H5658 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

Cutting these programs are penny wise and 

pound-foolish. 

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. 

Let’s pass a real farm bill. 

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I want to 

thank the Chairman for his relentless leadership to get some relief to America’s farmers 

and ranchers who are dealing with this 

drought. In my home state of Iowa we now 

have 42 counties that have been declared by 

the United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) as primary natural disaster areas. 

The latest crop conditions report in Iowa has 

18 percent of the corn declared as ‘‘very 

poor.’’ Only one percent is rated as ‘‘excellent’’. Soybeans are in a very similar situation. 

Our pasture lands are in terrible condition 

with 55 percent of pasture being ‘‘very poor.’’ 

While lands in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are being opened today for 

haying and grazing, it really isn’t going to 

amount to much. 

As a result of these conditions, our livestock 

producers are going to have a really hard time 

getting feed. I appreciate that this disaster 

package will bring some relief, especially to 

those who have lost animals due to the extreme heat. 

However, let us not forget that we have 

work to do on a real farm bill. We need to get 

the 2012 farm bill done and in proper order, 

so that we do not have to do ad hoc disaster 

assistance packages and so that farmers can 

plan for the future. I appreciate the Chairman 

and Ranking Member’s work on this bipartisan 

bill that we reported out of Committee and 

look forward to us finishing our work and 

bringing the Federal Agriculture Reform and 

Risk Management (FARRM) Act to the House 

Floor. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

SIMPSON). All time for debate has expired. 

Pursuant to House Resolution 752, 

the previous question is ordered. 

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. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 

consideration of H.R. 6233 is postponed. 

f 

PATHWAY TO JOB CREATION 

THROUGH A SIMPLER, FAIRER 

TAX CODE ACT OF 2012 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant 

to House Resolution 747, I call up the 

bill (H.R. 6169) to provide for expedited 

consideration of a bill providing for 

comprehensive tax reform, 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. 6169 

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 ‘‘Pathway to 

Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax 

Code Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that the following problems exist with the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (in this section referred to 

as the ‘‘tax code’’): 

(1) The tax code is unfair, containing hundreds of provisions that only benefit certain 

special interests, resulting in a system of 

winners and losers. 

(2) The tax code violates the fundamental 

principle of equal justice by subjecting families in similar circumstances to significantly 

different tax bills. 

(3)(A) Many tax preferences, sometimes referred to as ‘‘tax expenditures,’’ are similar 

to government spending—instead of markets 

directing economic resources to their most 

efficient uses, the Government directs resources to other uses, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation. 

(B) The exclusions, deductions, credits, and 

special rules that make up such tax expenditures amount to over $1 trillion per year, 

nearly matching the total amount of annual 

revenue that is generated from the income 

tax itself. 

(C) In some cases, tax subsidies can literally take the form of spending through the 

tax code, redistributing taxes paid by some 

Americans to individuals and businesses who 

do not pay any income taxes at all. 

(4) The failure to adopt a permanent tax 

code with stable statutory tax policy has 

created greater economic uncertainty. Tax 

rates have been scheduled to increase sharply in 3 of the last 5 years, requiring the enactment of repeated temporary extensions. 

Additionally, approximately 70 other, more 

targeted tax provisions expired in 2011 or are 

currently scheduled to expire by the end of 

2012. 

(5) Since 2001, there have been nearly 4,500 

changes made to the tax code, averaging 

more than one each day over the past decade. 

(6) The tax code’s complexity leads nearly 

nine out of ten families either to hire tax 

preparers (60 percent) or purchase software 

(29 percent) to file their taxes, while 71 percent of unincorporated businesses are forced 

to pay someone else to prepare their taxes. 

(7) The cost of complying with the tax code 

is too burdensome, forcing individuals, families, and employers to spend over six billion 

hours and over $160 billion per year trying to 

comply with the law and pay the actual tax 

owed. 

(8) Compliance with the current tax code is 

a financial hardship for employers that falls 

disproportionately on small businesses, 

which spend an average of $74 per hour on 

tax-related compliance, making it the most 

expensive paperwork burden they encounter. 

(9) Small businesses have been responsible 

for two-thirds of the jobs created in the 

United States over the past 15 years, and approximately half of small-business profits 

are taxed at the current top 2 individual 

rates. 

(10) The historic range for tax revenues 

collected by the Federal government has 

averaged 18 to 19 percent of Gross Domestic 

Product (GDP), but will rise to 21.2 percent 

of GDP under current law—a level never 

reached, let alone sustained, in the Nation’s 

history. 

(11) The current tax code is highly punitive, with a top Federal individual income 

tax rate of 35 percent (which is set to climb 

to over 40 percent in 2013 when taking into 

account certain hidden rates), meaning some 

Americans could face a combined local, 

State and Federal tax rate of 50 percent. 

(12) The tax code contains harmful provisions, such as the Alternative Minimum Tax 

(AMT), which was initially designed to affect 

only the very highest-income taxpayers but 

now threatens more than 30 million middleclass households because of a flawed design. 

(13) As of April 1, 2012, the United States 

achieved the dubious distinction of having 

the highest corporate tax rate (39.2 percent 

for Federal and State combined) in the developed world. 

(14) The United States corporate tax rate is 

more than 50 percent higher than the average rate of member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)—a factor that discourages employers and investors from locating jobs and 

investments in the United States. 

(15) The United States has become an 

outlier in that it still uses a ‘‘worldwide’’ 

system of taxation—one that has not been 

substantially reformed in 50 years, when the 

United States accounted for nearly half of 

global economic output and had no serious 

competitors around the world. 

(16) The combination of the highest corporate tax rate with an antiquated ‘‘worldwide’’ system subjects American companies 

to double taxation when they attempt to 

compete with foreign companies in overseas 

markets and then reinvest their earnings in 

the United States. 

(17) The Nation’s outdated tax code has 

contributed to the fact that the world’s largest companies are more likely to be 

headquartered overseas today than at any 

point in the last 50 years: In 1960, 17 of the 

world’s 20 largest companies were based in 

the United States; by 2010, that number sank 

to a mere six out of 20. 

(18) The United States has one of the highest levels of taxation on capital—taxing it 

once at the corporate level and then again at 

the individual level—with integrated tax 

rates on certain investment income already 

reaching roughly 50 percent (and scheduled 

to reach nearly 70 percent in 2013). 

(19) The United States’ overall taxation of 

capital is higher than all but four of the 38 

countries that make up the OECD and the 

BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China). 

(b) PURPOSES.—It is the purpose of this Act 

to provide for enactment of comprehensive 

tax reform in 2013 that— 

(1) protects taxpayers by creating a fairer, 

simpler, flatter tax code for individuals and 

families by— 

(A) lowering marginal tax rates and broadening the tax base; 

(B) eliminating special interest loopholes; 

(C) reducing complexity in the tax code, 

making tax compliance easier and less costly; 

(D) repealing the Alternative Minimum 

Tax; 

(E) maintaining modern levels of progressivity so as to not overburden any one group 

or further erode the tax base; 

(F) making it easier for Americans to save; 

and 

(G) reducing the tax burdens imposed on 

married couples and families; 

(2) is comprehensive (addressing both individual and corporate rates), so as to have the 

maximum economic impact by benefitting 

employers and their employees regardless of 

how a business is structured; 

(3) results in tax revenue consistent with 

historical norms; 

(4) spurs greater investment, innovation 

and job creation, and therefore increases 

economic activity and the size of the economy on a dynamic basis as compared to the 

current tax code; and 

(5) makes American workers and businesses more competitive by— 

(A) creating a stable, predictable tax code 

under which families and employers are best 

able to plan for the future; 

(B) keeping taxes on small businesses low; 

(C) reducing America’s corporate tax rate, 

which is currently the highest in the industrialized world; 

(D) maintaining a level of parity between 

individual and corporate rates to reduce economic distortions; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5659 

(E) promoting innovation in the United 

States; 

(F) transitioning to a globally competitive 

territorial tax system; 

(G) minimizing the double taxation of investment and capital; and 

(H) reducing the impact of taxes on business decision-making to allow such decisions 

to be driven by their economic potential. 

SEC. 3. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF A MEASURE PROVIDING FOR COMPREHENSIVE TAX REFORM. 

(a) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘tax reform bill’’ means a bill 

of the 113th Congress— 

(1) introduced in the House of Representatives by the chair of the Committee on Ways 

and Means not later than April 30, 2013, or 

the first legislative day thereafter if the 

House is not in session on that day, the title 

of which is as follows: ‘‘A bill to provide for 

comprehensive tax reform.’’; and 

(2) which is the subject of a certification 

under subsection (b). 

(b) CERTIFICATION.—The chair of the Joint 

Committee on Taxation shall notify the 

House and Senate in writing whenever the 

chair of the Joint Committee determines 

that an introduced bill described in subsection (a)(1) contains at least each of the 

following proposals: 

(1) a consolidation of the current 6 individual income tax brackets into not more 

than two brackets of 10 and not more than 25 

percent; 

(2) a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 

not greater than 25 percent; 

(3) a repeal of the Alternative Minimum 

Tax; 

(4) a broadening of the tax base to maintain revenue between 18 and 19 percent of the 

economy; and 

(5) a change from a ‘‘worldwide’’ to a ‘‘territorial’’ system of taxation. 

(c) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION IN THE HOUSE

OF REPRESENTATIVES.— 

(1) Any committee of the House of Representatives to which the tax reform bill is 

referred shall report it to the House not later 

than 20 calendar days after the date of its introduction. If a committee fails to report the 

tax reform bill within that period, such committee shall be automatically discharged 

from further consideration of the bill. 

(2) If the House has not otherwise proceeded to the consideration of the tax reform 

bill upon the expiration of 15 legislative days 

after the bill has been placed on the Union 

Calendar, it shall be in order for the Majority Leader or a designee (or, after the expiration of an additional 2 legislative days, any 

Member), to offer one motion that the House 

resolve into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the tax reform bill. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion except 20 minutes of debate 

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. If such a motion is 

adopted, consideration shall proceed in accordance with paragraph (3). A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of shall not be in order. 

(3) The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 4 hours, 

equally divided and controlled by the chair 

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. At the conclusion of general debate, the bill shall be read 

for amendment under the five-minute rule. 

Any committee amendment shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 

House with such amendments as may have 

been adopted. The previous question shall be 

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. A motion 

to reconsider the vote on passage of the bill 

shall not be in order. 

(d) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION IN THE SENATE.— 

(1) COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION.—A tax reform bill, as defined in subsection (a), received in the Senate shall be referred to the 

Committee on Finance. The Committee shall 

report the bill not later than 15 calendar 

days after receipt of the bill in the Senate. If 

the Committee fails to report the bill within 

that period, that committee shall be discharged from consideration of the bill, and 

the bill shall be placed on the calendar. 

(2) MOTION TO PROCEED.—Notwithstanding 

rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, it is in order, not later than 2 days of 

session after the date on which the tax reform bill is reported or discharged from committee, for the majority leader of the Senate 

or the majority leader’s designee to move to 

proceed to the consideration of the tax reform bill. It shall also be in order for any 

Member of the Senate to move to proceed to 

the consideration of the tax reform bill at 

any time after the conclusion of such 2-day 

period. A motion to proceed is in order even 

though a previous motion to the same effect 

has been disagreed to. All points of order 

against the motion to proceed to the tax reform bill are waived. The motion to proceed 

is not debatable. The motion is not subject 

to a motion to postpone. 

(3) CONSIDERATION.—No motion to recommit shall be in order and debate on any motion or appeal shall be limited to one hour, 

to be divided in the usual form. 

(4) AMENDMENTS.—All amendments must 

be relevant to the bill and debate on any 

amendment shall be limited to 2 hours to be 

equally divided in the usual form between 

the opponents and proponents of the amendment. Debate on any amendment to an 

amendment, debatable motion, or appeal 

shall be limited to 1 hour to be equally divided in the usual form between the opponents and proponents of the amendment. 

(5) VOTE ON PASSAGE.—If the Senate has 

proceeded to the bill, and following the conclusion of all debate, the Senate shall proceed to a vote on passage of the bill as 

amended, if amended. 

(e) CONFERENCE IN THE HOUSE.—If the 

House receives a message that the Senate 

has passed the tax reform bill with an 

amendment or amendments, it shall be in 

order for the chair of the Committee on 

Ways and Means or a designee, without 

intervention of any point of order, to offer 

any motion specified in clause 1 of rule XXII. 

(f) CONFERENCE IN THE SENATE.—If the Senate receives from the House a message to accompany the tax reform bill, as defined in 

subsection (a), then no later than two session days after its receipt— 

(1) the Chair shall lay the message before 

the Senate; 

(2) the motion to insist on the Senate 

amendment or disagree to the House amendment or amendments to the Senate amendment, the request for a conference with the 

House or the motion to agree to the request 

of the House for a conference, and the motion to authorize the Chair to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate shall be 

agreed to; and 

(3) the Chair shall then be authorized to 

appoint conferees on the part of the Senate 

without intervening motion, with a ratio 

agreed to with the concurrence of both leaders. 

(g) RULEMAKING.—This section is enacted 

by the Congress as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, and as such is 

deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, or of that House to which they 

specifically apply, and such procedures supersede other rules only to the extent that 

they are inconsistent with such rules; and 

with full recognition of the constitutional 

right of either House to change the rules (so 

far as relating to the procedures of that 

House) at any time, in the same manner, and 

to the same extent as any other rule of that 

House. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill 

shall be debatable for 3 hours, with 1 

hour equally divided and controlled by 

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, and 2 

hours on the subject of reforming the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 equally 

divided and controlled by the chair and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. 

After debate, it shall be in order to 

consider the amendment in the nature 

of a substitute printed in part A of 

House Report 112–641, if offered by the 

gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 

SLAUGHTER) or her 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 Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from California (Mr. DREIER). 

b 1230 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that all Members 

have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 

6169. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from California? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

An exorbitant amount of ink has 

been spilled chronicling the many divisions here in the United States Congress. I was just speaking a couple of 

hours ago in the well about the bipartisan consensus we were able to put together on the trade issue. And I’ve got 

to say that the differences of opinions 

between and within the Democratic 

and Republican Parties are extraordinarily well documented, and too little attention is focused on the kind of 

bipartisanship that we’ve had on issues 

like the one that we were debating earlier today. But, having said that, even 

though it doesn’t get much attention, 

there are a number of issues, Mr. 

Speaker, on which we can all agree. 

We all agree, for example, that dramatic reform of our budget process is 

needed. We may diverge significantly 

on the kinds of reforms and the manner 

in which they should be implemented, 

but none of us looks at our skyrocketing deficit, anemic economic 

growth rate, or persistent unemployment and thinks that the status quo, 

when it comes to the Federal budget 

process, is acceptable. 

I, personally, believe very strongly in 

the notion of our going to a 2-year 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5660 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

budget cycle so that we could have 

both the Appropriations Committee 

and the other authorizing committees 

expend time, energy, and effort meeting their constitutional responsibility 

of oversight. 

So again, there are a wide range of 

views as to how we deal with the issue 

of budget process reform, but there is a 

consensus. Democrats and Republicans 

alike believe that it is necessary. 

We also all understand that budget 

challenges must be addressed within 

two specific areas: both taxing and 

spending. Again, we disagree greatly on 

the level and the structure of both, but 

we agree that it needs to be addressed. 

We know that meaningful budget reform must consist of both reform of the 

budget process, itself, as well as reform 

of the tax structure. 

Mr. Speaker, the exponential rise in 

spending in recent years infused our reform agenda with a great sense of urgency, which is why we, as Republicans, have focused so intently on reversing that trend and bringing about 

meaningful spending cuts. In fact, 

when I announced that I would be leaving here at the end of this year, one of 

the things that I had wanted to accomplish was that I made the choice, even 

though I wasn’t originally planning to 

run again—this was 2 years ago. One of 

the things I said we had to do was reverse that trend we’d been on with an 

82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending that we’d seen the 

years before. Well, I’m happy to say 

that we have been able to at least 

begin the process of reversing that 

trend. 

Now we face a new level of urgency 

on the tax side of the equation. As we 

face the prospect of stark tax increases 

at the end of this year, while unemployment is stuck, as we’ve had pointed out to us by the chairman of the 

Ways and Means Committee, Mr. CAMP, 

an unemployment rate in excess of 8 

percent, which has gone on for more 

than 40 months—and we’ve just gotten 

the report at the end of last week that 

our GDP growth rate was revised downward from 1.9 to 1.5 percent. Tomorrow 

we’re due to get these unemployment 

numbers. We all hope and pray that we 

will see improvement. But even if we 

do see some improvement, we know 

that the length of this challenging economic period is something that needs 

to be dealt with, and one of the best 

ways to deal with it is meaningful tax 

reform. 

The legislation that we have before 

us, H.R. 6169, represents one-half of our 

two-pronged approach for preventing 

the enactment of catastrophic tax increases that would further paralyze our 

economy. The first step that we must 

take, Mr. Speaker, is to put a stop to 

the tax increases looming at the end of 

this year, which is precisely what this 

institution, the House of Representatives, did yesterday with the passage of 

H.R. 8. That bill will keep in place our 

current tax rates, as we all know, for 1 

additional year. Now, that’s an essential step. 

The President of the United States 

has said increasing taxes during difficult economic times is bad policy. In 

fact, not just President Obama, but 

even the traditional Keynesian economists will argue that the notion of increasing taxes during slow economic 

growth is a prescription to exacerbate 

the economic downturn. 

So it’s very important that we do 

that. Again, that’s one very important 

step. But on its own, it’s just a stopgap 

solution, what we have done yesterday, 

here, for that one period of time. 

Mr. Speaker, the second part of our 

two-pronged approach creates a pathway to a long-term solution. Now, this 

legislation puts in place a structure 

that will facilitate consideration and 

passage of meaningful, comprehensive 

tax reform. 

Again, Democrats and Republicans 

alike regularly say they are for meaningful tax reform. We have talk from 

both sides of the aisle about it. What 

we’re doing here with this compromise 

that we have is putting into place a 

structure that can lay the groundwork 

to have action taken rather than, simply, simply talk. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that 

our Tax Code is not working for the 

American people. I think that it’s another point on which we can all agree. 

I would say to my friend from Worcester, he knows very well that the Tax 

Code that we have today is not working. We believe on our side that the 

Tax Code we have today is not working. It’s unfair, and it is Byzantine in 

its complexity. And we all know, too, 

that the Tax Code that we have, Mr. 

Speaker, is clearly a drain on our economy. 

I’d like to make a couple of points on 

this. 

Since 2001, that’s basically a decade 

plus a year, a little over a decade, 

there have been nearly 4,500 changes 

made to the U.S. Tax Code, so within 

that decade, 4,500 changes made to the 

Tax Code. Now, Mr. Speaker, that 

works out to one change a day, one 

change a day over that 10-year period 

of time. Now, the resulting complexity 

leads nearly 9 out of 10 families to seek 

assistance in filing their Federal income taxes. And at the same time, Mr. 

Speaker, the majority of small business owners, small business men and 

women in this country, 71 percent, 71 

percent of all unincorporated businesses are forced to pay someone else 

to prepare their taxes. 

Now, dealing with the Tax Code 

under these circumstances forces individuals, families, and employers in this 

country to spend—are you ready for 

this, Mr. Speaker?—over 6 billion—6 

billion—hours, costing over $160 billion 

every single year in an effort to faithfully comply with the burdensome and 

complicated Federal tax system. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I’ve talked to tax 

attorneys and accountants—tax attorneys and accountants—and they acknowledge that these wasted resources 

are a drain on economic growth and on 

our shared bipartisan quest for job creation. 

Furthermore, the current system is 

injecting a great deal of uncertainty in 

our economy. Many of us like to point 

to the fact that uncertainty is the 

enemy of prosperity. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, let’s look at the 

uncertainty that has existed over the 

past several years. Tax rates have been 

scheduled to increase sharply in 3 of 

the last 5 years, requiring the enactment of repeated temporary extensions. What does that create for job 

creators and for investors out there? It 

creates that uncertainty. And that uncertainty, again, is the enemy of prosperity. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, as you know, dozens of other major tax provisions expired in 2011 or are currently scheduled 

to expire by the end of this year. Working families and small business owners 

are not able to plan for the future or 

make rational business decisions, including hiring decisions, in this extraordinary environment of uncertainty. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, all of these challenges argue forcefully for comprehensive reform. Unfortunately—unfortunately—real results in this quest have 

proved, so far, to be elusive. We are all 

aware of the challenges of moving comprehensive legislation through the Senate. Here in the House, we have, as we 

all know, a majoritarian body where a 

simple majority is able to work its 

will. 

b 1240 

The nature of the Senate is fundamentally different, far slower, far 

slower, by design. Frustrating though 

its inactions may often be, I do believe 

that the Framers of our Constitution 

were actually right to structure these 

two bodies differently. 

However, at times throughout our 

Nation’s history, we’ve recognized the 

need to come together, the two institutions to come together to facilitate decisive action on critical matters. And, 

Mr. Speaker, that’s exactly what we 

are doing here today, recognizing that 

the imperative for tax reform, something that has been discussed for literally decades, is going to be able to 

have something other than just talk, 

but action. And we’re going to facilitate that with this effort here. 

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, lays 

out a roadmap for reform and helps to 

ensure its timely consideration in both 

the House and the Senate. It provides 

for consideration of a bill that is introduced by the chairman of the Ways and 

Means Committee by April 30 of next 

year, and then incorporates five key 

pillars of comprehensive reform. 

First, the reform package should provide individual filers with much needed 

clarity and simplicity by consolidating 

the current individual income tax rates 

into no more than two brackets, 10 and 

25 percent. 

Second, it should spur job creation 

and growth by limiting the corporate 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5661 

tax rate to no more than 25 percent. 

And again, focusing on the bipartisan 

nature of this, I’ve regularly said that 

I appreciate the fact that President 

Obama has come forward and called for 

a reduction in the top rate on corporations in this country. 

Third, it should protect middle class 

families by repealing the alternative 

minimum tax. We all know how onerous that has been, and we all know 

that more and more Americans have, 

unfortunately, been drawn into this alternative minimum tax, which was designed to focus on very, very few people. 

And fourth, Mr. Speaker, it should 

broaden the tax base to maintain revenue between 18 and 19 percent of our 

gross domestic product. And so, as we 

look at our economy, the goal of 18 and 

19 percent. 

And finally, one of the things, again, 

I was talking about earlier is our global leadership role. We need to make 

sure that we shift from a worldwide to 

a territorial system of taxation to have 

greater equity, to allow for those who 

want to invest and participate to be 

able to do so on a global basis. 

These are broad outlines of the tax 

reform agenda, Mr. Speaker, and 

they’re an outline that I think will lay 

the groundwork, again, for the details 

to be put into place. The legislation 

provides for expedited procedures in 

the House and the Senate, so that comprehensive reform can receive its due 

consideration. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the House, 

under this structure, any committee 

that receives a referral on the tax reform bill must report the legislation to 

the House within 20 calendar days. 

Failure to do so within that time period will result in an automatic discharge of that legislation. Our Rules 

Committee will then have 15 legislative 

days to provide a special order for consideration of the bill before the majority leader is automatically empowered 

to offer a motion to proceed with floor 

action. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, to underscore how 

important the right of every member of 

this institution is, after 2 days, any 

Member of the House will be able to do 

so if action has not been taken by the 

majority leadership. These procedures 

will help to ensure that no committee 

or Member has the power to prevent or 

indefinitely delay consideration of 

comprehensive tax reform. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the Senate, 

which is where this is really needed because, of course, we have a Rules Committee here in the House and so it’s not 

absolutely essential that we do this. 

But in the Senate, where this is really 

needed, the bill, tax reform bill must 

be referred to the Committee on Finance, understandably, which will then 

have 15 calendar days to consider and 

report the bill before the legislation is 

automatically discharged. 

Mr. Speaker, in the Senate, the Majority Leader can then offer a motion 

to proceed to the bill. After two more 

days, any Senator will be empowered 

to do so, again, ensuring that people 

will not be able to stand in the way of 

moving ahead with tax reform. Now, 

that motion will not be debatable, and 

cloture is not required before a vote on 

a motion to proceed; basically meaning, Mr. Speaker, that a super majority 

will not be necessary to allow to move 

ahead on the debate on tax reform in 

the Senate. 

Now, each amendment will be limited 

to 2 hours of debate in the Senate, and 

cloture will also not be required before 

votes on individual amendments. However, cloture, a very important power 

that does exist in the Senate, cloture 

on the underlying bill may still be required prior to the vote on passage of 

the bill. 

So what this does, Mr. Speaker, these 

procedures ensure timely consideration 

in the Senate, while maintaining that 

last hurdle of a potential cloture vote 

on to final passage. 

I believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, 

that this agreement strikes the right 

balance between facilitating action 

while preserving the very core nature 

of the Senate process. The magnitude 

and the urgency of our current economic challenges demand that we create this clear pathway to comprehensive tax reform. 

Our proposal provides a real solution 

to the uncertainty, the complexity, 

and the burdensome nature of our Tax 

Code. And, Mr. Speaker, it unleashes a 

powerful source of new revenues. 

Now, you know this very well, Mr. 

Speaker. There is a common 

misperception out there, and you hear 

it reported from people in the media, 

and I don’t believe that it’s normally 

meant as a pejorative, but what they 

say is, Republicans don’t want to increase revenues. Republicans don’t 

want new revenues to the Federal 

Treasury. We hear this drumbeat over 

and over again. 

I’m here to say, Mr. Speaker, nothing 

could be further from the truth. Republicans want new revenues to the Federal Treasury. We absolutely must find 

a way to bring greater revenue. We’ve 

got to find a way to bring revenue into 

the Federal Treasury. We all decry the 

$15-plus trillion national debt that we 

have and the massive deficit spending. 

We’ve got to have greater revenue to 

the Federal Treasury. 

Where we diverge, between the two 

political parties, my colleagues on the 

other side of the aisle, is the manner in 

which we see these new revenues actually achieved. 

Rather than raising tax rates on any 

one set of individuals or businesses, we 

want to raise revenues through greater 

gross domestic product growth. We 

want to expand the overall size of our 

economy, creating opportunity for all 

Americans. We’ve done this as a Nation 

many times in the past. 

I always like to point to President 

John F. Kennedy, who pioneered this 

approach by cutting marginal tax rates 

and growing revenues as a result. Now, 

I acknowledge the marginal tax rates 

when President Kennedy did this were 

significantly higher than they are 

today, when he was able to reduce marginal rates for individuals and reduce 

capital gains. But we still can put into 

place pro-growth tax policy. 

Mr. Speaker, President Reagan did 

the same thing 20 years after John F. 

Kennedy did it, and we all know what 

happened. We all know what happened, 

Mr. Speaker, when President Reagan, 

with the support of many Democrats, 

through what was known as the Conable-Hance tax package, it was a Democrat and a Republican, a then-Democrat and Republican. Mr. Hance has 

since seen the light and become a Republican, but he was a Democrat at the 

time. He offered this measure that 

brought about major marginal rate reduction. And what did that do? 

During the decade of the 1980s, contrary to so many reports, we saw a 

nearly doubling, a nearly doubling of 

the flow of revenues to the Federal 

Treasury, bringing even greater results 

than we saw following President Kennedy’s cuts. So, Mr. Speaker, we want 

to follow the Kennedy-Reagan tradition of expanding the Federal Treasury 

by implementing pro-growth tax reform. 

Now, we all know that our friends on 

the other side of the aisle do take a different point of view. I wish that they 

would follow President Kennedy’s great 

example on this. But, unfortunately, 

the leadership on the other side of the 

aisle does take a different point of 

view, which brings me to the final 

point on which we all agree. 

The Democratic approach to the considerable economic challenge we face is 

to raise taxes. I mean, we all agree 

that that’s what our friends on the 

other side of the aisle are arguing. I’ve 

been watching television ads with 

President Obama on there talking 

about increasing taxes on working 

Americans. Yes, they’re in the upper 

income, but these are people who are 

creating jobs and investing, and he 

wants to increase the tax burden on 

those people. 

b 1250 

They readily admit that their solution is to allow a large portion of the 

tax increases to proceed. They want 

the tax increases that are scheduled to 

go into place in January to succeed. 

So I come back to my points on the 

fact that uncertainty is the enemy of 

prosperity, and the statements of 

President Barack Obama, who as we all 

know has in the past agreed to an extension of these tax cuts to keep the 

economy growing. We also know that 

Keynesian economists have again made 

it clear that increasing taxes during a 

slow economy is a prescription for disaster. 

So this is where the disagreement 

lies. 

Democrats and Republicans alike 

recognize that Democrats want to increase marginal tax rates and that we 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5662 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

as Republicans want to grow the economy to enhance the flow of revenues to 

the Federal Treasury. We as Republicans argue that making the Tax Code 

more burdensome for some and more 

complicated for all is not the solution. 

Raising taxes when our economy and 

our job market are flagging is not the 

solution. The only way for us to create 

opportunity for all Americans is to reignite our engines of economic growth, 

but we cannot spark new growth without addressing both the immediate crisis of impending tax increases and the 

long-term need for comprehensive tax 

reform. 

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very, very critical legislation. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

It is true that Democrats believe 

that we need comprehensive tax reform. There is no doubt about that. 

But I want to say to my good friend 

from California, when he used words 

like ‘‘bipartisan,’’ ‘‘consensus,’’ and 

‘‘compromise’’ in the context of describing this piece of legislation, I have 

to respectfully disagree with him. It 

couldn’t be farther from the truth. 

Those words do not apply to what we 

are talking about here today. 

This is a very, very partisan bill. 

This bill was referred exclusively to 

the Rules Committee. I am a member 

of the Rules Committee. I don’t recall 

the gentleman ever reaching out and 

asking my opinion on what a bill like 

this should be about. Perhaps my invitation to join the discussion was lost in 

the mail. If that’s the case, I certainly 

will give the gentleman a pass, but I’m 

willing to bet that Ranking Member 

SLAUGHTER was never consulted, that 

Mr. HASTINGS from Florida was never 

consulted, that Mr. POLIS from Colorado was never consulted. In fact, this 

bill was given to us less than 48 hours 

before we considered it in the House 

Rules Committee, and every single 

amendment the Democrats had to try 

to influence this bill was defeated on a 

strictly partisan vote—every single one 

of them. 

So this is not in any way shape or 

form about bipartisanship or consensus 

or compromise. This is a very partisan 

bill. I regret that very much because 

we do need tax reform in this country, 

but this approach of shutting out the 

minority party entirely, I think, is the 

wrong way to go. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very partisan Republican 

bill. Actually, I use the term ‘‘bill’’ 

very loosely here because this isn’t 

really much of a bill. It’s a press release masquerading as a meaningful 

piece of legislation. 

H.R. 6169 would create expedited procedures for the Republican version of 

comprehensive tax reform. It lays out a 

whole bunch of criteria that tax reform 

has to meet in order to get fast-track 

protection in both the House and the 

Senate. It’s sort of like reconciliation, 

but my Republican friends don’t like to 

admit that. There are two very big 

problems with the Republican approach 

here. 

First, there is nothing—nothing—in 

this bill that would prevent their 

version of ‘‘comprehensive tax reform’’ 

from containing anything else they 

want to do: Turn Medicare into a 

voucher program or eliminate Medicare altogether? That would be allowed. Repeal patient protections 

under the Affordable Care Act? Yes, 

they could do that, too. Eliminate the 

Department of Education? Sure, that 

would get special treatment. Or they 

might want to privatize Social Security—one of their oldies but goodies. It 

is absolutely outrageous. 

The second big problem is that, under 

this bill, the Republican author of the 

tax passage, as the chairman of Ways 

and Means and as the person who is 

supposed to certify that the package is 

eligible for expedited process as chair 

of the Joint Committee on Taxation, 

can and likely will be the very same 

person. Now, I like Chairman CAMP—I 

think he’s a terrific guy—but I do not 

believe he should be allowed to serve as 

prosecutor, judge, and jury on the issue 

of tax reform. You don’t put the fox in 

charge of guarding the henhouse. 

But this debate is about much more 

than the terrible process outlined in 

this bill. This debate is about priorities. The choices here are very simple, 

and the contrasts are very clear. 

Democrats want to give every American family a tax break. On the first 

$250,000 of income, everybody—including Donald Trump and including all of 

those friends of my colleagues on the 

other side of the aisle who give millions and millions to Super PACs—gets 

a tax break on the first $250,000 of income. The problem is the Republican 

approach to tax reform is to raise taxes 

on millions of American middle class 

families—raise them. 

Democrats want the wealthy to keep 

some of their tax cuts, but we believe 

during this time of budgetary crisis 

that we all have to sacrifice, including 

the millionaires and the billionaires. 

So we are asking them to contribute 

just a little bit. Everybody else is contributing. They should, too. Republicans say, no, that they want to protect those tax breaks for the wealthiest 

individuals and increase the deficit—in 

order to protect, again, the 2 percent 

wealthiest Americans in this country. 

Democrats want to pass a tax cut bill 

that has already passed the Senate. 

That’s the one I was talking about, the 

one that gives everybody a tax break 

on the first $250,000 of income. We want 

to pass that. It could be on the President’s desk at the end of the week, and 

we could actually have done something 

for the American people. Republicans 

want to hold that bill hostage. There is 

an old saying that you don’t have to 

agree on everything to agree on something. I mean, it seems to me—again, if 

I am to believe the rhetoric on the 

other side of the aisle—that there is no 

objection to protecting tax breaks on 

the first $250,000 of someone’s income. 

If there is consensus on that, then we 

ought to get that done, and then we 

could have the other fight about 

whether or not Donald Trump and 

Sheldon Adelson and all those other 

guys get tax breaks. We could have 

that debate later, but we could actually do something before we recess for 

August that would actually help people 

in this country. What a radical idea in 

this Republican Congress to do something to help somebody—to help middle-income families. We could do that, 

but they are saying no. We all agree 

that the economy continues to struggle. Of course the Republican strategy 

of rejecting President Obama’s jobs bill 

and manufacturing a debt ceiling crisis 

contributed greatly to this economic 

crisis that we are in right now. 

My Republican friends like to talk 

about tough choices, about how there 

needs to be sacrifice in order to get our 

fiscal house in order. But why is it, 

time and time and time again, that 

their tough choices always seem to 

hurt the most vulnerable Americans? 

Why does their idea of sacrifice always 

mean poor people getting less food, or 

students getting less help with their 

tuition, or States getting less help 

with their roads and their bridges? It 

takes no political courage—zero—to 

say to the very wealthy, You can keep 

all of your tax cuts, all of your special 

tax breaks, and we’re going to protect 

all of those loopholes. It takes no courage. It takes no guts to help out millionaire hedge fund traders who write 

giant checks to shadowy Super PACs. 

Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about 

fairness. That’s what this debate 

should be about. It’s about standing 

with the middle class instead of always 

standing with the millionaires and the 

billionaires. 

If my Republican friends were so certain about the rightness of their priorities, they would put the so-called 

‘‘principles’’ in this bill into legislative 

language and bring it to the floor. I 

think the American people would 

cringe once they saw what those numbers would mean, but they have the 

ability to do that. I should remind 

them—and I regret this very much— 

but they’re in charge, they run the 

House right now. The chairman of the 

Ways and Means Committee could 

come up with a comprehensive tax reform bill—he could have at any time 

the Republicans have been in control 

and brought it to this floor. My friends 

on the other side of the aisle have 

enough votes to pass anything. They 

could have done it. If they did, and if it 

were clear what the priorities of this 

Republican majority really were, and if 

it were there in print, I think the 

American people, quite frankly, would 

be horrified. 

b 1300 

Democrats stand ready, willing, and 

able to work with Republicans and all 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5663 

of our colleagues to enact meaningful, 

fair tax reform. This bill doesn’t get us 

an inch closer to that goal. If my 

friends on the other side were sincere 

about achieving comprehensive tax reform, they would reach out to us in the 

drafting of a bill like this. They would 

have consulted with us. As I said, this 

legislation before us was referred exclusively to the House Rules Committee. Not a single Democrat on the 

House Rules Committee was consulted 

about this bill. My guess is not a single 

Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee was consulted about this bill. 

We will go through this exercise today. 

My friends on the other side of the 

aisle have the votes to pass it. But I’m 

going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is 

much ado about nothing because this is 

not meaningful tax reform. This is a 

very partisan approach to this issue, 

and I regret that very much. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have no 

further requests for time, and I’m prepared to close. If my friend has speakers, I’d certainly sit here patiently and 

look forward to hearing any thoughtful 

comments that they might make. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this 

time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. LANGEVIN). 

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given 

permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to talk about our vision for 

the future and the path our country 

must set upon in order to remain competitive in the global economy and also 

to get our fiscal house in order. 

The tax reform proposals that we are 

debating today could not be in starker 

contrast. Today, I will vote against the 

Republican plan that is before us, and 

instead I will vote for the Democratic 

plan which I believe is a balanced approach to move our country forward. It 

gives everyone the opportunity to succeed. 

Mr. Speaker, this debate is about 

choices. The Republicans want to give 

more tax cuts to the wealthy, quite 

frankly, at the expense of everyone 

else. Democrats, on the other hand, 

propose a balanced plan that asks the 

wealthiest to sacrifice just a little bit 

more so that we can provide tax relief 

for the middle class taxpayers, we can 

bring our debt down, and invest in economic growth. We will protect our 

most vulnerable. We will repeal the alternative minimum tax. We will discourage tax haven abuse and eliminate 

the tax breaks that ship jobs and profits overseas. 

Far too many of us, Mr. Speaker, 

have experienced the hardship and loss 

of employers shuttering their operations in our districts, and we know 

that when a business closes, it’s not 

just direct jobs that are lost. It is an 

entire community which is affected. 

The grocery store has less business, 

people don’t go to the movies, they’re 

not going out to eat at the local diner, 

they postpone home repairs, and they 

don’t buy that new car. This is as a result of Republican tax policies that 

have, quite frankly, incentivized companies moving jobs overseas. 

Democrats propose to change that. 

That’s why we’ve made promoting domestic manufacturing such a top priority. We want to rewrite the Tax Code 

in such a way that it incentivizes job 

creation here or bringing jobs back 

from overseas. That means that not 

only are we going to create jobs in that 

particular business that comes back to 

America or that starts up here in our 

country, but also the ancillary jobs 

that are created as a result that filter 

out into the community. Some estimate that for every one job that is created in manufacturing, for example, 

there’s at least four or five jobs that 

are created in other industries. 

We all agree that comprehensive tax 

reform is urgently needed. Where 

Democrats and Republicans fundamentally disagree is how we get there. I 

urge my colleagues to vote against the 

Republican plan that is before us and 

vote for the Democratic substitute to 

reduce our debt, protect the middle 

class, promote American products that 

are made by American workers, and invest in our national priorities: infrastructure, education, research, and security. Let’s keep America competitive 

and create jobs the right way, right 

here at home. 

With that, I thank the gentleman for 

yielding. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if the 

gentleman has no more speakers, I will 

close. 

Let me repeat some of what I said in 

my opening statement, because I think 

it’s important for my colleagues to understand this. 

The Republican pathway to this tax 

reform is a path, as I said, for the 

chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to draft and to certify a bill 

that would receive extraordinary fasttrack procedures with virtually no 

limit on what can be contained in it. 

Republicans have promised that its 

fast-track bill would contain at least 

four proposals based on the Ryan budget, in addition to the repeal of the 

AMT. Together, these four provisions 

would shift the tax burden from the 

wealthiest to the middle class, and it 

would ship jobs overseas. 

Let me just read one of the proposals 

in this bill. The Republican proposal is 

‘‘a consolidation of the current six individual income tax brackets into not 

more than two brackets of 10 and not 

more than 25 percent.’’ What does this 

mean? It means that the average millionaire would lock in an annual 

$331,000 tax cut under the Ryan plan. 

To pay for these tax cuts, the Ryan 

plan would potentially eliminate provisions that are vital to the middle class, 

including tax deductions for mortgage 

interest, State and local taxes, and 

charitable contributions, as well as the 

tax exclusions for employer-sponsored 

health insurance and contributions to 

401(k) plans. The source of this is the 

Joint Economic Committee. And the 

plan would necessarily have to raise 

taxes on middle class families by approximately $4,500. 

Another proposal in this bill is ‘‘a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 

not greater than 25 percent.’’ What 

does this mean? It means eliminating 

every corporate tax credit and deduction would generate only enough savings to reduce the corporate tax rate to 

28 percent. To get to even 28 percent, 

the Republican tax plan would require 

wiping out every provision in the Tax 

Code that encourages domestic job creation, investment, and innovation. In 

order to raise additional revenues for a 

corporate tax cut, the Republicans will 

go after individuals or small businesses. 

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other 

side of the aisle have made their priorities known in the budget that they all 

voted for. I think it’s a radical approach to our economy. It’s an approach that I believe and my colleagues on the Democratic side believe 

will be devastating to middle-income 

Americans. It is really unfortunate 

that we are here not in the spirit of bipartisanship, not in the spirit of compromise or trying to find consensus, 

but in a very partisan way moving this 

bill forward. At the end of the day, 

we’re leaving here really doing nothing 

for the American people. 

I was listening to the debate on the 

drought relief and listening to Democrats and Republicans both lament 

that there’s no farm bill. We’re going 

on vacation, and there’s no farm bill. 

There’s no jobs bill, no jobs agenda, no 

tax cuts for the middle class. We all 

agree that we should preserve the tax 

breaks on people earning up to $250,000. 

We seem to agree on that. My Republicans friends are saying, No, we’re 

going to hold that hostage until you 

make sure that Donald Trump and the 

people that give these exorbitant 

amounts to super PACs, they get their 

tax breaks. We could agree on that. We 

could actually do something for the 

American people, and we’re leaving. No 

farm bill, as I mentioned, no Violence 

Against Women Act, no cybersecurity 

plan, no bipartisan plan to prevent sequester. 

I hear my friends on the other side of 

the aisle complaining about the sequester which, by the way, they caused that 

terrible idea to be a reality when they 

brought this economy almost to a collapse during the debt ceiling debate. 

But we’re leaving. We’re leaving town 

today to give away tomorrow. We’re 

leaving town with all this unfinished 

business. We’re leaving town not doing 

anything meaningful for the American 

people, especially for those in the middle and those struggling to get into the 

middle. 

This has to be one of the least effective, least productive Congresses, I 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5664 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

think, in the history of our country. 

When you read these public opinion 

polls, there’s a reason why Congress is 

held in such low esteem. It’s because 

people are watching what we’re doing 

here and wondering why we’re not on 

their side. People who are struggling to 

hold on to their jobs or to get jobs are 

wondering why aren’t we moving forward with a jobs agenda, why aren’t we 

passing a middle class tax cut. Instead, 

we are here basically to pass a press release that says that at some point 

we’re going to do tax reform, and they 

don’t want to tell you the details of the 

tax reform because they think that 

would be very unpopular and would 

frighten a lot of people in this country 

when they see the devastating impact 

on the middle class. 

b 1310 

So having said that, Mr. Speaker, I 

urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’ on 

this bill. 

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself the balance of my time. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate 

my distinguished Rules Committee colleague for his very thoughtful, warm, 

and loving mischaracterization of 

where we stand on this issue. 

This is not about Donald Trump. This 

is not about Donald Trump at all. We 

continue to hear the two words ‘‘Donald Trump’’ invoked in the tax debate. 

What this is about, Mr. Speaker, is 

the 253,484 women-owned small businesses in this country who are seeking 

to ensure that they can continue to 

have the ability to hire people and 

grow their businesses. This is about the 

potential of losing 710,000 jobs, based 

on the Ernst & Young report that has 

come forward. This is about ensuring 

that we turn the corner on our economy. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, when I came here 

in 1981, one of the first bills that I introduced was a bill calling for a flat 

rate tax. People talked about that all 

the time. I mean, there was a standard 

joke out there. It was, well, the simple 

tax form asks, How much did you earn 

last year? The second line was, Send it 

to Washington. I mean, those are the 

kinds of things that people have said 

might be in the direction of tax reform. 

But what we need to do is we need to 

recognize that everyone has talked 

about the problem of taxes. Famously, 

the former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Long, would 

say, Don’t tax you. Don’t tax me. Tax 

the guy behind the tree. 

We all know, Democrats and Republicans alike, that there is a desire to 

make this happen. There is always talk 

from Democrats and Republicans. 

Again, President Obama has said we 

need to bring about tax reform. President Obama has said we need to reduce 

the top corporate rate from that 35 percent level. I congratulate him for acknowledging that we have the highest 

corporate tax rate of any nation on the 

face of the Earth, now that Japan has 

lowered theirs, Mr. Speaker. 

Everybody talks about it, but the 

question is: How do we actually get it 

done? Now, my friend said that if we 

really wanted to do it, we could have 

done it. Well, there are specifics in this 

measure. There are specifics. We have 

five of them. Included among them: ensuring that we repeal the alternative 

minimum tax, and everyone acknowledges how terrible that is; ensuring 

that we have two rates of not more 

than 10 and 25 percent; and, yes, doing 

what President Obama has said we 

need to do, and that is reducing the top 

corporate rate, this calls for 35 to not 

more than 25 percent; and then also 

dealing with the global aspect. 

This has specifics in it. And what it 

has, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day 

is: Let’s get the job done. Action, action, action. We can continue to hear 

all kinds of talk—press releases and all 

this sort of stuff, talk about what this 

is. This is about actually doing what 

Democrats and Republicans say needs 

to be done. 

I think that by working with our colleagues in the Senate—we ensured, by 

the way, under this structure that no 

Democrat is denied the opportunity to 

offer amendments. My friend said that 

we don’t have this great bipartisanship. Well, we’re pursuing a bipartisan 

goal of comprehensive tax reform and 

the structure to make that happen. 

But as this process begins, we will 

have, clearly, amendments in both the 

House and the Senate offered by any 

Member who wants to participate in 

this process at the committee level as 

it goes through. 

I see we have the ranking Democratic 

member of the Ways and Means Committee, my very dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN), 

here on the floor. I’m sure that as we 

proceed with tax reform under this 

structure that Mr. LEVIN will be offering many thoughtful amendments to 

this measure. His right is guaranteed 

under these expedited procedures. 

So what we’re arguing, Mr. Speaker, 

is that we need to make sure that, 

rather than simply talking, we get 

things done. And I think we’ve got a 

chance to do that now. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 

support this measure. We’re going to 

go into a debate now with our friends 

on the Ways and Means Committee; 

and from there, we will have a vote on 

the substitute, which I’m happy to say 

that we made in order, that will be offered by the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Rules; and then we will proceed with a 

vote on this measure. 

So I urge my colleagues to support 

action, action, action over talk, talk, 

talk when it comes to the imperative 

of growing our economy and reforming 

taxes. 

With that, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of H.R. 6169, the Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax 

Code Act of 2012. 

Yesterday, House Republicans, joined 

by 19 House Democrats, voted to extend current tax policies through the 

end of next year. That was an important, responsible step to provide Congress the time to pass and enact comprehensive tax reform without risking 

further damage to a fragile economy. 

The failure to stop the tax hike 

that’s looming at the end of the year 

could push us over a jobs cliff. I know 

many Democrats want to raise taxes, 

but an independent study by Ernst & 

Young shows the Democrat tax hike 

would eliminate over 700,000 jobs. We 

can’t afford to lose more jobs in the 

United States, and that is why we 

voted to extend the current tax policy. 

Instead of raising taxes on small 

businesses and making it harder to create jobs, as the Democrat plan did, Republicans are focused on creating jobs, 

reforming the Tax Code to make it 

simpler and fairer for all Americans, 

and strengthening our economy. The 

bill before us today provides a pathway 

to that goal. 

This bill forces Congress to do its job, 

something I think all Americans will 

support. It provides a specific time line 

for the House and the Senate to act 

next year on a comprehensive tax reform bill. It also ensures an open process. A bill is introduced and then the 

appropriate committees may amend it. 

Democrats and Republicans, alike, will 

have an opportunity to debate and 

offer changes. 

And this bill tells the American people exactly where we want the debate 

to start. We say that tax reform 

should: eliminate special interest loopholes to reduce rates for families and 

employers, reducing the current six tax 

brackets down to just two (10 and 25 

percent); help America be competitive 

in the global economy by setting a corporate rate of 25 percent and updating 

a 50-year-old international tax code to 

a modern and more competitive territorial system; and get rid of the alternative minimum tax that’s currently 

looming over 31 million middle class 

families. 

We also don’t think we should ask 

taxpayers to bail out Washington’s 

wasteful spending. Tax reform should 

not result in the Federal Government 

taking more out of the economy and 

more out of taxpayer pockets than the 

tax system historically has. 

b 1320 

Tax reform is not about making the 

government bigger, it’s about creating 

jobs. That’s why this bill says Federal 

tax revenues should remain within historic norms of 18–19 percent of gross 

domestic product. 

Independent economists have noted, 

when paired with appropriate government spending cuts, comprehensive tax 

reform that includes these policies 

could lead to the creation of 1 million 

Americans jobs in the first year alone. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5665 

Compare that to the Democrat plan 

offered yesterday—a tax hike that 

would eliminate over 700,000 American 

jobs. The choice could not be clearer. 

Do we want and does America need 

Democrat tax hikes that destroy jobs? 

Or do we want, and does America need, 

Republican-backed tax reform that creates a simpler, fairer code and 1 million jobs in the first year alone? 

Today, my colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle have one more opportunity to stand with families and job 

creators by joining House Republicans 

to demonstrate their commitment to 

passing and enacting comprehensive 

tax reform next year. We can and 

should work together to revive our 

economy and get the unemployed back 

to work. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 

vote in favor of this legislation. And in 

doing so, take an important step to 

creating a simpler, fairer Tax Code and 

more jobs for American families. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. Yesterday, Republicans 

voted to make tax cuts for millionaires 

their priority over giving 114 million 

middle class Americans certainty. 

Today, they are doubling down on 

that agenda. The so-called principles 

laid out in this bill would rig tax reform to shift the burden of taxes further onto the middle class and ship 

jobs overseas. 

The Joint Economic Committee analysis—it’s described here—found that 

the average millionaire would get another $331,000 in tax cuts, while middle 

class families making less than $200,000 

would see their taxes go up by an average of $4,500. For millionaires, a tax 

break of $331,000; for middle class families, a tax increase of more at $4,500. 

That’s the Joint Economic Committee’s analysis. 

Why? Because the only way to finance these massive tax cuts for the 

highest earners is to eliminate or significantly curtail provisions that support the middle class. These are not 

loopholes. These are policies that in 

many cases help made the middle class 

of this country. Seventy percent of the 

benefit of the mortgage interest deduction, for example, goes to those who 

make less than $200,000. And 82 percent 

of the benefit of the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance goes 

to those making less than $200,000. And 

likewise, the provisions relating, for 

example, to education. 

Republicans like to say they will 

eliminate loopholes—and we just heard 

that language—and special interest 

provisions to pay for lower rates. But 

the provisions I mentioned are not 

loopholes. They are the policies that 

helped to build the middle class of 

America. They are basically middle 

class provisions, and now they are on 

the chopping block under this Republican plan. One way, among other ways 

to describe it, H.R. 6169 is Grover 

Norquist on steroids. 

We need tax reform, but not as a tactic to sock it to the middle class and 

help the very wealthy. Yet that is exactly what Republicans in Congress 

want to do. 

We recently received an analysis of 

the plan of Governor Romney. It’s also 

a plan highly offensive to the middle 

class. A report from the nonpartisan 

Tax Policy Center yesterday made no 

bones about what it would do to the 

middle class. They wrote that it is not 

mathematically possible to write a 

plan like the one drafted by Governor 

Romney ‘‘that does not result in a net 

tax cut for high-income taxpayers and 

a net tax increase for lower- and/or 

middle-income taxpayers.’’ 

The House Republican plan to lower 

the corporate rate to 25 percent would 

require eliminating every provision 

that encourages American manufacturing—the R&D credit, accelerated depreciation, and the manufacturing deduction. Every one of those. 

And, the Joint Committee on Taxation has found that even if you eliminated everything, you could only lower 

the rate to 28 percent on a revenueneutral basis. 

We need tax reform—indeed, we do— 

but not a tax rewrite that discourages 

companies from making it in America 

and that would move us to a territorial 

system that taxes no businesses’ offshore income and helps to ship jobs 

overseas. 

Well, surely a plan this radical—and 

that’s really what it is, a radical Republican proposal—should be subject to 

the full scrutiny of regular order and 

full debate. But not under this bill. 

Under this bill, the pathway Republicans are setting up is really a railroad to shift the tax burden onto the 

middle class and ship jobs overseas. 

It creates a tax czar, and I’m opposed 

to any of us being a tax czar, Republican or Democrat, Mr. CAMP, myself, 

or anybody else. It would be a tax czar 

who creates the plan and then certifies 

their plan, that it achieves their goals. 

It would allow him or her to add any 

other proposal to this high-speed train 

through Congress. Social Security privatization, that could become part, not 

of this fast track, but this railroad. Repeal of health reform, or anything else. 

We should reject that path and adopt 

the Slaughter substitute, which would 

articulate principles for tax reform 

that would strengthen the middle 

class, create jobs in the U.S., and reduce the deficit. 

You know, we continue to hear about 

small businesses. 97 percent would receive the full tax benefit under what 

was rejected yesterday and that we put 

forth. And in terms of this report about 

700,000 jobs, every fact checker has said 

it’s essentially bogus. And I think 

that’s how bankrupt the majority is. 

Coming forth, I’d like them to answer the Joint Economic analysis. 

I’d like them to answer the study 

that came out from three people about 

Governor Romney’s proposal. One of 

the Romney spokespersons said: It’s a 

liberal think tank that analyzed it 

that way. Oh, no; two of the three authors served in Republican administrations. It’s not a partisan analysis, it’s a 

bipartisan analysis, and it shows essentially what’s being proposed here, and 

what Governor Romney is proposing, 

is, sock it to middle class America in 

order to help the very, very wealthiest. 

That isn’t the America that we want. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

b 1330 

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself 15 seconds. 

I would just say to my friend that I 

don’t know whose plan that is. Somebody made that up because that’s not 

our plan. A plan that increases middle 

class taxes isn’t something that I could 

agree with. 

What we envision is an open process 

that Republicans and Democrats can 

offer amendments on. But the point is 

this: comprehensive tax reform that 

creates jobs and gets the economy 

moving and gets us back on track can 

be accomplished. 

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 

chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. BRADY). 

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, 

as vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, I would point out 

that that was a partisan report—very 

partisan report on the Republican tax 

proposal developed by the Ways and 

Means Committee and included in the 

Republican budget. 

But let me ask you this, because 

here’s the real question: As hardworking Americans, when you open the 

mailbox and see a letter from the IRS, 

what do you think? How frightened are 

you? If you’re a small business owner 

and you get a call from the IRS saying 

it’s time to audit you, how fearful are 

you? 

The truth of the matter is, Americans are frightened of their own tax 

law, of their own Tax Code. They know 

it’s unfair; they know it’s too complicated. They know if they make a 

mistake, who knows how damaging it 

would be for them. 

We now have one full of special loopholes so complicated the best tax lawyers in America—including the IRS— 

don’t quite understand it. And now 

we’ve gone from first to worst in the 

world. America’s tax rates are the 

worst among our competitors. So this 

is why jobs are going overseas. And you 

will hear Members of Congress, you 

will hear the President, you will hear 

candidates for Congress say we need to 

fix this Tax Code, but they don’t do it. 

House Republicans are going to act to 

fix this broken Tax Code. 

The chairman of the Ways and Means 

Committee, DAVE CAMP, has held 24 

very thoughtful, very solid hearings to 

find ways to move forward on tax reform. Today, the House has the opportunity to lay out principles for a far 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5666 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

more simple Tax Code, a far more fair 

Tax Code, one that doesn’t frighten us 

to death and one that doesn’t frighten 

our jobs overseas. 

More importantly, in this bill is a 

simple provision that says: Congress, 

you also have to do your job. It sets up 

a timetable for the House and Senate 

next year to have a guaranteed up-ordown vote on comprehensive tax reform. 

So no more stalling, no more delaying, no more talking about the need to 

fix this Tax Code. In the House today 

we will act to guarantee that Congress 

must take this up. And it’s about time 

because we are losing jobs, we’re dragging our own economy down, we’re 

frightening hardworking taxpayers 

who are just trying to live by the law, 

but no one actually understands this 

Tax Code. We’re determined to act; and 

when we do act, both today and next 

year, at fundamental reform that is 

lower and fairer and simpler, our economy is going to grow, this Nation is 

going to grow, and we’re going to be 

back on top of the world when it comes 

to the best business climate and 

strongest economy in the world. But 

today we first have to act. 

I strongly support this bill, and I encourage Members of this House to do so 

as well. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds. 

The gentleman from Texas talks 

about loopholes. Is the mortgage interest deduction a loophole? Is the charitable contribution deduction a loophole? State and local taxes a loophole? 

Municipal bonds a loophole? The health 

care provision a loophole? You keep 

using that word, I think, demagogically. 

I now yield 4 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, 

the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 

MCDERMOTT). 

(Mr. MCDERMOTT asked and was 

given permission to revise and extend 

his remarks.) 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the 

House of Representatives is a wonderful body. It’s one of the most amazing 

places in the whole world. It’s where 

we make decisions for 300 million people, and we make them for a lot of 

other places that we’re going to influence around the world. And every once 

in a while you sort of come here and 

say, I think I’ve seen everything, and 

then we’ve got one more. 

Here we are today, the last day of the 

session, with no debate whatsoever on 

this bill—anywhere. It’s just brought 

out here de novo. I guess it came from 

God, or from the Speaker’s Office, or 

someplace. I don’t have any idea where 

it came from. But it seems to me that 

the House of Representatives is working hard to forget every positive lesson 

we have learned in the history of governing this country about how to get 

things—big things—done for the American people. 

Today’s bill sets up a process to ram 

through whatever bill Congressman 

LEVIN writes in 2013, because he’ll be 

chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He will sit in a closed room, 

using arbitrary rates, with no input 

and no debate. It will be a disaster. Did 

I say LEVIN? I meant CAMP. What am I 

talking about? 

It would be a disaster to have one 

person sit somewhere in a room and decide what the bill is and bring it out. 

And this power grab will destroy any 

attempt that we have or any chance we 

have of having tax reform. We used to 

know better. 

I got here in 1988—that was 2 years 

after the tax reform of 1986. Now, roll 

back the clock a little further. In 1980, 

Ronald Reagan won, 44-State mandate. 

He was in power. But there were also 

strong majorities on the Democratic 

side in the Congress, just like today. 

In 1980, just like today, the government was divided. And just like today, 

both sides wanted to get tax reform 

done. It wasn’t any different in 1980 

when President Reagan came in. But 

today we’re debating a power grab bill 

where it’s introduced by one Republican Member—I guess he didn’t have 

time to get anybody else to sign it before he had to drop it in to bring it out 

here and discuss it—scored by one 

Member and given an up-or-down vote 

by one Member. In every case, unfortunately, the lot falls to Mr. CAMP. 

I don’t think Mr. CAMP did this. This 

isn’t Mr. CAMP. I know him. This isn’t 

the kind of bill he would sit down and 

write, because we’ve seen him when he 

writes bills. This was written somewhere, and this is how we’re going to 

ram through the House of Representatives, and the point of the sword is Mr. 

CAMP. 

Now, this appalling breach of procedure is the worst try to get anything 

done in the House of Representatives. I 

can’t be more clear: comprehensive tax 

reform simply will not happen if the 

process and the bill are autocratic and 

rabidly partisan. That’s the end of it 

right there. 

Back in the 1980s, both the Republicans and the Democrats knew that 

this was true. Tip O’Neill sat up here, 

he was Democratic Speaker of the 

House, and Ronald Reagan sat down at 

the end of Pennsylvania as the President. They fiercely disagreed with each 

other on just about everything when 

they started, but they knew that they 

had to find areas of agreement and 

compromise to get anything done as 

big as tax reform. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 2 

minutes to the gentleman. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. These two were 

not cut from the same piece of cloth. 

Tip O’Neill was a working class Irishman. He was passionate about fairness, 

knew how to get things done, and, well, 

he liked to have a glass of whiskey now 

and then. Ronald Reagan believed in a 

pure sense of individualism. To Ronald 

Reagan, tax reform was about lowering 

taxes. He also liked to tell jokes and 

occasionally have a glass of whiskey. 

They both liked to play golf. 

Then there was Rostenkowski. He 

was the chairman of the Ways and 

Means Committee. He also played golf, 

and he liked a glass of whiskey occasionally. They all got to know each 

other. They pulled other people in. 

They discussed issues in detail. It was 

bipartisan. It was not done on one side 

or the other or simply by one person— 

wouldn’t, couldn’t, never would have 

happened in those days. They did the 

people’s business that way. 

Now, lots of voters are angry these 

days. They don’t think Washington 

works. Well, it doesn’t work when you 

get this kind of legislation brought out 

here. 

b 1340 

If people from both sides can’t sit 

down—it took Ronald Reagan and Tip 

O’Neill and Rostenkowski 6 years, from 

1980 to 1986, talking about this issue by 

the time they finally got it all done. 

And here we have a bill that, I guess 

this could pass by—well, when we get 

back from Labor Day I suppose it will 

be a couple days and then it will be 

through the House. 

That’s not going to happen. You 

know it’s not going to happen, and I 

know it’s not going to happen. And the 

public is angry about this because 

Washington is not dysfunctional because Members of Congress aren’t extreme enough. They’re not getting 

things done because we’re not working 

together. 

To do tax reform well, to do it right, 

in fact, to do it at all, we will have to 

work together. It will take time, it will 

take debate, and it will take thoughtful consideration. There is no other 

way. 

This bill we are considering today 

guarantees failure. It’s bad for America. I ask Members to vote ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 3 

minutes to a distinguished members of 

the Ways and Means Committee and 

chairman of the Budget Committee, 

the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 

RYAN). 

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the 

Chair for yielding. And I enjoyed listening to the stories of lore from my 

colleagues who hearken back to the 

good old days when we had smokefilled backroom deals where laws were 

written. That’s not what we are interested in achieving here. What we want 

to achieve is a process done in plain 

view, transparent to the public, that 

maximizes the opportunity for Congress to actually fix the mess that has 

become the United States Tax Code. 

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, I 

think there’s a difference in philosophy 

here. One side likes to think of the idea 

of everybody sending their money to 

Washington, then we go into a backroom and we slice up the money and 

then we send it out to favored groups, 

favored constituents, and people that 

we want to be as winners versus those 

who might be losers. 

We’ve got to get out of the game of 

Washington picking winners and losers 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5667 

in the Tax Code. Because what we do is 

we stifle that entrepreneur who has an 

idea, who might not have connections, 

but can actually have an idea and 

make a business grow. We want to remove those barriers to opportunity. We 

want to remove those barriers to upward mobility. We want a system of entrepreneurs where we have true entrepreneurial capitalism, not this crony 

capitalism. 

Mr. Speaker, both political parties 

are guilty of this. Republicans and 

Democrats for decades were party to 

the process of tucking into the Tax 

Code all these various special interest 

loopholes which end up rewarding a few 

while raising tax rates on the many. 

Well, we’ve got to get through those 

days, because if we haven’t noticed, 

we’re in global competition. Ninetyseven percent of the world’s consumers 

live in other countries. If we want to 

have a good, strong growing entrepreneurial economy, we need to make 

things here in America and sell things 

overseas. But if we keep taxing our 

successful small businesses, our businesses all around at much higher tax 

rates than our foreign competitors tax 

theirs, they win and we lose. 

I come from Wisconsin. We’re a manufacturing State. That’s how we survive. We grow things, and we make 

things in Wisconsin. Our chief competitors right over Lake Superior are the 

Canadians. Canada just lowered their 

tax rate for all of their businesses to 15 

percent last January. Well, the substitute that the gentleman brought to 

the floor, the substitute that the President is asking for, will bring the effective top tax rate for those most successful small businesses in Wisconsin 

to as high as 44.8 percent. 

Mr. Speaker, how on Earth are our 

businesses, our manufacturers, our successful small businesses going to compete when we’re taxing them at a Federal level almost as high as 45 percent 

and our competitors are at 25 or 15 or 

lower? We won’t. That’s why we want 

to reform the tax system. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield the 

gentleman 1 additional minute. 

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The difference in philosophy is this. Some 

here like the idea of bringing more 

money out of people’s paychecks, more 

money out of our successful small businesses, and then parceling it out in favors. We prefer the opposite. Let people, let families and let businesses keep 

their money in the first place so they 

can decide what they want to do with 

it. 

By having high tax rates with lots of 

loopholes, all we end up doing is we 

say, you can have some of your money 

back if you do what we approve of in 

Washington. Even with the best of intentions behind such ideas, it gets corrupt. The powerful and the connected 

are the ones who call the shots. 

So, yes, we need to clear the brush 

out. And, yes, there are popular provisions in the Tax Code, and that is why 

we want to have a process in front to 

debate those things. There will be fiscal space left for things like charities 

and such the like. Let’s have a clear— 

in public, not a backroom—process 

where we debate just how best to go 

forward. And what we want is a clean 

up-and-down vote so that we can get 

this country going again, we can get 

this economy back on track, and we 

can look at our children and know that 

we left them better off. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds. 

The Republican bill indeed picks winners and losers. The winners are the 

very wealthy, and the losers are the 

middle class Americans of this country. 

I now, with pleasure, yield 5 minutes 

to the gentleman from Massachusetts 

(Mr. FRANK). 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Speaker, first, I note that the chairman of the Budget Committee said 

that we want to get this out of the 

backrooms. Then I reread the bill, and 

the bill says that one person, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, will draft this bill, certify it, 

and present it to the Congress with 

very limited time to debate. So it is 

true. They do want to replace the backroom, but with a telephone booth. Now, 

that’s hard to do because there aren’t 

that many phone booths left. But there 

will apparently be one in which the 

chairman of Ways and Means will single-handedly draft this bill without a 

great deal of input. 

What is it they’re going to draft? 

What we’re told is it will include reductions in the rates paid by the wealthiest, and it alludes in the most—not 

even close to specific terms—to getting 

rid of some loopholes. But we don’t 

know what those are. This great courageous effort to deal with the special interests begins by ignoring it, by promising goodies to the wealthiest people 

will reduce your taxes, and we’ll somehow make it up in a vague way. With 

how they don’t know, because they 

don’t want to say. 

Procedurally and substantively, the 

bill is a disaster. That’s the bad news. 

The good news is that no one thinks it 

is a serous legislative effort. This is 

one more bumper sticker from the gang 

that cannot legislate. We are here 

today with the Republican leadership 

having backed down on passing a bill 

that the Agriculture Committee came 

forward with. 

Now, it’s popular on the Republican 

side to talk about the Senate. Oh, the 

Democrats run the Senate, and they’re 

choking everything off. Exactly the opposite is the case. The Senate passed a 

transportation bill. The House 

couldn’t. The House couldn’t even take 

one up because there is such division 

within the Republican Party. So here, 

in a procedural maneuver that smacks 

of a very undemocratic way, they 

sneaked into conference—a conference 

report came with the Senate transportation bill, the only bill that passed either House, and then Members obediently passed an omnibus bill, including 

a transportation bill, that this House 

never got to concede. 

But even that looks good compared 

to postal issues. The Postal Service is 

now in default. Yeah, it is de fault—it’s 

de fault of de Republicans, who are, 

again, so ideologically driven, so unable to deal with the basics of government because of their dominance by a 

faction that does not understand the 

role of our coming together to do 

things in a society, and the post office, 

that’s a pretty controversial one. That 

radical George Washington set it up. 

It’s a great unifier in this country, and 

it continues to be. One of the things we 

do here, people scoff at it, we name 

post offices. But those are great symbols of the community. And I’ve got to 

say, with all of the new communications, no one has ever asked me to 

name an iPod after anybody. We use 

the post offices. 

But what happened? The Senate 

passed a postal bill. This House can’t 

take one up, once again, because this 

Republican Party is so divided between 

their extremist wing and other people 

that—so we got transportation, we 

have postal, they can’t do a postal bill, 

and the Postal Service is now in default while we debate this bill that no 

one takes seriously, that the chairman 

of Ways and Means will singlehandedly put on his cape and fly down 

here with this bill that will help the 

rich, and it will do some unmentioned 

things regarding popular tax breaks, 

because they don’t want to mention 

them. And then we have the agriculture bill. 

b 1350 

So on the fundamental functions of 

government, an agriculture bill, a 

transportation bill, and a postal bill, 

the party that couldn’t legislate didn’t 

legislate, again, because they cannot 

get people on their own side to understand what we need in this society. 

We need a postal service. We need 

transportation. We need an agriculture 

bill; although, I’d like to see one different than the one the committee 

brought out. But we didn’t even get a 

chance to vote on them. Instead, we 

get a bumper sticker. Oh, we’re going 

to cut taxes for the wealthy. 

And I did notice, too, they said 

they’re going to get the taxes to be 18 

or 19 percent of the GDP. We have Mr. 

Romney committing that we will spend 

4 percent of the GDP on the military, 

whether that’s what’s needed or not, 

whether we go to more wars or not. 

So look at what’s left. Take what 

they want to put in taxes, take what 

Romney wants to commit to the military, and there’s no room for anything 

else. There’s not much room for a good 

Medicare program. Social Security 

gets squeezed, the environment, clean 

water, transportation. 

That’s why they can’t legislate, because they’re locked into an ideological mindset that reduces, they say, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5668 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

the revenues and increases the military 

beyond what is needed and leaves us 

unable to do those things which a civilized society wants to come together 

to do. 

So, yeah, the bad news is that this is 

a crazy bill, but the good news is that 

after today’s bumper sticker waving, 

no one will pay attention to it. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, at this time 

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 

gentleman from Texas (Mr. HENSARLING). 

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, every single day we see 

more proof of the President’s failed 

economic policies. We just have heard 

that last quarter’s GDP was revised 

down. It’s probably two-thirds of what 

it ought to be. Forty-one straight 

months of 8 percent-plus unemployment. Millions can’t find jobs; millions 

more only can find part-time work. 

Real disposable income of working 

families down under this President’s 

failed policies. 

And because his policies have failed, 

he resorts to the politics of diversion, 

division, and envy. Change the subject. 

Let’s talk about taxes. Let’s divide 

Americans into smaller groups and 

make them envious of each other. 

So the President comes and says, 

Let’s increase taxes. Let’s increase 

taxes on a million small businesses. 

Fact: Ernst & Young has said this 

will cost our economy 700,000 jobs. 

Fact: Small businesses now say, for 

the first time in almost 4 years, the 

greatest threat is not lack of sales; it’s 

taxes. And that’s why House Republicans voted yesterday to stop the tax 

increases. Stop the tax increases. 

Today we take the next step, and 

that is to create a process for a fair, 

flatter, simpler, and more competitive 

Tax Code, one that will assure that the 

family budget doesn’t go broke paying 

for the Federal budget, one that ensures that the success of working families depends on how hard they work in 

their hometowns and not the size of 

their tax loopholes in Washington, D.C. 

Now, my friends from the other side 

of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, they have 

great theories that we’re going to tax 

our way into economic growth. If only 

we will tax small businesses more, then 

somehow they’ll create more jobs. 

Beatings will continue until morale 

improves is their theory. 

Well, we have history. We have history. Go to the Coolidge administration, the Kennedy administration, the 

Reagan administration, the Bush administration. Every time we have lowered marginal rates, every time that 

we have simplified the Tax Code, not 

only have we ignited economic growth, 

but we’ve actually received more tax 

revenues. 

And yet my friends from the other 

side of the aisle and the President, 

they want to defend the status quo, 

only more so. And now I wake up this 

morning to discover that, as they defend the global system, that even our 

Olympians are going to be taxed on 

their Olympic medals. So we’ve had a 

President who told every small business man in America, every small business woman, You didn’t build that, by 

defending this global system, they now 

tell our Olympians, You didn’t win 

that. That belongs to the Internal Revenue system. 

This is what it is about today: less 

taxes and more jobs; more taxes, fewer 

jobs. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 4 minutes to the 

gentleman from California (Mr. THOMPSON), a distinguished member of our 

committee. 

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I 

thank the gentleman for yielding. 

I rise in opposition to this bill. 

It’s interesting. Today’s the 1-year 

anniversary of the enactment of the 

Budget Control Act, and that came 

about and left us with this impending 

sequestration. So let’s remember why 

we passed the Budget Control Act. 

We passed it because it was a compromise reached in order to raise the 

debt ceiling, which the House majority 

was refusing to allow to be raised. 

They were refusing to raise the debt 

ceiling because they said that they 

were concerned and they cared about 

our Nation’s debt. 

But just yesterday, that same House 

majority passed a bill that will add 

over $400 billion to our national debt in 

just 1 year, a bill that continues tax 

cuts that added $3 trillion to our debt 

over the last decade and that history 

has shown didn’t help economic 

growth. Now we have this bill on the 

floor to mandate strict parameters of 

tax reform. 

I want to do tax reform, Mr. Speaker. 

There isn’t any one of us who doesn’t 

want to do tax reform, but this is the 

wrong way to go about it. Locking in 

certain rates and certain rules is not 

how tax reform is done and can lead to 

very serious unintended consequences, 

like exploding our national debt. 

Yesterday, the Tax Policy Center released a review of Mitt Romney’s tax 

plan, which is not dissimilar to the 

principles in this underlying bill. The 

study found, and I quote: 

It is not mathematically possible to design 

a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment 

and that does not result in a net tax cut for 

the highest-income taxpayers and a net tax 

increase for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. 

The Joint Economic Committee confirmed today that the plan in this bill 

would mean that people who make 

under $200,000 a year would see their 

taxes raised, in this case, by about 

$4,500, while millionaires would see tax 

breaks of over—hold on to your hat— 

$300,000. And there’s nothing in this bill 

that says that tax reform will not increase our debt. 

We should do tax reform, and we 

should do it in a deliberative, thoughtful way, rather than by passing bills 

saying that we should do tax reform. 

For this reason, I strongly urge everyone to vote ‘‘no’’ on this piece of legislation. 

Mr. CAMP. I would just yield myself 

15 seconds and say that the plan the 

gentleman refers to is a made-up plan. 

What we’re looking at is the model set 

up in the Bowles-Simpson Commission, 

which has been endorsed in a bipartisan way, that will be an open process 

that will allow amendments so we can 

debate these ideas in that process, not 

this made-up bill that they went and 

are discussing on the floor today. 

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the 

gentleman from California (Mr. HERGER), the distinguished chairman of the 

Health Subcommittee. 

Mr. HERGER. Yesterday, this House 

voted to stop the job-destroying tax 

hike that threatens to hit every American taxpayer at midnight on December 31. Today, we have an opportunity 

to build on that. We have an opportunity not only to do the right thing 

for jobs and job creators in the shortterm, but to begin building the foundation for a more stable and prosperous 

economy in the future. 

Few would argue that our current 

Tax Code is ideal. It’s far too complicated, with taxpayers spending over 

$160 billion each year just to figure out 

what they owe. Even the Commissioner 

of the IRS has acknowledged that he 

hires a professional tax preparer to do 

his own taxes. 

It’s often unfair, with some taxpayers enjoying the benefits of narrow 

tax breaks that are not available to 

others. It has increasingly become a 

patchwork of temporary rules that fail 

to provide America’s small businesses 

and job creators with the certainty 

they need to plan for the future. 

b 1400 

Many of its features actually penalize the work, investment, and savings 

that are necessary to economic growth. 

Furthermore, an outdated international tax system, combined with 

the highest corporate tax rate in the 

developed world, places American companies at a disadvantage against their 

competitors based in Europe and 

China. 

The bill before us lays out a pathway 

to a simpler, fairer, and more progrowth Tax Code. With the right kind 

of tax reform, our Tax Code can become a means to support job creation 

rather than an obstacle standing in the 

way. In fact, it has been estimated that 

the tax reform would free up American 

businesses to create as many as 1 million new jobs in the first year alone. 

I want to commend Chairman CAMP

for his outstanding leadership on this 

issue and for making it clear that 

House Republicans are serious about 

tax reform. Today’s vote will send a 

strong message that tax reform is moving forward. I urge all Members to vote 

‘‘yes.’’ 

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 5 minutes to 

a veteran of negotiations on taxes and 

tax reform, the gentleman from New 

York (Mr. RANGEL). 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5669 

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given 

permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. RANGEL. First, let me thank 

Ranking Member LEVIN for giving me 

this opportunity, and let me thank the 

chairman for bringing up the idea that 

this Congress is concerned about taxes. 

I say that because some of us will go 

home, and our friends and constituents 

will say, Well, how long are you going 

to be home? I guess we have to say for 

close to a month. 

They say, Do you mean that Thursday, today, was the last day for over a 

month? 

Yes. 

So what were you doing? 

I’ll say, We were doing taxes. 

Oh. What were you doing about 

taxes? Were you talking about reforming it? 

I would say, I heard the word ‘‘reform’’ being used, but no. We are being 

asked by the Republican majority to 

vote for a pathway to reform. 

I wish I had some of the Republican 

statements on this floor stapled to my 

press release so that I could explain 

what the heck is a ‘‘pathway to reform.’’ 

Since 1986, what we had thought ‘‘reform’’ was was to cut out from that 

Tax Code obscene provisions—some 

shouldn’t have been in there, and certainly there is no reason for them to be 

in there now—to save trillions of dollars and to take that savings by reducing the high rate that we pay corporations and so that we can be competitive in the international market; but 

someone outside of the Congress said 

that to close these loopholes and to 

raise revenue are the wrong things to 

do. I don’t know where this wiggly path 

is to reform, but I know one thing— 

we’re not going to be dealing with this 

path in August or in September. It’s 

hard for me to believe that we’re going 

to do it this year. 

So what the heck do we need a path 

for when the American people are jobless and looking for a way to some type 

of relief and when the only thing they 

believe is that, somewhere along the 

line, the Republicans want to get rid of 

Obama and don’t care how they get rid 

of him? The Republicans don’t care 

whether it’s jobs, education, science, 

air pollution. Don’t let the Congress be 

cooperative and be involved with anything that’s good for the country as 

long as the President gets a chance to 

sign it for the United States of America. 

Now, how in the heck can we be on a 

path to reform when basically what 

we’re talking about is that tax reductions that were supposed to be temporary expire at the end of this year? 

What reform is there for those people 

who see a dramatic increase in their 

taxes in order for liberals and conservatives to say, We don’t want that to 

happen? If we don’t want that to happen, why don’t we do something about 

it today so that they and businesses 

will know what tomorrow is going to 

look like beyond today, which for all 

practical purposes is the end of our legislative session? 

It is my understanding that 98 percent of the people will get dramatic increases under this pathway, this roadway. Their taxes will go up. Now, we 

have to admit there are some wealthy 

people who belong to the less than 2 

percent. It’s abundantly clear, if the 

reason they have to hold hostage the 98 

percent is that they have created all of 

the jobs, well, they certainly haven’t 

proved it in the past; they aren’t proving it now; and very few of them hold 

small businesses so that they will be 

adversely affected. I would assume that 

that is the controversial 2 percent. I 

would assume that that’s what we 

should fight about. 

I would hate to be a Republican who 

has to go back home to his district and 

explain that the reason 98 percent of 

hardworking taxpayers are going to get 

an increase in their taxes is that we 

felt so strongly about the top wealthiest people that we said, The heck with 

them. We’re not giving that up until 

we make certain that you are protected. 

Wow. Sometimes the party asks too 

much of its members, and I really hope 

that somewhere along the line the hatred and animosity for this President 

at least will be reduced to the voting 

booths and not to the country. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

CHAFFETZ). The time of the gentleman 

has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an 

additional 30 seconds. 

Mr. RANGEL. Someone once said 

that the goal of the Republican Party 

is to get rid of Obama and to make him 

a first-term President. 

I understood that. I started saying 

these things about Nixon and Bush—all 

of those things—but I never dreamed 

that it meant having the country go 

down with the captain. I never dreamed 

that it meant that you don’t let the 

President increase the debt ceiling. I 

never dreamed that it included millions of jobs and tax relief for people as 

it seems that they mean. I hope things 

change in September. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 

minutes to a distinguished member of 

the Ways and Means Committee, the 

gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ROSKAM). 

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding. 

I was listening to the gentleman 

from New York, and I sincerely appreciate his warm, heartfelt advice for the 

Republican Party. 

I am amazed at the characterization 

of being in opposition to a President’s 

policies as somehow being in opposition to the country. I fundamentally 

reject that. I think that that is a gross 

characterization. I think, on behalf of 

everybody on the GOP side, that that is 

an absurd argument. 

I want to pick up on a thread and a 

subtext of what we heard from our 

friends on the other side of the aisle. 

It’s a very interesting thing, and I’m 

not being sarcastic. It is a very hopeful 

thing, which is this, Mr. Speaker: 

Did you notice today that there is 

nobody who is defending the status quo 

of our current Tax Code? Nobody. We 

will not hear any voice from our 

friends on the other side defending the 

current Tax Code. We will hear no 

voice today on this side or on the other 

side among all of those Members—and I 

haven’t listened to our friends on the 

other side of the dome, but I’m hunching that there is nobody—who is defending the status quo. 

So what does that mean for us today? 

That means there is an unbelievable 

opportunity. There is an opportunity 

that is born of recognition of a failed 

system. Some characterize it as ‘‘crony 

capitalism,’’ which is, if you’re connected, if you’re somebody of means, if 

you’re able to come into this town and 

with a sharp elbow insert something 

into the Tax Code and manipulate it, 

then you get an economic win at the 

expense of everybody else. 

The gentleman from New York asked 

a rhetorical question a couple of minutes ago, and I jotted it down. He 

asked: What do we need a path for? 

We need a path to get out of this. 

That’s what we need a path for. With 

all due respect to the President, the 

President is not leading on a pathway 

that shows us how to get out of this. 

So what do you have the chairman of 

the committee and the GOP in the 

House doing right now? 

They’re saying, look, let’s not defend 

the status quo. Let’s instead completely transform this debate, and let’s 

focus in on one word, and that is the 

word ‘‘competitiveness.’’ How do we 

create in this country the most competitive tax jurisdiction in the world? 

b 1410 

Could you imagine how great it could 

be? Could you imagine what it would 

be like if our Tax Code were a foundation upon which—what could happen? 

You could have entrepreneurs who are 

willing to take risks because there is a 

possibility of reward in the future. 

Right now, they’re being told from this 

town that if you built it, you didn’t 

really build it, and we don’t want to 

have you take credit for it. That’s ridiculous. That’s absurd. That’s a world 

view that we should shun and reject 

and move away from. 

We need to pass this. We need to pass 

this urgently, and I urge an ‘‘aye’’ 

vote. 

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 4 minutes to 

another distinguished member of our 

committee, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. 

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

Mr. NEAL. In quick reference to the 

previous speaker, I don’t know how you 

can say how do we get out of this, and 

then simultaneously embrace the Romney tax plan, which is $5 trillion more 

of tax cuts and propose at the same 

time the extension of the Bush tax 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5670 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

cuts. That’s a $7 trillion tax cut proposal. Has anybody heard about those 

million new veterans we have, the 

45,000 that have been wounded? What’s 

going to happen to the veterans system 

for years to come? It’s a $4 trillion cost 

of the war in Iraq when you factor all 

of that together. 

We’ve had some really good hearings 

this year on both sides. We’ve talked 

fundamentally about the best path forward to tax reform, and we all agree 

that the current system is creaking of 

its own weight. But that’s contrary to 

the idea of fast-tracking, what needs to 

be a deliberative procedure for understanding what the elimination of some 

of these expenditures really means. 

Despite the talk here today, I’ll bet 

you a year from now that we will not 

have eliminated the homeowner deduction, and a year from now we will not 

have eliminated employer-based health 

insurance, and we will not have eliminated the tax expenditure for charitable deductions. The question is: 

What’s the framework that we’re taking up today? The response to that is: 

not much. 

Let me start by saying that what’s 

striking about this proposal is that we 

all acknowledge that over 6 billion 

hours a year and $160 billion is too 

much in trying to comply with the current system. My favorite target is the 

alternative minimum tax. I’ve proposed eliminating that tax for a decade 

and actually have come up with payfors for addressing it, by shutting down 

some of the off-shoring accounts that 

currently companies who decide to expatriate and give up their American 

address take advantage of. They are 

not former citizens of the United 

States. They are current citizens of the 

United States. Sophisticated tax avoidance should be addressed. 

The AMT, it was enacted in response 

to—by the way, there were only two 

Republicans in Congress who voted 

against it. It was a bipartisan assault 

on AMT when first addressed; 155 highincome individuals weren’t paying any 

taxes, so Congress responded. President 

Reagan also embraced the idea that 

people ought to pay something. Today, 

30 million middle class families are 

caught in the alternative minimum 

tax, and we patch it each year. 

Here’s where the American people 

really should get upset. Since 2001, this 

is what the patch has meant. I want 

you to listen to this number. We have 

spent $400 billion patching alternative 

minimum tax. The Romney proposal, 

coupled with the Republican proposal 

to extend the Bush tax cuts, will take 

us in 2012 and 2013, when surely we’re 

going to patch this again, to $600 billion of patches for a $1.2 trillion problem. We’ve spent $50 billion of patching 

it. You know what that’s like? That’s 

like taking a credit card and saying 

you’re only going to make the minimum payment every month and trying 

to figure out why the principal has not 

been reduced. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman 

from Massachusetts an additional 1 

minute. 

Mr. NEAL. The point here is that if 

we all agree that tax reform needs to 

take place and we need to assess what 

current expenditures mean in the system, but also have some enthusiasm 

for taking up the off-shoring issue, and 

taking up those that willfully hide 

money overseas in bank accounts and 

they don’t want the IRS to know what 

they’ve set aside, that’s part of fundamental tax reform. 

There’s an opportunity here to do 

something similar to what Ronald 

Reagan and Speaker O’Neill did in 1986 

in a bipartisan fashion with both sides 

getting together in an effort to figure 

out what to do about building a tax 

system that keeps America, as the 

former speaker noted, ‘‘competitive 

going forward.’’ This is not the procedure, Mr. Speaker, to undertake that 

sort of initiative. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 

Democrats’ middle class tax cut substitute that 

would extend tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans—and in opposition to the Republicans’ 

legislation that would extend all of the Bush 

tax cuts. 

Congress has a responsibility to protect 

middle class Americans from getting hit with a 

big tax hike next year—a tax hike of $2,200 

for the typical family. Last week, the Senate 

passed a bill that would extend for one year 

the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans. 

And now it’s up to us in the House to provide 

certainty to middle class Americans that their 

taxes will not go up next year. 

But instead of doing what’s right for middle 

class families and extending the Bush tax cuts 

for 98 percent of Americans, the Republicans 

are holding these tax cuts hostage until we extend tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of 

Americans. If the middle class tax cuts expire, 

it would result in a tax hike for over 100 million 

American families, including 2.5 million families in Massachusetts. Let’s not let that happen. 

Even more troubling, the Republican tax 

package ends President Obama’s tax cuts that 

make college more affordable and help working families with children. So not only are our 

Republican colleagues holding the middle 

class tax cuts hostage to extending tax cuts 

for the wealthiest, the Republicans would actually raise taxes on 25 million families with an 

average tax increase of $1,000. 

I introduced legislation last week that would 

extend these enhancements to the child tax 

credit and earned income tax credit. But the 

Republicans’ tax package fails to include 

many of the enhancements in my bill and, 

therefore, would raise taxes on millions of low 

and moderate-income families next year. Even 

though the Republicans tell us that they’re 

against raising taxes, what they really mean is 

they’re against raising taxes on the wealthy. I 

ask the American people—does this seem fair 

to you? 

I urge my colleagues to learn from past experiences. We tried the Republicans’ approach 

to taxes for 8 years during the Bush years and 

it didn’t work. Let’s stand up for middle class 

Americans and pass the Senate-passed tax 

extension bill. We all agree that we should extend the middle class tax cuts—so let’s put 

aside politics and pass this important bill and 

provide certainly for American families. 

I’d like to close by talking about one final 

issue that’s very important to Massachusetts— 

the AMT. I’ve been a long time advocate of 

addressing the problems with the AMT. The 

first AMT was enacted in 1982 to ensure that 

the wealthiest Americans paid their fair share. 

However, because the Bush Tax Cuts decreased tax rates without making corresponding changes to the AMT, millions of 

Americans become subject to the AMT each 

year even though they do not make a lot of 

money. To avoid this result, for the past few 

years, Congress has enacted an ‘‘AMT patch’’ 

that prevents these higher taxes from hitting 

middle income families. 

Unfortunately, the most recent AMT patch 

expired at the end of last year. And so millions 

of middle class families could pay thousands 

more in taxes when they file their returns in 

April 2013 if we don’t enact an AMT patch for 

2012. 

This is a huge deal for my home State of 

Massachusetts. About 975,000 families in 

Massachusetts, including about 80,000 in my 

district, will be hit with the AMT if we don’t 

enact a patch for 2012. This includes about 

785,000 middle income families who make 

less than $200,000 a year. 

To address this issue, both the Democratic 

and Republican tax bills include AMT patches. 

But we need to move beyond the patches and 

really address the problems with the AMT. 

Since 2001, we’ve spent about $407 billion on 

AMT patches—and if we pass a two year AMT 

patch for 2012 and 2013, we’ll have spent 

about $600 billion on patches. Repealing the 

AMT would cost about 1.2 trillion—so for the 

amount of money Congress has spent on 

patches over the past few years, we could 

have paid for half the cost of repealing the 

AMT. I call on my Republican colleagues to 

work with me on a bipartisan basis to address 

the AMT problem. 

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

majority leader of the House. 

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman 

from Michigan. 

Mr. Speaker, the choice before us is 

very clear. The priority for all of us is 

jobs, and the choice of how to best create an environment to create jobs is 

are we going to have taxes go up or 

not. Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans have put forward solutions to 

stop the tax hike so we can help create 

jobs for small businesses and beyond. 

Given that economic growth has 

stalled under President Obama’s policies, it is downright puzzling that he 

and our colleagues on the other side of 

the aisle would push for raising taxes 

on working families and small business 

owners. Nearly 2 years ago, President 

Obama opposed the same small business tax hike he now supports. Back 

then, he acknowledged that raising 

taxes was the wrong thing to do if you 

want to bring about job creation in a 

tough economy. 

This raises the question: Does the 

President actually think that the economy is doing so well that we should 

now tax job creators? Our Democratic 

colleagues offered their own tax proposal. Instead of offering a plan that 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5671 

would spur economic growth, the minority put forward the President’s 

small business tax hike. As we saw, Mr. 

Speaker, the only plan with bipartisan 

support that passed this House this 

week was the plan to ensure that taxes 

do not go up on any American. 

As many on both sides of the aisle 

have made clear, the last thing small 

businesses need right now is a tax hike. 

There’s no mystery as to how small 

business owners will respond when 

faced with higher taxes from Washington. They’re rational actors, Mr. 

Speaker. And when something costs 

more, you get less of it. With less 

money to the bottom line, small businesses won’t be able to grow as much, 

and they will not be able to expand as 

easily. 

As was said before by my colleagues 

from Michigan and Illinois, I think all 

of us agree on both sides of the aisle 

and on both sides of the Capitol that 

we need tax reform. This bill before us 

paves the way for pro-growth tax reform. This measure puts us on a path 

toward a simpler, flatter, fairer Tax 

Code. If you support comprehensive tax 

reform that will spur economic growth 

and make this country more competitive, you will vote for the bill. It’s that 

simple. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 

gentleman from Michigan and for his 

leadership this week and in many others in his shepherding the movement 

for tax reform in this body. Ultimately, 

today’s vote on this bill should be the 

easiest vote we take all year. Do we believe small business owners are the 

backbone of our economy? Do we want 

them to grow their businesses and create jobs? If the answer is ‘‘yes,’’ then 

you will support this bill. 

b 1420 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds. 

The majority leader continues to use 

a tool of propaganda, grabbing small 

business as his mantra. I want to repeat a fact given to us by Joint Tax: 

under our bill, 97 percent of small businesses would keep all of their tax 

cuts—97 percent. 

I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT), a 

member of our committee. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Reviewing this Republican bill before us, I found that 

there were many of its findings and 

purposes with which I fully agree. ‘‘The 

Tax Code is unfair.’’ . . . ‘‘The Tax 

Code violates fundamental principles of 

equal justice.’’ . . . ‘‘Exclusions, deductions, credits, and special rules make 

up tax expenditures that amount to 

over $1 trillion per year. . . .’’ 

And then I reflected on who has been 

in charge of this Tax Code for 14 of the 

last 18 years, and it is the very people 

who offer us this bill today. And of the 

other 4 years, in 2 of those, President 

Bush was ‘‘the decider.’’ So they’ve had 

ample opportunity to correct these deficiencies in our Tax Code. But the 

problem is that rarely over the course 

of the last couple of decades have they 

met a lobbyist peddling a loophole to 

whom they could say ‘‘no.’’ 

They talk to us about a fast track. 

Well, that would, indeed, be a new 

track for them because they’ve had almost two decades to put in place a Tax 

Code that would resolve the problems 

about which they complain today, and 

they’ve been inactive through that period. 

Oh, yes, there was a time when Republicans controlled essentially all 

three branches of the American Government, and they flirted with a flat 

tax. It had great appeal to the Flat 

Earth Society that dominates the Republican caucus on most issues, but 

they couldn’t make it work. 

Then they said they wanted a Fair 

Tax, and a fair tax sounded like something all of us could support. The only 

problem was that it would hike the 

cost of just about everything we buy— 

from food to a car to a home—by over 

20 percent. And when you really get 

into the details, it wasn’t all that fair, 

except to those at the top who have already benefited so much from the existing Tax Code. 

So Republicans have been in charge 

now for another year and a half in this 

Congress. They’ve had an opportunity 

to come forward not with a pathway to 

something they would do after the 

election but with a specific plan of how 

they would reform our Tax Code. And 

instead of that specific plan for this 

Tax Code that has grown by hundreds, 

if not thousands, of pages under Republican rule of complexity and with exceptions for those lobbyists who were 

powerful enough to have their voice 

heard and acted upon in this Capitol. 

Instead, they come forward with this 

flimsy little bill, principles with which 

most Americans could agree; it’s just 

the action that counts. And they say, 

We want to go on a fast track, but we’d 

rather wait until after the election to 

start the track. Well, haven’t we heard 

that story before when they were talking ‘‘fair,’’ when they were talking 

‘‘flat’’? Today they’re just talking 

about what they might do in the future. 

So we have to look for clues within 

this flimsy little bill of what, in fact, 

they would do if they were in the majority with President Romney, heaven 

forbid. And we got clue number one 

yesterday when they approved a bill to 

extend all of the tax breaks that President Bush approved for the very most 

privileged people in our society. And 

the effect of what they proposed and 

the approach they took was that those 

who were sitting comfortably on top of 

the economic ladder, they would gain. 

If they were a millionaire, they’d gain 

by more in their tax break than a police officer or a nurse or a small business owner in San Marcos or Schertz or 

New Braunfels or Lockhart—more than 

they make in a whole year, these privileged few would get for themselves in 

lower taxes. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 2 

minutes to the eloquent gentleman 

from Texas. 

Mr. DOGGETT. But the marine corporal, the single mom who is trying to 

get her daughter or son through college, they would actually see their 

taxes go up under this simplified fasttrack Republican approach. 

So those who are trying to get their 

toehold, their foothold into the first or 

second rung of that economic ladder, 

they end up having to pay for more tax 

breaks for those at the top. 

And now today, through this bill, we 

see that what Mitt Romney was a part 

of in exporting jobs abroad, he was 

really just getting started because 

what they propose is a ‘‘territorial’’ 

tax system. What is that? A territorial 

tax system is when you create jobs in 

somebody else’s territory. 

Here’s how it works. Here’s the plan 

that they’re talking about: you are a 

manufacturer, and you are trying to 

decide, where will I create my new 

plant and locate it? I could locate it in 

San Antonio, Texas. I could locate it in 

Shanghai. Under their territorial plan, 

if you locate it in Shanghai, it’s tax 

free. 

Guess where the incentive is under 

their plan to create new jobs? It’s not 

in Texas. It’s not in America. It’s 

someplace else. That’s what the territorial tax system is all about. But of 

course with all the loopholes that their 

lobbyists have been able to get through 

the decades, many, many corporations 

aren’t paying the 35 percent statutory 

tax rate. 

Many of our largest corporations, 

like General Electric, they’re not only 

paying a lower tax rate than the hardware store in Lockhart or in Austin 

that’s selling their products, but 

they’re paying a lower tax rate than 

the cleaning crew that cleaned up the 

board room at General Electric. Because they found all these loopholes, 

we have hundreds of large no-tax corporations that are paying next to nothing in terms of their taxes already. 

They would simply expand that with 

great inequity. 

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself 30 seconds. 

I would just say that the gentleman 

from Texas just described current law 

as long as you don’t bring it back. So 

what we’re looking for is really—we 

are in a crossroads. I agree with him on 

that. We really have a choice. Do we 

follow their path of a tax hike that 

costs us 700,000 jobs, or do we follow 

our path of comprehensive tax reform 

that grows our economy and creates up 

to 1 million jobs? 

At this time, I will yield 2 minutes to 

the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. SMITH), a member of the 

Ways and Means Committee. 

And I also ask unanimous consent 

that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 

TIBERI) be permitted to control the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5672 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

There was no objection. 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I thank the 

gentleman for yielding. 

I rise today in support of the underlying bill. And I think that the American people expect us to have a debate 

here in Washington that is about better policy and not one-upmanship and 

various 30-second sound bites. 

But we know that there are many 

barriers in our economy. There are barriers to moving our economy again and 

going forward, and we know that comprehensive tax reform is one of the 

most important issues we need to face. 

It isn’t always the most popular issue. 

It is not always the most tangible 

issue. But we know, whether it’s farmers or ranchers—incidentally, from my 

district, small businesses everywhere, 

or anything relating to the economy— 

we know we have work to do. 

We know that our current Tax Code, 

as we have heard most recently, is very 

costly, confusing, and complicated. The 

current Tax Code is comprised of more 

than 10,000 pages of ever-changing laws 

and regulations. It is a patchwork of 

various credits, deductions, exemptions, tax hikes, and expiring provisions. This makes responsible business 

and financial planning next to impossible. 

The cost of compliance is obviously a 

burden. Compliance costs with the current Tax Code falls disproportionately 

on small businesses, which spend an average of $74 per hour on tax-related 

compliance, making it the most expensive paperwork burden they will encounter. 

Additionally, our onerous, excessive 

system is a system with an out-of-control spending addiction that has dominated Washington for far too long 

under both parties, I would add. It is 

time for a system which lowers the 

rate, broadens the base, and addresses 

global competitiveness. 

b 1430 

The Ways and Means Committee has 

held a series of hearings soliciting 

input on tax reform, and we will continue in that direction toward fundamental tax reform. The bill before us 

today provides an important path forward to ensure Congress acts in a timely manner to reform this convoluted 

Tax Code, and it outlines a framework 

for comprehensive reform. I urge my 

colleagues to support the Pathway to 

Job Creation Act. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now 

my real pleasure to yield 4 minutes to 

the gentleman from Massachusetts 

(Mr. MARKEY), a veteran of many battles on this floor. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. 

As Americans watch their Olympic 

favorites this week, House Republicans 

are handing out gold medals to all 

their favorites right out here on the 

House floor. 

In London, speed, agility, and 

strength determines who gets the gold. 

But in the Republican-controlled 

House, it’s the wealthiest Americans 

and the most profitable corporations 

who secure all of the gold medals. 

Two weeks ago, Republicans awarded 

the gold to America’s defense contractors by actually increasing defense 

spending. Despite sequestration, despite our ballooning deficit, despite the 

looming fiscal cliff, they increased defense spending. 

Then last week, oil companies scored 

a gold medal by securing new drilling 

rights off of America’s coastline, off of 

our beaches in California and New England and Maryland to drill. And the Republicans refused yet again, even 

though Big Oil’s margin of victory was 

enormous on that issue, Republicans 

refused to end $4 billion in annual tax 

breaks to the oil companies we cannot 

afford, despite the fact that the oil 

companies made $137 billion in profits 

last year, the most profitable industry 

in the history of the planet. 

And today, it’s millionaires and billionaires who will cross the finish line 

and secure the biggest gold medal of 

all, as the Republicans double down on 

the Bush tax cuts by rewriting the Tax 

Code to include $331,000 in additional 

tax cuts for the average millionaire in 

this country, a tax break they do not 

need and America cannot afford. 

House Republicans are setting a 

world record in rigging the tax system 

for the ultra-rich while cutting middle 

class priorities like education and investing in good American jobs. The big 

losers in the Republican Olympics: the 

middle class, whose taxes will go up. 

The middle class, where the Medicare 

guarantee for millions of seniors will 

ultimately be destroyed. The big losers: investment in finding cures for 

Alzheimer’s and cancer and Parkinson’s, which will have to be drastically 

cut so the Republicans can crown billionaires, Big Oil, and nuclear bomb 

builders the big gold medal winners. 

The losers: the American people, and 

their families’ health and well-being. 

Vote ‘‘no’’ on this fixed Republican 

Olympics. Vote ‘‘no’’ to take care of 

the billionaires in our country as ordinary families suffer. Nostalgia for a 

past that never existed has overtaken 

the idealism which should animate our 

debates here on the House floor. For 

the poor, the sick, and the elderly, the 

past is just a memory and the future is 

their hard reality. And this Republican 

budget makes that future all the more 

difficult for the middle class in our 

country. Vote ‘‘no’’ on this fixed Republican Olympics. 

Mr. TIBERI. I yield 2 minutes to the 

gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. JENKINS). 

Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding. 

Tax reform may not be as exciting as 

watching Team USA win a gold medal, 

but for a CPA who specialized in tax, 

comprehensive tax reform is the Olympics, and we want to win a gold medal 

for the American taxpayers. 

Our Tax Code is a disaster. At around 

15,000 pages, it ’s too long, it’s too complicated, and it’s chock-full of loopholes favoring some taxpayers at the 

expense of others. Temporary tax provisions alone have increased from 14 in 

1986 to 132 today. U.S. taxpayers and 

businesses spend 7.6 billion hours simply complying with the code. Tax compliance as an industry is one of the 

country’s largest, requiring 3.8 million 

workers. That’s just too much. 

We need a code that is more fair, equitable, and efficient. We need to 

broaden the base, lower rates, and ignore special interests who fight to 

block reform, reform that will save us 

billions of dollars and create a million 

jobs. 

Our friends across the aisle believe 

increasing the top rate will restore 

fairness. But how can further complicating the code with more exclusions 

for certain folks while making it more 

complicated for others make it more 

fair? 

We have the means and the tools to 

reduce the tax rates here, and we need 

to get busy. Overhauling the entire Tax 

Code is the only way to restore fairness. What we’ve learned from the 1986 

reforms is that broadening the base, 

eliminating loopholes, and lowering 

the rates will grow the economy and 

raise revenues. 

This bill not only supports comprehensive tax reform, but it lays out a 

plan to ensure that it actually happens. Tax reform is a no-brainer. It’s a 

win/win for the economy, our businesses, and our hardworking American 

families. 

Mr. LEVIN. It’s now my real pleasure 

to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 

from Maryland (Mr. VAN HOLLEN), the 

ranking member of the Budget Committee. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I 

thank Mr. LEVIN for all of his good 

work here. 

Mr. Speaker, let’s start with a point 

of agreement. We should simplify the 

Tax Code. We should reform the Tax 

Code. It’s an overly complicated mess, 

and it needs to be streamlined and reformed. We could start with some really simple things like getting rid of the 

special tax breaks and giveaways to 

Big Oil companies, but our Republican 

colleagues on this House floor have 

voted time and again against that. 

What we should not do is what we are 

hearing from a lot of our colleagues 

today, which is use the language of tax 

reform as a Trojan horse to provide another huge windfall to the wealthiest 

Americans at the expense of the rest of 

America, and yet that is exactly the direction that this bill takes us in. 

The main principle enshrined in this 

bill is the old Republican principle of 

trickle-down economics, the failed idea 

that we need to give more tax cuts to 

the folks at the very, very top, and 

somehow those benefits are going to 

trickle-down to everybody else. 

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is the 

American people have seen this movie 

before. That’s no longer a theoretical 

idea. We ran a real-world experiment 

on that idea. It was called the 8 years 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5673 

of the Bush administration. We had tax 

cuts that disproportionately benefited 

the very wealthy in 2001 and 2003. At 

the end of those 8 years, what was the 

state of the economy? Net loss of private sector jobs, less than zero. 

The one number that did go up, it 

wasn’t jobs, it was the deficit. That 

number went through the roof, and the 

rest of the country is left to pick up 

the tab. And that’s what the American 

people are beginning to focus on, Mr. 

Speaker: that these tax cuts for the 

wealthy are not a free lunch for the 

rest of the country but that they come 

at the expense of everyone and everything else. Because the math is pretty 

simple. If you refuse to ask the 

wealthiest Americans to pay one penny 

more for the purpose of deficit reduction, for everybody else it gets harder. 

Seniors on Medicare have to pay more 

even though their median income is 

under $23,000. It means deep cuts to investments in our economy and our 

kids’ education, in science and research, and in infrastructure. 

Now with today’s bill, our Republican colleagues, as Mr. LEVIN said, are 

doubling down on an idea that we know 

does not work. 

b 1440 

They’re providing another round of 

tax cuts to millionaires and directly 

asking middle class taxpayers to pick 

up the tab. 

Let’s do the math. Let’s do the 

math—that’s what we try and do in the 

Budget Committee. When you drop the 

top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, first of all, you provide huge 

breaks to the folks at the very top, but 

that loses $4 trillion over 10 years, in 

other words, the deficit grows by $4 

trillion. 

Now, our Republican colleagues say, 

Oh, no, we don’t want to do that. We 

really care about the deficit. We’re 

going to make up those $4 trillion 

through tax reform. Of course they 

won’t tell us one thing about what they 

would do in tax reform. 

But the good news is the Tax Policy 

Center, an independent group here in 

Washington, has told us what the Romney plan would do, a plan very similar 

to this plan. What they make clear is 

that when you start removing all those 

deductions and all the benefits, for example, for health plans or for mortgage 

interest deduction, what you end up 

doing is providing a big tax increase to 

middle-income taxpayers, financing 

tax breaks for the folks at the top by 

increasing the burden on—— 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an 

additional 2 minutes. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That’s the simple 

math of the situation. 

Now, I know that we’ve heard from 

the Romney campaign that that’s a liberal think tank. Well, here’s what the 

Romney campaign spokesman said 

about an earlier analysis from the 

same Tax Policy Center when they 

liked the results. Then they called it 

an ‘‘objective third-party analysis’’— 

Romney spokesman of an earlier Tax 

Policy Center analysis. 

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a 

group here in Washington that does 

good, nonpartisan work, and that is the 

result that they found. And it makes 

common sense; you’re trying to make 

up $4 or $5 trillion through tax reform, 

you’re going to switch that burden. 

Now, we’ve also heard that this is 

somehow going to help ‘‘make it in 

America,’’ that this is going to 

incentivize companies to do more business here in America. The reality is 

just the opposite in this bill. You move 

to a pure territorial system, your slogan might as well be ‘‘Make It Overseas: Offshore American Jobs.’’ 

Again, let’s just look to the analysis 

done by another nonpartisan group. 

Mr. LEVIN has talked about the Joint 

Committee on Taxation analysis. 

They’ve already said that if you move 

to a pure territorial system, ‘‘you will 

erode our domestic tax base and increase our deficits.’’ 

Why will you erode our domestic tax 

base? Because more companies will 

ship their investments and operations 

overseas. That means more American 

jobs overseas. 

In fact, another nonpartisan study 

found that this particular proposal, Republican proposal, which Mr. Romney 

also supports, would create 800,000 jobs. 

The problem is they found it would create 800,000 jobs overseas, not here in 

America, by setting up companies in 

places like the Cayman Islands and 

Switzerland. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has again expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman 1 

additional minute. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, let 

me just say: Let us come up with a tax 

reform plan that works for all of the 

American people. Let’s come up with a 

plan that will help grow our economy 

from the middle out, not this failed 

idea of trickle-down economics from 

the top down. That is what this debate 

is all about. Because what we want to 

do through tax reform is empower the 

middle class and empower small business men and women. 

You do not empower the middle class 

by creating a situation where, by giving tax breaks to the wealthy, you increase the deficit for the rest of the 

country. Because when you increase 

the deficit, you’re asking everybody 

else to pay for those breaks at the very 

top. And people will pay by fewer investments in education, fewer investments in science and research, fewer 

investments that are important to empower our economy. And everybody 

else will be left to pick up this deficit 

tab while folks at the very top get another break. Let’s not do that. 

Mr. TIBERI. I yield myself 30 seconds. 

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from 

Maryland is attacking two Republican 

plans that are not our plans. The gentleman knows that, for instance, the 

proposed territorial system that we 

have proposed is not a pure territorial 

system, for instance; it has anti-abuse 

rules. And we can broaden the base by 

getting rid of deductions and credits 

without impacting middle class taxpayers. 

I yield, with that, Mr. Speaker, 2 

minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. PAULSEN), the new acting 

chairman of the Income Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means 

Committee. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, that little word ‘‘tax’’ that we’ve been talking 

about today is really, in reality, 3.8 

million words that make up the entire 

U.S. Tax Code. Over the past 10 years 

alone, Congress has made over 4,428 

changes to the Tax Code, averaging 

about one change each and every single 

day. It’s time, Mr. Speaker, that we 

find consensus and provide a simpler, 

fairer, and more competitive Tax Code 

for everyone. 

Over the past 2 years, the Ways and 

Means Committee has held over 20 

hearings laying the groundwork for 

comprehensive tax reform. We’ve had 

meetings jointly with the Senate as 

well. This legislation that we will vote 

on today now gives us a path forward 

that will allow small businesses and all 

American families the opportunity to 

have a simpler, fairer, and more competitive Tax Code, not one that actually picks only winners and losers. 

We need to close loopholes. We need 

to eliminate and reduce the number of 

expenditures and deductions and exemptions that bestow preferential 

treatment for varying interest groups 

and primarily only benefit a few. 

Business leaders and economists 

across the country agree that, in order 

to create more jobs, we’ve got to make 

sure that America stays globally competitive, but the complexity of the Tax 

Code has put America at a disadvantage. 

Back in 1960, 85 percent of all the top 

20 world firms were in the United 

States; by 1985, there were only 13; by 

the year 2010, this number was cut in 

half again to a meager six. Putting it 

simply, Mr. Speaker, the Tax Code’s 

antiquated features have diminished 

the attractiveness for the United 

States to become the premier country 

in which to locate and found and start 

a business. This means fewer small 

businesses, it means less manufacturing, and it means fewer jobs. 

Today’s vote shows that we are serious about moving forward on tax reform to help get our economy back on 

track. Let’s make the United States 

the number one destination for entrepreneurs, for innovators, and job creators. Let’s put this motion in place to 

pass this measure. 

Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. TIBERI. I yield 2 minutes to the 

gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 

BERG), a member of the Ways and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5674 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

Means Committee and a distinguished 

member of the Select Revenue Subcommittee. 

Mr. BERG. I thank the gentleman for 

yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this 

critical piece of legislation to stop the 

tax hike. 

We have a choice to make here: We 

can support job creators like small 

business men, farmers, and ranchers 

that have made North Dakota’s economy so strong, or we can abandon them 

and allow our Nation to go over the socalled ‘‘fiscal cliff.’’ 

I have to remind my friends on the 

other side, this is something we talked 

about in a recent Ways and Means 

hearing. Small businesses are not ‘‘the 

wealthy.’’ They are not pocketing huge 

profits. They are trying to grow their 

businesses by reinvesting back into 

their business. That’s what’s creating 

jobs. 

At a time like this, we need to create 

jobs. We can’t afford the Democrat 

plan which will increase taxes and decrease over 700,000 jobs. We need stability. We need certainty. And we need 

to pass this legislation so we can provide stability and certainty to our job 

creators until we complete comprehensive tax review. 

Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, could I ask 

how much time each side has remaining? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 301⁄2 minutes, 

while the gentleman from Michigan 

has 9 minutes. 

Mr. TIBERI. With that, Mr. Speaker, 

I’d like to yield 3 minutes to another 

distinguished member of the Ways and 

Means Committee and a member of the 

Select Revenue Subcommittee, the 

gentleman from New York (Mr. REED). 

b 1450 

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding the time. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand in 

strong support of the proposed legislation before us this afternoon. The reason why is we have to stop with the 

rhetoric down here in Washington, D.C. 

Hardworking taxpayers across America demand that we get this right and 

we get the business of the people done. 

We need to listen to our fellow Americans that our Tax Code that we both, 

on each side of this aisle, have argued 

for the last hour, have agreed is broken. It’s time to set a path forward. 

I have a picture here, Mr. Speaker, 

that I would like to display for all of us 

in this Chamber and across America. 

There’s a clear path forward that we 

need to go down. And it is a path to go 

forward on a Republican plan that sets 

forth comprehensive tax reform in an 

open and honest fashion and makes 

sure that we get the comprehensive tax 

reform done in the upcoming year and 

do it in a way that brings the American people into the debate and we listen to the American people. 

We no longer can pick winners and 

losers in our Tax Code. We need to 

focus on a Tax Code that is simple, 

that is fair, and that is competitive because, like it or not, we live in a world 

economy in which our hardworking 

Americans have to compete. Our Tax 

Code needs to be updated to make sure 

that we put our individuals and our 

corporations in the most competitive 

position possible so that when they go 

out on the world economic stage that 

they can compete and win, and that we 

stand with them rather than engage in 

the bitter rhetoric and partisan divide 

that is on display, in my opinion, 

today. 

So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I ask support for the underlying legislation, and 

I ask my colleagues to join us and join 

hands and engage in a substantive spirited debate, but at the end of the day 

come up with a comprehensive tax reform package that is going to protect 

Americans and preserve America for 

generations to come. 

Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, with that, 

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 

gentleman from Illinois (Mr. SCHOCK), 

a distinguished member of the Ways 

and Means Committee. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, here we 

are 20 months removed from December 

2010 when we last had this debate, 20 

months removed from when the President, 91 current House Democrat Members, and 39 sitting Democratic Senators all agreed that our economy 

couldn’t survive a new round of tax increases; 20 months removed from unemployment of 8.9 percent that has 

continued, quarterly GDP growth of 

just 21⁄2 percent; and 20 months from a 

President who proclaimed it wasn’t 

wise policy to raise taxes during a recession. 

Well, what has changed, Mr. Speaker? Not much. Unemployment is still 

over 8 percent, GDP growth has actually worsened to 1.5 percent, and politicians and Presidents from both sides of 

the aisle are, once again, saying it is 

not wise economic policy to increase 

taxes. 

Yet one thing has changed. Earlier 

this summer, the President reversed 

his decision, decided our economy had 

undergone some sort of significant improvement and called for massive tax 

increases on American small businesses, a call which Senate Democrats 

responded to and which, according to 

independent analysis, would shrink our 

economy by 1.3 percent. 

The rhetoric used to advocate for increasing taxes by the other side is the 

same populist grandstanding we have 

been hearing for years: everyone needs 

to pay their fair share. 

We need to increase taxes on those 

millionaires and billionaires. 

Only 3 percent of America’s job creators will be affected. 

Well, the late Senator Daniel Patrick 

Moynihan once famously said: 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, 

but everyone is not entitled to their own 

facts. 

Just like before, none of the claims 

made by my friends on the other side 

are supported by fact but, instead, only 

by campaign commercial-made opinion. 

Here are the facts by independent 

analysis. According to the independent 

Joint Committee on Taxation, 900,000 

small businesses will be subject to 

these higher taxes, 53 percent of small 

business income would be hit by these 

tax increases, 710,000 fewer jobs in 

America if this tax increase is implemented. And investments, many of 

which senior citizens live on, dividend 

income, will increase by as high as 40 

percent with this tax increase. 

Simply put, there is no bigger ‘‘pants 

on fire’’ argument than that being put 

forward by our President proclaiming 

that these proposed tax increases 

would only affect 3 percent of our Nation’s small businesses. 

Now, look, the decision is very clear. 

We can vote ‘‘no’’ on both of the proposals, H.R. 8 and H.R. 6169, to follow 

the President and the Senate Democrats towards a vision that has been 

proven to cost our economy jobs and 

growth, or we can alternatively vote 

‘‘yes’’ on these two proposals which 

will ensure that the Bush-Obama tax 

rates stay in effect for a year and we 

get the comprehensive tax reform we’re 

looking for. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without 

objection, the gentleman from Michigan will control the balance of the 

time. 

There was no objection. 

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield to 

the gentleman from Georgia for the 

purposes of a colloquy. 

Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairman for yielding. 

I want to say to you, as I said to you 

in the Rules Committee yesterday, how 

much I appreciate your leadership on 

fundamental tax reform. 

I’ve been watching this body for 20 

years, and I think some of the criticisms of my friends on the Democratic 

side were right on target. A lot of lip 

service has been paid to doing it, but 

the action has not happened. But what 

you have been able to accomplish in 

your committee in 18 months truly 

makes me believe that fundamental 

tax reform is now right around the corner for all Americans, and I’m grateful 

to you for your work there. 

I had two questions about the bill 

that’s before us today, this expedited 

procedures bill. It does lay out a framework, but it seems to me to lay out a 

framework that is broad enough that 

we will have a robust discussion about 

how to bring and what to bring in 

terms of fundamental tax reform to the 

floor. 

Do you view this framework as one 

that is broad enough to have a full discussion on fundamental tax reform? 

Mr. CAMP. I do, Mr. WOODALL. I envision with this framework an open debate, as I’ve said on the floor, one that 

will entertain a variety of proposals 

and one that will include amendments 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5675 

so that we can move forward as a Congress on enacting comprehensive and 

bipartisan reform. 

Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairman. And I know that in the Ways and 

Means Committee you will always have 

a robust debate. As you know, I’m a big 

fan of the Fair Tax proposal. I thank 

my colleagues on the Democratic side 

of the aisle for mentioning it earlier. I 

hope it made it out across the airwaves. But even if we can’t all win in 

terms of our different ideas, America 

will win in the end if fundamental tax 

reform is passed. But lots of those competing ideas, even as only one idea, can 

be certified within this framework to 

begin in your committee, you view 

even after that introduction, that certification by the Joint Tax Committee, 

a full and robust discussion that would 

include ideas like consumption taxes in 

your committee. 

Mr. CAMP. Absolutely, there will be 

a full and robust discussion because, as 

I said, there will be amendments in 

committee, and there will be an opportunity for Members to weigh in. And, 

obviously, this will be a national debate. So this is about getting us on 

that path and moving forward. Because 

as we know, the alternative is, do we 

have taxes go up and cost us 700,000 

jobs, or do we try to get us on a path 

of reform that will create the million 

jobs that we need to get this country 

moving again? So absolutely. 

Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairman. I appreciated my colleagues’ 

chart down there of that path of two 

futures. There is no question that our 

future is in good hands with our chairman on the Ways and Means Committee. 

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. HURT). 

Mr. HURT. Mr. Chairman, I thank 

you for your leadership on this issue. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of the House plan to stop this massive 

tax hike on the American people that 

is set to take place at the end of this 

year. 

The people of central and Southside 

Virginia know that our economic outlook is bleak. Spending is on the increase, unemployment is high, high 

fuel prices have left lasting damage to 

our economy, and the government 

take-over of health care is raiding our 

pocketbooks at a time when we can 

least afford it. 

And now, Mr. Speaker, they want 

more. Now the President and the Senate say that they want to raise taxes 

and dig deeper into the pockets of the 

hardworking American people. 

I have said time and again that we 

have a spending problem in D.C. We 

don’t have a ‘‘we don’t tax people 

enough’’ problem. This is now more 

clear than ever as our national debt 

ticks upward towards $16 trillion. 

b 1500 

Now is not the time to raise taxes on 

anyone. It will only lead to more job 

loss and more spending at a time when 

the American people are counting on 

us to get our economy back on track. 

And while we have addressed this tax 

issue in the House for today, it is 

equally pressing that we address the 

issue of our long-term prosperity. 

This country has long needed comprehensive tax reform. History has 

shown that temporary tax extensions 

will not fix the problem; they simply 

apply a Band-Aid. That is why the 

House plan has taken a thoughtful approach to stopping the impending tax 

hike and laying out our framework for 

reforming the Tax Code in a way that 

will make it simpler and fairer. 

The House plan also puts in place expedited procedures to insure that Congress does its job once and for all and 

addresses the dire need for comprehensive tax reform. 

I was proud to support the legislation 

yesterday to stop the massive year-end 

tax hike, and I am proud to support 

this bill today to reform our Tax Code. 

It’s the right thing to do for our country, and it’s the right thing to do for 

our children and grandchildren. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, we just have 

one final speaker to close, so I reserve 

the balance of my time. 

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

I can be very brief, in part, because 

so many of us have come forth on the 

Democratic side with real conviction, 

with real passion, and not basically 

reading from prepared speeches that 

simply go over and over the same 

themes, but really talking about 

what’s at stake for this country and 

why this proposal is worse than flawed; 

it’s flagrant. 

I bring back that chart. No one has 

refuted it. It’s based on the work of the 

Joint Economic Committee. 

Essentially, what this bill would do 

is to say to America, if you’re very 

wealthy, you get a $331,000 tax cut. But 

for the typical family, it’s a $4,500 tax 

increase. And so tax cuts for the very 

wealthy is, essentially, this Republican 

plan. 

Tax increases for the middle class, 

more and more deficits, jobs overseas 

instead of making it in America, this is 

the Republican plan and, essentially, 

it’s Governor Romney’s plan. It’s, as I 

said, worse than misguided. It would be 

a terrible mistake for this House to 

adopt it, and even a worse mistake for 

the American people to embrace it. 

I don’t have confidence in the House 

Republicans. I have confidence that the 

American people will say ‘‘no.’’ Vote 

‘‘no’’ here today. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield such 

time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. TIBERI), a distinguished member of the Ways and 

Means Committee. 

Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chairman, thank 

you for your leadership. You have done 

more to advance the cause for comprehensive tax reform and stopping tax 

increases on Americans than anyone in 

America, and we certainly appreciate 

your leadership. 

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois reminded us that after the election in 2010, the President of the 

United States said, in this economy, we 

cannot let tax rates go up for any 

American because the economy was too 

weak. 

Well, today, ladies and gentlemen, 

the economy is weaker than it was in 

December of 2010. In fact, it’s been 

weaker the last 4 months than it was, 

with little hope that it will get better 

soon. 

Ladies and gentlemen, Americans are 

long overdue in having comprehensive 

tax reform. They want it, 9 out of 10 

Americans. Nine out of 10 Americans 

now use a tax preparer. My father, a retired steelworker, my mother, a retired 

seamstress, use a tax preparer. 

And ironically, Mr. Speaker, my father came to America, my mother 

came to America for a better life. And 

when I got my first job, my first job at 

McDonald’s, when I was 16 years old, 

my dad said, Son, we have a really 

crazy Tax Code that doesn’t encourage 

you to save, that doesn’t encourage 

you to invest. And you know what? 

You’re going to save a little bit of that 

paycheck because it’s the right thing 

to do, even though we have a crazy Tax 

Code. 

Well, my immigrant dad today 

thinks we have even a crazier Tax Code 

than we did back in the early 1980s, and 

it’s time that we change that. The 

process in this bill will force people in 

this town to do what we haven’t done 

for over 25 years, and that’s fix the 

Code. 

There’s been talk on this floor about 

small business owners. I was a realtor. 

I had small business income. I didn’t 

employ anybody. I’m proud of what I 

did. 

But there’s a guy that I know. His 

name is RJ. He’s a small business 

owner. He would be impacted tremendously, and so would his 50 employees, 

if we allowed his taxes to go up on January 1. 

Or William, a small retailer who 

hires people. He would see his taxes go 

up. 

Ladies and gentlemen, House Republicans believe that jobs are created not 

in Washington, D.C., but by entrepreneurs and risk takers throughout 

America. And there are two roads that 

we can choose to go down. And this 

chart couldn’t be better in showing everybody out there those two roads. One 

road leads to danger. One road leads to 

a failing and falling economy with 

700,000 jobs to be lost. We don’t want to 

go down that road. We’ve seen too 

much misery already. 

No, Mr. Speaker, the road that we 

want to go down, led by our chairman 

of our committee, is the one to the 

right, now hiring, in green, with a million new jobs, not created in Washington, but created by people like RJ 

and William, entrepreneurs, risk takers 

and, ladies and gentlemen, people like 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5676 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

my dad who came to America with 

nothing, who understand that hard 

work and risk taking should be rewarded, not penalized. 

That’s why, today, the process that 

this bill puts in this motion will lead 

us finally to say to the American people, yes, we heard you, loud and clear, 

and we’re going to simplify our Tax 

Code. We’re going to simplify it for 

every American taxpayer so we can 

have an economy that creates jobs, 

doesn’t pick winners and losers, and, 

ladies and gentlemen, gets us to a place 

where we have a Tax Code that people 

like my mom and dad don’t have to go 

hire a tax preparer to do their taxes. 

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill. 

Mr. CAMP. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose 

H.R. 6169, a partisan bill that would put in 

place a contrived and expedited procedure for 

tax reform, a challenging issue that would 

benefit from a full and robust debate. 

Tax reform is a very complicated, very difficult endeavor. This bill, which attempts to 

limit debate in both the House and the Senate, 

will not become law. It wastes time that the 

House could better apply to the multitude of 

challenges facing our country. 

Over the past several years, taxes have 

been lower than at any time since the 1950s. 

Yet the United States—with military commitments around the world, a badly underfunded 

commitment to domestic infrastructure, and 

growing obligations to the Baby Boomer generation—also faces a substantial budget deficit. We are also grappling with a yawning gap 

between our wealthiest and our neediest. Tax 

expenditures have grown faster than the rate 

of inflation and now give away nearly half of 

all income that the income tax would otherwise collect. 

It is imperative that Congress begin the difficult work of tax reform in earnest. This bill 

represents a failure to have an honest conversation about tax reform and for that reason, 

I oppose this legislation and had I been 

present, I would have voted no. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 

opposition to H.R. 6169, the Pathway to Job 

Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code 

Act. This bill will allow for expedited consideration of a bill that lays out tax reform. 

Mr. Speaker, this bill lays out a schedule for 

an early introduction and swift markup and 

consideration of a tax reform bill in the 113th 

Congress. While this would be effective in ensuring that a bill gets passed in a reasonable 

amount of time, the expedited consideration 

provided in H.R. 6169 only applies to tax reform bills that contain certain key components. 

One requirement for this tax reform bill is 

that it consolidates the current six individual 

tax brackets into two brackets of 10 and 25 

percent. This provision would allow for an additional $331,000 tax cut for the average millionaire, while American families earning less 

than $200,000 would see their taxes increase 

by an average of $4,500. For the sake of reducing rates for the wealthy, this tax reform 

bill would vastly curtail tax provisions that benefit the middle class. 

Another required component of the future 

tax reform bill is a reduction of the corporate 

tax rate to 25 percent. In order to achieve 

such a significant reduction, this plan would 

require eliminating every provision in our current tax code that encourages domestic job 

creation, investment, and innovation. 

My Republican colleagues assert that this 

component of the legislation will create jobs by 

allowing corporations to hold onto a larger portion of their profit. However, this new tax code 

would provide no incentive to purely domestic 

businesses or investors, and would result in 

an increase in the off-shoring of jobs and income. This will stifle our country’s economic 

recovery, and contribute to a continually high 

unemployment rate. 

Mr. Speaker, not only will the proposed requirements of this future tax reform bill unfairly 

benefit wealthy households and corporations, 

it will plunge the United States deeper into a 

budget deficit. If my colleagues across the 

aisle are so committed to reducing our nation’s debt, they should be working on bipartisan legislation to promote progressive and 

productive tax reform. Instead, they have introduced a H.R. 6169, which expedites future 

handouts to corporations and the wealthy 

under the guise of tax reform. 

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to getting the 

opportunity to vote for true, progressive tax reform when it is brought to the House floor. 

Until then, I urge my colleagues to join me in 

continuing to oppose attempts to unfairly burden America’s working class, now and in the 

future. 

Thank you. I yield the balance of my time. 

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, supporters of low 

taxes and limited government should enthusiastically embrace most of the principles of 

tax reform laid out in H.R. 6169. However, one 

tax reform principle contained in this bill contradicts the goal we all share, namely lowering 

the American people’s tax burden. I’m referring to the bill’s finding that seems to imply tax 

reform should aim to maintain federal tax revenue at 18–19% of Gross Domestic Product 

(GDP). 

The historical average of tax rates as a percentage of GDP in the post World War Two 

era is 17.7%. Thus, the current tax bill says 

that the total amount the federal government 

takes from the American people should be 

higher than the amount the government took 

during the time when the federal government 

was fighting the Cold War and establishing the 

programs of the so-called Great Society! Of 

course, this is reasonable only if one assumes 

Congress will never, or should never, consider 

reducing the federal government’s size and 

scope. 

H.R. 6169 is thus further proof that if one is 

serious about reducing taxes one must be willing to reduce federal spending in all areas. Instead of trying to ensure that the federal tax 

collection is set at a level to ensure a perpetual stream of revenue for the welfare-warfare state, Congress should stop spending trillions on an interventionist foreign policy, shut 

down unconstitutional federal bureaucracies, 

and begin to wind down federal welfare and 

entitlement programs. 

While the ultimate goal of supporters of liberty is to reduce the federal government to 

constitutional size, the fact is that Congress 

need not shut down the entire welfare-warfare 

state to achieve meaningful tax reduction. In 

fact, the federal government could eliminate 

income taxes on individuals and still fund all of 

its current functions simply by reducing federal 

spending to Clinton-era levels! 

Unfortunately, the sad fact is that neither 

party truly wants to cut spending consistently. 

Anyone who doubts my analysis should examine the hysteria over the relatively minuscule 

‘‘cuts’’—which are merely reductions in projected rates of spending—contained in the sequester legislation scheduled to go into effect 

this January. One party screams that a failure 

to increase military spending enough will leave 

America vulnerable to her enemies, while the 

other party cries that even minimal reductions 

in the rate of growth of welfare spending will 

create poverty of Dickensian proportions. Until 

this mindset changes, any efforts to reduce or 

eliminate federal income and other taxes will 

remain an effort in futility. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today 

to support H.R. 6169, the Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act 

of 2012. This bill serves as the bridge to tax 

simplification in 2013. 

As families and businesses across America 

know all too well, our tax code discourages 

work, burdens entrepreneurship, deters savings and investment, and distorts the allocation of capital. The best growth agenda for 

America is not a short-term policy fix. What 

America needs is a clear, long-term policy 

path that minimizes economic uncertainty and 

delivers results. 

H.R. 6169 does just that. This bill provides 

for ihe enactment of comprehensive tax reform 

next year. Taxpayers deserve a tax code that 

is simpler, flatter, fairer and easier. This bill 

isn’t just a nice gesture—it’s a common sense 

solution that, according to some economists, 

will create 1 million jobs in the first year. 

I am proud to support, and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support, 

this bill that bridges tax reform for our country. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time 

for debate has expired. 

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

OFFERED BY MS. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I 

have an amendment at the desk. 

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. FINDINGS REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE TAX REFORM. 

Congress finds that— 

(1) legislation to reform the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is both necessary and desirable, and 

(2) the House of Representatives and the 

Senate should move quickly under regular 

order to proceed with a bill which— 

(A) identifies revenue sources that in conjunction with targeted spending reductions 

will provide the long-term means to reduce 

the national debt significantly and make investments in national priorities such as infrastructure, education, research, and defense that are critical to future American 

competitiveness and job growth, 

(B) adopts a rate structure that distributes 

the tax burden in a more progressive manner, 

(C) discourages tax avoidance, including 

tax avoidance accomplished using entities or 

accounts in tax haven jurisdictions, 

(D) preserves and improves those provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

that support middle class home ownership, 

education, retirement savings, and 

healthcare, 

(E) repeals the alternative minimum tax 

(commonly known as the AMT), 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5677 

(F) retains and improves refundable tax 

credits that encourage work and education 

while lifting millions of Americans out of 

poverty, 

(G) eliminates tax breaks for businesses 

that move jobs and profits overseas in combination with a reduction in tax rates for 

American manufacturers, which are vital to 

innovation and job growth, and 

(H) preserves and improves incentives for 

small business investment and growth. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 747, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) and a Member opposed each will 

control 10 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York. 

b 1510 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

We all agree that the Tax Code needs 

to be updated and reformed—and my 

Democrat colleagues and I are ready to 

work in a bipartisan manner to accomplish that goal—but the flawed and entirely partisan priorities reflected in 

this majority’s bill make a very bad 

start. Their principles seem to point in 

one direction: less fairness and less of 

the burden shouldered by the people 

who have the most; fewer brackets, 

lower top rates, lower corporate taxes, 

less revenue, and higher deficits. 

My Democrat colleagues and I have a 

different vision for tax reform, a vision 

that is reflected in our alternative proposal today. My amendment would replace the principles found in the majority’s bill with a different set of priorities for a fairer and simpler Tax Code. 

I would like to take a minute to outline these priorities. 

First, we must identify sources of 

revenue that, in combination with 

smart and targeted spending reductions, will provide the long-term means 

to reduce the national debt significantly while making investments in 

national priorities such as infrastructure, education, research, and defense, 

which are critical to the future of 

American competitiveness and job 

growth. 

I would note that nothing in the Republican bill says tax reform needs to 

lower the deficit or to even hold it 

level. On the contrary, there are indications that Republican tax reform 

would make the deficit worse. I think 

that they believe, along with Vice 

President Cheney, who memorably 

said, ‘‘Deficits don’t matter.’’ My Democrat colleagues and I disagree with 

that approach. 

Second, we believe that there should 

be a rate structure that distributes the 

tax burden in a more progressive manner. We support a Tax Code that discourages tax avoidance, including the 

use of entities and accounts in tax 

haven jurisdictions, such as Swiss bank 

accounts or assets hidden in Bermuda 

or the Cayman Islands, all done simply 

to avoid paying United States taxes. 

We believe in preserving and improving the provisions of the Tax Code that 

support middle class homeownership, 

education, retirement savings, and 

health care. In addition, we agree that 

the time has come to repeal the alternative minimum tax, and we want to 

retain and improve refundable tax 

credits that encourage work and education while lifting millions of Americans out of poverty. 

We support eliminating tax breaks 

for businesses that move jobs and profits overseas in combination with a reduction in tax rates for American manufacturers, which are vital to innovation and job growth—in other words, 

reward the people who stay here. 

Finally, we want to preserve and improve incentives for small business investment and growth. These businesses 

are the engine of job creation, and we 

must do all we can to support their 

success. 

Mr. Speaker, this Republican bill can 

be explained in one sentence: House Republicans want special procedures that 

allow them to force their rightwing 

legislative agenda through the Senate. 

Why are we wasting time in trying to 

change the rules of the Senate—trying 

to force the other body to accept partisan Republican priorities—rather 

than just sitting down together and 

working out a bipartisan path forward? 

It’s a major question, I think, in this 

congressional term that, like others 

have said, is the most poorly productive in history. Our amendment would 

remove the flawed expedited procedures and misguided Republican principles, and it would replace them with 

the principles that I have laid out. 

Let me end by expressing my utter 

disbelief at how difficult House Republicans are making it to pass the middle 

class tax cuts right now. They make 

clear they intend to hold the middle 

class tax cuts hostage to the tax cuts 

for the top 2 percent of Americans, 

though we agree that earnings of 

$250,000 and below should not see any 

tax increases. 

Yesterday, I offered a simple amendment that would say we would delay 

our departure for the August break 

until we got this proposal signed into 

law. It was defeated. Cutting taxes 

should not be that hard, and I hope my 

colleagues will join me to support my 

amendment and to help in our effort to 

create a fair and simple Tax Code that 

works for all Americans. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to 

claim the time in opposition to the 

gentlewoman’s amendment. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 

for 10 minutes. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would 

like to begin by extending my congratulations and to associate myself 

with the very thoughtful remarks of 

my dear friend from Rochester, the distinguished ranking minority member 

of the Committee on Rules. As she at 

the beginning said, Democrats and Republicans alike agree on the need for 

comprehensive tax reform. 

She is right on target when she says 

that, Mr. Speaker, and that’s exactly 

what we’re doing. The problem that we 

have is that the amendment that she is 

proposing undermines the ability for us 

to get that done. 

Now, as I think about this issue that 

is before us, we have virtually everyone 

talking about the need to get this 

done. We have Democrats talking 

about it, and we have Republicans 

talking about it. We have the President 

of the United States talking about it. 

In fact, it’s very interesting. As I heard 

my friend characterize the ‘‘misguided 

principles’’ set forth by the Republicans, I am struck by the fact that at 

least one of those principles has been 

called for by President Barack Obama. 

President Obama has said that we need 

to reduce the top corporate rate from 

35 percent. He acknowledges the fact 

that we have the highest corporate tax 

rate of any nation on the face of the 

Earth now that Japan has very wisely 

reduced its top corporate rate. So what 

my friend from Rochester describes as 

‘‘misguided’’ is actually one of the proposals submitted by President Obama. 

So, again, talk is great. I’ve talked 

about tax reform myself for the three 

decades that I’ve been privileged to 

serve here. My friend has just talked 

about the need for tax reform, but 

there is a time, Mr. Speaker, when we 

need to step up to the plate and take 

action. 

The Framers put into place a very, 

very good structure, a differentiation 

between the rules and operations of the 

House and the Senate. We know that 

the House of Representatives is the coffee cup into which the coffee simmers. 

As President Washington said so eloquently to Thomas Jefferson as they 

were sitting down at the Willard Hotel 

and were describing the Senate—Jefferson was the really smart guy, but it 

was Washington who was describing to 

Jefferson what that ‘‘saucer’’ is. It’s 

where the simmering of the coffee 

takes place, and he said that that’s 

what the Senate is. That was a great 

vision put forth by our Framers, Mr. 

Speaker, but there comes a time on 

some important issues when we need to 

streamline operations, expedite procedures, and that’s what we’re doing. 

What my friend from Rochester said 

is absolutely right. We need to put into 

place comprehensive tax reform. I totally agree with that. Now let’s get it 

done. Yes, we put forth some guidelines. We say two rates, no more than 

10 or 25 percent. I mean, let’s deal with 

the globalization issue by shifting from 

a worldwide to a territorial tax system. 

Let’s do what we can to obliterate the 

alternative minimum tax, which we all 

know has impacted so many of our fellow working Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. It was never 

designed to do that. And as President 

Obama has said, let’s reduce that top 

corporate rate. 

Mr. Speaker, as we look at this issue, 

we can talk about tax reform until we 

are blue in the face, but this structure 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5678 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

is one that’s going to actually get it 

done. I say very sadly that this measure that is being proposed by my friend 

is a measure which simply extends the 

talking, and it undermines the ability 

for us to actually take action. 

Let’s move ahead. Obviously, we need 

to make sure that we maintain the tax 

structure for everyone, the tax cuts for 

all. We did that yesterday. There is 

this notion of saying let’s just proceed 

with what we all agree on, which is 

that we all agree on keeping taxes low 

for those in the middle class. Well, if 

we do what it is that they’re saying, 

what we would end up doing is actually 

imposing a massive tax increase on job 

creators. So we can’t come to an agreement on that because, as President 

Obama again has said, increasing taxes 

during difficult economic times is bad 

public policy. 

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

b 1520 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this 

afternoon, all this discussion is about 

priorities. As I said, we all agree the 

Tax Code has to be reformed, but the 

majority has not come to the floor 

today with a serious proposal to get us 

there. 

My amendment would put us all on 

record in favor of the priorities of the 

middle class: more fairness, a simpler 

Tax Code, a lower deficit, and incentives to keep jobs here in the United 

States. I ask my colleagues to support 

my amendment, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself the balance of my time to say 

that I’ve said it all. 

With that, I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on my 

dear friend’s amendment, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 

is ordered on the bill and on the 

amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. SLAUGHTER). 

The question is on the amendment 

offered by the gentlewoman from New 

York. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the noes appeared to have it. 

RECORDED VOTE

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 176, noes 246, 

not voting 8, as follows: 

[Roll No. 550] 

AYES—176 

Ackerman 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Barrow 

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 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

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 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

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 

Peterson 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Ross (AR) 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schrader 

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 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOES—246 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

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 

Cooper 

Costa 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

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) 

Lipinski 

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 

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 (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schiff 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

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) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOT VOTING—8 

Akin 

Black 

Cardoza 

Cohen 

Fleischmann 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Waxman 

b 1546 

Mr. LABRADOR, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Ms. 

HAYWORTH, Ms. GRANGER, Messrs. 

ROONEY, CULBERSON, and COSTA 

changed their vote from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. TOWNS changed his vote from 

‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’ 

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. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 

desk. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the 

gentleman opposed to the bill? 

Mr. BISHOP of New York. In its current form, I am. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Clerk will report the motion to recommit. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Mr. Bishop of New York moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6169 to the Committee on 

Ways and Means with instructions to report 

the same back to the House forthwith with 

the following amendment: 

In section 3(a), strike ‘‘and’’ at the end of 

paragraph (1), strike the period at the end of 

paragraph (2) and insert ‘‘; and’’, and add at 

the end the following: 

(3) which does not repeal, reduce, or otherwise eliminate the existing deductions for 

mortgage interest or charitable contributions. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5679 

b 1550 

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to H.R. 

6169. It will not kill the bill nor will it 

send it back to committee. If adopted, 

H.R. 6169 will immediately proceed to 

final passage, as amended. 

My amendment is simple and 

straightforward and is a reasonable, 

additional parameter to a bill, the purpose of which is to set the parameters 

for tax reform during the 113th Congress. 

Mr. Speaker, my amendment simply 

preserves two of the most important, 

popular, and widely supported deductions in a future tax reform package to 

be considered under expedited procedures in the House: the mortgage interest tax deduction and the charitable 

contribution tax deduction. 

The mortgage interest tax deduction 

helps millions of American families 

achieve that most celebrated and 

sought-after part of the American 

Dream: homeownership. Nearly every 

Member of this body benefited from 

this deduction and nearly every homeowner in our districts has utilized this 

critical tax deduction to buy a home 

for their family and become part of the 

larger community. In fact, 199 Members, including 114 Republicans, are cosponsors of H. Res. 25, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the 

mortgage interest tax deduction should 

not be restricted in any way. 

I will submit for the RECORD a list of 

the cosponsors of H. Res. 25. 

As we head home for the August 

work period, I urge every Member who 

votes against this amendment, especially those Members who are cosponsors of H. Res. 25, to return to their districts and tell their constituents, many 

of whom still struggle to pay their bills 

or to put a child through college, why 

they oppose protecting the mortgage 

interest tax deduction. 

As Chairman CAMP recently suggested, it is critical that we do nothing 

to undermine the housing market as 

our economy marches toward recovery. 

Because the value of the mortgage interest deduction is capitalized into the 

price of housing, curtailing or eliminating it would reduce the value of 

housing across the United States, put 

more homeowners underwater, and 

take the wind out of recovery. Simply 

put, this Congress should not be throwing up obstacles to the American 

Dream. 

Mr. Speaker, my amendment also 

seeks to preserve the charitable contribution deduction that is essential to 

the economic viability of thousands of 

organizations, both large and small, 

national and local, to advance important causes or provide critically needed 

services to our most vulnerable constituents. From the neighborhood 

church to the local food pantry to 

international organizations like the 

Red Cross and the Salvation Army, 

these organizations play a crucial role 

in the lives of millions of Americans as 

well as the international community. 

We’ve heard many times from our 

Republican colleagues how charitable 

organizations can and should relieve 

the Federal Government of some of its 

responsibilities, especially those responsibilities of assisting the most vulnerable Americans. With thousands of 

families slowly regaining their footing 

after the housing crisis, now is not the 

time for Congress to make it more difficult for charitable organizations to 

provide meals, clothing, job training, 

temporary shelter, and other vital aid 

to our struggling neighbors. 

Repealing the charitable tax contribution could result in a loss of as 

much as $150 billion, or 69 percent, of 

annual charitable giving. By one report, private giving must already multiply more than tenfold by 2016 just to 

keep up with the proposed House Republican budget cuts. 

If a Member votes against my amendment, I would urge that Member to go 

home to his or her district and visit a 

local food pantry or place of worship 

and tell their volunteers why they will 

need to slash their programs and reduce their outreach to the community. 

Our Republican colleagues have proposed deep cuts to SNAP, to childhood 

nutrition programs, affordable housing, 

and job training. Will they now vote to 

create another obstacle for organizations that, by their own reckoning, 

should fill the void of reduced Federal 

investment for social programs? 

My Republican colleagues can’t have 

it both ways. The Republican budget 

claims that it will lower everyone’s 

taxes in a revenue-neutral fashion by 

closing loopholes and capping or eliminating deductions. However, when 

pressed for details about which deductions they plan to cap or eliminate, 

they refuse to give specifics. Now is the 

time for specifics. 

The underlying bill establishes the 

parameters of the upcoming tax reform 

debate. Will my Republican colleagues 

protect homeowners and the Nation’s 

most vulnerable, or will the richest 

Americans enjoy another tax cut at the 

expense of the middle class? There is 

one way to find out. A vote for my 

amendment is a vote for protecting the 

middle class. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

BILL SUMMARY AND STATUS

H. RES. 25 

Latest Title: Expressing the sense of the 

Congress that the current Federal income tax deduction for interest paid on 

debt secured by a first or second home 

should not be further restricted. 

Sponsor: Rep Miller, Gary G. [R–CA–42] (introduced 1/6/2011) 

Cosponsors: 199 

Committees: House Ways and Means 

Latest Major Action: 1/6/2011 Referred to 

House committee. Status: Referred to 

the House Committee on Ways and 

Means. 

Cosponsors, By Party [* = original cosponsor]: 

Cosponsor Statistics: 199 current (includes 

5 original) 

Rep Andrews, Robert E. [D–NJ–1]—4/6/2011; 

Rep Baca, Joe [D–CA–4–3]—1/6/2011*; Rep Barrow, John [D–GA–12]—6/23/2011; Rep Bishop, 

Sanford D., Jr. [D–GA–2]—1/18/2011; Rep 

Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [D–GU]—4/4/2011; Rep 

Boswell, Leonard L. [D–IA–3]—7/6/2011; Rep 

Braley, Bruce L. [D–IA–1]—3/31/2011; Rep 

Brown, Corrine [D–FL–3]—2/10/2011; Rep 

Capps, Lois [D–CA–23]—4/1/2011; Rep Cardoza, 

Dennis A. [D–CA–18]—2/10/2011; Rep Carnahan, Russ [D–MO–3]—3/3/2011; Rep Chandler, 

Ben [D–KY–6]—5/12/2011; Rep Christensen, 

Donna M. [D–VI]—5/2/2011; Rep Cicilline, 

David N. [D–RI–1]—2/13/2012; Rep Clay, Wm. 

Lacy [D–MO–1]—7/18/2012; Rep Cleaver, 

Emanuel [D–MO–5]—5/3/2011; Rep Connolly, 

Gerald E. ‘‘Gerry’’ [D–VA–11]—3/29/2011; Rep 

Costa, Jim [D–CA–20]—2/14/2011; Rep Courtney, Joe [D–CT–2]—5/23/2011. 

Rep Cuellar, Henry [D–TX–28]—5/23/2011; 

Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [D–MD–7]—2/14/2011; 

Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [D–OR–4]—2/10/2011; 

Rep Donnelly, Joe [D–IN–2]—5/16/2012; Rep 

Engel, Eliot L. [D–NY–17]—5/25/2011; Rep 

Eshoo, Anna G. [D–CA–14]—3/31/2011; Rep 

Farr, Sam [D–CA–17]—2/10/2011; Rep Filner, 

Bob [D–CA–51]—2/10/2011; Rep Green, Al [D– 

TX–9]—1/12/2011; Rep Green, Gene [D–TX– 

29]—3/3/2011; Rep Hahn, Janice [D–CA–36]—2/ 

28/2012; Rep Hanabusa, Colleen W. [D–HI–1]— 

4/6/2011; Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [D–FL–23]—5/ 

23/2011; Rep Heinrich, Martin [D–NM–1]—5/10/ 

2011; Rep Higgins, Brian [D–NY–27]—4/4/2011; 

Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [D–NY–22]—5/12/ 

2011; Rep Hinojosa, Rube ́n [D–TX–15]—1/6/ 

2011*; Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [D–HI–2]—5/10/ 

2011; Rep Hochul, Kathleen C. [D–NY–26]—6/ 

20/2012; Rep Holden, Tim [D–PA–17]—6/14/2011. 

Rep Holt, Rush D. [D–NJ–12]—5/2/2011; Rep 

Honda, Michael M. [D–CA–15]—3/29/2011; Rep 

Inslee, Jay [D–WA–1]—5/31/2011; Rep Israel, 

Steve [D–NY–2]—5/23/2011; Rep Jackson Lee, 

Sheila [D–TX–18]—2/10/2011; Rep Johnson, 

Eddie Bernice [D–TX–30]—5/23/2011; Rep Johnson, Henry C. ‘‘Hank,’’ Jr. [D–GA–4]—3/3/2011; 

Rep Keating, William R. [D–MA–10]—5/23/ 

2011; Rep Kildee, Dale E. [D–MI–5]—5/12/2011; 

Rep Langevin, James R. [D–RI–2]—1/24/2012; 

Rep Larsen, Rick [D–WA–2]—5/10/2011; Rep 

Lewis, John [D–GA–5]—3/29/2011; Rep 

Loebsack, David [D–IA–2]—3/20/2012; Rep Lofgren, Zoe [D–CA–16]—5/12/2011; Rep Luja ́n, 

Ben Ray [D–NM–3]—2/2/2012; Rep Matheson, 

Jim [D–UT–2]—5/16/2012; Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [D–NY–4]—5/3/2011; Rep McGovern, James 

P. [D–MA–3]—6/14/2011; Rep McIntyre, Mike 

[D–NC–7]—3/3/2011; Rep McNerney, Jerry [D– 

CA–11]—2/18/2011. 

Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [D–NY–6]—1/6/2011*; 

Rep Miller, Brad [D–NC–13]—5/23/2011; Rep 

Napolitano, Grace F. [D–CA–38]—2/14/2011; 

Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D–DC]—5/2/ 

2011; Rep Owens, William L. [D–NY–23]—12/6/ 

2011; Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr., [D–NJ–6]—3/11/ 

2011; Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr., [D–NJ–8]—2/29/ 

2012; Rep Payne, Donald M. [D–NJ–10]—5/2/ 

2011; Rep Perlmutter, Ed [D–CO–7]—5/25/2011; 

Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [D–WV–3]—3/31/2011; 

Rep Reyes, Silvestre [D–TX–16]—5/23/2011; 

Rep Richardson, Laura [D–CA–37]—2/10/2011; 

Rep Ross, Mike [D–AR–4]—2/14/2011; Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D–CA–34]—5/12/2011; Rep 

Rush, Bobby L. [D–IL–1]—5/23/2011; Rep 

Sa ́nchez, Linda T. [D–CA–39]—3/7/2012; Rep 

Sanchez, Loretta [D–CA–47]—1/31/2012; Rep 

Schiff, Adam B. [D–CA–29]—5/10/2011; Rep 

Scott, David [D–GA–13]—2/10/2011; Rep Sherman, Brad [D–CA–27]—2/10/2011. 

Rep Sires, Albio [D–NJ–13]—3/3/2011; Rep 

Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [D–NY–28]—5/23/ 

2011; Rep Tonko, Paul [D–NY–21]—3/11/2011; 

Rep Towns, Edolphus [D–NY–10]—5/23/2011; 

Rep Waters, Maxine [D–CA–35]—3/3/2011; Rep 

Wu, David [D–OR–1]—4/8/2011; Rep Akin, W. 

Todd [R–MO–2]—5/2/2011; Rep Amodei, Mark 

E. [R–NV–2]—12/5/2011; Rep Austria, Steve [R– 

OH–7]—2/14/2011; Rep Barletta, Lou [R–PA– 

11]—3/3/2011; Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [R–MD– 

6]—2/10/2011; Rep Barton, Joe [R–TX–6]—4/8/ 

2011; Rep Biggert, Judy [R–IL–13]—7/8/2011; 

Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [R–CA–50]—1/18/2011; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5680 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [R–FL–9]—9/13/2011; 

Rep Bishop, Rob [R–UT–1]—5/3/2011; Rep 

Blackburn, Marsha [R–TN–7]—4/4/2011; Rep 

Brooks, Mo [R–AL–5]—5/3/2011; Rep Brown, 

Paul C. [R–GA–10]—11/14/2011; Rep Burgess, 

Michael C. [R–TX–26]—8/1/2011. 

Rep Burton, Dan [R–IN–5]—3/16/2011; Rep 

Calvert, Ken [R–CA–44]—1/6/2011*; Rep Capito, 

Shelley Moore [R–WV–2]—5/23/2011; Rep 

Chabot, Steve [R–OH–1]—7/8/2011; Rep 

Chaffetz, Jason [R–UT–3]—2/10/2011; Rep 

Coble, Howard [R–NC–6]—4/8/2011; Rep Coffman, Mike [R–CO–6]—3/29/2011; Rep Conaway, 

K. Michael [R–TX–1]—2/18/2011; Rep Crawford, 

Eric A. ‘‘Rick’’ [R–AR–1]—6/14/2011; Rep Crenshaw, Ander [R–FL–4]—6/23/2011; Rep Culberson, John Abney [R–TX–7]—5/12/2011; Rep 

Denham, Jeff [R–CA–19]—3/31/2011; Rep Dent, 

Charles W. [R–PA–15]—3/31/2011; Rep Duncan, 

Jeff [R–SC–3]—11/2/2011; Rep Fincher, Stephen Lee [R–TN–8]—5/23/2011; Rep 

Fitzpatrick, Michael G. [R–PA–8]—3/16/2011; 

Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ [R– 

TN–3]—5/10/2011; Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney 

P. [R–NJ–11]—7/6/2011; Rep Gallegly, Elton 

[R–CA–24]—1/12/2011; Rep Gardner, Cory [R– 

CO–4]—5/31/2011. 

Gerlach, Jim [R–PA–6]—5/23/2011; Rep 

Gibbs, Bob [R–OH–18]—7/28/2011; Rep Gibson, 

Christopher P. [R–NY–20]—5/23/2011; Rep 

Gingrey, Phil [R–GA–11]—3/3/2011; Rep Gohmert, Louie [R–TX–1]—6/22/2011; Rep Granger, 

Kay [R–TX–12]—4/6/2011; Rep Graves, Sam [R– 

MO–6]—5/10/2011; Rep Graves, Tom [R–GA– 

9]—9/8/2011; Rep Griffin Tim [R–AR–2]—2/14/ 

2011; Rep Grimm, Michael G. [R–NY–13]—3/16/ 

2011; Rep Guthrie, Brett [R–KY–2]—5/10/2011; 

Rep Hall, Ralph M. [R–TX–4]—5/23/2011; Rep 

Heck, Joseph J. [R–NV–3]—2/18/2011; Rep Herrera Beutler, Jaime [R–WA–3]—4/15/2011; Rep 

Huizenga, Bill [R–MI–2]—5/12/2011; Rep 

Hultgren, Randy [R–IL–14]—4/15/2011; Rep 

Hunter, Duncan D. [R–CA–52]—2/10/2011; Rep 

Johnson, Bill [R–OH–6]—5/23/2011; Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [R–IL–15]—11/14/2011; Rep 

King, Peter T. [R–NY–3]—4/25/2012. 

Rep Kinzinger, Adam [R–IL–11]—5/23/2011; 

Rep Lance, Leonard [R–NJ–7]—5/23/2011; Rep 

Latham, Tom [R–IA–4]—8/9/2011; Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [R–OH–14]—3/3/2011; Rep 

LoBiondo, Frank A. [R–NJ–2]—2/10/2011; Rep 

Long, Billy [R–MO–7]—2/14/2011; Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R–MO–9]—2/10/2011; Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [R–IL–16]—1/6/2011*; Rep 

Marino, Tom [R–PA–10]—5/12/2011; Rep 

McClintock, Tom [R–CA–4]—6/21/2011; Rep 

McKeon, Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ [R–CA–25]—3/7/ 

2012; Rep McKinley, David B. [R–WV–1]—1/12/ 

2011; Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R–WA– 

5]—5/23/2011; Rep Meehan, Patrick [R–PA–7]— 

5/23/2011; Rep Miller, Jeff [R–FL–1]—1/20/2011; 

Rep Murphy, Tim [R–PA–18]—4/8/2011; Rep 

Myrick, Sue Wilkins [R–NC–9]—4/1/2011; Rep 

Noem, Kristi L. [R–SD]—3/31/2011; Rep 

Nugent, Richard [R–FL–5]—1/19/2011; Rep 

Nunnelee, Alan [R–MS–1]—5/23/2011. 

Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [R–MS–4]—5/23/2011; 

Rep Paul, Ron [R–TX–14]—3/31/2011; Rep 

Pearce, Stevan [R–NM–2]—7/11/2011; Rep 

Petri, Thomas E. [R–WI–6]—5/31/2011; Rep 

Poe, Ted [R–TX–2]—5/10/2011; Rep Posey, Bill 

[R–FL–15]—1/18/2011; Rep Rehberg, Denny [R– 

MT]—5/12/2011; Rep Rivera, David [R–FL–25]— 

5/17/2012; Rep Roe, David P. [R–TN–1]—5/12/ 

2011; Rep Rogers, Mike D. [R–AL–3J—4/6/2011; 

Rep Rogers, Mike J. [R–MI–8]—3/7/2012; Rep 

Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R–FL–18]—5/23/2011; 

Rep Ross, Dennis [R–FL–12]—2/10/2011; Rep 

Royce, Edward R. [R–CA–40]—9/8/2011; Rep 

Runyan, Jon [R–NJ–3]—3/16/2011; Rep Scalise, 

Steve [R–LA–1]—5/10/2011; Rep Schilling, 

Robert T. [R–IL–17]—5/31/2011; Rep Schmidt, 

Jean [R–OH–2]—7/6/2011; Rep Scott, Austin 

[R–GA–8]—3/16/2011; Rep Scott, Tim [R–SC– 

1]—3/29/20110. 

Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James. Jr. [R–W1– 

5]—4/6/2011; Rep Sessions, Pete [R–TX–32]—5/ 

23/2011; Rep Shuster, Bill [R–PA–9]—5/2/2011; 

Rep Smith, Christopher H. [R–NJ–4]—3/29/ 

2011; Rep Southerland, Steve [R–FL–2]—6/14/ 

2011; Rep Stivers, Steve [R–OH–15]—3/3/2011; 

Rep Terry, Lee [R–NE–2]—2/14/2011; Rep Tipton, Scott [R–CO–3]—5/10/2011; Rep Turner, 

Michael R. [R–OH–3]—3/3/2011; Rep Upton, 

Fred [R–MI–6]—5/2/2011; Rep Walberg, Tim 

[R–MI–7]—6/2/2011; Rep Walden, Greg [R–OR– 

2]—5/2/2011; Rep Walsh, Joe [R–IL–8]—5/3/2011; 

Rep West, Allen B. [R–FL–22]—4/6/2011; Rep 

Westmoreland, Lynn A. [R–GA–3]—4/15/2011; 

Rep Whitfield, Ed [R–KY–1]—5/23/2011; Rep 

Wilson, Joe [R–SC–2]—1/25/2011; Rep Wittman, Robert J. R–VA–1]—5/31/2011; Rep 

Young, C.W. Bill [R–FL–10]—1/25/2011; Rep 

Young, Don [R–AK]—3/11/2011. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 

opposition to the motion. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, nice try. 

Let’s not be drawn in by this kind of 

gimmick. Vote ‘‘no’’ on the gentleman’s amendment. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 

will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum 

time for any electronic vote on the 

question of passage. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 188, noes 235, 

not voting 7, as follows: 

[Roll No. 551] 

AYES—188 

Ackerman 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Barrow 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Bonamici 

Boren 

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 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

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 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

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 

Matheson 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McIntyre 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Owens 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Peterson 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Ross (AR) 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schmidt 

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 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOES—235 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Blackburn 

Blumenauer 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

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 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

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 

Himes 

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 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

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 

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 (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5681 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

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—7 

Akin 

Black 

Cardoza 

Cohen 

Fleischmann 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

b 1612 

Messrs. BOREN and SHULER and Ms. 

HAHN changed their vote from ‘‘no’’ to 

‘‘aye.’’ 

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. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 232, noes 189, 

not voting 9, as follows: 

[Roll No. 552] 

AYES—232 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Broun (GA) 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

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 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Palazzo 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

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 (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) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOES—189 

Ackerman 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Barrow 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Bonamici 

Boren 

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 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Garamendi 

Gibson 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

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 

Matheson 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McIntyre 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Owens 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Paul 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Peterson 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Ross (AR) 

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 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOT VOTING—9 

Akin 

Black 

Blumenauer 

Campbell 

Cardoza 

Cohen 

Fleischmann 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during 

the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining. 

b 1620 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD changed his vote 

from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’ 

So the bill was passed. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

Stated for: 

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 

552 for final passage of H.R. 6169, I am not 

recorded because I was unavoidably detained. 

Had I been present, I would have voted ‘‘aye.’’ 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 10 of House Resolution 

747, H.R. 6169 is laid on the table. 

f 

AGRICULTURAL DISASTER 

ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2012 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that all Members 

may have 5 legislative days to revise 

and extend their remarks and include 

extraneous material on H.R. 6233. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? 

There was no objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 

consideration of the bill (H.R. 6233) to 

make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance available for fiscal 

year 2012 with the costs of such assistance offset by changes to certain conservation programs, and for other purposes, will now resume. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

MOTION TO RECOMMIT

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I have a 

motion to recommit at the desk. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

DENHAM). Is the gentleman opposed to 

the bill? 

Mr. COSTA. I am opposed to this legislation in its current form. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Clerk will report the motion to recommit. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Mr. Costa moves to recommit the bill H.R. 

6233 to the Committee on Agriculture with 

instructions to report the same back to the 

House forthwith with the following amendments: 

Page 1, beginning line 3, strike section 1 

and insert the following new section: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS, AND SENSE 

OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

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

the ‘‘Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 

2012’’. 

(b) FINDINGS.—The House of Representatives makes the following findings: 

(1) Family farms and livestock producers 

are suffering from the worst drought facing 

the United States since the 1950s, and this 

drought affects almost every State. 

(2) This Act does not help pork or poultry 

producers and provides only limited assistance for dairy producers. 

(3) Many producers of fruits and vegetables 

may not have crop insurance available to 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE