September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6099 

We don’t have time. We’ve got to act 

now. We’ve got to pass bills like this. 

It’s irresponsible not to. We need to 

continue to call upon the Senate to actually do their job and engage in the 

people’s work. The country will be better off. 

I encourage my colleagues to join in 

support of Representative HANNA’s bill. 

It’s a good, commonsense, bipartisan 

piece of legislation with broad support. 

It’s H.R. 6324, and I urge my colleagues 

to vote ‘‘yea.’’ 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 

CHAFFETZ) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6324. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill was 

passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

BUFFETT RULE ACT OF 2012 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I move to 

suspend the rules and pass the bill 

(H.R. 6410) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for taxpayers making donations with their returns of income tax to the Federal 

Government to pay down the public 

debt. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6410 

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 ‘‘Buffett Rule 

Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. DONATION TO PAY DOWN NATIONAL 

DEBT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 

61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

amended by adding at the end the following 

new part: 

‘‘PART IX—DONATIONS TO PAY DOWN 

NATIONAL DEBT 

‘‘Sec. 6097. Donation to pay down national 

debt. 

‘‘SEC. 6097. DONATION TO PAY DOWN NATIONAL 

DEBT. 

‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—Every taxpayer who 

makes a return of the tax imposed by subtitle A for any taxable year may donate an 

amount (not less than $1), in addition to any 

payment of tax for such taxable year, which 

shall be deposited in the general fund of the 

Treasury. 

‘‘(b) MANNER AND TIME OF DESIGNATION.— 

Any donation under subsection (a) for any 

taxable year— 

‘‘(1) shall be made at the time of filing the 

return of the tax imposed by subtitle A for 

such taxable year and in such manner as the 

Secretary may by regulation prescribe, except that— 

‘‘(A) the designation for such donation 

shall be either on the first page of the return 

or on the page bearing the taxpayer’s signature, and 

‘‘(B) the designation shall be by a box 

added to the return, and the text beside the 

box shall provide: 

‘‘By checking here, I signify that in addition to my tax liability (if any), I would like 

to donate the included payment to be used 

exclusively for the purpose of paying down 

the national debt.’’, and 

‘‘(2) shall be accompanied by a payment of 

the amount so designated. 

‘‘(c) TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS DONATED.— 

For purposes of this title, the amount donated by any taxpayer under subsection (a) 

shall be treated as a contribution made by 

such taxpayer to the United States on the 

last date prescribed for filing the return of 

tax imposed by subtitle A (determined without regard to extensions) or, if later, the 

date the return is filed. 

‘‘(d) TRANSFERS TO ACCOUNT TO REDUCE

PUBLIC DEBT.—The Secretary shall, from 

time to time, transfer to the special account 

established by section 3113(d) of title 31, 

United States Code, amounts equal to the 

amounts donated under this section.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of 

parts for subchapter A of such chapter is 

amended by adding at the end the following 

new item: 

‘‘PART IX. DONATIONS TO PAY DOWN NATIONAL

DEBT.’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to returns 

for taxable years ending after December 31, 

2011. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

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

will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Michigan. 

GENERAL LEAVE

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

legislative days in which to revise and 

extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the 

bill under consideration. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? 

There was no objection. 

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of H.R. 6410, a bill to provide a simple 

way for individuals to voluntarily donate funds to pay down the national 

debt. Under current law, you can contribute to debt reduction, but like all 

things with the IRS, it isn’t easy. If 

you dig deep into the 189 pages of instructions that accompany the 1040, 

you’ll find, on page 88, the following: 

Do not add your gift to reduce debt held by 

the public to any tax you may owe. 

To contribute to deficit reduction, 

one must send a separate check or 

money order to the Bureau of Public 

Debt, or they can go online at the Web 

site and use a credit card. Warren 

Buffett, who says he wants to pay more 

in taxes to pay down our debt, can’t actually do so when filing his taxes. 

H.R. 6410, however, gives Mr. Buffett 

and generous Americans like him a 

simple, easy way to help pay down our 

debt. This legislation adds to appropriate tax forms a box with the captions, and I am quoting: 

By checking here, I signify that in addition 

to my tax liability (if any), I would like to 

donate the included payment to be used exclusively for the purpose of paying down the 

national debt. 

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that H.R. 6410 reduces the public debt by $135 million over 10 years. It 

makes it easy for those who want to 

donate money to the Treasury for debt 

reduction to voluntarily do so without 

raising taxes on entrepreneurs and job 

creators. If Warren Buffett wants to 

give, then H.R. 6410 allows him to give 

to his heart’s content, and the payments will go directly to an account at 

the Treasury dedicated exclusively to 

debt reduction. 

Mr. Speaker, it’s not enough to speak 

in political platitudes about what we 

can do to reduce our debt. Now you can 

put your money where your mouth is. I 

urge my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle to join me in passing this legislation. 

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

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

Well, there’s nothing wrong with this 

bill except the label. If there were a 

fine, I would say, for House legislative 

mislabeling, House Republicans would 

have a very large fine to pay. This bill 

has nothing—zero—to do with the 

Buffett rule. It has everything to do 

with the absolute refusal of Americans 

to face the basic issue. The present tax 

laws give an inordinate tax break to 

the very wealthy. The Buffett rule is 

provided and proposed by President 

Obama and congressional Democrats. 

In addition to reducing the deficit by 

$46 billion, it would address a significant inequity in the Code that allows a 

quarter of taxpayers earning more than 

a million a year to pay a lower tax rate 

than millions of middle class families. 

One of those taxpayers is the Republican Presidential nominee, Governor 

Mitt Romney, who paid an effective tax 

rate lower than 15 percent in 2010 and 

refuses to let the American public see 

his tax returns for any earlier years. 

Indeed, the so-called tax reform legislation from Republicans would do 

just the opposite: provide massive tax 

cuts for the very wealthy, doubling 

down on the Bush tax cuts that have 

added billions to the deficit and contributed to growing income inequality. 

What’s more, their idea of tax reform 

is to heap new taxes on the backs of 

middle- and lower-income families to 

pay for all of this. A recent report 

found that the so-called tax reform 

outlined in the Ryan budget would give 

those making over a million dollars a 

year an additional average tax cut of 

$331,000, while those making less than 

$200,000 would see a tax increase of 

$4,500. 

Taxpayers can do exactly what is 

provided in this bill if they want to donate some of their taxes on the income 

they have to deficit reduction. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6100 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 19, 2012 

Republicans, who will recess in 2 

days for 2 months with an incredible 

amount of unfinished business, not the 

least of which is the extension of the 

middle class tax cuts and the looming 

fiscal cliff, we need hard work, not chicanery. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. CAMP. I yield such time as he 

may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. SCALISE). 

b 1630 

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman 

from Michigan for yielding and for 

bringing this legislation to the floor. 

The Buffett Rule Act that we’re debating now will set up a process where 

citizens all across the country, rich, 

poor, whatever their income level, if 

they feel that they haven’t paid enough 

money into the Federal Treasury, then 

they can just check off a box and submit the amount of money that they 

want to pay in addition to what the 

normal tax liability is, and the assurance will be that that money will be 

used specifically to pay down the national debt, which, of course, just a few 

weeks ago, broke the $16 trillion mark 

under President Obama. 

I think if you look at the Buffett 

Rule Act that we bring forward and 

contrast that with President Obama’s 

proposed Buffett rule that he’s talked 

about, what the President’s talked 

about is actually raising taxes on the 

very small business owners that we 

need in our country to help create jobs 

to help get our economy going back 

again. In fact, even President Obama 

himself acknowledged that if you raise 

taxes on anybody in a bad economy, it 

will make the economy even worse. 

And make no mistake about it, we 

are living right now in a bad economy, 

in many cases because of the President’s policies, because of the so many 

tax increases that this President has 

already imposed. Just in ObamaCare 

alone, President Obama has imposed 

more than 20 new taxes on middle class 

families. Many of them haven’t kicked 

in and they don’t kick in until after 

the election, conveniently, but those 

taxes are on the books, and it’s going 

to make it even harder for American 

families who are struggling to get by in 

a tough economy. 

And so what’s the President’s latest 

answer in his version of the Buffett 

rule? It’s to raise another $30-plus billion on the backs of our small business 

owners. By his own admission, that 

would make the economy even worse. 

And I think most people recognize the 

President would just use that money to 

go and spend even more money on a 

government that’s already too big. 

So the question is: Do we set up a 

process under President Obama’s approach where he would raise taxes on 

small business earners, further hurting 

the economy, just so that he can have 

more money to spend in Washington, 

where there’s already too much wasteful spending, or do we have a process 

like we establish here in this bill, the 

Buffett Rule Act, which says that if 

somebody truly does not feel they’re 

paying enough in taxes, then they can 

simply check a box and there will be a 

format that they can lay out however 

much they want to spend more and 

that money will be used not to grow 

the size of the Federal Government but 

to reduce the national debt? 

Again, it’s a very clear contrast in 

approaches. If you look at the record 

that we’ve seen so far, the tax-andspend approach under President 

Obama, it hasn’t worked. We’ve had 

more than 8 percent employment literally since the President took office. 

And it’s only gotten worse, to the point 

where millions of Americans have just 

given up looking for work. And the 

President’s answer is to keep raising 

more taxes and spending more money 

and borrowing it from China because 

we don’t have it. 

We need a better approach. We need 

to address the mushrooming deficit 

that broke the $16 trillion mark. And if 

people like Warren Buffett and others 

like him feel they’re not sending 

enough to Washington, let them put 

their money where their mouth is. Give 

them that action by giving them this 

check box, but knowing that if they do 

send in more money, it’s not going to 

be used to keep growing a bloated Federal Government and spending money 

we don’t have. It’s going to be used to 

finally start paying down this national 

debt that’s out of control and that’s a 

burden to the opportunities of today’s 

workers and the unemployed who are 

looking for jobs, but also to future generations—to our children and grandchildren who the big spenders in Washington are borrowing that money from 

and sending the bill to our children. 

They’ve got to stop doing it. 

We’ve got to stop the way things are 

going now and get the economy back 

on track. And you don’t do it by raising taxes. Again, President Obama 

even acknowledged that, even though 

his proposal is to raise taxes on our 

small business owners. You do it instead this way, by saying if you really 

feel like you want to send in more 

money to Washington, use it to pay 

down the national debt so we can finally get control over spending here. 

AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM, 

Washington, DC, October 5, 2011. 

Hon. STEVE SCALISE, 

House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN SCALISE: On behalf of 

Americans for Tax Reform, I am pleased to 

support your new legislation, the ‘‘Buffett 

Rule Act of 2011.’’ This bill would instruct 

the IRS to provide a prominent, convenient 

checkbox line on 1040 forms to allow those so 

inclined to pay extra income tax. 

Famously, Warren Buffett complained that 

his average effective tax rate was too low 

compared to his secretary. This is probably 

not true given the fact that Mr. Buffett has 

failed to release his own tax return for 

verification, and considering the average effective tax rate of his secretary is quite low 

based on her purported income. Nonetheless, 

Mr. Buffett should be able to voluntarily pay 

extra income taxes if he feels the need to— 

without imposing broad, job-killing tax 

hikes on our nation’s small employers. 

These ‘‘tax me more’’ lines have been particularly-effective in flushing out the serious 

from the posturing on the state level. States 

that have a ‘‘tax me more’’ line repeatedly 

report almost no additional voluntary contributions to state tax coffers. This is despite the fact that there is no shortage of 

people who have already earned (or inherited) their wealth who want to see taxes 

raised on those still pursuing the American 

dream. In short, the limousine liberal set 

doesn’t put their money where their mouth 

is. 

Taxpayers are calling Mr. Buffett’s bluff 

with this legislation. It’s his move. 

Sincerely, 

GROVER NORQUIST. 

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to 

yield 3 minutes to the ranking member 

on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. VAN HOLLEN). 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, Mr. LEVIN. 

I was just listening to the previous 

speaker. The issue is not whether we 

reduce our long-term deficits. We’ve 

got to do that. The question is: How? 

And every bipartisan group that has 

looked at this issue has said in order to 

do this in a smart and credible way, we 

have to make some additional tough 

cuts in reforms. But we also need to 

raise additional revenue. And if we 

don’t raise any more revenue, it means 

that everybody else is going to get hit 

even harder. Seniors on Medicare will 

have to pay more through the voucher 

plan than our Republican colleagues 

have proposed. Kids’ education grants 

and loans will be cut. Our investment 

in infrastructure will be cut. 

So what we’ve said is, Let’s take that 

balanced approach to reducing the deficit and that folks who have done very 

well should contribute a little bit more 

toward helping our Nation in that way. 

Our Republican colleagues have said, 

No, no, no, no, we’re not going to ask 

people like Warren Buffett or Mitt 

Romney or very wealthy people to pay 

one more penny—not one—toward reducing our deficit. 

And, Mr. Speaker, I’ve got to say it’s 

astounding that our Republican colleagues would bring this bill to the 

floor of this House any day, but especially today. There is apparently no 

embarrassment factor about the fact 

that just yesterday this tape surfaced 

with Mitt Romney talking about the 

fact that 47 million Americans are not 

paying enough Federal taxes, that 

they’re somehow not taking personal 

responsibility. You might as well name 

this piece of legislation: Give Mitt 

Romney Another Big Tax Break. Because as the gentleman from Michigan 

pointed out, the real Buffett rule says 

to people like Warren Buffett and people like Mitt Romney and to people 

who have done very well: We need you 

to contribute a little bit more toward 

deficit reduction, just like you were 

doing when President Clinton was 

President. Just go back to paying the 

same rate as when President Clinton 

was President. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6101 

And, by the way, President Obama 

has called upon this Congress to immediately extend tax relief to 98 percent 

of the American people and 97 percent 

of all businesses that do business passthroughs. What our Republican colleagues want to do is to say to Bain 

Capital and some of the Fortune 100 

companies: You don’t have to pay any 

more to reduce our deficit. And they 

use the language of small business as a 

cover for that. 

Now let’s look at who was among 

those 47 percent of Americans that 

Governor Romney was talking about 

yesterday. Seniors who paid into Medicare, who paid into Social Security, 

who don’t have any Federal income tax 

liability. They’re being under-taxed, 

apparently, or they’re not taking personal responsibility. How about our 

soldiers? We decided that soldiers 

should not be taxed on their combat 

pay. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an 

additional 2 minutes. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman. 

Soldiers who are fighting in Afghanistan, we decided that they shouldn’t 

have to pay taxes on their combat pay. 

Apparently, Mitt Romney wants them 

to have to pay taxes on that money 

where they’re not taking personal responsibility. Millions of other Americans are working hard every day to 

make ends meet. They may be making 

$25,000, have two kids. And you’re 

right, we have standard deductions and 

we have personal exemptions so that 

people making $25,000 a year don’t get 

hit really hard with income tax. And 

yet those individuals are paying an effective tax rate more than Mitt Romney. 

As the gentleman from Michigan 

pointed out, if you combine the different parts of the payroll tax, they’re 

at 15 percent. Mitt Romney is at 13 percent. And you know what the Buffett 

rule would do, the real one? The real 

one would say for people like Warren 

Buffet and Mitt Romney, they should 

at least pay 30 percent over $2 million. 

There’s a phase-in between $1 million 

and $2 million. That’s what the real 

Buffett rule does. 

And what adds insult to injury is 

that while Mitt Romney and Republicans are proposing a tax plan that 

would give a break for folks at the very 

top, the nonpartisan, independent Tax 

Policy Center says they want to pay 

for that by increasing taxes on middleincome Americans to the effect of 

about $2,000 a year more for an average 

middle class family. Those are people 

on top of the 47 percent who are just 

paying payroll taxes. 

So here we have a proposal by our 

Republican colleagues to provide big 

tax breaks to folks at the very top, and 

they want to come and make a mockery of the real Buffett rule. The real 

Buffett rule would actually generate 

$47 billion. Is that going to solve our 

deficit problem? Of course not. Will it 

contribute to helping it? Yes. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has again expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an 

additional 1 minute. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That would actually raise some money to help reduce 

the deficit and ask for some shared responsibility. 

This bill is the ‘‘pretty please’’ bill. 

Pretty please, Warren Buffet, pretty 

please, Mitt Romney, won’t you help 

contribute a little bit more toward reducing our deficit? 

b 1640 

I can understand why people like 

Mitt Romney would love this bill because it asks nothing more of them at 

a time when we should be taking a balanced approach to reducing our deficit. 

Just last week, we had a debate here 

about sequester. Everybody agreed, Republicans and Democrats, it would be 

really bad to have these across-theboard cuts take place. Buzz saw cuts. 

Our Republican colleagues and we both 

talked about the negative impact on 

defense, also on the FBI, on border security. 

You know what? We had a proposal 

to pay for part of that to prevent the 

sequester with the Buffett rule and 

some other cuts. Our Republican colleagues talked about the terrible consequences of the cuts, but they just 

don’t want to pay for them. They don’t 

want to ask very wealthy Americans to 

contribute one more penny. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I advise my 

colleague that I am prepared to close. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the remaining time. 

You know, as I’ve heard this debate, 

I’ve been thinking. This is really mislabeled. Why don’t we call it the Mitt 

Romney Rule Act of 2012? He paid the 

return he indicated less than 15 percent. He earned many, many, many 

millions. He knew what the code now 

says. He could have sent some of the 

money that was not taxed to the government. He could even use a credit 

card. But he hasn’t done that. 

This is mislabeled. This has nothing 

to do with Mr. Buffett. 

There’s been some reference here to 

small business. The very nonpartisan 

entities indicate that 97 percent of people who are in small business and beyond have income actually around 

$250,000 or less. 

All this bill does is to indicate what’s 

already in the code. So, there’s nothing 

wrong with the bill. What is wrong is 

this frightful mislabeling to try to 

cover up a refusal of the Republican 

Party in this institution to face up to 

what is really necessary to be done. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

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

I can understand why my friends on 

the other side are talking about everything but the bill before us. And that’s 

because this administration’s record on 

the deficit is so dismal. We’re going on 

our fourth year of trillion-dollar deficits. The deficit under their watch is 

now $16 trillion. 

You know, what we really need to do 

is grow this economy and create jobs, 

and we know that their tax increases 

that they love so much would cost us 

700,000 jobs. Look at this: 43 months of 

unemployment of 8 percent. That’s why 

they want to talk about everything but 

this. 

They’ve said the question is how to 

reduce the deficit. The fact of the matter is this bill does reduce the deficit, 

according to the Joint Committee on 

Taxation, by $135 million. Now, they 

might not think that’s much, but to 

most Americans, every million dollars 

counts. 

So, I think it’s important that we 

move forward on this, that we grow our 

economy, that we grow our economy to 

create jobs. And we know that taxes on 

small businesses that they propose cost 

us jobs. 

So let’s pass this bill. It’s a step forward. It allows those Americans—we 

all hear it as we go around the country—people say, ‘‘I’d like to give more. 

How do I do it?’’ 

This makes it easier, it makes it 

straightforward, and actually is scored 

as reducing the deficit. 

Let’s vote to make a step for reducing the deficit. We have bigger issues 

we need to deal with. We’re going to 

deal with those. That’s why this committee, Ways and Means, has been focused on tax reform this year, more 

than 20 hearings. I hope we can move 

forward on fundamental tax reform. 

Let’s vote for this bill. Let’s give those 

Americans who want to be more generous, who want to check a box and 

contribute more specifically to deficit 

reduction, a very transparent, straightforward, and easy way to do that. 

With that, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 

CAMP) that the House suspend the rules 

and pass the bill, H.R. 6410. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill was 

passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

ANDREW P. CARPENTER TAX ACT 

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. 

Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 

and pass the bill (H.R. 5044) to amend 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

exclude from gross income any discharge of indebtedness income on education loans of deceased veterans, as 

amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 5044 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 

Representatives of the United States of America 

in Congress assembled, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE