimulus bill. We know how unsuccessful 

that was in lowering our unemployment rate below 8 percent, as was 

promised. 

So at this time, I yield 2 minutes to 

the distinguished gentleman from New 

York (Mr. REED). 

Mr. REED. I thank the chairman for 

yielding. 

I rise in opposition to the substitute 

amendment that we’re debating here, 

Mr. Speaker. The reason why is, it’s 

clear the Democratic substitute 

amendment that we’re discussing is a 

further expansion of tax increases that 

the Senate passed recently. I’m opposed to those tax increases. 

We’re dealing with a situation where 

the proposed amendment will raise the 

estate tax and take 55 percent of our 

hardworking Americans’ assets when 

they pass away. They are raising taxes 

on dividends and capital gains at a 

time when senior citizens rely on those 

most in these dire economic times. 

They also seek to raise taxes on those 

making $200,000 to $250,000 and above. 

Raising taxes on those individuals goes 

right to the heart of our small businesses across America, coast to coast, 

North to South. 

In this dire economic time, I actually 

agree with President Obama when he 

signed the tax rates in December 2010, 

when he said, In dire economic times, 

we don’t raise taxes on Americans. 

I just ask my colleagues to join me 

and say, Reject this substitute, freeze 

the Tax Code, and deal with the issue 

of comprehensive tax reform over the 

next 12 months, and put no Americans 

in harm in having their tax bill increased at the end of this year. 

Mr. LEVIN. It’s now my real pleasure 

to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 

from Connecticut (Mr. LARSON) who is 

the chair of our caucus and an active 

member of our committee. 

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank 

the distinguished ranking member. 

This debate today is extraordinarily 

informative. This isn’t about Democrats or Republicans. This is about saving and preserving our middle class. 

Lauren Mishkin from Connecticut, a 

mother who recently came up to talk 

to me about student loans, said, ‘‘When 

only the rich can follow their dreams, 

we have a problem.’’ 

So here today, we face a very clear 

choice that I think all Americans understand. We should be able to come together as Democrats and Republicans 

and provide a tax break for everyone 

up to $250,000. Lauren was right: we 

have a problem. 

A constituent of mine said, ‘‘How is 

it that the Congress doesn’t understand 

that what they’re doing is throwing all 

of us into the deep abyss of uncertainty?’’ It’s that deep abyss of uncertainty that all Americans are concerned about. And what they want is 

for us to come together. 

We know that we have a bill that has 

passed the Senate, a bill that the President will sign, a bill that we virtually 

agree on on both sides of the aisle. So 

what really frustrates the American 

citizens and the people in my district is 

that we can’t come together. 

I implore my colleagues on the other 

side, don’t plunge us further into this 

dark abyss. Do the things that the 

wealthy amongst us have more than 

the ability to shoulder and make sure 

that we all come together, as Americans, and do the right thing on behalf 

of our constituents. That’s what the 

Lauren Mishkins want, that’s the kind 

of dream that we need to provide for all 

American citizens, and that’s what this 

country desperately needs—a Congress 

that will take leadership. 

There are times when you need to 

step aside, and there are times when 

you need to step up. We need to step up 

as a Congress and pass this Democratic 

substitute. 

Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the 

gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. 

BLACK), a distinguished member of the 

Ways and Means Committee. 

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, as I have 

been back in the district talking to my 

constituents and visiting many of the 

businesses and the job creators in the 

district, I have continued to hear from 

them that if we place one more tax increase on them, they’re just not sure 

that they can survive. 

Now these are good people that I go 

to the grocery store with, that I go to 

church with. I know how hard they’re 

working, and I know how hard their 

families are working in order to keep 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5591 

businesses going within our community. And when we know that two out 

of every three jobs are created by a 

small businessman or -woman, we impact those very folks who are creating 

the jobs for so many people in the district. 

I hear this over and over again. And 

they look at me and say, Diane, please 

go back to Congress and please relay 

this to the Members of Congress, that 

we need to make sure that we have the 

certainty and that we don’t impact 

them and their businesses so that they 

have to close down and, once again, increase the amount of unemployment. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman 

an additional 30 seconds. 

Mrs. BLACK. My colleagues on the 

other side of the aisle do not have a 

plan. Their plan is to increase the 

taxes on this group of people. 

Second to that are those who continue to say to me—especially those 

who are looking at planning for their 

families for the future, of what they’re 

going to leave for them—they’re not 

going to be able to leave those things 

that they’ve worked so hard for because the estate taxes are going to go 

up. 

We cannot do this to the people in 

my district. I’m going to be here to 

fight for that. 

Mr. LEVIN. I would ask my colleague 

from Michigan how many further requests for time do you have left? 

Mr. CAMP. I am prepared to close. 

Mr. LEVIN. It’s now my privilege to 

yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 

California, our distinguished leader. 

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding. I also thank him for his 

legislation on the floor today, to 

strengthen the backbone of our democracy, the great American middle class. 

Today we can do just that by passing 

President Obama’s middle-income tax 

cut, which is on the floor today as the 

Levin substitute. It has already passed 

the Senate and could be signed into law 

by the President before the weekend. 

We have an opportunity. We have an 

opportunity to give a tax cut to 100 

percent of the American people. We 

have an opportunity to relieve some of 

the uncertainty that exists in our 

economy as to how we are going to pay 

the bills and how America’s working 

families are going to pay the bills. 

We have an opportunity for fairness, 

which is an all-American value, for 

fairness for our families, for our businesses, and for our budget. We must 

not—as some people always accuse 

Congress of doing—miss an opportunity. 

b 1700 

We have to take advantage of the opportunity that is here today. The bill 

provides for fairness for the middle 

class and certainty, as I mentioned. 

The Republican alternative says not 

only do we want to give 100 percent of 

the American people a tax cut; we want 

to give a bigger and better tax cut to 

people making over $250,000 a year ,2 

percent of the American people. In 

order to do that, we greatly increase 

the deficit which would incur borrowing from other countries, including 

China. And to top it all off, in order to 

give a tax cut to the wealthiest people 

in our country, we have to increase 

taxes for the middle class in order to 

pay for that. If you make over $1 million a year, the Republican tax proposal will give you a tax cut of $160,000 

on average. And on average, America’s 

middle-income families would have to 

pay $1,000 more in taxes. 

You know, we work for the American 

people. You are our bosses. So as our 

bosses, what would you instruct us to 

do when it comes to reducing the deficit, giving a tax cut to 100 percent of 

the American people, which will inject 

demand into the economy and therefore create jobs. So we are reducing the 

deficit. We’re creating jobs, and we’re 

having fairness as a principle as to how 

we go forward. 

Make no mistake, by refusing to vote 

for the Senate-passed bill, House Republicans are giving more tax breaks 

to the richest 2 percent, tax breaks 

they don’t need and we can’t afford. At 

the same time they cut taxes for the 

rich, as I said, they would raise an average of $1,000 on 25 million American 

families, families who rely on that 

money for day-to-day needs to pay 

their bills. That isn’t fair, and Democrats will fight to prevent these tax increases on middle-income families in 

order to give a tax break to the 

wealthiest people in our country. 

Today is a day when we can end some 

uncertainty. People talk about the 

cliff. We are going to go over the cliff 

come January. Let’s not even go anywhere near the edge of that cliff. Let’s 

pass this bill today. It will save just 

under $1 trillion because we’re not giving those tax cuts to the high end. 

That is almost all the money that is 

needed to avoid the sequestration come 

January. So again, we are addressing 

the uncertainty not only in the lives of 

the American people, but in the life of 

our economy. 

Or today is the day that Republicans 

will continue to hold the middle class 

hostage to tax cuts for the wealthiest 

people in our country. 

I urge my colleagues to join Mr. 

LEVIN, join the President of the United 

States, join all of us. There isn’t a person in this room, in this body, I think, 

who doesn’t support tax cuts for the 

middle class. Why can’t we just do 

that, do what we can agree upon right 

now, tax cut by the weekend, alleviating uncertainty for our economy as 

we go forward, and then we can have a 

debate about what a Tax Code should 

look like that has fairness, simplification, and again keeps us competitive, 

innovative, and, number one, allows 

the private sector to create jobs. 

Again, jobs, jobs, jobs. 

We will reduce that deficit by having 

additional revenue, by creating growth, 

by addressing spending so we are investing in those initiatives that grow 

our economy. Pretty soon when we end 

this debate, it will be around the time 

when America’s families will sit down 

for dinner at the kitchen table or wherever, and they will have these discussions about how they pay the bills, the 

bills to stay in their home or their 

apartment, wherever. Discussions on 

how they will pay for their children’s 

education, how their pensions are affected by all of this. The list goes on 

and on. 

With one vote, we can alleviate that 

uncertainty. We’re not going to eliminate it, but we can lessen it. We have 

that responsibility. Let’s not miss an 

opportunity to do just that. 

So I thank you, Mr. LEVIN, for your 

leadership and members of the committee for all of your hard work. 

Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of 

my time to close. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time. 

There are a few undisputed facts. 

Small business—97 percent of small 

businesses will receive all of their tax 

cut. Don’t listen to the propaganda to 

the contrary. Everyone will receive 

their tax cuts up to $250,000 of income. 

Don’t listen to propaganda that says 

otherwise. And income over $1 million, 

for those who have that, would receive 

under the Republican bill 70 times 

more than the typical family. And 

when the two bills are combined, 150 

times more than the typical family. 

Let me say just a word about tax reform, which I favor. It’s being used as 

an argument for inaction. But, look, 

let’s be realistic. No matter who controls the Congress next year, there 

won’t be tax reform until maybe the 

spring or the summer. So are you going 

to use that same argument for tax reform, say, in a lame duck against middle-income tax cuts? Or in January, are 

you going to use the same argument? 

Are you going to use tax reform as a 

shield to protect the high-income taxpayer? In a word, the Republican bill is 

a path to nowhere for middle-income 

taxpayers. 

Our substitute is a sure path. Pass it. 

The Senate already has. The President 

will sign it. Act now. Vote for the substitute. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. 

Mr. Speaker, as I travel around 

Michigan and my district, the Fourth 

Congressional District of Michigan, I 

often hear from many families that 

they think America is at a crossroads. 

They really question is the American 

Dream, is that dream that their children and grandchildren are going to 

have the opportunities that they had, 

is that dream still alive for their kids 

and their grandkids? The reason they 

ask that is because we’ve been on the 

economic path that the majority has 

established for the last 3 years, and 

we’ve seen the slowest recovery from 

any recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment is still too high. I 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5592 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

think maybe being from Michigan, I’m 

particularly sensitive to that because 

we’ve had tough times for more than a 

decade. We need to get people back to 

work. We need to get jobs growing in 

this country. 

There’s really a choice: Which path 

are we going to be on? Which road are 

we going to take? Which lane are we 

going to be in? Are we going to be in 

the lane where we just simply raise 

taxes? No matter what segment it is, I 

don’t care, just name the segment, but 

one that we know will cost us 700,000 

jobs? 

Or will we go down a path where we 

extend current law for 1 year, as many 

bipartisan experts have called for. Even 

President Bill Clinton has called for it. 

The President’s former economic adviser, Larry Summers, has said let’s 

extend current law for a year. Let’s 

take the uncertainty out. And in the 20 

hearings we’ve had on tax reform this 

year in the Ways and Means Committee, so many employers, so many 

tax experts, so many independent 

groups have come forward and said the 

uncertainty of all of this expiring tax 

policy is causing a huge problem. 

And my friends would say, well, if 

only we’d raise taxes on people and 

small businesses and others who make 

$250,000, that’ll solve our problems. 

Well, it won’t. It’s just a piece of it. 

The Tax Code is so complex, with 5,000 

changes over the last decade. I often 

say it’s 10 times larger than the Bible, 

with none of the good news. 

The burden that this Tax Code is 

placing on our economy, it’s a huge 

wet blanket. Our GDP growth is just 

barely over 1 percent, the gross domestic product. Our economy is not growing enough; and if we don’t grow our 

economy, we can’t create the jobs that 

we need so desperately. 

b 1710 

Let’s work together. Let’s pass this 

1-year extension. Tomorrow, we have a 

package that will lay out our principles for comprehensive tax reform 

that will also lay out a process to expedite this next year in the House and 

Senate. We’ve been working with the 

Senate to establish these procedures. 

They will go through regular committee in an open and transparent way, 

not just roll a bill out on the floor and 

say, oh, if we only ding that one segment, things will be okay. Let’s do this 

the right way. 

This is the greatest country in the 

world. Let’s make this the greatest 

economic power in the world. Let’s reform our Tax Code for the first time in 

26 years. Let’s make it a pro-growth, 

modern code that lets our U.S. companies compete around the world, lowers 

its rates and makes it simpler for people to file their taxes, lessens that burden, lessens that uncertainty and creates 1 million jobs in the first year 

alone. 

It’s very clear which path we need to 

choose. Reject this substitute. Support 

H.R. 8. Get on the right path. Get on 

the path to job creation. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker. 

I rise in strong support of H.R. 15, and ask my 

colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come 

together in support of H.R. 15, the Democratic 

alternative offered by our colleague from the 

Ways and Means Committee, Mr. LEVIN. 

I have consistently supported and voted for 

middle class tax cuts, as I did two years ago 

when I voted for the Middle Class Tax Relief 

Act of 2010, and the extension of unemployment benefits. 

The intelligent Democratic substitute offered 

by my Ways and Means colleague temporarily 

extends for one year, through 2013, the reduced tax rates and other tax benefits enacted 

in 2001 and 2003 that expire on Dec. 31—but 

only for income levels below $250,000 for joint 

tax returns and $200,000 for individuals. This 

is smart tax policy which acknowledges the 

deficit problem but does not squelch tax benefits for those most in need. 

It also extends the expanded education tax 

credit, child tax credit and earned income tax 

credit benefits that were included in the 2009 

stimulus law and extended in the 2010 tax extension law; those provisions unfortunately are 

not included in H.R. 8. 

On the other hand, the Democratic proposal 

does the following: 

TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF TAX RELIEF

One-year extension of marginal individual 

income tax rate reductions for middle-class 

taxpayers. 

One-year extension of repeal of the overall 

limitation on itemized deductions (‘‘Pease’’) 

and the personal exemption phase-out 

(‘‘PEP’’) for middle-class taxpayers. 

One-year extension of EGTRRA and ARRA 

improvements to child tax credit. 

One-year extension of marriage penalty relief for middle-class taxpayers. 

One-year extension of earned income tax 

credit simplification and increase. 

One-year extension of education tax incentives. 

One-year extension of tax benefits for families and children. 

One-year extension of reduced maximum 

rate for capital gains and qualified dividend income for middle-class taxpayers. 

One-year extension of the American Opportunity Tax Credit (‘‘AOTC’’). One-year extension of enhanced small business expensing. 

The measure provides a one-year ‘‘patch’’ 

to prevent the alternative minimum tax (AMT) 

from affecting millions of additional taxpayers 

and allows small businesses to deduct an increased amount of their capital expenditures 

for another year. It does not extend current 

estate tax provisions, which set a maximum 

estate tax rate of 35% with an exemption 

amount of $5 million. 

I am deeply saddened that the fate of unemployed, low and middle income Americans 

has been held hostage by the insistence by 

Republicans that this legislation include a 

giveaway to the wealthiest 2% of Americans 

that is going to irresponsibly expand the already large deficit. 

I have spoken to and heard from many fine, 

patriotic, hardworking middle income Americans from Houston, from the great state of 

Texas, and all across the nation. Middle class 

American families and small businesses are 

deeply concerned about our troubled economy, the skyrocketing national deficit, high unemployment rates, job creation, and sorely 

needed extension of the tax relief and unemployment benefits set to expire at the end of 

this month. 

The Republican bill temporarily extends for 

one year, through 2013, all the reduced tax 

rates and other tax benefits enacted in 2001 

and 2003 that are scheduled to expire on Dec. 

31. The measure maintains the maximum estate tax rate of 35% while retaining the exemption amount of $5 million, provides a twoyear ‘‘patch’’ to prevent the alternative minimum tax (AMT) from hitting over 27 million 

taxpayers and allows small businesses to deduct an increased amount of their capital expenditures for another year. 

I feel like we have been down this path before and I recall many of my colleagues staking a claim to fiscal responsibility. Well, I ask 

in all sincerity, which bill is more fiscally responsible: H.R. 8, which blows a hole in the 

deficit, or H.R. 15, the Democratic alternative 

which keeps the Bush Tax rates in place for 

the people who truly need tax relief. 

This is the same Republican Congress 

which has asked for a balanced budget 

amendment. It has codified the Joint Select 

Committee on Deficit Reduction, which is possibly unconstitutional, and has had no impact 

on jobs and the unemployment problem. Yet 

today they want us to vote on a tax increase 

for the top 2 percent. This illustrates what happens when Congress does not work together 

in a bipartisan manner, laboring for the American people. We must work together and compromise. 

The Senate gave us a layup by producing a 

bill last week which is virtually identical to the 

Democratic Substitute. All we have to do is act 

like Olympians and pass it. 

The American people are asking the President and Members of Congress to move swiftly and take decisive action to help restore our 

economy in a fiscally responsible manner. I 

am disappointed that Republicans have insisted on holding tax cuts for working and middle class families hostage in order to benefit 

the wealthiest 2% of Americans. 

I would like to thank President Obama for 

his determined leadership, support and commitment to protecting important tax relief 

issues for middle-income Americans and the 

nation’s small businesses and farmers during 

these challenging economic times. I would 

also like to thank all the Members and their 

staff who worked diligently to bring this essential legislation to the House floor today in an 

attempt to do all that we can to protect the 

American people and move this nation toward 

fiscally responsible economic recovery. 

I support those provisions of H.R. 8 which 

provide relief for middle-class families and 

small businesses who will see their taxes go 

down and get much needed certainty. But I 

cannot in good conscience support tax relief 

for millionaires and billionaires at a time when 

others need help just to make ends meet. 

Unlike those provisions of H.R. 8 which benefit America’s struggling middle class, I do not 

support the provisions of this legislation which 

condition that desperately needed relief upon 

the unconscionably high cost of providing an 

unnecessary, expensive giveaway to the 

wealthiest Americans by providing a two year 

extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans while keeping their estate tax rate at 35% on estates valued at more 

than $5 million for individuals and more than 

$10 million for couples. 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5593 

These giveaways to the wealthiest Americans during these dire economic times needlessly add billions of dollars to our skyrocketing deficit yet create no value for our ailing economy since these tax cuts are not tied 

to job creation and preservation. 

ESTATE TAX AMENDMENT

I offered an amendment that would have set 

the Estate Tax at reasonable levels. My 

amendment would have allowed estates valued at $3.5 million or less to pay 35 percent, 

estates valued between $3.5 million and $10 

million to pay a 45 percent rate, and estates 

over $10 million to pay a 55 percent rate. This 

commonsense amendment would have restored a sense of fairness to H.R. 8. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the 2009 estate tax rules already are extremely generous, tilting in favor of the 

wealthy. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 

if policymakers reinstated the 2009 rules: 

The estates of 99.7 percent of Americans 

who die would owe no estate tax at all in 

2013. Only the estates of the wealthiest 0.29 

percent of Americans who die—about 7,450 

people nationwide in 2013—would owe any 

tax. 

Moreover, under the 2009 rules, the small 

number of estates that were taxable would 

face an average effective tax rate of 19.1 percent, far below the statutory estate-tax rate of 

45 percent. In other words, 81 percent of the 

value of these estates would remain after the 

tax, on average. An estate tax that exempts 

the estates of 997 of every 1,000 people who 

die and leaves in place an average of 81 percent of the very wealthiest estates is hardly a 

confiscatory or oppressive tax. 

Moreover, only 60 small farm and business 

estates in the entire country would owe any 

estate tax in 2013, under a reinstatement of 

the 2009 rules, and these estates would face 

an average effective tax rate of just 11.6 percent. Failing to tie tax cuts to job creation is 

irresponsible since it exacerbates our growing 

deficit without bolstering job creation. 

My amendment does not address the stepup in basis. The exemption level and rate are 

consistent with parts of the estate tax proposal 

included in the President’s FY2010 and 

FY2011 Budgets and H.R 16, the intelligent 

estate tax proposal being put forth by my colleague Mr. LEVIN of the Ways and Means 

Committee. 

CLASSROOM EXPENSE DEDUCTION AMENDMENT

My second amendment would have provided tax relief to school teachers by providing 

them a deduction for qualified out-of-pocket 

classroom expenses of $250 dollars, whether 

or not they itemize their deductions. You may 

recall Mr. Speaker that the President included 

this proposal in his Budget for Fiscal Year 

2013. 

I understand the tremendous personal costs 

incurred by educators with little or no classroom budget. According to a 2006 National 

School Supply and Equipment Association Retail Awareness Study, teachers spend an average of $493 out of pocket on school supplies 

for their own classrooms. 

7 percent of teachers surveyed said they 

plan to spend more than $1,000 of their personal finances on supplies. As education 

budgets face major shortfalls in the recession, 

that amount is expected to increase significantly. 

Beginning in 2002 the IRS allowed for an 

above-the-line deduction for classroom expenses of up to $250. The educator expense 

deduction allows teachers to write off some 

expenses that they incur to provide books, 

supplies, and other equipment and materials 

for their classrooms. I introduced this amendment and would like to acknowledge the work 

of my colleagues who have put forth legislation advocating this deduction. America’s 

teachers from Texas to Maine to Florida to 

Washington deserve our renewed appreciation 

for their commitment to educating future generations. 

Our children should not have to suffer because our teachers are given a Hobson’s 

Choice, forced to choose between using their 

own finances to effectively teach a class or 

forced to cut corners due to budgetary restrictions. We promote an increased quality of 

education by lessening the financial burden on 

them when they are trying to go above and 

beyond their responsibilities is certainly warranted. 

While I am opposed to the portions of H.R. 

8 that amount to an expensive giveaway to 

the wealthiest 2% of Americans, I want to emphasize that I fully support job-creation and 

job creators. I also support President Obama’s 

vision for change. I share his commitment to 

fighting for low- and middle-income Americans 

who are the backbone of this country and our 

economy. 

However, this legislation, H.R. 8, especially 

as it pertains to tax cuts for the top 2% of 

Americans and estate tax provisions that are 

regressive and inflate the deficit, does not 

comport with this vision. I have serious misgivings about extending tax cuts for the 

wealthiest Americans at the expense of our 

deficit, especially if these tax cuts are not targeted towards job creation. 

DEFICIT AND TAXATION

You may recall that in the Budget, the Administration calls for individual tax reform that: 

cuts the deficit by $1.5 trillion, including the 

expiration of the high-income 2001 and 2003 

tax cuts. As a matter of sound fiscal policy, I 

am supportive of this 15 effort. I recognize the 

putative economic benefits that many attribute 

to the Bush Tax Cuts, but we must ask ourselves are they affordable? There is no 

amount of dynamic scoring that will help penetrate the deficit. 

The President’s budget also eliminated inefficient and unfair tax breaks for millionaires 

while making all tax breaks at least as good 

for the middle class as for the wealthy; and 

observes the Buffett Rule that no household 

making more than $1 million a year pays less 

than 30 percent of their income in taxes. 

The individual income tax is a hodgepodge 

of deductions, exemptions, and credits that 

provide special benefits to selected groups of 

taxpayers and favored forms of consumption 

and investment. These tax preferences make 

the income tax unfair because they can impose radically different burdens on two different taxpayers with the same income. In essence, Congress has been picking winners 

and losers. 

There is absolutely no justification for huge 

tax cuts. The wealthiest tax brackets should 

not profit at the expense of programs keeping 

struggling families from poverty. 

Bear in mind, the Republican’s 2012 budget 

cut $2 trillion dollars more than President 

Obama’s Debt Commission advised, and 

those cuts come from vital social services and 

safety nets for low income families, children 

and seniors. 

Tax expenditures also reduce the economy’s productivity because decisions on earning, spending, and investment are driven by 

tax considerations rather than the price signals 

that a well-balanced, and fair free market 

economy produces. These expenditures, 

whether for individuals or corporations, are 

really no different than the much ballyhooed 

entitlement programs, but they have cute 

names and fancy lobbyists. 

Moreover, tax expenditures make the tax 

system excessively complex for honest taxpayers who are trying to comply with the law 

while seeking the benefits to which they are 

legally entitled. 

The system is so complex that most taxpayers even those with low incomes now use 

either a professional tax preparer or tax software. A one-page form shouldn’t require a tax 

preparer who earns a percentage of the return, or a fee. It is not justifiable, especially 

when some commentators like to point out 

that a number of taxpayers pay no tax—well 

they somehow conveniently forget to mention 

that these tax scofflaws making $30,000 dollars a year more than make up for it with a 

long list of regressive taxes at the state and 

local level. 

The alternative minimum tax, or AMT, was 

initially designed to ensure that all high-income taxpayers paid some income tax, has 

become the poster child for the tax system’s 

failure, requiring Congress to enact increasingly expensive temporary patches to prevent 

the AMT from encroaching on millions of middle class households particularly those with 

children, in a web of pointless high tax rates, 

complexity, and unfairness. 

On the deficit reduction front it is important 

to remember the economic crisis that the 

President inherited. I remember back in 2008 

and 2009, when we experienced the worst recession since the Great Depression. The 

economy actually contracted, it shrunk, at a 

rate of almost 9 percent in the fourth quarter 

of 2008. 

We lost 800,000 private-sector jobs in January of 2009 alone, and unemployment was 

surging. Those are the conditions the President inherited—the car was swerving into the 

ditch. He was not the driver, but he was asked 

to come in on literally his first day of office, 

roll-up his sleeves and figure out how to prevent the car from rolling farther down the hill. 

If you’ll recall we also faced a housing market 

that was in crisis, and we faced a financial 

market crisis as well that threatened to set off 

a global financial collapse. We have come a 

long way since then yet there is more work to 

be done. 

The cloud looming over this Congress is an 

unintended ‘‘triple-witching hour’’ of tax increases and Sequestration measures that will 

take effect at the beginning of 2013. 

The expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, the 

end of the recently extended Payroll Tax Cut, 

and increases in capital gains and dividends 

taxation will shock the conscience and wallets 

of the American people. That is why Congress 

needs to enact bi-partisan legislation that 

helps lower the deficit but does not wreck 

havoc on the financial soul of the middle 

class. 

But again, tax reform that lowers the rate, 

reduces the deficit, and does not pick winners 

and losers is not easy, but let’s not forget, if 

President Reagan and then-Speaker Tip 

O’Neill could do it in 1986, anything is possible. 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5594 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

The so-called ‘‘99ers’’ have been sincerely 

looking for work for a very long time and have 

run out of resources to provide for their families and pay their mortgages, pay their bills 

and buy food. They simply want and need a 

job to pay for these obligations. H.R. 8 proposes to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, yet fails to provide for the so-called 

‘‘99ers.’’ 

H.R. 8 unfortunately is not ready for primetime. Let us come together for the American 

people and pass the Levin Substitute—a bill 

which has already passed in the Senate. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time 

for debate has expired. 

Pursuant to the rule, the previous 

question is ordered on the bill and on 

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN). 

The question is on the amendment 

offered by the gentleman from Michigan. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the noes appeared to have it. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I 

demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 170, nays 

257, not voting 3, as follows: 

[Roll No. 543] 

YEAS—170 

Ackerman 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Garamendi 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Speier 

Stark 

Sutton 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NAYS—257 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Altmire 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Broun (GA) 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cooper 

Costa 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Cuellar 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herrera Beutler 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kissell 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

McNerney 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Owens 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (AR) 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schrader 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Walz (MN) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOT VOTING—3 

Akin Cardoza Jackson (IL) 

b 1737 

Messrs. JONES and JOHNSON of 

Ohio changed their vote from ‘‘yea’’ to 

‘‘nay.’’ 

Ms. EDWARDS, Ms. HAHN, Mrs. 

DAVIS of California, and Messrs. ELLISON, HINCHEY, and MORAN changed 

their vote from ‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’ 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the engrossment and 

third reading of the bill. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed 

and read a third time, and was read the 

third time. 

MOTION TO RECOMMIT

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have a 

motion to recommit at the desk. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the 

gentleman opposed to the bill? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, I am. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Clerk will report the motion to recommit. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Mr. DeFazio moves to recommit the bill 

H.R. 8 to the Committee on Ways and Means 

with instructions to report the same back to 

the House forthwith with the following 

amendment: 

Add at the end of the bill the following: 

SEC. 6. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) Section 2 of this Act (H.R. 8) extends 

tax cuts for millionaires instead of helping 

small businesses with tax cuts to invest in 

the future and create jobs. 

(2) Small businesses would be better served 

by ending tax breaks for millionaires and instead using that revenue to expand the small 

business expensing provision, which fosters 

investment in new plants and equipment. 

(3) This Act (H.R. 8) fails to extend expansions to the Child Tax Credit and the Earned 

Income Tax Credit, and it fails to extend altogether the American Opportunity Tax 

Credit. This tax relief encourages work, has 

lifted millions of Americans into the middle 

class, and helps middle class families pay for 

the costs of higher education. 

SEC. 7. APPLICATION OF EXTENSION OF 2001 AND 

2003 TAX RELIEF TO CERTAIN HIGHINCOME TAXPAYERS. 

(a) APPLICATION OF EXTENSION OF 2001 TAX

RELIEF.— 

(1) TREATMENT OF 25-, 28-, AND 33-PERCENT

RATE BRACKETS.—Paragraph (2) of section 1(i) 

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(2) 25-, 28-, AND 33-PERCENT RATE BRACKETS.—The tables under subsections (a), (b), 

(c), (d), and (e) shall be applied— 

‘‘(A) by substituting ‘25%’ for ‘28%’ each 

place it appears (before the application of 

subparagraph (B)), 

‘‘(B) by substituting ‘28%’ for ‘31%’ each 

place it appears, and 

‘‘(C) by substituting ‘33%’ for ‘36%’ each 

place it appears.’’. 

(2) 35-PERCENT RATE BRACKET.—Subsection 

(i) of section 1 of such Code is amended by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) 

and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(3) 35-PERCENT RATE BRACKET.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2012— 

‘‘(i) the rate of tax under subsections (a), 

(b), (c), and (d) on a taxpayer’s taxable income in the highest rate bracket shall be 35 

percent to the extent such income does not 

exceed an amount equal to the excess of— 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5595 

‘‘(I) the applicable amount, over 

‘‘(II) the dollar amount at which such 

bracket begins, and 

‘‘(ii) the 39.6 percent rate of tax under such 

subsections shall apply only to the taxpayer’s taxable income in such bracket in excess of the amount to which clause (i) applies. 

‘‘(B) APPLICABLE AMOUNT.—For purposes of 

this paragraph, the term ‘applicable amount’ 

means the excess of— 

‘‘(i) the applicable threshold, over 

‘‘(ii) the sum of the following amounts in 

effect for the taxable year: 

‘‘(I) the basic standard deduction (within 

the meaning of section 63(c)(2)), and 

‘‘(II) the exemption amount (within the 

meaning of section 151(d)(1) (or, in the case 

of subsection (a), 2 such exemption 

amounts). 

‘‘(C) APPLICABLE THRESHOLD.—For purposes 

of this paragraph, the term ‘applicable 

threshold’ means— 

‘‘(i) $1,000,000 in the case of subsection (a), 

(b), and (c), and 

‘‘(ii) 1⁄2 the amount applicable under clause 

(i) (after adjustment, if any, under subparagraph (E)) in the case of subsection (d). 

‘‘(D) HIGHEST RATE BRACKET.—For purposes 

of this paragraph, the term ‘highest rate 

bracket’ means the bracket which would (determined without regard to this paragraph) 

be the 39.6-percent rate bracket. 

‘‘(E) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—For purposes 

of this paragraph, with respect to taxable 

years beginning in calendar years after 2012, 

the dollar amount in subparagraph (C)(i) 

shall be adjusted in the same manner as 

under paragraph (1)(C), except that subsection (f)(3)(B) shall be applied by substituting ‘2008’ for ‘1992’.’’. 

(3) OVERALL LIMITATION ON ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS.—Section 68 of such Code is amended— 

(A) by striking ‘‘the applicable amount’’ 

the first place it appears in subsection (a) 

and inserting ‘‘the applicable threshold in effect under section 1(i)(3)’’, 

(B) by striking ‘‘the applicable amount’’ in 

subsection (a)(1) and inserting ‘‘such applicable threshold’’, 

(C) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively, and 

(D) by striking subsections (f) and (g). 

(4) PHASEOUT OF DEDUCTIONS FOR PERSONAL

EXEMPTIONS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 

151(d) of such Code is amended— 

(i) by striking ‘‘the threshold amount’’ in 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting ‘‘the 

applicable threshold in effect under section 

1(i)(3)’’, 

(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph 

(C), and 

(iii) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F). 

(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Paragraph 

(4) of section 151(d) of such Code is amended— 

(i) by striking subparagraph (B), 

(ii) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) of 

subparagraph (A) as subparagraphs (A) and 

(B), respectively, and by indenting such subparagraphs (as so redesignated) accordingly, 

and 

(iii) by striking all that precedes ‘‘in a calendar year after 1989,’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(4) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the case of 

any taxable year beginning’’. 

(b) APPLICATION OF EXTENSION OF 2003 TAX

RELIEF.— 

(1) 20-PERCENT CAPITAL GAINS RATE FOR CERTAIN HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.—Paragraph 

(1) of section 1(h) of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986 is amended by striking subparagraph (C), by redesignating subparagraphs 

(D) and (E) as subparagraphs (E) and (F) and 

by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraphs: 

‘‘(C) 15 percent of the lesser of— 

‘‘(i) so much of the adjusted net capital 

gain (or, if less, taxable income) as exceeds 

the amount on which a tax is determined 

under subparagraph (B), or 

‘‘(ii) the excess (if any) of— 

‘‘(I) the amount of taxable income which 

would (without regard to this paragraph) be 

taxed at a rate below 39.6 percent, over 

‘‘(II) the sum of the amounts on which a 

tax is determined under subparagraphs (A) 

and (B), 

‘‘(D) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital 

gain (or, if less, taxable income) in excess of 

the sum of the amounts on which tax is determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C),’’. 

(2) MINIMUM TAX.—Section 55 of such Code 

is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(f) 20-PERCENT CAPITAL GAINS RATE FOR

CERTAIN HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any individual, if the taxpayer’s taxable income for 

the taxable year exceeds the applicable 

amount determined under section 1(i) with 

respect to such taxpayer for such taxable 

year, the amount determined under paragraph (2) shall be substituted for the amount 

determined under subsection (b)(3)(C) for 

purposes of determining the taxpayer’s tentative minimum tax for such taxable year. 

‘‘(2) DETERMINATION OF 20-PERCENT CAPITAL

GAINS RATE.—The amount determined under 

this paragraph is the sum of— 

‘‘(A) 15 percent of the lesser of— 

‘‘(i) so much of the adjusted net capital 

gain (or, if less, taxable excess) as exceeds 

the amount on which tax is determined 

under subsection (b)(3)(B), or 

‘‘(ii) the excess described in section 

1(h)(1)(C)(ii), plus 

‘‘(B) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital 

gain (or, if less, taxable excess) in excess of 

the sum of the amounts on which tax is determined under subparagraph (A) and subsection (b)(3)(B).’’. 

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

(A) The following provisions are each 

amended by striking ‘‘15 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘20 percent’’: 

(i) Section 531 of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986. 

(ii) Section 541 of such Code. 

(iii) Section 1445(e)(1) of such Code. 

(iv) The second sentence of section 

7518(g)(6)(A) of such Code. 

(v) Section 53511(f)(2) of title 46, United 

States Code. 

(B) Section 1445(e)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘15 

percent (20 percent in the case of taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2010)’’ 

and inserting ‘‘20 percent’’. 

(c) APPLICATION OF SUNSETS.— 

(1) APPLICATION OF EGTRRA SUNSET.—Each 

amendment made by subsection (a) shall be 

subject to title IX of the Economic Growth 

and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to 

the same extent and in the same manner as 

if such amendment was included in title I of 

such Act. 

(2) APPLICATION OF JGTRRA SUNSET.—Each 

amendment made by subsection (b) shall be 

subject to section 303 of the Jobs and Growth 

Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 to the 

same extent and in the same manner as if 

such amendment was included in title III of 

such Act. 

(d) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the amendments 

made by this section shall apply to taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2012. 

(2) WITHHOLDING.—The amendments made 

by subparagraphs (A)(iii) and (B) of subsection (b)(3) shall apply to amounts paid on 

or after January 1, 2013. 

SEC. 8. ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN SMALL BUSINESS EXPENSING. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 179(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by 

section 3, is further amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$100,000’’ in paragraph 

(1)(D) and inserting ‘‘$1,000,000’’, 

(2) by striking ‘‘$400,000’’ in paragraph 

(2)(D) and inserting ‘‘$5,000,000’’, and 

(3) by striking paragraph (6). 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2012. 

Mr. DEFAZIO (during the reading). 

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 

that reading of the motion be suspended. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Oregon? 

Mr. CAMP. I object. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard. 

The Clerk will read. 

The Clerk continued to read. 

Mr. DEFAZIO (during the reading). I 

ask unanimous consent that further 

reading be suspended. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection? 

Without objection, the reading is dispensed with. 

There was no objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the rule, the gentleman from Oregon is 

recognized for 5 minutes in support of 

his motion. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. This is the final 

amendment to the bill. It won’t kill 

the bill or send it back to committee. 

If adopted, the bill will be immediately 

amended and will proceed to final passage. 

It’s a pretty simple amendment. It 

would create a tax break for the real 

job creators in America, which are 

small businesses and middle-income 

families. A middle-income person with 

a job or a small business and enough 

money to go out and invest and buy 

products made in America for his business—that’s a key component of this— 

would be allowed an expensing. 

The Republican version of the bill 

would limit the expensing to small 

businesses to $100,000 a year for the 

purchases of new equipment made in 

America. If this amendment is adopted, 

those same small businesses would be 

allowed to expense up to $1 million to 

purchase products made in America, 

which would put people back to work. 

Now, I know we’re going to hear of 

the millionaires and billionaires because this tax increase, or restoration 

of the Clinton era rates, would only 

apply to incomes over $1 million. So a 

millionaire still gets the break on the 

first $1 million. It’s only on income 

over $1 million that would go to the 

Clinton era rates. 

They’ll say they’re the job creators 

and that it would depress job creation. 

Let’s think back to the Clinton administration. We had a 39.6 percent top 

bracket on the millionaires and billionaires. We had 3.8 percent unemployment in the United States of America, 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5596 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

and we paid down debt for the first 

time since the Eisenhower administration. I’d like to go back to those bad 

old days. 

Now, we’ve been doing the Bush tax 

cuts for 12 years. Where are the jobs? 

Where are the jobs from cutting taxes 

on people’s incomes of over $1 million? 

They aren’t creating those jobs. Let me 

give you two quick examples from my 

district, and they’re typical. 

b 1750 

I have Palo Alto Software, a small 

business. They make software for business start-ups. We contacted them, and 

they said, Yes, we could invest way 

more both in new hardware, new software, and other things that would enhance our business than $100,000 if we 

were given this expensing privilege, 

and we would put more people back to 

work. 

Bulk Handling Systems, they make 

recycling systems in my district. They 

had the same answer: If you gave us a 

million dollars of expensing, we would 

spend every penny of that on products 

made in America and put people back 

to work. 

The bottom line is the Republicans 

want to limit these small businesses, 

these real job creators, to a $100,000 deduction when they could use a million 

dollars in expensing and put more people back to work, because their 

premise is that the millionaire, the 

person who got hundreds of millions or 

more in income, that having them not 

pay more taxes on their income over $1 

million will create more jobs than the 

small business. I don’t buy that. I don’t 

think the American people buy that. 

There’s no limit on what they can do 

with their huge tax breaks, their very 

expensive tax breaks. They can buy another vacation home in the Caribbean. 

They can buy a Lamborghini. Paris 

Hilton can go on a shopping spree in 

London or Paris. 

This bill limits the expensing and the 

purchase of equipment to products 

made in the United States of America. 

I want to see things made in this country again. I want to put Americans 

back to work, not people overseas. 

It’s time that we admitted that we 

can’t afford to continue the tax cuts 

over $1 million of income. 

It would also reduce the deficit over 

10 years by $29 billion after we create 

jobs, after we give this expensing privilege to small businesses. 

The choice is yours. You can stick 

with those who have income over $1 

million or you can side with small 

businesses and American workers. You 

decide. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. CAMP. It’s clear that my friends 

on the other side are committed to 

raising taxes at any cost. Does anyone 

believe that they’re going to use that 

to reduce the deficit? We’ll just see 

more wasteful Washington spending. 

This isn’t a solution. America is at a 

crossroad. We’ve had 40 months of 8 

percent unemployment. What do we get 

from them? Not a solution. We get a 

political ploy. 

I appreciate my friend from Oregon 

touting the benefits of the Clinton administration when we had a Republican 

Congress. Let me just say I’ve welcomed the advice of former President 

Bill Clinton. He said extend all of the 

current tax rates. Let me just say that 

this would gut tax reform. 

Say ‘‘yes’’ to tax reform. Say ‘‘no’’ to 

raising taxes. Say ‘‘no’’ to this motion 

to recommit. 

With that, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without 

objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. 

There was no objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion to recommit. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the noes appeared to have it. 

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I demand 

a recorded vote. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, 

this 15-minute vote on the motion to 

recommit will be followed by 5-minute 

votes on passage of H.R. 8, if ordered, 

and the motions to suspend with regard 

to House Resolution 750 and H.R. 4365. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 181, noes 246, 

not voting 3, as follows: 

[Roll No. 544] 

AYES—181 

Ackerman 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chandler 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Doyle 

Duncan (TN) 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Garamendi 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Jones 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kissell 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Owens 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Speier 

Stark 

Sutton 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOES—246 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Altmire 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Broun (GA) 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herrera Beutler 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (AR) 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schrader 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5597 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOT VOTING—3 

Akin Cardoza Jackson (IL) 

b 1811 

So the motion to recommit was rejected. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the passage of the bill. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a 

recorded vote. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This 

will be a 5-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 256, noes 171, 

not voting 3, as follows: 

[Roll No. 545] 

AYES—256 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Broun (GA) 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Connolly (VA) 

Costa 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Critz 

Cuellar 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herrera Beutler 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kissell 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

LoBiondo 

Loebsack 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

McNerney 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Owens 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (AR) 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Walz (MN) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOES—171 

Ackerman 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costello 

Courtney 

Crowley 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Garamendi 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Shuler 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Speier 

Stark 

Sutton 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOT VOTING—3 

Akin Cardoza Jackson (IL) 

b 1819 

So the bill was passed. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

IRAN THREAT REDUCTION AND 

SYRIA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT OF 2012 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to 

the resolution (H. Res. 750) providing 

for the concurrence by the House in the 

Senate amendment to H.R. 1905, with 

an amendment, on which the yeas and 

nays were ordered. 

The Clerk read the title of the resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 

ROS-LEHTINEN) that the House suspend 

the rules and agree to the resolution. 

This will be a 5-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 421, nays 6, 

not voting 3, as follows: 

[Roll No. 546] 

YEAS—421 

Ackerman 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Altmire 

Amodei 

Andrews 

Austria 

Baca 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (CA) 

Bass (NH) 

Becerra 

Benishek 

Berg 

Berkley 

Berman 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boustany 

Brady (PA) 

Brady (TX) 

Braley (IA) 

Brooks 

Broun (GA) 

Brown (FL) 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Butterfield 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Castor (FL) 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cohen 

Cole 

Conaway 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Culberson 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Deutch 

Diaz-Balart 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farenthold 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Frank (MA) 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Fudge 

Gallegly 

Garamendi 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Gonzalez 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grijalva 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hall 

Hanabusa 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (FL) 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Heinrich 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herrera Beutler 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Israel 

Issa 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Jenkins 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kelly 

Kildee 

Kind 

King (IA) 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE