SMALL BUSINESS TAX CUT ACT
(House of Representatives - April 19, 2012)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

        

[Pages H1990-H2010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       SMALL BUSINESS TAX CUT ACT

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 620, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 9) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a deduction for domestic business income of qualified small businesses, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 620, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on Ways and Means, printed in the bill, is adopted. 
The bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                 H.R. 9

       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 ``Small Business Tax Cut 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR DOMESTIC BUSINESS INCOME OF QUALIFIED 
                   SMALL BUSINESSES.

       (a) In General.--Part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 200. DOMESTIC BUSINESS INCOME OF QUALIFIED SMALL 
                   BUSINESSES.

       ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--In the case of a qualified 
     small business, there shall be allowed as a deduction an 
     amount equal to 20 percent of the lesser of--
       ``(1) the qualified domestic business income of the 
     taxpayer for the taxable year, or
       ``(2) taxable income (determined without regard to this 
     section) for the taxable year.
       ``(b) Deduction Limited Based on Wages Paid.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the deduction allowable 
     under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed 50 
     percent of the greater of--
       ``(A) the W 2 wages of the taxpayer paid to non-owners, or
       ``(B) the sum of--
       ``(i) the W 2 wages of the taxpayer paid to individuals who 
     are non-owner family members of direct owners, plus
       ``(ii) any W 2 wages of the taxpayer paid to 10-percent-or-
     less direct owners.
       ``(2) Definitions related to ownership.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(A) Non-owner.--The term `non-owner' means, with respect 
     to any qualified small business, any person who does not own 
     (and is not considered as owning within the meaning of 
     subsection (c) or (e)(3) of section 267, as the case may be) 
     any stock of such business (or, if such business is other 
     than a corporation, any capital or profits interest of such 
     business).
       ``(B) Non-owner family members.--An individual is a non-
     owner family member of a direct owner if--
       ``(i) such individual is family (within the meaning of 
     section 267(c)(4)) of a direct owner, and
       ``(ii) such individual would be a non-owner if subsections 
     (c) and (e)(3) of section 267 were applied without regard to 
     section 267(c)(2).
       ``(C) Direct owner.--The term `direct owner' means, with 
     respect to any qualified small business, any person who owns 
     (or is considered as owning under the applicable non-family 
     attribution rules) any stock of such business (or, if such 
     business is other than a corporation, any capital or profits 
     interest of such business).
       ``(D) 10-percent-or-less direct owners.--The term `10-
     percent-or-less direct owner' means, with respect to any 
     qualified small business, any direct owner of such business 
     who owns (or is considered as owning under the applicable 
     non-family attribution rules)--
       ``(i) in the case of a qualified small business which is a 
     corporation, not more than 10 percent of the outstanding 
     stock of the corporation or stock possessing more than 10 
     percent of the total combined voting power of all stock of 
     the corporation, or
       ``(ii) in the case of a qualified small business which is 
     not a corporation, not more than 10 percent of the capital or 
     profits interest of such business.
       ``(E) Applicable non-family attribution rules.--The term 
     `applicable non-family attribution rules' means the 
     attribution rules of subsection (c) or (e)(3) of section 267, 
     as the case may be, but in each case applied without regard 
     to section 267(c)(2).
       ``(3) W 2 wages.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `W 2 wages' means, with respect 
     to any person for any taxable year of such person, the sum of 
     the amounts described in paragraphs (3) and (8) of section 
     6051(a) paid by such person with respect to employment of 
     employees by such person during the calendar year ending 
     during such taxable year.
       ``(B) Limitation to wages attributable to qualified 
     domestic business income.--Such term shall not include any 
     amount which is not properly allocable to domestic business 
     gross receipts for purposes of subsection (c)(1).
       ``(C) Other requirements.--Except in the case of amounts 
     treated as W 2 wages under paragraph (4)--
       ``(i) such term shall not include any amount which is not 
     allowed as a deduction under section 162 for the taxable 
     year, and
       ``(ii) such term shall not include any amount which is not 
     properly included in a return filed with the Social Security 
     Administration on or before the 60th day after the due date 
     (including extensions) for such return.
       ``(4) Certain partnership distributions treated as w 2 
     wages.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a qualified small 
     business which is a partnership and elects the application of 
     this paragraph for the taxable year--
       ``(i) the qualified domestic business taxable income of 
     such partnership for such taxable year (determined after the 
     application of clause (ii)) which is allocable under rules 
     similar to the rules of section 199(d)(1)(A)(ii) to each 
     qualified service-providing partner shall be treated for 
     purposes of this section as W 2 wages paid during such 
     taxable year to such partner as an employee, and
       ``(ii) the domestic business gross receipts of such 
     partnership for such taxable year shall be reduced by the 
     amount so treated.
       ``(B) Qualified service-providing partner.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `qualified service-providing 
     partner' means, with respect to any qualified domestic 
     business taxable income, any partner who is a 10-percent-or-
     less direct owner and who materially participates in the 
     trade or business to which such income relates.
       ``(5) Acquisitions and dispositions.--The Secretary shall 
     provide for the application of this subsection in cases where 
     the taxpayer acquires, or disposes of, the major portion of a 
     trade or business or the major portion of a separate unit of 
     a trade or business during the taxable year.

[[Page H1991]]

       ``(c) Qualified Domestic Business Income.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified domestic business 
     income' for any taxable year means an amount equal to the 
     excess (if any) of--
       ``(A) the taxpayer's domestic business gross receipts for 
     such taxable year, over
       ``(B) the sum of--
       ``(i) the cost of goods sold that are allocable to such 
     receipts, and
       ``(ii) other expenses, losses, or deductions (other than 
     the deduction allowed under this section), which are properly 
     allocable to such receipts.
       ``(2) Domestic business gross receipts.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `domestic business gross 
     receipts' means the gross receipts of the taxpayer which are 
     effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business 
     within the United States within the meaning of section 864(c) 
     but determined--
       ``(i) without regard to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) 
     thereof, and
       ``(ii) by substituting `qualified small business (within 
     the meaning of section 200)' for `nonresident alien 
     individual or a foreign corporation' each place it appears 
     therein.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--For purposes of paragraph (1), domestic 
     business gross receipts shall not include any of the 
     following:
       ``(i) Gross receipts derived from the sale or exchange of--

       ``(I) a capital asset, or
       ``(II) property used in the trade or business (as defined 
     in section 1231(b)).

       ``(ii) Royalties, rents, dividends, interest, or annuities.
       ``(iii) Any amount which constitutes wages (as defined in 
     section 3401).
       ``(3) Application of certain rules.--Rules similar to the 
     rules of paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 199(c) shall apply 
     for purposes of this section (applied with respect to 
     qualified domestic business income in lieu of qualified 
     production activities income and with respect to domestic 
     business gross receipts in lieu of domestic production gross 
     receipts).
       ``(d) Qualified Small Business.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified small business' 
     means any employer engaged in a trade or business if such 
     employer had fewer than 500 full-time equivalent employees 
     for either calendar year 2010 or 2011.
       ``(2) Full-time equivalent employees.--The term `full-time 
     equivalent employees' has the meaning given such term by 
     subsection (d)(2) of section 45R applied--
       ``(A) without regard to subsection (d)(5) of such section,
       ``(B) with regard to subsection (e)(1) of such section, and
       ``(C) by substituting `calendar year' for `taxable year' 
     each place it appears therein.
       ``(3) Employers not in existence prior to 2012.--In the 
     case of an employer which was not in existence on January 1, 
     2012, the determination under paragraph (1) shall be made 
     with respect to calendar year 2012.
       ``(4) Application to calendar years in which employer in 
     existence for portion of calendar year.--In the case of any 
     calendar year during which the employer comes into existence, 
     the number of full-time equivalent employees determined under 
     paragraph (2) with respect to such calendar year shall be 
     increased by multiplying the number so determined (without 
     regard to this paragraph) by the quotient obtained by 
     dividing--
       ``(A) the number of days in such calendar year, by
       ``(B) the number of days during such calendar year which 
     such employer is in existence.
       ``(5) Special rules.--
       ``(A) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of paragraph (1), any 
     person treated as a single employer under subsection (a) or 
     (b) of section 52 (applied without regard to section 1563(b)) 
     or subsection (m) or (o) of section 414 shall be treated as a 
     single employer for purposes of this subsection.
       ``(B) Predecessors.--Any reference in this subsection to an 
     employer shall include a reference to any predecessor of such 
     employer.
       ``(e) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Elective application of deduction.--Except as 
     otherwise provided by the Secretary, the taxpayer may elect 
     not to take any item of income into account as domestic 
     business gross receipts for purposes of this section.
       ``(2) Coordination with section 199.--If a deduction is 
     allowed under this section with respect to any taxpayer for 
     any taxable year--
       ``(A) any gross receipts of the taxpayer which are taken 
     into account under this section for such taxable year shall 
     not be taken into account under section 199 for such taxable 
     year, and
       ``(B) the W 2 wages of the taxpayer which are taken into 
     account under this section shall not be taken into account 
     under section 199 for such taxable year.
       ``(3) Application of certain rules.--Rules similar to the 
     rules of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) of 
     section 199(d) shall apply for purposes of this section 
     (applied with respect to qualified domestic business income 
     in lieu of qualified production activities income).
       ``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this section, including regulations which prevent a taxpayer 
     which reorganizes from being treated as a qualified small 
     business if such taxpayer would not have been treated as a 
     qualified small business prior to such reorganization.
       ``(g) Application.--Subsection (a) shall apply only with 
     respect to the first taxable year of the taxpayer beginning 
     after December 31, 2011.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 56(d)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``deduction under section 199'' both places it appears and 
     inserting ``deductions under sections 199 and 200''.
       (2) Section 56(g)(4)(C) of such Code is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new clause:
       ``(vii) Deduction for domestic business income of qualified 
     small businesses.--Clause (i) shall not apply to any amount 
     allowable as a deduction under section 200.''.
       (3) The following provisions of such Code are each amended 
     by inserting ``200,'' after ``199,''.
       (A) Section 86(b)(2)(A).
       (B) Section 135(c)(4)(A).
       (C) Section 137(b)(3)(A).
       (D) Section 219(g)(3)(A)(ii).
       (E) Section 221(b)(2)(C)(i).
       (F) Section 222(b)(2)(C)(i).
       (G) Section 246(b)(1).
       (H) Section 469(i)(3)(F)(iii).
       (4) Section 163(j)(6)(A)(i) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (III) and by 
     inserting after subclause (IV) the following new subclause:

       ``(V) any deduction allowable under section 200, and''.

       (5) Section 170(b)(2)(C) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iv), by striking the 
     period at the end of clause (v) and inserting ``, and'', and 
     by inserting after clause (v) the following new clause:
       ``(vi) section 200.''.
       (6) Section 172(d) of such Code is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Domestic business income of qualified small 
     businesses.--The deduction under section 200 shall not be 
     allowed.''.
       (7) Section 613(a) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``deduction under section 199'' and inserting ``deductions 
     under sections 199 and 200''.
       (8) Section 613A(d)(1) of such Code is amended by 
     redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively, and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) any deduction allowable under section 200,''.
       (9) Section 1402(a) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of paragraph (16), by redesignating 
     paragraph (17) as paragraph (18), and by inserting after 
     paragraph (16) the following new paragraph:
       ``(17) the deduction provided by section 200 shall not be 
     allowed; and''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VI 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 200. Domestic business income of qualified small businesses.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 70 minutes of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment in the 
nature of a substitute printed in House Report 112 447, if offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) or his designee, which shall be 
considered read and shall be separately debatable for 25 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 35 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 9.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act. 
This legislation will allow small businesses with fewer than 500 
employees to take a 20 percent tax deduction.
  Small businesses are the engine of job creation, and while we pursue 
comprehensive tax reform that will give all businesses certainty to 
invest and hire, this bill will help small businesses to reinvest, hire 
new workers, or provide a raise to an employee.
  The policies put forth by President Obama and congressional Democrats 
have yielded more government spending but have failed to generate 
strong income growth and the jobs Americans need. Instead of lowering 
unemployment, we got a lower credit rating; instead of massive job 
creation, we got massive and unprecedented levels of debt; and instead 
of higher wages for working families, we got higher gas prices.
  This bill provides real relief to American small businesses and the 
workers they employ, and it treats every small business equally. 
Contrary to the political cronyism we've seen time and time again, this 
bill does not pick winners and losers. It provides relief to all small 
businesses, including those in my

[[Page H1992]]

home State of Michigan. Michigan has been hit especially hard over the 
last 3 years with some of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation. 
And while small business owners in my district need and want 
comprehensive tax reform, they also agree that we must take steps to 
spur investment and hiring today as well. These business owners are the 
real experts who know what they need to add jobs back to our 
communities.
  Take, for example, Bob Yackel, president of Merrill Tool. As part of 
the 400-employee Merrill Technologies Group, Mr. Yackel says:

       As a manufacturing business in mid-Michigan, we know 
     firsthand the ramifications of the recent economic turmoil. 
     The best way Washington can help energize economic growth is 
     by making sure business owners are spending less on tax 
     payments and more on creating jobs.

  Bob Yackel is a larger small business owner, but there are smaller 
businesses that feel the same way.
  Jim Holton, owner of Mountain Town Station in Mount Pleasant, has 
served the central Michigan community as a restaurant owner for more 
than 15 years. He is especially pleased with the simplicity and ease of 
this legislative approach. He says:

       The beauty of the Small Business Tax Cut Act is its 
     simplicity. If you're earning profits and contributing to the 
     economy, then you can take 20 percent off your tax bill. No 
     hoops to jump through. This is a great way for business 
     owners like myself in the Great Lakes Bay region and across 
     America to help jump-start our economy.

  Those are just two examples in Michigan's Fourth District, but they 
echo small businesses and small business owners across the country.
  Throughout our history, we've depended upon these industrious and 
innovative risk-takers to help us move through tough economic times. 
While we work to provide them the long-term comprehensive tax reform 
they need, we can also take steps today to unlock new opportunities for 
them immediately. Passing this bill will provide these much-needed, 
immediate opportunities.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting small business and to 
demonstrate that they support them as well by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 9.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Cantor) be permitted to control the balance of the time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, Mr. Cantor will control 
the time and have the authority to dispense time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This bill needs to be graded, and the grade it gets is F, a fat F 
grade. It fails all tests of sound tax policy.
  Let me start with truth in advertising, a grade F. This is not a 
small business bill. It's small business in name only. It's totally 
untargeted, totally. It applies as long as an entity has under 500 
employees--law firms, sports teams, financial consultants, lobbyists, 
corporate farmers--and regardless of what their annual receipts are. 
They can be tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars.
  Interestingly, when the SBA looks at its loan program, it has what's 
called a common standard. What that is is that generally the businesses 
it serves cannot have more than $7 million in average annual receipts 
for most nonmanufacturing firms. This bill has no limits--none--as to 
function or amount of receipts, so really this bill mocks the use of 
the title ``small business.'' This isn't about mom and pop. It's about 
popping the cork for wealthy taxpayers.
  Secondly, graded on tax fairness, F. According to the most cautious 
estimate, 56 percent of the tax break under this bill goes to taxpayers 
making $250,000 or more annually. It provides 125,000 taxpayers making 
$1 million a year with a tax break of over $58,000. Another model says 
that 49 percent of this $46 billion revenue loss goes to people with 
incomes over $1 million. This is Bush tax cuts on steroids.
  Thirdly, in terms of job creation, another grade F. Listen to the 
Joint Tax Committee analysis. It says this bill's economic impact ``is 
so small as to be incalculable.'' The only thing calculating about this 
bill is its political nature.
  We've looked at the Web site of the majority leader. He uses Mr. 
Robbins, who was the one who advised Herman Cain on 9 9-9. Here's what 
Mr. Robbins says about this bill: He estimates that a 1-year tax cut 
would create 39,000 jobs. This is on the majority leader's Web site. 
So, according to the analysis that the leader is touting on its own Web 
site, H.R. 9 would increase the Federal deficit by $1.1 million for 
every job supposedly created. So, another big F.
  Now let's talk about where these jobs would be created. The bill is 
so untargeted to require that the jobs that are created here would 
really be created, because a company would get this benefit if it sheds 
jobs or if it uses the deduction to hire workers overseas.
  Let's next go to fiscal irresponsibility, another fat F in terms of 
responsibility. This bill adds a whopping $46 billion to the deficit in 
1 year; if it's made permanent, one-half trillion dollars over the next 
10 years. So I say this to anybody who votes for this bill and then 
goes home and utters the word, once, ``Federal deficit.'' They will 
sell short the intelligence of their constituents, because they will 
know when someone is selling them a pig in a poke.
  Now let's talk about tax reform, another fat F. This bill is the 
antithesis of tax reform. What it does is ridicule supporters who claim 
their fealty to tax reform. It doesn't simplify tax structures; it 
complicates it. That's why I quote The Wall Street Journal this 
morning. This is what they say about your bill: It's another tax 
gimmick.

                              {time}  1110

  Just earlier today somebody got up here and read from The Wall Street 
Journal. It was some months ago. Again, The Wall Street Journal says: 
``The U.S. economy does not need another tax gimmick.'' So this is tax 
policy gone haywire.
  I'm going to offer a substitute, after we finish debate here on 
general debate, that's targeted; that will help create jobs; that's 
fair; that is fiscally responsible and continues a policy that both 
Republicans and Democrats have supported in the past.
  This flies in the face of anything bipartisan. It flies in the face 
of anything that is truthful in advertising. It flies in the face of 
anything that is fair. It flies in the face of anything that creates 
jobs. It flies in the face of fiscal responsibility, and it flies in 
the face of tax reform.
  So I more than urge people to vote ``no'' and vote ``yes'' on our 
substitute. I really urge that they exercise their responsibility to 
try to get this country moving in the right direction, not with 
policies that deserve a total F on the test of sound tax policy.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we know jobs won't come back until small businesses 
recover. Small businesses have generated over 65 percent of the new 
jobs in this country; but the economic downturn, red tape, and higher 
taxes coming from Washington have simply made it harder for small 
business to create jobs.
  Tax policies should encourage economic growth, investment, and job 
creation, not stifle it. We need to stop and think about what kind of 
country we want to be. Do we want to be one with lower taxes, more 
growth, and more jobs; or do we want to be one of more government 
control and fewer opportunities?
  This week, when every American filed their tax returns, the other 
party in the Senate voted to increase taxes. We should not be taking 
money out of the hands of those we are counting on to create jobs. We 
need to let small business owners keep more of their hard-earned money 
so they can start hiring again.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we'll vote on the Small Business Tax Cut Act to 
give every small business with fewer than 500 employees a 20 percent 
tax cut. Our bill puts more money into the hands of small business 
owners so they can reinvest those funds to retain and create more jobs 
and grow their businesses, plain and simple.
  According to a study, the Small Business Tax Cut Act will help create 
more than 100,000 new jobs a year once fully in place. One-third of the 
firms that benefit from our tax cut are owned by

[[Page H1993]]

women. One-fifth are owned by minorities. And our legislation won't 
just benefit small business owners; it benefits current workers by 
boosting wages.
  Mr. Speaker, when I talk with small business owners across the 
country, I hear they need more opportunity to grow. I hear that taxes 
are siphoning away their income. I hear they can't access capital.
  One small business owner in Spotsylvania, Virginia, called the small 
business tax cut a win-win for him and other small business owners in 
the economy. He said that with more money to invest in his businesses 
he could afford to hire more staff, buy new equipment and expand.
  Mr. Speaker, while we continue to work toward tax reform that 
broadens the base, brings down the rates for everybody, and gets rid of 
loopholes, Washington assumes the role of picking winners and losers. 
We need to take incremental steps to give job creators tax relief right 
away. This Small Business Tax Cut Act is a step in that right 
direction.
  President Obama called small businesses the anchors of our Main 
Streets. We agree. I hope we can all unite around helping the small 
businesses which are the engines of job creation in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I'd say in response to the gentleman's assertion towards 
the definition of small business in this bill, this is the Small 
Business Administration definition of small business. This is what 
every program that comes out of this government aimed to help small 
businesses is premised upon. The SBA definition of a small business is 
one of 499 or fewer.
  As far as the gentleman's allegations about the potential for abuse 
under this bill, if he'd read the language of the bill, Mr. Speaker, it 
caps the ability to benefit from the tax cut to 50 percent of the W 2 
wages that that small business paid out. This is, straight up, 
something to help small businesses keep more of their money while 
they're having so much difficulty keeping the lights on and, instead, 
giving them the ability to grow, to grow, invest, and create more jobs.
  As far as the gentleman's allegations that somehow this bill only 
affects those millionaires, billionaires and the rest, I think he will 
see the studies have shown that just 18.3 percent of those people are 
in the categories of income he suggests, with 80-some percent in the 
middle class--80-some percent, the true small business owners who we're 
relying on to create jobs for the middle class to come back.
  And I would say to the gentleman, as far as the allegation of 
gimmickry, the essence of supply-side economics, the centrality issue 
on taxes is the reduction of marginal rates. That's exactly what this 
bill does.
  Does it provide it for long enough? Does it provide permanency? No. 
But what we want to do in a permanent way is effect broader tax reform. 
But since we can't see eye to eye on that, since we've still got work 
to do, let's give the small businesses some help now.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  We have a Statement of Administration Policy in total opposition to 
this. The Small Business Administration would not provide a loan for 
innumerable people who benefit from this. They have a $7 million limit.
  Supply-side economics, we tried that for a number of years, and we 
were losing 700,000 jobs a month when this administration took over--
700,000, and you raise supply-side economics as something we should 
embrace? No way. No way.
  I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington, Dr. 
Jim McDermott, a member of our committee.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, in 5 hours we're 
going to get on planes and go home, so we have to get the press 
releases ready to go. And that's what this is about.
  This bill will be dead in the Senate the minute it hits the desk. 
It's not going anywhere. It is a press release, and it is the most 
wasteful bill of the season so far. Now, I'm sure that Mr. Cantor and 
others will find worse things to do down the way as we get closer to 
the election.
  This week has been a disaster in here. We started on Tuesday by 
deeming the budget passed, here and in the Senate. It's a fiction. It 
never happened. That's how this week started.
  Then we went to the Ways and Means Committee yesterday, and we cut 
$68 billion out of health, children's services, social services, foster 
care, in reconciliation to balance the budget.
  And then we get up this morning and here we have a bill that borrows 
$46 billion from the Chinese, or whoever, to give it to small business. 
The fact is that 125,000 millionaires in this country will get an 
average tax cut of $58,000.
  That's what this bill does. It does not create jobs. It's supposed to 
create jobs. In fact, the job creation is so small, as you heard, it's 
incalculable.
  Now, that wouldn't satisfy the majority leader. He had to go and find 
an economist somewhere who'd give him a better number.

                              {time}  1120

  So he found Herman Cain's guy, the guy who had the 9 9-9 tax deal. 
Now, there's a solid citizen. He really knows what's going. Well, he 
comes up with 39,000 jobs will be created. 39,000 jobs. It sounds like 
quite a bit, doesn't it? Until you figure how many billions of dollars 
are going to create them. The figure is that each job will cost $1.1 
million in tax cuts. This is to get one job. Do you think they're 
hiring somebody for $1.1 million? They're hiring them for $6 or $8 an 
hour.
  This is not a job creation bill. It is simply a press release. The 
Republicans have not brought out a serious job creation bill. Yesterday 
was as close as we came when we finally did the highway bill so that we 
could at least keep highway infrastructure being created. Otherwise, 
there has been nothing solid that has gotten through the Congress. The 
highway bill will get through because everybody knows it creates jobs, 
but this kind of stuff is simply sinking us.
  What's really interesting, though, is that, as I look at that $1.1 
million per job, I remember when they came up with the phony claim--
never proven--that the Recovery Act would cost $278,000 for a job. This 
costs us four times as much, and it's from his own economist. Vote 
``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Last week, I met with more than 70 small 
businesses throughout southwest Washington, so I am here to support a 
bill today that would give every one of those businesses a much-needed, 
positive injection of capital.
  What my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to have a hard 
time understanding is that 7 out of 10 jobs in this country over the 
last 20 years have come from small businesses. If we create an 
environment where they can grow and succeed, more people are going to 
find work, and that's what this is all about. They need it. My district 
has endured multiple years of double-digit unemployment, and job-
providing small businesses haven't seen much from their government to 
give them hope or to encourage them to grow their workforces.
  For example, many small businesses that I've met with are really 
worried about hitting that 50-employee threshold that is going to 
trigger the health care law's burdensome cost. They're staying under 
it. Imagine that: a government rule that is deterring small businesses 
from hiring. This is a terrible time to send that message. Another 
business owner talked to me about how he is exasperated by the 
government reaching out to him, saying he had 4 days to put together a 
mountain load of paperwork or face a fine.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. We need to remove those barriers. Today, the 
bill that we get a chance to pass is going to send a different signal 
that says, Government wants you to grow. We want you to hire. You're 
not Uncle Sam's piggy bank. We want you to succeed and prosper.
  These businesses are going to put moms, dads, and hardworking 
taxpayers to work. Let's allow them to do

[[Page H1994]]

more of that. On behalf of small business owners in southwest 
Washington, I stand in strong support of this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 5 seconds.
  Is it worth $1.1 million a job in Washington?
  I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from 
Oregon, an active member of our committee, Mr. Blumenauer.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I listened to my good friend and colleague from the 
other side of the river from my hometown of Portland, Oregon, talking 
about trying to assist small business and encourage economic 
development.
  But the facts are that the vast majority of this aid, as we've talked 
about, is going to be unfocused. It's going to go to people whether 
they need it or not, including some of the wealthiest individuals and 
partnerships--accountants, lobbyists--and to companies regardless of 
whether or not they add employment or reduce it.
  At this very time, we have people on Capitol Hill who are begging us 
to get real about infrastructure investment. We finally are getting a 
bill to conference, but we're hung up on funding it. The Republican 
budget would cut transportation funding 46 percent, $6.5 billion less 
than is necessary to keep current obligations. This week, small 
business people, including a number who visited my office, came in, 
imploring us to stop the games and to get on with the reauthorization 
of the Surface Transportation Act.
  If we really are going to borrow $46 billion from China or from 
whomever and add to the deficit, if we have that capacity, for heavens 
sakes, we should invest it in rebuilding and renewing America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. With this $46 billion, added to the bipartisan Senate 
bill that passed with 74 votes--half the Republicans--we could have a 
robust reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act and create 
hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs. Not by picking winners and 
losers, but by going back to the day when we used to work together on a 
bipartisan basis to fund infrastructure and to help strengthen every 
community around the country.
  Reject this gimmick. If we have an extra $46 billion we're going to 
borrow, invest it in rebuilding and renewing America--really helping 
small business and strengthening the environment in every community 
across America.
  Mr. CANTOR. I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. 
Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. I thank the leader for yielding.
  Job growth is my top priority, and no one can deny that small 
business is the engine that drives our economy and our job market. 
Since 1980, small businesses have accounted for 60 percent of job 
creation. Their success is vital to the strength of this economy and to 
the availability of jobs for all Americans.
  As a CPA and a legislator, I've heard from small business owners 
throughout my career, and their message has been remarkably consistent: 
They need relief from the burdensome Tax Code, and they need capital to 
hire and expand, which is exactly what the Small Business Tax Cut Act 
provides.
  While our colleagues in the Senate are devising new and creative ways 
to raise taxes, here in the House we have the opportunity to pass 
legislation that supports our small businesses, encourages growth and 
job creation, and lifts our economy out of the current economics of the 
day. We can and should do all of this by passing the Small Business Tax 
Cut Act today.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 3 minutes to another very active member of our 
committee, the gentleman from California, Xavier Becerra.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  When you hear of small business, what comes up in your mind first? 
The corner drug store? The tech troubleshooting startup? My daughter's 
martial arts instructor? How about Donald Trump? How about Trump Sales 
and Leasing, or Paris Hilton Entertainment? What about Larry Flynt 
Publications? Not that any of these latter companies have volunteered 
to show me their tax returns, but by all accounts, these are the 
businesses that will devour the lion's share of the tax breaks in this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, 3 percent of the businesses in America will get 56 
percent of the tax breaks provided. The rich and famous will get most 
of the money. 125,000 millionaires in America will get $58,000 in tax 
breaks this year alone, which is the first year of this tax break. 
That's how targeted this particular bill is.
  More than that, what we find is that most Americans don't believe 
that our tax system is fair. They believe that it is skewed towards the 
very wealthy. H.R. 9 proves that they are right. Seventy percent of 
Americans believe that the tax system is skewed against them and favors 
the very wealthy. If Paris Hilton, who has what we understand are about 
five employees based in Beverly Hills, can take advantage of this tax 
cut, or if Donald Trump or Larry Flynt or Kim Kardashian or Oprah 
Winfrey--all small business people--can take advantage and get, maybe, 
$58,000 in tax breaks while most small businesses will get barely 
anything, then I think the American public is correct.

                              {time}  1130

  Remember, most businesses in America are sole proprietorships. Most 
of those sole proprietorships have no employees. Under this bill, if 
you're a sole proprietor and have no employees, you get zero of the tax 
break benefits.
  I have another example. Two companies, both have 500 employees. One 
company decides to hire more Americans; 10 more Americans are put on 
the payroll. The other company of 500 employees decides, I think it's 
easier for me to make more money if I take some of those jobs and put 
them overseas, so I'm going to fire 10 Americans here in America, and 
I'm going to start those jobs overseas, outsource those jobs.
  Guess who gets the tax break--the company that hires 10 new American 
employees? No. They get nothing. The firm that fires 10 American 
employees here and outsources those jobs to another country, that 
company will get the benefits of this tax break.
  The American public is correct. Today's tax system is skewed towards 
the wealthy, and that's why we have to vote against this legislation. 
Let us have job creation legislation. Let us focus on small businesses. 
This does neither.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 9.
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield myself 30 seconds just in response, Mr. Speaker, 
to the allegation about those who benefit from the Small Business Tax 
Cut Act. I would ask the gentleman to perhaps look at the language of 
the Democrat alternative on the motion to recommit because it, as well, 
provides the same benefit it's trying to provide to others. All those 
people, the so-called ``rich and famous'' that he says are the only 
ones that benefit, also benefit under their alternative.
  Mr. BECERRA. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. I will not yield.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here to provide the kind of relief to the small 
business men and women that will benefit from this.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Black).
  Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Leader, for allowing me to be here today.
  I have spent the last year and a half traveling throughout the Sixth 
Congressional District that I represent talking to small-, medium-, and 
large-size businesses. What I have asked them across the board is, what 
is it that would help you to be able to grow your business.
  What I hear from them is that there's a lot of uncertainty out there, 
and they are concerned already about large burdens of increasing taxes, 
more regulations, more mandates. They really fear what Washington will 
do to them next.
  What if we said to small businesses, that really are the engine of 
our economic growth, that we're going to do something for you instead 
of to you? What if Washington encouraged growth instead of causing 
small businesses to live in fear that one more tax might sink them?
  Over 20 years ago, my family started a small business, and I can tell 
you that if the conditions were like they are today then we probably 
would not

[[Page H1995]]

have taken the risk to put everything on the line and start our small 
business. That's why I'm supporting Leader Cantor's 20 percent small 
business tax cut that would allow small business owners to, one, retain 
more capital; two, invest in their business; and three--this is the 
key--to hire more workers.
  In the State of Tennessee, we have over 96,000 small businesses that 
employ over 1.38 million individuals. In particular, we have 12,000 
small women-owned businesses, which have been, until recently, the 
fastest growing sector of our small business economy.
  So it's not just a cliche that getting small business growing again 
is the key to our economic growth; it's a fact.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  What the leader said is not correct. The substitute provides some 
help to those who invest in property, plant, and equipment. That's not 
Paris Hilton.
  Mr. CANTOR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me finish.
  You didn't yield at all to us, so let me finish.
  It has to be a factory that's built here.
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BECERRA. What the gentleman Mr. Levin is saying is correct, and I 
want to correct Mr. Cantor because he misspoke about the Democratic 
alternative.
  The Democratic alternative requires that a small business make an 
investment in a plant or small machinery. If Paris Hilton wishes to 
invest in a plant and machinery, then perhaps she will qualify. If 
Larry Flynt would want to invest in plants and machinery for his 
business, perhaps he would qualify. Otherwise, this is a giveaway. Ours 
requires you to make investments in America.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished 
member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this proposal today.
  I have just a couple of thoughts, having had long-term membership 
here.
  This is not the way to write legislation, and the Members on the 
other side know this.
  The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee should be here with us 
today to discuss this. This should have been vetted into the full 
committee. This should have had an active markup with full 
participation.
  I revere this institution, and I revere that committee. Members spend 
their careers trying to become members of the Ways and Means Committee. 
To bring this legislation to the floor today without a hearing is ill-
considered.
  From a historic perspective, why don't we talk about how we got into 
this situation?
  This bill today adds $46 billion to the deficit. Without a hearing? 
Why don't we just do these proposals by unanimous consent and bring 
them to the floor? We missed the point of what the vetting process 
does, where people stand in front of that committee and they offer 
expert testimony. But our friends on the Republican side, they call 
this a small business tax cut. This is about the theater of the 
election year, and everybody knows it.
  This is the same group that would have you believe, incidentally, 
that tax cuts pay for themselves, even though you can't find an 
economist who will adhere to that position.
  They have run up the deficits in this country recklessly, and in the 
name of a political campaign, they're prepared to do it again. They 
want to pour syrup on the plate and not even bother to serve pancakes 
with it. In our current fiscal situation, to have not vetted this sort 
of proposal in front of the committee is a mistake.
  You want to talk about helping small business with tax policy? Count 
me in. We've worked on some good bipartisan legislation over the last 
20 years to help small business, not to do it in this manner where this 
legislation has been brought to the floor.
  We had a markup in the committee yesterday where cuts are being 
proposed to senior citizens, to low-income families, eliminate funding 
for Meals On Wheels, and yet they bring this proposal up today with a 
straight face.
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I just want to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker.
  The Ways and Means Committee had two small business hearings on the 
implications of tax reform in which this proposal was raised. In 
addition, the gentleman well knows that there was a markup.
  Mr. NEAL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. If I could finish. No.
  There was a markup in committee in which even the gentleman offered 
an amendment and then withdrew it because it was ruled nongermane. Of 
course there was a markup. Of course this idea has been the subject of 
discussion in committee.
  Again, I just wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. 
Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the majority leader for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, Tuesday was Tax Day, when Americans everywhere were 
reminded just how much Uncle Sam takes out of our pockets each and 
every year. But it was also a reminder that not all of our tax policies 
are created equal.
  Some in Washington want to raise taxes simply to feed the Federal 
Government's spending addiction, even when higher taxes on things like 
capital gains and investments would only discourage growth and shrink 
revenue in the long term.
  I think our Tax Code should be designed to promote simplicity, 
competition, and economic growth. We can do this by reducing the burden 
on small American businesses that are responsible for the majority of 
new jobs created in our country every day.
  This bill will provide an immediate 20 percent deduction for millions 
of small businesses, one-third of which, by the way, are owned by women 
and one-fifth of which are minority-owned.

                              {time}  1140

  Let's allow small businesses to reinvest in new jobs, new 
opportunities, and new products that will grow our economy. Mr. 
Speaker, I urge my colleagues to listen, as I have done, to the voices 
of their small business owners and operators back home.
  Mr. LEVIN. May I ask the distinguished gentleman from the State of 
Ohio how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from the State of Michigan has 
15\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader, 
has 20\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett), another active member of our committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
  You know, the Republicans are always so much better in the names they 
give these bills than what's in them. I think in considering this one 
we have to look at what it is and what it is not.
  It is not an economic recovery measure. A nonpartisan analysis has 
shown that the economic benefits are considered to be so small as to be 
incalculable.
  It is not helpful to sole proprietors, who do not benefit at all from 
this bill.
  It is not a way to reduce the deficit or the national debt. Indeed, 
this is a measure that will add $46 billion to the national deficit.
  We were told only yesterday that because of a pressing national debt, 
we can no longer provide one source of federal funding for hot meals 
for seniors through the Meals on Wheels program in Texas, that we could 
not afford to provide Federal resources that are necessary there on 
child abuse or on keeping a child with disability at home, or helping 
seniors maintain their independence, that there just aren't the 
resources to do that. But today we are told there is $46 billion we can 
add to the debt for a nice-sounding bill.
  What is this bill? It is another failed Republican retread. It is a 
measure that will help those at the top rather than those who are 
really struggling to get to the top. I'm concerned about the icehouse 
on the west side of San Antonio, about the beauty shop in Lockhart, 
about the auto repair shop in San Marcos. But those are not the places 
that will receive the principal benefits of this measure.
  Indeed, 125,000 millionaires in this country will get more in tax 
benefits

[[Page H1996]]

out of this than many of the owners of those businesses earn during an 
entire year, in fact, more than the median income throughout San 
Antonio, Austin, and central and south Texas.
  What this measure is is a boon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. It will be a boon to highly paid professionals, private 
equity firms, hedge fund managers, and professional sports teams. I 
think they've received enough economic benefit in the past with the 
Bush tax cuts.
  We ought to be focusing our support for small businesses not on those 
who are already at the top and should be contributing a little to the 
shared sacrifice necessary to get our national debt under control and 
meet basic human needs.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, the gentleman from 
Texas indicated that this bill doesn't benefit sole proprietors. Sole 
proprietors are, in fact, the disproportionate beneficiaries under this 
bill. According to the Committee on Joint Taxation, 17.9, almost 18 
million sole proprietors benefit under this bill, again, to set the 
record straight, Mr. Speaker.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), not only 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade but, as well, the vice 
chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I want to first thank Leader Cantor for his 
leadership on economic issues, especially those along Main Street. 
That's what this is about. This isn't about Paris Hilton, Larry Flynt, 
or even Hilary Rosen, the President's top adviser, who recently 
denigrated women who choose to work at home. It's not about 
celebrities. It's about small business people. They're the ones who 
have been left behind in the Obama economy.
  Think about this. We have tens, literally, tens of millions of 
Americans who can't find a full-time job. There are millions more who 
have just given up. They don't even look for work anymore. Here we are. 
It's hard to believe there are fewer Americans working today than when 
the President took office. Bailouts, stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, 
housing bailout, Solyndra bailout, all of that, fewer Americans 
working, 700,000 fewer women with a job.
  Small businesses have borne the brunt of this terrible recovery. It 
is time we help them instead of raising taxes on those who succeed. Why 
don't we let them keep 20 percent more of the income they earn, the 
sales they make, the weekends they work, the charges they put on their 
credit cards, all they do to survive and succeed in this economy? 
Republicans are determined to give them a chance to succeed until this 
economy can get back to work, to hire new workers, to keep new workers.
  I have to tell you, I remember in Ways and Means Committee the debate 
on ObamaCare, the Republicans offered an amendment to shield small 
businesses from tax increases, and our Democrat friends said they can't 
do that because small businesses have had it too easy all these years--
small businesses have had it too easy all these years.
  It's time to give our small businesses a break, time to get this 
economy back on track. It's time to let them keep what they have worked 
so hard to earn.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another very active member of our 
committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, we are really in the middle of the theater 
of the absurd. I'm not opposed, and apparently the other side is not 
opposed, to stimulus spending for the economy. I don't know where they 
have been for the last 18 months. Let's make effective stimulus.
  Since you mentioned the CBO, Mr. Cantor, through the Chair, they rank 
this bill next to last in bang for the buck in job creation. You didn't 
quote CBO about that.
  Through the Speaker, the Joint Committee on Taxation said the 
economic impact is so small as to be incalculable--your own analysis on 
your Web site. It's very clear it's going to cost, add, $1.1 million, 
for every job created, to the deficit.
  I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Just yesterday, in 
order to comply with the majority's budget that violates the deal 
Speaker Boehner agreed to last year--that deal is clear, public--the 
Ways and Means Committee cut $53 billion in health care tax credits, 
child tax credits, social services block credits. You cut it yesterday 
for the disabled, for the elderly who are most vulnerable. In New 
Jersey, they could lose millions of dollars for Meals on Wheels, foster 
care.
  This is unacceptable. We are voting to add $47 billion to the deficit 
today with a giveaway to professional sports teams--oh, you didn't know 
that--or hedge fund operators or managers or whatever they call 
themselves, and multimillion-dollar partnerships and corporations.
  Yes, $47 billion goes to 125,000 millionaires.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. But each of them gets a tax cut, Mr. Speaker, $60,000. 
This is wrong.
  The same report found that the best options for job growth include 
aid to States and increased safety net spending, something I know that 
the other side opposes.
  In fact, the Agriculture Committee just voted yesterday to cut food 
stamps, get this, by $34 billion; like all of those people on food 
stamps want to be on food stamps, all those people that are poor want 
to be poor. And that's your anthem. But it can't find reality. It has 
no foundation, and it is immoral--immoral.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair asks all Members to heed the 
gavel.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
  Mrs. NOEM. I thank the leader for yielding.
  You know, it never ceases to amaze me the misleading claims that will 
come from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle at times. One of 
them that has been talked about a lot here today is the fact that only 
the rich and famous would benefit from this piece of legislation. Well, 
I have been sitting back here, and I have been trying to think of even 
a handful of famous people in South Dakota that are going to benefit 
from this.

                              {time}  1150

  I can't come up with it; but I've got over 20,000 jobs in the State 
of South Dakota, and 20,000 different businesses that are going to 
benefit from this piece of legislation. That's why I'm supporting it. 
My constituents in South Dakota so many times only look at government 
as an entity that costs them money and makes it very detrimental and 
hard for them to succeed. When the government can actually step in and 
do something that makes it easier for them to succeed and help drive 
that success, then that is something we should be behind, and that's 
why the Small Business Tax Cut is a perfect example of that situation.
  Small businesses create jobs, and they also employ almost half of all 
the private sector employees in this country. This bill is going to 
free up the cash so that those small businesses can keep people 
employed when they've hit tough times and maybe reinvest in their 
businesses. It's the key to what we need to do, and I hope we can all 
come together and support this good legislation before us.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our 
committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman, my friend from Michigan, for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. There are a 
number of reasons to oppose this legislation.
  One, this bill is not targeted towards job creation. Frankly, it is 
not targeted at all. It will provide 99.6 percent of all businesses 
with a tax break, regardless of whether or not they create one American 
job or not.
  Two, this bill does not prevent businesses from taking a tax cut even 
when they lay off workers.
  Three, this bill fails to help the businesses most in need, such as 
new businesses or start-ups. They're not eligible for any provisions in 
this bill.

[[Page H1997]]

  Fourth, this bill will add billions to the deficit, which will hurt 
economic growth in America.
  Five, and most egregiously, this bill provides companies who are in 
the midst of offshoring jobs with a tax break.
  During committee consideration of this legislation, I offered an 
amendment to deny this tax deduction to any company that reduces the 
number of American workers and jobs while correspondingly increasing 
its foreign workforce. Additionally, the amendment stated if a company 
offshores U.S. jobs next year, after this 1-year tax expenditure 
expires, the funds would be recaptured or taken back by the Treasury. 
This is so a company cannot take the money this year and run away with 
American dollars and jobs next year and put them overseas.
  My amendment enjoyed the support of every Democrat on the Committee 
of Ways and Means. Unfortunately, it was not supported by one 
Republican on that committee. Americans and their taxpayer dollars 
should not be subsidizing the destruction of American jobs.
  Let me state: Democrats recognize we live in a global economy. We 
recognize that many of our companies need to operate internationally to 
remain competitive and expand their markets and market share. But 
Americans should not have their hard-earned tax dollars--$46 billion in 
this case, Mr. Speaker--taken away and used to subsidize this kind of 
business activity.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Democrats worked hard while in the majority to end the 
practice of incentivizing the offshoring of U.S. jobs in the Tax Code. 
We killed a number of perverse tax loopholes and reinvested the revenue 
into initiatives focused on creating U.S. jobs and assisting America's 
small businesses.
  Defeat this bill. It is immoral. We should not be spending U.S. tax 
dollars in this way.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond to 
the gentleman. I think he put his finger on the problem here. The 
problem with his kind of amendment is the problem with the Tax Code 
today, because it means that if you're a business, under his rule, you 
would have to come to Washington to seek eligibility for a tax break or 
seek eligibility for a tax favor. And if you're on the approved list in 
Washington, then you can go and benefit and have an advantage over 
others.
  That's not what we believe. We believe in helping all small 
businesses.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Graves), the Small Business Committee chairman.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, tax season reminds us that small 
businesses are disproportionately affected by tax compliance and high 
tax rates. The Small Business Administration reports that the average 
tax compliance cost per employee for small businesses is almost three 
times the cost of larger firms. And according to the NFIB, tax issues 
are the single most significant set of regulatory burdens for most 
small firms. The Small Business Tax Deduction Act is simple, fair, and 
gives small businesses access to badly needed capital to invest in 
their companies while providing a little more certainty to help them 
plan for the future.
  As chairman of the Small Business Committee, I hear from small 
business owners every single week about their regulatory and tax 
burdens. Through our interactive Web page, ``Small Biz Open Mic,'' we 
have heard that tax policies may drive some small firms out of 
business.
  On Tuesday, Wendy Koller, owner of Koller Moving and Storage in Fort 
Smith, Arkansas, said:

       We are hesitant to hire new employees for fear of what new 
     tax burdens await us with the expiration of the older tax law 
     and the new health care laws coming. We are concerned that 
     these new issues may be the ones that push us out of 
     business.

  Last Saturday, Debbie Peacock, owner of a fabricating distributor in 
Mesa, Arizona, wrote:

       Any additional taxes will only stop any chance of a 
     recovery, and the government needs to realize we need every 
     penny to increase staff, which puts people back to work.

  I can go on and on and on with examples like these.
  Yesterday, our committee held a hearing on the flood of new taxes 
that are just around the corner, such as new taxes from the health care 
law and the massive tax increase that's going to occur if the 2001 and 
2003 tax cuts expire. All of these measures could send the economy into 
a tailspin, costing thousands of jobs.
  That's why the Small Business Tax Deduction Act is necessary and is 
going to provide that tax relief for America's most robust job 
creators.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that my colleagues support this 
bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This bill provides a windfall tax 
break to hedge fund owners, to big Washington law firms, to the very 
wealthy, even if they don't hire a single person--not one. In fact, in 
a cruel hoax and twist on this, wealthy individuals can qualify for 
this tax break even if they fire people this year. And in some cases 
they can also get a bigger tax break if they do not make their 
investments this year.
  Mr. Speaker, this place sometimes gets to be a fact-free zone. We 
have the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee say, The economic activity 
generated by this is so small as to be incalculable. That's why Bruce 
Bartlett, former economic adviser to President Reagan said, It will do 
nothing whatsoever to increase employment.
  So what's this all about? It gives a big tax break to the wealthiest 
individuals while adding $50 billion to our deficit and debt.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this week highlights the unfortunate doublespeak 
from our Republican colleagues when it comes to the deficit. On the 
Senate side, a majority of Republicans voted against a bill to apply 
the Buffett rule, meaning that we were going to ask millionaires to pay 
the same effective tax rate as many of their employees paid and use 
that $50 billion toward deficit reduction. Here in the House, we're 
providing a $50 billion tax break that adds to the deficit, and this 
one is targeted disproportionately to very wealthy individuals.
  There's another sort of strange irony. When we were debating the 
payroll tax cut for a year that would benefit 160 million Americans, 
our Republican colleagues dragged their feet and then said this was all 
a gimmick, it was a 1-year thing, it was a sugar high. Well, at least 
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that it would generate 
economic activity. In fact, they ranked it near the top.
  This is a 1-year thing that's going to give a great sugar high to the 
wealthiest individuals. They are going to be floating on this. But it's 
ranked near the bottom by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
in terms of economic activity.
  You want to know another irony? When it came to providing a tax break 
for 160 million Americans, payroll tax cut, we paid for it. We offset 
the cost of that. When it comes to providing a sugar high, $50 billion 
tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthy, we don't offset 
it. We put it on our national credit card. We increase the debt. Who 
pays for that? We've heard on a bipartisan basis that's our kids, our 
grandkids. We're all going to be paying for that debt.

                              {time}  1200

  So Mr. Speaker, this is worse than a gimmick. It's not good for the 
economy, it adds to the deficit, and I urge that we reject this bill.
  Mr. CANTOR. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Camp) be permitted to control the balance of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Camp) now controls 14\1/2\ minutes, and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 5\1/4\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

[[Page H1998]]

  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Small Business Tax Cut. 
Louisiana alone will see 80,000 small businesses that will be able to 
benefit from this and over 890,000 workers that will benefit from this. 
Yet my colleagues on the Democrat side maybe think that it's their 
money. They don't want those small businesses to be able to keep it, 
and they think that Washington can spend it better than the small 
businesses.
  How has that worked, by the way? They don't want small businesses to 
be able to keep some more of the hard-earned money that they make so 
they can invest it in their business. They'd rather keep it up here for 
critical Washington spending like the $535 million they blew on 
Solyndra, or maybe the $850,000 that Obama's GSA blew on the Vegas 
junkets. Those are the kind of things that they would rather see, and 
so they don't want those small businesses to be able to keep more of 
their hard-earned money. They want to keep taxing businesses. They've 
added over $1.9 trillion of new taxes in President Obama's own budget.
  We've tried it their way. More than 2 million Americans have lost 
their jobs since President Obama took office. How about we actually try 
letting small businesses keep more of their hard-earned money so they 
can create good jobs for hardworking taxpayers?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished whip, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of this House, it is 
hard to call us to responsibility, but that's what our public wants. 
Our public wants it on the right, they want it on the left, and they 
want it on the middle. This is fiscally a totally irresponsible piece 
of legislation, and you know it. And I know you know it, and America 
ought to know you know it.
  Ladies and gentlemen, what this bill does is blow a $46 billion hole 
in the deficit this year alone. But ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, 
the people of America need to know that we use 10-year figures for the 
most part, so this means $460 billion.
  Now, I know all of you on your side of the aisle--because I've been 
here for a substantial period of time--are next year going to say we're 
going to raise taxes on small businesses and put that 20 percent back. 
Bet me. You're going to say if we did that, it would be the largest tax 
increase in the history of small business. So you're going to do it 
year after year.
  One of the previous speakers said that we're taking money from small 
businesses. Well, let me tell you who you're taking money from today: 
my children, your children; my grandchildren, your grandchildren; and, 
yes, my two great-grandchildren. That's who's going to pay this $46 
billion hole that you're creating today.
  And what does Bruce Bartlett, economic adviser to Ronald Reagan--not 
a Democrat, a Republican--an economic adviser, somebody who advised 
Ronald Reagan how to get this economy moving--unlike George Bush, I 
might add--and what did he say? What did he say about this bill that 
you have brought to the floor--which, by the way, The Wall Street 
Journal today called ``a tax gimmick.'' The Wall Street Journal called 
this bill that you are offering today a tax gimmick. And so what did 
Bruce Bartlett say? ``It will do nothing whatsoever to increase 
employment.''
  Point number one, this is not a jobs bill. It will not grow the 
economy, and it will not do what all of us think needs to be done.
  And they went on to say that ``it is nothing more than an election-
year giveaway to a favored Republican constituency,'' a political 
gimmick, a tax gimmick that will cost us $46 billion this year alone 
and $460 billion--let me say, round that to half a trillion as 
inflation pushes it up, a half-a-trillion-dollar hole adding to the 
budget deficit that confronts this country that all Americans know we 
must address.
  My colleagues, it takes no courage to vote for this bill. What takes 
courage is to pay for things. What takes courage is to say we have an 
obligation. What took courage was to make sure that we paid our debts. 
We didn't do it. So what happened? We almost took this country to the 
brink of default.

  Ladies and gentlemen of this House, summon the responsibility, 
judgment, and intellectual honesty that our public expects. Vote 
against this bill.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again ask all Members to 
heed the gavel and also to address their remarks to the Chair and not 
to other Members in the second person.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the distinguished chairman of 
Ways and Means. It's an honor to be able to speak on this floor. It's 
an honor to listen to the debate on both sides. And what's so ironic is 
that when you listen to the debate, you wonder, what happens here 
becomes law, but more importantly, do we ever measure, do we ever 
measure what creates jobs? Do we ever measure in America who creates 
jobs?
  Now, some of you know my story. I actually grew up in a family of 
Democrats. I got rather fortunate. I didn't have great grades, so I 
went to junior college. The family didn't have enough money to send me 
away. I worked through the summer, I took my money, and I created a 
small business. At the end of 2 years, I then had enough money to pay 
my whole way through college, so I sold my business.
  I applied for a summer internship with my local Congressman, and he 
turned me down. But today on this floor, I sit elected to the seat I 
couldn't even get an internship to. That small business paid my way 
through college. But when I sit and measure and talk and listen to my 
constituents, they talk about jobs.
  They know that there have been 11 recessions since World War II, and 
every other recession we've come out of it stronger and faster. Even 
the greatest recession of '82, when interest rates were double digit, 
and you measured until today, we'd have 13 million more jobs. But the 
policy holds it back.
  So I thought I would go back and I would analyze just the nearest 
time in America's culture of where we created jobs. So I went back to 
the end of the last recession, 2001, to the beginning of this recession 
in 2007. When people look at America, they think that was a pretty good 
time in America. The jobs grew, the economy was strong, and people were 
able to buy houses. And I analyzed who created the jobs. Do you realize 
during that time in America, small business added 7 million jobs? Large 
corporations cut a million.
  So to hear somebody on the floor, Mr. Speaker, say they're some 
special constituency? Well, I'm very proud to stand with the 
constituency that will grow jobs. I'm very proud to stand today to cut 
20 percent to put people back to work in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I will stand proudly behind this bill because 
statistics, the facts, and the history of America have proven we are 
the strongest when small business is strongest, we are strongest and 
create jobs through small business, not through more politics.
  Policy matters, small business matters, and jobs in America matter. 
That's why I tell Members on both sides of the aisle, this is an 
American bill for American jobs, for small business to be strong again 
in America, and America will be strong again.
  Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation before us 
today.
  Small businesses are the foundation of our economy. It's the small 
businesses that drive job creation in America. And every time I'm home 
in eastern Washington, it is such a privilege to sit down with small 
business owners. I'm always inspired by these people who have an idea 
to improve our lives and they turn it into a reality.
  One such business that I recently toured was called Made Naturally. 
Two stay-at-home moms had an idea to come up with natural cleaning 
products 2 years ago. They put together a business plan, and they have 
now executed it, hired 13 employees, and they are doing well in 
Spokane, Washington. And when I toured their business, what they told 
me was that it is the tax burden and the regulatory uncertainty

[[Page H1999]]

that is preventing them from hiring any new employees right now.
  Just like these two business owners in Spokane, Washington, there are 
men and women all across this country that face the same challenges 
when it comes to growing businesses. As someone who worked in a family 
business for more than 13 years, I can say they are certainly right.
  So I'd like to shed some light, especially on the women, the 
entrepreneurial women right now whose businesses are hurting because of 
this administration's policies. It's important because two out of three 
businesses right now are being started by women in America. They're 
actually the fastest-growing segment in our U.S. economy, and every 
dollar they save in taxes is one more dollar they can spend in hiring a 
new employee.
  The current path is both unacceptable and unsustainable. It's time to 
change course. It's time to give America's small business owners tax 
breaks, not tax burdens.

                              {time}  1210

  It's time to give them relief, not just rhetoric. It's time to give 
them the flexibility and freedom they need to create jobs. So it's time 
to move forward with the legislation that will do just that. I strongly 
support this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  I want to say that our colleagues reveal their attitude toward 
taxpayer money when they say this will cost us. The attitude of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, is that all the 
money that hardworking taxpayers earn belongs to the government. This 
doesn't cost us; this allows some people to keep more of their money.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act, 
which would provide America's private sector with the resources needed 
to help supercharge desperately needed hiring.
  It's worth mentioning how this bill will benefit women since one-
third of the firms directly benefiting from the act are owned by women. 
In North Carolina, small businesses with between one and 500 employees 
employ 205,490 individuals; 23,348 of those businesses are women-owned. 
Mr. Speaker, it's for these reasons I urge my colleagues to support 
H.R. 9.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 
7\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
2\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schilling).
  Mr. SCHILLING. I thank Leader Cantor for giving me the opportunity to 
be here today and speak in favor of the Small Business Tax Cut Act.
  As Illinoisans filed their tax returns, folks in my district felt the 
pinch of the tax increases imposed on them by our State's lawmakers, 
who last year raised personal income taxes by 66 percent and corporate 
taxes by 45 percent.
  State lawmakers told us that taxes would be used to pay Illinois debt 
and prevent budget deficits down the line; but the truth, as many of us 
feared, is that these tax hikes have done nothing to help our State. In 
fact, Illinois unemployment has remained above 9 percent for 36 
straight months, since March of 2009. And thanks to Illinois tax hikes, 
rising gas prices, and Federal tax rates as high as 35 percent, our 
small businesses are strapped for cash.
  As a small business owner, I know the pain all too well. Rather than 
advancing partisan and un-serious show votes--votes that don't lower 
gas prices, don't encourage economic growth, and don't impact our 
deficit--we in the House want to ensure more opportunities for job 
seekers and job creators.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my friend. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that this 
is a small business tax cut. It is not. It is a bait and switch. One-
half of this so-called ``small business tax cut'' will go to 
millionaires. So you call it a small business tax cut, and they give 
away the store to millionaires, Mr. Speaker.
  They are saying that we have to dismantle Medicare because they say 
we can't afford it on the one hand, and on the other hand they are 
lavishing millionaires with a $46 billion tax cut. If you're one of 
125,000 millionaires in America, you get $58,000 from this bill. If 
you're a senior on Medicare, it costs you an additional $6,000 for your 
medicine. I oppose this bill.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today on the intellectual 
responsibility of H.R. 9.
  Back in my home town of Dunn, I have friends who are pharmacists. 
They own and run an independent pharmacy started by their father 60 
years ago. I'm speaking of Paige Houston and Cathy Blackman.
  Paige told me the other day that initially in this recession they 
were missed because people were afraid to go without their medications, 
and they were willing to pay the money even though the economy was 
starting to take a turn. Today, things are so bad that people are going 
without their medications, which as a result is a decrease in the 
number of customers they have and the amount of revenue coming in. Now 
their accountant has told them that they have no choice but to cut 
contributions to their employees' 401(k) plans and their health 
insurance premiums or be forced to lay off employees. Paige told me 
this 20 percent tax cut will keep more money in their business, 
allowing her to maintain benefits for her employees.
  Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller.)
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we all understand that American 
small businesses are the engine of job creation. I think the Democrats 
are waging a war on small business.
  I have spoken with so many small business job creators in my 
district, and they all share the same message: government 
overregulation and government overtaxation is stifling their ability to 
grow. This House has already acted decisively to address government 
overregulation, and today we're going to act decisively to give small 
businesses the tax relief that they need to grow.
  Allowing small businesses with fewer than 500 employees a 20 percent 
tax cut to free up capital and to allow those businesses to invest in 
and to grow their businesses to create the jobs that we so desperately 
need in this economy is the right thing to do. So I was very 
disappointed to see that President Obama threatened to veto this bill, 
because, Mr. Speaker and Mr. President, I would respectfully tell you 
that hundreds of small manufacturing firms in Michigan that are 
struggling to buy new equipment, to pursue new customers and grow their 
businesses are not among the corporations with the biggest profits; and 
those small businesses would benefit from this bill. You can contrast 
that with General Electric, which made over $14 billion in profits in 
2010 and yet paid no Federal income tax.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. We need to remember that the CEO of General 
Electric is actually the head of President Obama's Jobs Council.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we can trust the American small 
businesses to spend their money more wisely than government will ever 
do. Again, it's mystifying to me that the Democratic Party seems to be 
waging a war on the small business community of America.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. You all know the saying, ``money is 
power,'' right? I think we all can agree in this Chamber that the one 
thing that we want to do is empower small business. How do you empower 
small business? You let them keep more of the money they earn so they 
can go out and they

[[Page H2000]]

can invest in new products so they can hire people. I'd love to get 
people back to work. I'd love to empower small business. That's why we 
want to let them keep more of what they earn.
  I did an initiative in my district called the One More Jobs 
Initiative, where it asks small business owners, What do you need from 
the Federal Government to create just one more job? A pretty noble 
concept: instead of pontificating here, let's actually ask those who 
create jobs. The number one answer I got, Mr. Speaker, was: let us keep 
more of the money we earn and let us hire people. Give us tax 
certainty.
  That's why I rise in support today of this tax cut package, because 
this is exactly what small business needs to continue to be successful, 
to pull this country out of this recession we're in, and continue to 
reclaim our mantle as the most powerful country in the world.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Our Nation is at a crossroads. This President wants to take more 
money from the private sector and continue the exponential growth of 
the Federal Government. We want to make sure that job creators are able 
to reinvest their hard-earned money back into their businesses to 
expand and grow the economy and get this job creation cycle going 
again. That's why we support a 20 percent tax cut for small businesses. 
The President, on the other hand, wants to raise taxes on small 
businesses and job creators.
  There are 22 million small businesses helped by this bill, and I 
think it's necessary that we pass this bill today. I urge my colleagues 
to support a 20 percent tax cut for small businesses so we can create 
jobs and make a more prosperous America.

                              {time}  1220

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise both sides, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 2\1/4\ minutes, and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, I have two additional speakers. One of them 
will close, so I have one speaker before closing.
  Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, this recession is different, and the 
difference is there's no recovery. And that is a historic difference.
  Now, what is different about this recession and all our other 
recessions when we had a recovery is government policy. Government 
policy has stifled job creation. Normally, at this time in a recovery, 
65 percent of the jobs are being created by small businesses. But 2 
million jobs aren't there because of Obama's health care policies 
alone, regulatory policies, tax policies. Small business is struggling.
  Now, let me tell you, Congress cannot create jobs. We're not going to 
create jobs with this bill. We're going to allow small businesses to 
create jobs.
  You'll either choose government or you'll choose the people. You'll 
choose government to continue to create jobs like with Solyndra, and we 
saw the disaster there, or you'll allow the people to create those 
jobs. I'm putting my trust in the people.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, at this time, we're prepared to close.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the balance of my time to a distinguished member 
of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill today--a $46 billion 
price tag, and it's unpaid for. Moreover, 1 year is not tax certainty 
if you're a small business person.
  I rise also as a small business person. Equally as troubling as this 
bill, unpaid for, $46 billion bill, is the fact that yesterday, in the 
Ways and Means Committee, the majority passed a bill that they said was 
to reduce the deficit. But instead, what they did is they cut programs 
that were incredibly important to the elderly, to children, to the 
disabled, programs that allowed people help with their daycare so they 
could go to work. If those people don't have daycare, they're not going 
to be able to go to work. And, at the same time, the Ag Committee 
passed a bill to cut food stamps.
  These actions are hard to understand, even in these most difficult 
times. But even harder to understand is, in light of this fiscally 
irresponsible bill today, those bills were passed.
  I said yesterday that it was a bad day to be poor. Well, today is a 
bad day to be fiscally responsible, because this bill is anything but 
fiscally responsible.
  And it's wrong to claim on Wednesday that you have to cut daycare for 
low-income people or put seniors at risk, disabled people at risk, and 
children at risk to cut the deficit but then turn around on Thursday 
and add $46 billion to the deficit. That's just wrong.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation said that this bill's economic impact 
is ``so small as to be incalculable.'' I can tell you, the people that 
will be hurt across this country, that hurt won't be incalculable.
  I strongly oppose this bill.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, my wife and I were small business owners for 
more than two decades, and we still retain part of that business, so I 
know what it's like to meet a payroll. I know what it's like to employ 
people. We only had 15 to 20 people on our payroll over the course of 
20 years, but I worked a lot with small businesses. And in small 
business it really is about how do you grow, how do you have the 
positive cash flow, Mr. Speaker, to grow your business, to invest in 
new technology, new equipment, to take your ideas and spin them forward 
and grow jobs. That's your whole nature as an entrepreneur in America, 
and as it should be.
  In Oregon, we've got 86,000 small businesses employing more than 
three-quarters of a million people. This legislation will help those 
small businesses have what is called ``positive cash flow.'' That is 
from whence jobs flow.
  If you have the money and you can retain it rather than have to give 
it all up to the government, then you're going to make wise choices in 
your business to grow your business, because it's your competitive 
nature to grow your business, which means to create jobs in the 
economy.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle had no problem a few years 
ago spending $1 trillion to have the government borrow the money and 
pick winners and losers and waste it.
  This is a good way to spur jobs and growth in our economy. I urge its 
passage.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 9, the 
Small Business Tax Cut Act, a bill that provides a $46 billion tax 
break for the wealthy paid for by ordinary working people. This bill 
will send half of the tax cuts to those with annual incomes over $1 
million and 80 percent of benefits to those earning more than $200,000. 
Once again, Republicans are extending a helping hand to those who need 
it least, including professional sports teams, law firms, lobbying 
firms, and accounting firms.
  The Republican Leadership claims that we need this legislation to 
create jobs, yet the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, 
tells us that this bill will do no such thing. The Congressional Budget 
Office, CBO, ranks broad business tax deductions like this bill as one 
of the least effective proposals for promoting economic growth. This is 
not surprising. H.R. 9 gives a tax deduction to any business, even 
those that don't hire workers or even lay off workers.
  Today's bill caps off another banner week for House Republicans that 
once again laid bare their priorities: hand tax breaks to those who 
don't need them, and cut the programs that help the middle class, the 
poor, the sick, and the elderly. Yesterday, the Ways and Means 
Committee passed partisan legislation that would take away the child 
tax credit for 3 million children, weaken health coverage for 350,000 
middle class Americans, and eliminate funding for the Social Services 
Block Grant that provides child care for 4.4 million children and 
serves 1.7 million low-income seniors through programs like Meals on 
Wheels. That's a total of $53 billion in cuts to the safety net so 
Republicans can pay for more take cuts for the rich. This is class 
warfare and one side is clearly winning.
  If we want to commemorate Tax Day with a vote on a tax bill, we 
should be voting on the Buffett Rule, a bill that promotes tax 
fairness.

[[Page H2001]]

The Buffett Rule is targeted--it will only impact taxpayers who have 
income over $1 million and are not paying their fair share of taxes. 
Nearly 65 percent of taxpayers who earn more than $1 million pay lower 
tax rates for those who make less than $100,000. There is something 
wrong with our tax system when ordinary working families are paying 
higher tax rates than some of the wealthiest individuals.
  According to CBO, the Buffett Rule would generate $47 billion over 
the next decade. We could use this $47 billion to create jobs, 
revitalize the middle class, and sustain a safety net for the poor, the 
sick, the elderly, and other groups who are being abused by the 
Republican Majority.
  It is time we got our priorities straight and stopped providing 
handouts to the most fortunate at the expense of lower income 
Americans. I strongly oppose this legislation and urge my fellow 
members to join me in voting ``no''.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 9, 
an irresponsible bill that, in the name of cutting taxes for small 
business and spurring job growth, would provide a windfall for those 
who need them least. This one-year measure would increase our federal 
deficit to the tune of $46 billion.
  H.R. 9 provides qualifying businesses with less than 500 employees a 
20 percent tax deduction for domestic business income which could be 
taken during the current tax year. Instead of supporting local small 
businesses though, this bill inordinately benefits wealthy business 
owners. Half of the tax cuts in the bill would go to the four percent 
of small business owners earning over $1 million a year. The 55 percent 
of small-business employers that have incomes below $100,000 would 
receive only 6 percent of the benefit from this bill. Struggling small 
business owners who are operating at an annual loss will not benefit 
from this bill in any way.
  The Center for American Progress reports that professional sports 
franchises such as the Los Angeles Dodgers, Donald Trump's Trump Tower 
Sales & Leasing, and Paris Hilton Entertainment, Inc. are among the 
businesses owned by millionaires that would enjoy this tax break.
  This one-time windfall simply will not change incentives for hiring. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO): ``[T]he one-year of 
tax savings provided by the bill is unlikely to make the costs of much 
investment in physical capital or labor recruitment and training 
worthwhile.'' In fact, this will incentivize qualifying business to 
delay investment in order to maximize taxable income in 2012. 
Additionally, H.R. 9 does not require a company to create any jobs or 
invest in the U.S. economy. In fact, if a company reduces their 
workforce or sends jobs overseas, they would still qualify for this 20 
percent tax break.
  H.R. 9 borrows billions in order to create a new tax expenditure yet 
fails to address the primary issue facing American small business, lack 
of consumer demand. This bill chooses anti-tax orthodoxy over fiscal 
and economic logic. Given our current fiscal situation we cannot afford 
another reckless giveaway to the wealthy. I urge my colleagues to 
reject H.R. 9.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. 
There is nothing in this bill specifically for small businesses. 
Instead, this is another attempt to award tax breaks to the wealthy. In 
fact, millionaires will receive nearly half of the benefit from this 
legislation, while true small businesses accrue only 10 percent. Once 
again, as the largest corporations get fatter, small businesses have to 
struggle for scraps.
  Small, fast growing startups, which often have little tax liability, 
would see no tax savings--yet these are the firms most likely to create 
jobs. Even worse, this plan would give tax breaks to companies shedding 
employees--exactly the wrong incentive. Finally, this bill does nothing 
to address small business owners' top concern--a lack of demand for 
their goods and services. A real small business bill would tackle that 
problem.
  This is not a small business bill--it is a millionaire's tax break 
bill. Vote no so we can focus on real solutions to small businesses' 
needs.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this provision to get 
construction of Keystone XL pipeline underway.
  For months, Members from both sides of the aisle have worked 
tirelessly to impress upon the Administration the urgent need for the 
Keystone XL pipeline project to proceed.
  The justification for Keystone as a safe and critical boon to private 
sector job creation and American energy security has not changed. This 
project will still create thousands of jobs. It will still increase the 
nation's capacity to transport crude oil by 830,000 barrels per day; 
and the State Department is still on record stating that Keystone 
``poses little environmental risk'' and will lead to ``no significant 
impacts to most resources.''
  Unfortunately, the Administration's reluctance to proceed with the 
Keystone XL pipeline has left some other figures unchanged since debate 
on Keystone began. The unemployment is still above 8 percent. The U.S. 
still relies on the same sources of foreign energy; and American's are 
still asking why?
  Yet thousands remain out of work because the President refuses to 
pick up his pen. Americans want more jobs and greater energy security. 
Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline will help to ensure both. I 
urge support for this provision.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is 
expected to vote on the Small Business Tax Cut Act, legislation 
allowing for job creation promoting economic growth by cutting taxes 
for small business owners.
  In an opinion piece published Tuesday in Politico, Steve Forbes 
writes ``Real economic growth has been pathetic during the Obama 
Presidency. Last year, the economy grew 1.7 percent. By comparison, the 
Reagan recovery was spectacular, growing at 4.5 percent in 1983, with 
nearly 3.5 million jobs. In just one month, September 1983, the Reagan 
economy added more than a million jobs, nearly as many as the economy 
grew for all of 2011.''
  In order for our nation to recover from the economic recession, small 
businesses must be given the opportunity to grow and create jobs. The 
President and the liberal-controlled Senate continue to stall dozens of 
bills which would promote jobs. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor 
of this bill and help American families create jobs.
  In conclusion, God Bless our troops and we will never forget 
September 11th in the Global War on Terrorism.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 9, 
the legislation before this chamber today that would provide a one-time 
tax windfall in the tens of thousands of dollars to entertainers, 
sports franchises, smut peddlers, and other wealthy business owners, 
while doing little to create jobs for struggling middle-class America 
and adding $46 billion to the national deficit.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are bringing this 
legislation before the House in the name of tax relief for small 
businesses and job creation.
  I would happily vote in favor of legislation that provided targeted 
relief to small businesses and spurred much-needed job creation in my 
district and throughout the country.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 9 would do no such thing. In fact, the Joint 
Committee on Taxation stated, ``the effects of the bill on economic 
activity are so small as to be incalculable.''
  Similarly, a report last year by the Congressional Budget Office 
rated the approach taken in H.R. 9 to be one of the least cost-
effective ways to encourage growth or create jobs in a weak economy. 
CB0 estimated that this legislation's approach would create one job or 
fewer per $1 million of budgetary cost.
  However, H.R. 9, if enacted, would be a boon to wealthy taxpayers. 
Nearly half of the benefit would go to individuals with incomes of over 
$1 million.
  Seventy-six percent of small business employers have incomes below 
$200,000, but this group only received 16 percent of the benefit under 
H.R. 9. And 55 percent of small business employers have incomes below 
$100,000 but this group receives only six percent of the total benefit.
  At a time when our Nation must tackle its growing deficit, and push 
further job creation, the last thing this Congress ought to do is give 
expensive handouts to the richest individuals in our society.
  Instead, this Congress ought to be debating on how to deliver 
targeted job creation legislation and protect essential safety net 
programs, like the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program and 
Medicaid, which this House recently voted to cut in the hundreds of 
billions of dollars over the next decade in the name of ``deficit 
reduction.''
  I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today to stand for 
commonsense fiscal principles and targeted job creation and vote 
against H.R. 9.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, our small businesses are hurting.
  In the past year, only one in five small businesses has hired.
  This is a problem because if small businesses aren't hiring, we don't 
recover.
  According to a survey from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they are not 
hiring because they don't know what Washington, DC is going to do to 
them next.
  Four in five small-business owners said that the taxes, regulations 
and legislation coming from Washington made it more difficult for them 
to hire additional workers.
  In other words, our government is getting in the way of economic 
recovery.
  H.R. 9 will be a breath of fresh air to them.
  For every $100 of income, small businesses will save $7 in federal 
taxes.
  That's 7 percent they can put towards hiring a veteran back from Iraq 
or someone who hasn't been able to find a job for years.
  Washington needs to get out of the way and let our small businesses 
do what they do best: hire new workers.

[[Page H2002]]

  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I support tax and regulatory policies that 
help small businesses attract investment and create jobs, but I also 
believe that we in the Congress must be responsible stewards of 
taxpayer funds.
  I voted against H.R. 9 because it would spend an enormous amount of 
money without any requirements that the funds be invested in job 
creation or even invested in the American economy. Any company that 
receives the tax benefit provided by this bill could use it to bolster 
profits while laying off workers and shipping American jobs overseas. 
Half of the tax breaks would go to only 0.3 percent of taxpayers, those 
with incomes exceeding $1 million, costing $46 billion while the rest 
of our Nation is forced to endure the impact of painful spending cuts 
in programs important to working middle-class families. That's hardly 
fair and certainly not right.
  This measure is more about scoring political points in an election 
year--trying to play gotcha--when we should be trying to move forward 
on measures that would give a real boost to job creation and economic 
growth.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I have been consistent in my support for 
comprehensive tax reform that lowers rates for individuals and 
businesses by eliminating the types of carve outs and deductions in the 
tax code that, as recently reported by The Hill, have let 26 Fortune 
500 companies pay a negative tax rate over a four-year span. To be 
clear, that means these companies are getting paid by the government 
while hard-working men and women pay their taxes.
  Something is very wrong with this picture. That is precisely the 
reason why we need real, long-term comprehensive tax reform. Last year, 
Senator Tom Coburn identified nearly $1 trillion in annual spending 
through the tax code through tax earmarks that benefit special 
interests such as video game developers, hedge fund managers, NASCAR, 
dog and horse tracks and ethanol producers. Unlike an earmark in an 
annual appropriations bill, these tax earmarks are far worse because 
once enacted they typically exist in perpetuity.
  Using these extensive tax loopholes, General Electric (GE) paid no 
federal taxes in 2010. Yet, the Congressional Research Service has 
found that GE was honored by a Chinese newspaper for ranking 32nd among 
commercial service sector companies that paid taxes to China.
  Let me repeat: GE paid no taxes to the United States, but was a 
significant source of tax revenue for China. China? China, a country 
that is spying on us, persecutes people of faith and has a long record 
of horrific human rights abuses.
  Rather than putting forth true comprehensive tax reform--the type 
that would bring stability to the economy by providing certainty for 
job creators and families--both parties in both chambers have pushed 
political agendas instead of what is best for America.
  The so-called ``Buffett rule'' the Senate attempted to pass earlier 
this week was defeated, and rightly so. Washington Post columnist Ruth 
Marcus points out President Obama's pursuit of this policy ``is pure 
political stunt. . . . It won't pass. And even if that happened, it 
would have a negligible impact on the exploding debt--$4.7 billion a 
year, or less than four-tenths of 1 percent of this year's deficit--and 
take a tiny nibble out of income inequality.''
  At a time when strong leadership is needed to address our nation's 
crippling debt, it is unfortunate that President Obama has continually 
failed to lead by example. He even walked away from the recommendations 
of his own bipartisan fiscal commission.
  Unfortunately, the House today has done no better than the Senate or 
president. The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial today headlined 
Bipartisan Tax Gimmickry, candidly described the proposal before us as 
a ``gimmick'' and went on to say that Republicans ``would do more for 
the economy and their political prospects if they began to educate the 
country about sensible tax policy.''
  The bill before us is a temporary, one-year proposal that will 
increase our debt by $46 billion, without an offset to pay for this 
additional deficit spending. I want to stress: $46 billion for a 
temporary, one-year proposal.
  I want to remind my colleagues that two months ago Congress 
essentially wiped out the $95 billion in savings cut from the 2011 and 
2012 appropriations bills when it approved extending the payroll 
``holiday'' for another year at a cost of $93 billion.
  We are now talking about adding to this spending for a total of $139 
billion in temporary, one-year stimulus spending with no offsets; no 
way to pay for it.
  We are already running trillion dollar deficits for the fourth 
straight year. We are $15.6 trillion in debt. We have unfunded 
obligations and liabilities of $65 trillion. Republicans on the Senate 
Budget Committee earlier this month posted a chart on its Web site 
showing that our debt at the end of 2011 was greater than the combined 
debt of the United Kingdom and the entire Eurozone.
  We need look no further than the riots in Europe to see the 
destructive impact that results from the crushing reality of a 
government unable to deliver promised entitlements to its citizens. 
There have been riots in Belgium, Spain, France, Ireland, England, 
Italy, Latvia, and Greece. And yet we are considering another proposal 
that moves us closer to Europe's instability.
  We are now spending $4.3 billion a week simply on interest to service 
the debt. And this is at historically low interest rates.
  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that by 2022 we're 
going to be sending $11.6 billion out the door each week to nations 
such as China, which is spying on us, where human rights are an 
afterthought, and Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan 
monks are jailed for practicing their faith, and oil-exporting 
countries such as Saudi Arabia, which funded the radical madrasahs on 
the Afghan-Pakistan border, resulting in the rise of the Taliban and al 
Qaeda.
  And, unless we change course, according to the CBO's long term 
estimate, every penny collected of the federal budget will go to 
interest on the debt and entitlement spending by 2025.
  Every penny. That means no money for national defense. No money for 
homeland security. No money to fix the nation's crumbling bridges and 
roads. No money for medical research to find a cure for cancer or 
Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease.
  Quite frankly this borrowing is unsustainable, dangerous and 
irresponsible.
  Given our nation's fiscal obligations, one must ask: Can we really 
afford another costly, one-year policy absent the needed comprehensive 
reform?
  Why are we spending time on a policy that everyone knows has no 
chance of being signed into law as currently drafted? Could it be 
because, as recently reported by Politico, ``Congress is readying for a 
political fight with dueling tax votes this week that will define each 
party's priorities in this election year''?
  The final paragraph of today's Wall Street Journal editorial noted 
that ``[t]he economy works best when investors and companies can 
operate under predictable policies that allow them to better judge 
their risks for the long term. Reagan-era officials understood this, 
but too many Republicans have forgotten. The U.S. economy doesn't need 
another tax gimmick. It needs a tax reform that includes a permanent 
cut in individual and business tax rates for everyone.''
  The president and some on the other side of the aisle say that our 
debt crisis is because Americans are under-taxed. Like President Reagan 
said, and I believe, ``the problem is not that people are taxed too 
little, the problem is that government spends too much.'' There is no 
question that the real problem is overspending, especially on runaway 
entitlement costs and through hundreds of billions of so-called tax 
expenditures.
  It is no secret that our inefficient and burdensome tax code is 
undermining consumer and business confidence, further weakening our 
fragile economic recovery. Comprehensive tax reform is needed now more 
than ever to rid our tax code of earmarks and loopholes that promote 
crony capitalism and let Washington pick winners and losers.
  Two weeks ago I was one of 38 members to vote for the bipartisan 
Cooper-LaTourette substitute amendment to the budget, which was modeled 
on the work of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. The Simpson-Bowles 
Commission produced a credible plan that gained the support of a 
bipartisan majority of the commission's 18 members. Called ``The Moment 
of Truth,'' the commission's report made clear that eliminating the 
debt and deficit will not be easy and that any reform must begin with 
entitlements. Mandatory and discretionary spending also has to be 
addressed as well as other ``sacred cows,'' including tax reform and 
defense spending.
  The Cooper-LaTourette substitute was a balanced and ambitious plan, 
that, while not perfect, was the type of bitter medicine necessary to 
address our deficit. There is never a convenient time to make tough 
decisions, but the longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the 
medicine will be. Unfortunately, the amendment failed.
  For nearly six years I have pushed bipartisan legislation to set up 
an independent commission to develop a comprehensive deficit reduction 
package that would require an up-or-down vote by the Congress. I have 
said that the enormity of the crisis we face demands that everything 
must be on the table for discussion--all entitlement spending, all 
domestic discretionary spending, and tax policy; not tax increases, but 
reforms to make the tax code simpler and fairer and free from special 
interest earmarks.
  I have supported every serious effort to resolve this crisis: the 
Bowles-Simpson recommendations, the ``Gang of Six'' effort, and the 
``Cut, Cap and Balance'' bill--including the Balanced Budget Amendment. 
None of these solutions were perfect, but they all took the steps 
necessary to rebuild and protect our economy.

[[Page H2003]]

  But powerful special interests continue to hold this institution 
hostage and undermine every good faith effort to change course. And 
that's why we have these actions on the floor of the House and Senate 
instead of the much-needed proposal to enact comprehensive reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not sign political pledges to special interest 
groups. My only pledge is the oath of office I take on the first day of 
each Congress. And that is why I cannot partake in this political vote 
that would further add to the deficit without dealing with the 
underlying drivers of our deficit and debt.
  As The Hill reported this week: ``Republicans and Democrats are 
hurtling toward a fiscal cliff, but neither side wants to take the 
plunge.
  ``In less than nine months, Bush-era tax rates are scheduled to 
expire, hiking rates for the middle class as well as top income 
earners. At the same time, automatic spending cuts will kick in. The 
combination, coupled with the expiration of the payroll tax cut and 
other factors, would constitute a blow that analysts say could imperil 
the economic recovery and send America crashing back into recession.''
  We need to simplify the tax code to lower tax rates. But we need to 
do it through real, comprehensive reform, not through a piecemeal 
approach that makes it too politically easy to ignore our overall 
finances. I vote ``present'' to bring attention to this point.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Small 
Business Tax Cut Act (H.R. 9), which will provide tax relief to Hoosier 
small businesses and help them to grow and create jobs.
  In Indiana there are more than 100,000 small businesses that employ 
more than a million Hoosiers. Nearly 14,000 of these small businesses 
are owned by women. As I travel across Indiana and hear from these 
hardworking Hoosier entrepreneurs and taxpayers, one thing is clear: 
Washington, DC needs a new approach to fostering job growth. With 
unemployment in Indiana at a disheartening 8.4 percent, Hoosiers are 
looking for tax relief that will help their friends and neighbors get 
back to work.
  The Small Business Tax Cut Act reduces the heavy burden of taxes on 
Hoosier small businesses by allowing them to deduct 20 percent of their 
active income this year. In all, this important measure would reduce 
taxes on job creators by $46 billion, freeing up capital for small 
businesses to grow and take on new employees.
   This pro-growth, pro-taxpayer legislation will help to foster new 
investment in our economy and spur job growth. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Small Business Tax Cut Act.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 9, the 
so-called Small Business Tax Cut Act, which, instead of helping small 
businesses or growing the economy, is merely another tax giveaway to 
the rich.
  Americans are demanding that we take action to create jobs and spur 
economic growth, but this legislation before us today adds $46 billion 
to the deficit in the next year alone, fails to create jobs and 
actually discourages the investments our economy needs.
  Now is the time to support American small businesses and grow the 
economy, as Democrats would do in an alternative proposal, by allowing 
companies to deduct 100% of the cost of capital, or ``bonus 
depreciation,'' in the first year for new investment in machinery and 
equipment--a proposal even conservative economists consider one of the 
most productive ways to boost economic growth.
  This is not the time to hand another tax cut to our nations' 
wealthiest as H.R. 9 proposes, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
misguided legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


      Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Levin

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Tax Cut 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR DOMESTIC BUSINESS INCOME OF QUALIFIED 
                   SMALL BUSINESSES.

       (a) In General.--Part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 200. DOMESTIC BUSINESS INCOME OF QUALIFIED SMALL 
                   BUSINESSES.

       ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--In the case of a qualified 
     small business, there shall be allowed as a deduction an 
     amount equal to 20 percent of the lesser of--
       ``(1) the qualified domestic business income of the 
     taxpayer for the taxable year, or
       ``(2) taxable income (determined without regard to this 
     section) for the taxable year.
       ``(b) Deduction Limited Based on Wages Paid.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the deduction allowable 
     under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed 50 
     percent of the greater of--
       ``(A) the W 2 wages of the taxpayer paid to non-owners, or
       ``(B) the sum of--
       ``(i) the W 2 wages of the taxpayer paid to individuals who 
     are non-owner family members of direct owners, plus
       ``(ii) any W 2 wages of the taxpayer paid to 10-percent-or-
     less direct owners.
       ``(2) Definitions related to ownership.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(A) Non-owner.--The term `non-owner' means, with respect 
     to any qualified small business, any person who does not own 
     (and is not considered as owning within the meaning of 
     subsection (c) or (e)(3) of section 267, as the case may be) 
     any stock of such business (or, if such business is other 
     than a corporation, any capital or profits interest of such 
     business).
       ``(B) Non-owner family members.--An individual is a non-
     owner family member of a direct owner if--
       ``(i) such individual is family (within the meaning of 
     section 267(c)(4)) of a direct owner, and
       ``(ii) such individual would be a non-owner if subsections 
     (c) and (e)(3) of section 267 were applied without regard to 
     section 267(c)(2).
       ``(C) Direct owner.--The term `direct owner' means, with 
     respect to any qualified small business, any person who owns 
     (or is considered as owning under the applicable non-family 
     attribution rules) any stock of such business (or, if such 
     business is other than a corporation, any capital or profits 
     interest of such business).
       ``(D) 10-percent-or-less direct owners.--The term `10-
     percent-or-less direct owner' means, with respect to any 
     qualified small business, any direct owner of such business 
     who owns (or is considered as owning under the applicable 
     non-family attribution rules)--
       ``(i) in the case of a qualified small business which is a 
     corporation, not more than 10 percent of the outstanding 
     stock of the corporation or stock possessing more than 10 
     percent of the total combined voting power of all stock of 
     the corporation, or
       ``(ii) in the case of a qualified small business which is 
     not a corporation, not more than 10 percent of the capital or 
     profits interest of such business.
       ``(E) Applicable non-family attribution rules.--The term 
     `applicable non-family attribution rules' means the 
     attribution rules of subsection (c) or (e)(3) of section 267, 
     as the case may be, but in each case applied without regard 
     to section 267(c)(2).
       ``(3) W 2 wages.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `W 2 wages' means, with respect 
     to any person for any taxable year of such person, the sum of 
     the amounts described in paragraphs (3) and (8) of section 
     6051(a) paid by such person with respect to employment of 
     employees by such person during the calendar year ending 
     during such taxable year.
       ``(B) Limitation to wages attributable to qualified 
     domestic business income.--Such term shall not include any 
     amount which is not properly allocable to domestic business 
     gross receipts for purposes of subsection (d)(1).
       ``(C) Other requirements.--Except in the case of amounts 
     treated as W 2 wages under paragraph (4)--
       ``(i) such term shall not include any amount which is not 
     allowed as a deduction under section 162 for the taxable 
     year, and
       ``(ii) such term shall not include any amount which is not 
     properly included in a return filed with the Social Security 
     Administration on or before the 60th day after the due date 
     (including extensions) for such return.
       ``(4) Certain partnership distributions treated as w 2 
     wages.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a qualified small 
     business which is a partnership and elects the application of 
     this paragraph for the taxable year--
       ``(i) the qualified domestic business taxable income of 
     such partnership for such taxable year (determined after the 
     application of clause (ii)) which is allocable under rules 
     similar to the rules of section 199(d)(1)(A)(ii) to each 
     qualified service-providing partner shall be treated for 
     purposes of this section as W 2 wages paid during such 
     taxable year to such partner as an employee, and
       ``(ii) the domestic business gross receipts of such 
     partnership for such taxable year shall be reduced by the 
     amount so treated.
       ``(B) Qualified service-providing partner.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `qualified service-providing 
     partner' means, with respect to any qualified domestic 
     business taxable income, any partner who is a 10-percent-or-
     less direct owner and who materially participates in the 
     trade or business to which such income relates.
       ``(5) Acquisitions and dispositions.--The Secretary shall 
     provide for the application of this subsection in cases where 
     the taxpayer acquires, or disposes of, the major portion of a 
     trade or business or the major portion of a separate unit of 
     a trade or business during the taxable year.
       ``(c) Limitation Based on Investment in Qualified 
     Property.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the deduction allowable 
     under subsection (a) for

[[Page H2004]]

     any taxable year shall not exceed the allowance which would 
     be determined under section 168(k)(1)(A) with respect to the 
     taxpayer for the taxable year if such section were applied--
       ``(A) by substituting `100 percent' for `50 percent', and
       ``(B) without regard to paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Adjustment of basis.--No deduction shall be allowed 
     to the taxpayer under subsection (a) for any taxable year 
     unless the adjusted basis of property taken into account 
     under paragraph (1) is reduced by the amount of the deduction 
     allowed under subsection (a) before computing the amount 
     otherwise allowable as a depreciation deduction under this 
     chapter (including any allowance otherwise determined under 
     section 168(k)) for such taxable year and any subsequent 
     taxable year.
       ``(d) Qualified Domestic Business Income.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified domestic business 
     income' for any taxable year means an amount equal to the 
     excess (if any) of--
       ``(A) the taxpayer's domestic business gross receipts for 
     such taxable year, over
       ``(B) the sum of--
       ``(i) the cost of goods sold that are allocable to such 
     receipts, and
       ``(ii) other expenses, losses, or deductions (other than 
     the deduction allowed under this section), which are properly 
     allocable to such receipts.
       ``(2) Domestic business gross receipts.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `domestic business gross 
     receipts' means the gross receipts of the taxpayer which are 
     effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business 
     within the United States within the meaning of section 864(c) 
     but determined--
       ``(i) without regard to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) 
     thereof, and
       ``(ii) by substituting `qualified small business (within 
     the meaning of section 200)' for `nonresident alien 
     individual or a foreign corporation' each place it appears 
     therein.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--For purposes of paragraph (1), domestic 
     business gross receipts shall not include any of the 
     following:
       ``(i) Gross receipts derived from the sale or exchange of--

       ``(I) a capital asset, or
       ``(II) property used in the trade or business (as defined 
     in section 1231(b)).

       ``(ii) Royalties, rents, dividends, interest, or annuities.
       ``(iii) Any amount which constitutes wages (as defined in 
     section 3401).
       ``(3) Application of certain rules.--Rules similar to the 
     rules of paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 199(c) shall apply 
     for purposes of this section (applied with respect to 
     qualified domestic business income in lieu of qualified 
     production activities income and with respect to domestic 
     business gross receipts in lieu of domestic production gross 
     receipts).
       ``(e) Qualified Small Business.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified small business' 
     means any employer engaged in a trade or business if such 
     employer had fewer than 500 full-time equivalent employees 
     for either calendar year 2010 or 2011.
       ``(2) Full-time equivalent employees.--The term `full-time 
     equivalent employees' has the meaning given such term by 
     subsection (d)(2) of section 45R applied--
       ``(A) without regard to subsection (d)(5) of such section,
       ``(B) with regard to subsection (e)(1) of such section, and
       ``(C) by substituting `calendar year' for `taxable year' 
     each place it appears therein.
       ``(3) Employers not in existence prior to 2012.--In the 
     case of an employer which was not in existence on January 1, 
     2012, the determination under paragraph (1) shall be made 
     with respect to calendar year 2012.
       ``(4) Application to calendar years in which employer in 
     existence for portion of calendar year.--In the case of any 
     calendar year during which the employer comes into existence, 
     the number of full-time equivalent employees determined under 
     paragraph (2) with respect to such calendar year shall be 
     increased by multiplying the number so determined (without 
     regard to this paragraph) by the quotient obtained by 
     dividing--
       ``(A) the number of days in such calendar year, by
       ``(B) the number of days during such calendar year which 
     such employer is in existence.
       ``(5) Special rules.--
       ``(A) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of paragraph (1), any 
     person treated as a single employer under subsection (a) or 
     (b) of section 52 (applied without regard to section 1563(b)) 
     or subsection (m) or (o) of section 414 shall be treated as a 
     single employer for purposes of this subsection.
       ``(B) Predecessors.--Any reference in this subsection to an 
     employer shall include a reference to any predecessor of such 
     employer.
       ``(f) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Elective application of deduction.--Except as 
     otherwise provided by the Secretary, the taxpayer may elect 
     not to take any item of income into account as domestic 
     business gross receipts for purposes of this section.
       ``(2) Coordination with section 199.--If a deduction is 
     allowed under this section with respect to any taxpayer for 
     any taxable year--
       ``(A) any gross receipts of the taxpayer which are taken 
     into account under this section for such taxable year shall 
     not be taken into account under section 199 for such taxable 
     year, and
       ``(B) the W 2 wages of the taxpayer which are taken into 
     account under this section shall not be taken into account 
     under section 199 for such taxable year.
       ``(3) Application of certain rules.--Rules similar to the 
     rules of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) of 
     section 199(d) shall apply for purposes of this section 
     (applied with respect to qualified domestic business income 
     in lieu of qualified production activities income).
       ``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this section, including regulations which prevent a taxpayer 
     which reorganizes from being treated as a qualified small 
     business if such taxpayer would not have been treated as a 
     qualified small business prior to such reorganization.
       ``(h) Application.--Subsection (a) shall apply only with 
     respect to the first taxable year of the taxpayer beginning 
     after December 31, 2011.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 56(d)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``deduction under section 199'' both places it appears and 
     inserting ``deductions under sections 199 and 200''.
       (2) Section 56(g)(4)(C) of such Code is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new clause:
       ``(vii) Deduction for domestic business income of qualified 
     small businesses.--Clause (i) shall not apply to any amount 
     allowable as a deduction under section 200.''.
       (3) The following provisions of such Code are each amended 
     by inserting ``200,'' after ``199,''.
       (A) Section 86(b)(2)(A).
       (B) Section 135(c)(4)(A).
       (C) Section 137(b)(3)(A).
       (D) Section 219(g)(3)(A)(ii).
       (E) Section 221(b)(2)(C)(i).
       (F) Section 222(b)(2)(C)(i).
       (G) Section 246(b)(1).
       (H) Section 469(i)(3)(F)(iii).
       (4) Section 163(j)(6)(A)(i) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (III) and by 
     inserting after subclause (IV) the following new subclause:

       ``(V) any deduction allowable under section 200, and''.

       (5) Section 170(b)(2)(C) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iv), by striking the 
     period at the end of clause (v) and inserting ``, and'', and 
     by inserting after clause (v) the following new clause:
       ``(vi) section 200.''.
       (6) Section 172(d) of such Code is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Domestic business income of qualified small 
     businesses.--The deduction under section 200 shall not be 
     allowed.''.
       (7) Section 613(a) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``deduction under section 199'' and inserting ``deductions 
     under sections 199 and 200''.
       (8) Section 613A(d)(1) of such Code is amended by 
     redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively, and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) any deduction allowable under section 200,''.
       (9) Section 1402(a) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of paragraph (16), by redesignating 
     paragraph (17) as paragraph (18), and by inserting after 
     paragraph (16) the following new paragraph:
       ``(17) the deduction provided by section 200 shall not be 
     allowed; and''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VI 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 200. Domestic business income of qualified small businesses.''.


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 620, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will 
control 12\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Democratic amendment in the nature of a substitute offers a 1-
year extension of 100 percent bonus depreciation for certain U.S. 
businesses.
  Most importantly, the amendment offers a stark contrast to the 
majority's untargeted giveaway to the very wealthy Americans.
  First, bonus depreciation is available only to businesses that make 
investments in depreciable property. As a result, most of the benefit 
from the bonus depreciation provision will flow to businesses such as 
manufacturers that make significant investments in property, plant, and 
equipment. These are the types of businesses that create good jobs here 
in our country.
  In contrast to the majority's mistaken bill, very little, if any, 
benefit would go to lawyers, lobbyists, hedge fund managers, and 
entertainers, to mention just a few. These service professionals simply 
do not make large investments in depreciable property.

[[Page H2005]]

  Second, bonus depreciation is only available for property used in our 
country. So a business that builds a new factory only gets the 
deduction if the factory is built in this country.
  In contrast, the majority's bill provides a benefit to businesses 
regardless of where they're expanding or investing. Businesses that cut 
jobs in the U.S. and expand overseas could get the benefit of H.R. 9. 
In practice, they would get no benefit from this amendment.
  Third, the incentive to purchase depreciable property provides a 
benefit to all of the businesses that produce the property. The result 
is a more general and widespread economic stimulus.
  Fourth, and finally, bonus depreciation is a proposal that has had 
bipartisan support, unlike H.R. 9. H.R. 9 is going nowhere--nowhere--
and it should not.
  Vote for and pass this substitute. It is sound policy and can become 
the law of the land.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) is 
recognized for 12\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield such time as he may consume to a distinguished 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Schock).
  Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my distinguished chairman 
yielding time.
  I can understand why the American people are frustrated. We have a 
President who, from day one, campaigned on raising taxes, raising 
taxes, then became the President of the United States, and his party in 
the House and his party in the Senate, they've talked about raising 
taxes. All the while, we've had a down economy. All the while, we've 
had unemployment above 8 percent. Yet the interesting thing is that, 
when the same Democratic Party controlled the House of Representatives 
and controlled the United States Senate for 2 years, they decided not 
to implement the Buffett tax.

                              {time}  1230

  They decided not to increase taxes on Americans.
  Why? Because they know what we know and they know the truth, and that 
is that raising taxes will hurt the economy, that raising taxes is not 
what you do when you want to put people back to work. It's bad policy. 
It's why a year ago, despite all the rhetoric against the Bush tax 
cuts, despite all the rhetoric against the '01 and '03 rates, this same 
majority in the United States Senate and this same President said--
what? President Obama said, Now is not the time to increase taxes on 
any American. A year ago.
  If that were good policy a year ago, I might submit to you that it's 
good policy today. I don't know many Americans who believed a year ago 
that the economy was in any worse of a situation than it is in today. 
Raising taxes is not good policy on any American. If ever there were a 
starker contrast between the two visions for America, if ever there 
were a starker contrast between the Republican Party and the Democratic 
Party's visions on how to get the economy going, it is what's happening 
today in Washington, D.C.
  Across this hallway, in the United States Senate, they are attempting 
to raise taxes on America's small businesses--yes, pass-through 
entities that pay a rate and take that capital away from them and their 
ability to invest in capital, in their ability to hire workers. Here in 
the House of Representatives, we are trying to do the opposite. We're 
saying that we're listening to these job creators, that we're listening 
to these people who actually do the hiring.
  Do you know what they're saying? Their access to capital is drying 
up, and the cash in their bank accounts doesn't quite meet their needs 
each month. They need more capital to be able to go out and hire 
people. They need more capital to be able to go out and buy equipment.
  So that's what this targeted tax cut is. It's not for the big 
corporations. It's targeted at people who have fewer than 500 
employees. And guess what? You can have whatever opinion you want on 
the political ideology. You can't have your own facts, and the facts 
are these:
  Over the last 2 years, seven out of 10 jobs created in this country 
were created by people who employ fewer than 500 people, the very 
people this tax bill is targeted at. Second, you can't throw up your 
hands and wonder why America's job creators are not hiring, why 
unemployment continues to be above 8 percent for the longest time in 
our country's history while at the same time advocating policies that 
will drive a stake into the heart of our economy and our small 
businesses.
  This tax policy targeted at America's small businesses will give them 
the capital they need to stay in business, to hire those additional 
workers, to invest in additional capital, and maybe even to prevent 
layoffs, maybe even to prevent somebody from having to go on the 
unemployment line. It is the right policy. I wish that our friends on 
the other side of the aisle would embrace the policy that they had a 
year ago, which is that tax increases on any American is a bad policy 
in a down economy.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The gentleman is correct in that the contrast is very stark. They've 
tried to raise taxes on millionaires in the Senate so they pay like the 
people who work for them. This bill would provide a tax break of 
$58,000 to those who make over $1 million, which are 125,000 taxpayers. 
That is a stark contrast. Have people very wealthy pay a fair share on 
the one side, and have this House give them a big break.
  I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our 
committee, the gentlelady from Nevada, Shelley Berkley.
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of the Levin substitute and on behalf of the middle 
class families of Nevada, who are struggling to make ends meet. I'm 
talking about the housekeepers and the card dealers, the teachers, the 
nurses, the cops on the beat, the ones who work hard to take care of 
their families--to put food on the tables, to fill their cars with gas, 
to buy new sneakers for their kids, and to make the mortgage payments 
on time.
  Yet, in spite of these challenges, Washington asks them to give a 
little more. Washington Republicans ask them to make additional 
sacrifices and ask them to carry the extra burden for wealthy Wall 
Street millionaires who are not paying their fair share. Why on Earth 
should a waitress in Nevada pay a higher tax rate than a yacht owner? 
Why should a janitor pick up the slack for a Big Oil executive? Why 
should a card dealer sacrifice more than a Wall Street hedge fund 
manager? That doesn't make sense. It's not fair. Wall Street 
corporations shipping American jobs overseas and big oil companies 
making record profits don't need our help. Working men and women in 
this country do.
  This piece of legislation would be destructive to them, their 
futures, and their families. It is time we started siding with middle 
class families, who most definitely do need our help, and that starts 
by passing the Buffett rule.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by my colleague's comments a few minutes 
ago about how we need to support this substitute to help small 
businesses and all.
  Yet what troubles me is, first of all, it's highly complicated. It 
further complicates the Tax Code. The real beneficiary will be your 
accountant because you've got to go through all of these machinations 
to figure out which side of this you qualify for. At the end of the 
day, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, because of the 
imposition of the additional restrictions called for by the Democrats 
in their substitute, which we're debating at this moment, the entire 
relief would be something on the order of $287 million nationwide to 
small businesses.
  So there is your alternative.
  You've got the Democrats saying, boy, according to Joint Tax, $287 
million. Oh, that's going to solve the problem this year. That's really 
going to help. We're saying, no, we want to do something that really 
affects small businesses, middle class small businesses--people like my 
wife and me when we were in small business and worked with other small 
businesses in small communities. They are small

[[Page H2006]]

businesses that want to keep some of their cash flow home, where they 
can invest it in their businesses, in their employees, chase these 
ever-rising costs of health insurance and all of these other things 
that you do in small business--the added government costs of 
regulation, all of the things that drive up your costs you need cash to 
pay for.
  We want to help those small businesses because that is the heartbeat, 
the growth of where innovation comes from--from jobs in America. It is 
small business. This is targeted specifically at small businesses in 
America that can keep some of their money.
  By the way, it's not the government's money first. The government 
wasn't your best business partner. You went out and you earned it. You 
ought to be able to keep more of it. That's the difference in 
philosophy working out here on the floor; and those of us who have met 
payrolls, who have paid bills, who have dealt with government 
regulation get that. Those who haven't have a hard time understanding 
why, at the beginning, this is the business's money, the individual's 
money, the individual who has worked hard. It is not the government's 
money. It is the individual's money.
  I urge the defeat of the substitute.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I support the substitute 
amendment, and I oppose the underlying bill.
  I think my Democratic friends actually have it all wrong about this 
bill. I could be mistaken, but I think there was a drafting error in 
this legislation. When introducing this bill, the sponsor said, It will 
put more money into the hands of small business owners to reinvest 
those funds in order to retain, create jobs and grow their businesses, 
plain and simple.
  This bill does nothing of the sort.
  For starters, it does not target small businesses as the title 
claims. Rather than maximizing assistance for those employers who need 
it most, fewer than half the tax cuts go to legitimate small 
businesses. What's more, there is no requirement that this taxpayer 
subsidy should be used to hire new workers or expand facilities to grow 
the economy. I am also puzzled, Mr. Speaker, when looking at the bill 
before us today and previous drafts. You see, earlier drafts excluded 
certain businesses like liquor stores, casinos and strip clubs from 
receiving any tax relief; but the current draft does not have such 
exclusions. Further, this bill is not offset and would actually 
increase the deficit by $46 billion, which I know runs contrary to the 
intent of the sponsor, who believes that even in emergencies Federal 
assistance should be offset.
  So you see, Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues are very busy and are, 
perhaps, distracted with issues like compromising women's reproductive 
health rights, which is why I can only assume that these simple 
drafting errors have come to characterize this bill. I urge its 
rejection. Let's start over.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 6\1/2\ minutes remaining on both 
sides.
  Mr. CAMP. Thank you.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois, a Member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Roskam.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to speak for just a minute on the substitute.
  Speaking of drafting errors, you can only assume that there was a 
drafting error on the substitute. Look, that happens. If it was a 
drafting error, the best thing to do is take the bill out of the record 
and start again. I think the notion of comparing $287 million in tax 
relief to $47 billion in tax relief is simply a nonstarter. It's as if 
the minority is saying, We sort of accept part of the premise of this 
tax cut, but we're going to cut it down. And then we're going to cut 
down the tax relief a little more. And then we're going to cut down the 
tax relief a little more and a little more and a little more and a 
little more until finally it's this obscure little bit of nonsense that 
isn't going to do anything.
  Here's what we need to do. We need to give relief to the small 
business in my district. I was touring a plant, and the owner/
entrepreneur who started the company said, Look, the smart move for me, 
Congressman, is to put three-quarters of a million dollars into this 
new production line. It would mean that I would expand production, 
bring in more people, and so forth, and have a very simple ripple 
effect, but I'm not going to do it. The reason I'm not going to do it 
is because Washington, D.C., tells me I'm rich. I'm not rich. I'm just 
a prudent businessman who's built a successful business.
  What we need to do, Mr. Speaker, is to create an environment where 
that business owner, that entrepreneur says to himself or herself, I'm 
willing to invest.
  They need relief. They're begging for relief in suburban Chicago from 
their tax liability, and this is an opportunity now with this language 
that is authored by the majority leader and that is on the House floor.
  I urge its passage, and I urge rejection of the substitute.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our 
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. I want to thank the ranking member for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, the amendment that was 
offered by Mr. McDermott at the Rules Committee, and what our Ranking 
Member Levin and we Democrats in the Ways and Means Committee 
supported, offered immediate expenses, a bonus depreciation for capital 
investment for small businesses that was fully offset and fully paid 
for by eliminating the tax breaks that large oil companies are 
receiving today, who are sitting on record profits, with record high 
prices. And it wouldn't add a nickel to the deficit.
  That's why I adamantly oppose the underlying bill before us today. 
It's the here-we-go-again syndrome around here. How deep are we going 
to create this hole? It's a $46 billion tax cut that's not offset, 
that's not paid for, will go straight to deficit, close to half of it 
going to millionaires. An average tax savings of over $58,000 is not 
the way to get this economy out of the hole that it's in. In fact, when 
the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office 
analyzed the Republican underlying bill, they said this is probably the 
worst thing for the buck that we can invest in the economy to create 
the jobs that we need today. Yet, this is a syndrome that happens over 
and over again from the other side. They support huge tax cuts without 
paying for them, driving our Nation deeper into debt.
  If they think it's worthwhile enough and important enough to invest 
in, then pay for it. Find offsets in the spending, and let's have that 
discussion as far as our priorities. But don't go down the easy route 
of trying to offer this illusion of tax relief to all Americans, 
especially the iconic small business owner out there, without paying a 
nickel for it and adding to the budget deficits that are accumulating 
today.
  I tried to explain to folks back home how we got into this hole. 
Certainly, the most important driving factor is the underperforming 
economy and the huge recession that we're trying to climb out of right 
now. But you can also look back at previous policies not so long ago 
supported by the other side: two huge tax cuts that weren't paid for; 
two wars that weren't paid for; the largest expansion of entitlement 
spending in the prescription drug bill that wasn't paid for. It's 
little wonder we're facing huge deficits.
  I reject the underlying bill and support the Levin amendment.
  Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be reiterated once 
again that the sponsor of the underlying bill, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor), believes that we need to find pay-fors. We need 
to pay for it and not add to the deficit when it comes to disaster 
relief.
  Let's put that in perspective. A hurricane hits, wipes out a town. 
The American government cannot go and rescue and help those people and 
pay

[[Page H2007]]

for that without finding a pay-for in order to substitute for that 
payment.
  When tornados hit middle America and peoples' lives are destroyed, 
their homes are destroyed, and cities and towns are eviscerated, the 
Congress has to come up with pay-fors in order to help in that disaster 
relief, but not when it comes to a tax break for companies that will 
offshore American jobs.
  Those tax breaks we don't have to pay for. Mr. Cantor doesn't believe 
you have to pay for those. But for disasters that hit America and 
cities and towns that are annihilated, they must be paid for. I just 
think that needs to be pointed out to the American people.
  The Levin bill is a far superior bill. It incentivizes growth within 
small businesses without burdening the American taxpayer at the same 
time.
  Whose money are we talking about? This is not the small business 
person's money. This is money that otherwise would be revenue to the 
country. This is the American taxpayer's money that we're just giving 
back to millionaires, hardworking Americans who work and toil every day 
to give a tax break to millionaires.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again ask Members to heed 
the gavel.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does the gentleman from Michigan have any other speakers?
  Mr. CAMP. No.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I heard my good friend from Chicago 
talking about people begging for investment. Well, business is looking 
for our assistance, but nobody has come seeking an inefficient effort 
like this that will dig ourselves deeper into debt and not have impact. 
We have offered alternatives that would not have added to the deficit 
and would have helped business right away.
  I'm honored to be joined on the floor by a young friend, Johnny 
Hammer, who in looking at this assessment, said, This is going to be 
adding to the deficit. That's right, and we didn't need to do that. 
Instead, we should be focusing on things that are deficit neutral that 
will give American business things that will add productivity right 
now.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this proposal and think about 
the young Johnny Hammers of this world investing in our future in a way 
that is responsible and sustainable.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  I believe the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has the right to 
close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 
the right to close. It is Mr. Levin's amendment, and Mr. Camp is a 
manager in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. There is a criticism that the bonus depreciation provision 
doesn't go far enough. My answer to that is: let's pass this and then 
join together. You have supported bonus depreciation in the past. You 
haven't acted on it. We do.
  Let me just say what's at stake. This bill isn't going anywhere--it's 
going nowhere, but it says everything about the majority's priorities.
  They oppose raising taxes on the very wealthy, they take a pledge 
that applies to the very wealthy, and they end up with a bill they 
won't pay for. They make empty rhetoric about the deficit. Essentially 
what they're coming here today to do is to make it worse, by giving a 
tax break to the very wealthy through this bill.

                              {time}  1250

  We've said it many times, nobody refutes it. You're stuck on a pledge 
not to raise taxes even for the very wealthy, and you come today with a 
proposal for a tax break for 125,000 taxpayers making more than a 
million dollars with a tax break of 58,000. Then to make it still 
worse, you cut necessary programs for lower- and middle-income 
families, from child care and Meals On Wheels. Where's your conscience?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) has expired, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 4\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate at least hearing some of the new-found fiscal 
responsibility from my friends on the other side, since the Obama 
administration has come into office with help from Democrats on the 
other side of the aisle who increased the debt by $5 trillion, with a 
``t.''
  Let me just comment on this substitute. It's not that the bonus 
depreciation in this legislation doesn't go far enough. It's that it 
doesn't provide bonus depreciation. It does limit the bill based on the 
concept of bonus depreciation, but this bill has been analyzed by the 
Joint Committee on Taxation.
  Rather than providing the $46 billion of tax relief, this bill only 
provides a small fraction of that, 6 percent. Under the underlying 
legislation, millions of small businesses would be able to make 
investments, be able to buy equipment, would be able to hire workers. 
This substitute guts the bill and will result in no economic impact in 
this country.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote on the substitute. I would urge support 
for the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would note that it is not in order 
during debate to refer to persons on the floor of the House as guests 
of the House.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill, 
as amended, and on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 175, 
nays 236, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 175]

                               YEAS--175

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett

[[Page H2008]]


     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     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)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     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
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bass (NH)
     Bishop (UT)
     Braley (IA)
     Burton (IN)
     Filner
     Flake
     Gosar
     Guinta
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Napolitano
     Nunes
     Paul
     Rangel
     Schrader
     Slaughter
     Thompson (MS)
     Walsh (IL)
     Waters
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1317

  Mrs. ROBY and Messrs. McCARTHY of California and REICHERT changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. CARSON of Indiana, COURTNEY, and CAPUANO changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 19, 2012, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 175 due to a family medical emergency. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on agreeing to the Levin 
Substitute Amendment to H.R. 9, Small Business Tax Cut Act.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 175, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''

                              {time}  1320

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). 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. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. DEUTCH. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Deutch moves to recommit the bill H.R. 9 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:

       At the end of paragraph (2) of section 200(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as proposed to be added by 
     section 2 of the bill, add the following:

       ``(C) Denial of deduction for certain businesses.--The term 
     `domestic business gross receipts' shall not include any 
     gross receipts attributable to any of the following:
       ``(i) Illegal activities.--Any illegal activity, including 
     trafficking in illegal drugs and prostitution.
       ``(ii) Pornography.--Any property with respect to which 
     records are required to be maintained under section 2257 of 
     title 18, United States Code.
       ``(iii) Discriminatory golf courses and clubs.--Golf 
     courses or clubs that discriminatorily restrict membership on 
     the basis of sex or race.
       ``(iv) Lobbying.--Activities described in section 
     162(e)(1).
       ``(v) Business activities of persons in violation of the 
     iran sanctions act of 1996.--Any activity of any person 
     (including any successor, assign, affiliate, member, or joint 
     venturer with an ownership interest in any property or 
     project any portion of which is owned by such person) that is 
     in violation of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 
     1701 note) or the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, 
     Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8501 et 
     seq.).
       ``(D) Disclosure by members of congress.--No amount shall 
     be taken into account as domestic business gross receipts by 
     any Member of Congress unless the amount of the deduction 
     allowed under this section and a description of the business 
     activities giving rise to such deduction are publicly 
     disclosed (in such manner and form as the Secretary may 
     prescribe) not later than the date on which the return of tax 
     is filed.''.

       Add at the end of the bill the following:

     SEC. 3. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR MOVING UNITED STATES JOBS 
                   OVERSEAS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 200 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 2 of this 
     Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Denial of deduction for moving united states jobs 
     overseas.--
       ``(A) In general.--No deduction shall be allowed under this 
     section with respect to any employer--
       ``(i) which has fewer full-time equivalent employees in the 
     United States for the taxable year beginning in calendar year 
     2012 as compared to the preceding taxable year, and
       ``(ii) which has more full-time equivalent employees 
     outside the United States for the taxable year beginning in 
     calendar year 2012 as compared to the preceding taxable year.
       ``(B) Employees outside the united states.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, an employee shall be treated as employed by 
     the employer outside the United States whether employed 
     directly or indirectly through a controlled foreign 
     corporation (as defined in section 957) or a pass-through 
     entity in which the taxpayer holds at least 50 percent of the 
     capital or profits interest.
       ``(C) Exception for employees separated voluntarily or for 
     cause.--For purposes of this paragraph, the number of full-
     time equivalent employees shall be determined without regard 
     to any employee separated from employment voluntarily or for 
     cause.
       ``(D) Aggregation rule.--Subsection (d)(5)(A) shall apply 
     for purposes of this paragraph.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2011.

  Mr. DEUTCH (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. CAMP. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. CAMP (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to suspend the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. CROWLEY. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, this debate has revealed deep differences 
between the majority and minority when it comes to how to grow our 
economy. We object to how Leader Cantor's bill borrows $47 billion from 
China for tax cuts designed to benefit millionaires. That's why the CBO 
ranked this proposal second to dead last in a long list of things we 
could do to create jobs.
  Now, Americans have learned by now that there is no such thing as a 
temporary Republican tax cut for the wealthy. They're all permanent. 
Let's acknowledge the real price tag here, a half a trillion dollars in 
deficit spending over the next decade--not for education, not for 
infrastructure, another $500 billion in windfall for the wealthy.
  As I said before, our disagreements run deep. The fact that we are 
outnumbered means that this misguided

[[Page H2009]]

legislation will likely pass. Given that reality, we should at least be 
able to come together and agree on which businesses should be excluded 
from this new windfall. That's what my amendment aims to do.
  My changes are relatively small. In fact, Leader Cantor's legislation 
remains largely the same. For example, pass my amendment, and H.R. 9 
will still uphold the GOP plan to take $46 billion from China and give 
half of it to millionaires. H.R. 9 will still count oil speculators, 
professional sports teams, and corporate lobbyists as small businesses. 
H.R. 9 will still pick and choose winners and losers by arbitrarily 
adding new loopholes to our already overcomplicated Tax Code. And, of 
course, Leader Cantor's massive tax cut will remain available to 
businesses even if they create no jobs at all.
  So let me be crystal clear about what my bill changes. It better 
safeguards our taxpayer dollars.
  First, my amendment will stop businesses engaging in illegal 
activity, from drug trafficking to prostitution, from receiving this 
deduction. This is a no-brainer, and I have no idea why it's not in the 
bill already. We should all agree, given the recent news from South 
America, that there is no such thing as being too careful with American 
tax dollars.
  Second, this amendment ensures that no company that outsources 
American jobs will qualify for this windfall. Certainly our 
constituents don't want us borrowing money from China to give to 
companies that outsource jobs to China. Certainly we can all agree that 
cutting taxes for businesses that are American in name only, that 
choose foreign workers over American workers, do not deserve another 
giveaway.
  Third, my amendment prevents companies that do business with Iran 
from being eligible for this tax cut. As Iran pursues an illicit 
nuclear weapons program, we should not reward businesses that threaten 
the security of the United States and our treasured ally Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment also stops this bill from cutting taxes for 
pornographic empires that somehow qualify as small businesses under 
this bill. It also requires Members of Congress who are owners of small 
businesses to disclose any benefits that they get under this bill. It 
excludes golf courses that discriminate based on race and gender. 
Finally, my amendment bans lobbyists from cashing in on this deduction.
  Now, look, I know as soon as I sit down a colleague from the other 
side of the aisle will come forward and claim that I'm pursuing some 
procedural ploy and attempting to kill the bill. That's simply not 
true. Adopt these changes so we can vote on the final bill right here 
and right now.
  Join me and prevent Americans' hard-earned tax dollars from 
subsidizing Iranian nucs, cutting costs for criminals, and padding the 
pockets of pornographers. And let's make sure that this bill does not 
reward companies that ship jobs overseas. It is the right thing to do. 
It's up to us to make these changes. We can make them right here and 
right now.
  I ask all of my colleagues to protect the American taxpayers and 
support these final protections to the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I seek time in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CAMP. I would just say to my friend that I'm not going to stand 
up and say that this is a procedural ploy. But I will stand up and say 
it is a political ploy.
  We should not be picking winners and losers. The fact is small 
businesses are hurting because of the failed policies of the Obama 
administration. It's time to stand up for small business and the people 
they employ.
  Let's get America back to work. I urge defeat of this motion to 
recommit and support for H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act.
  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. DEUTCH. 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 
passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 229, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 176]

                               AYES--179

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     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
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--229

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     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
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)

[[Page H2010]]


     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
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bass (NH)
     Bishop (UT)
     Braley (IA)
     Burton (IN)
     Clyburn
     Filner
     Flake
     Gosar
     Green, Gene
     Guinta
     Landry
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Napolitano
     Nunes
     Paul
     Rangel
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Thompson (MS)
     Walsh (IL)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1345

  Mrs. EMERSON changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 19, 2012, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 176 due a family medical emergency. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Motion to Recommit to 
H.R. 9, Small Business Tax Cut Act.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 176, the 
Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 9, had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 176, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 173, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 177]

                               YEAS--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     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
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     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
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--173

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Wolf
       

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Bass (NH)
     Bishop (UT)
     Braley (IA)
     Burton (IN)
     Clyburn
     Filner
     Flake
     Gosar
     Green, Gene
     Guinta
     Landry
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Napolitano
     Nunes
     Paul
     Perlmutter
     Rangel
     Slaughter
     Thompson (MS)
     Walsh (IL)
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1355

  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 against:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 177, final 
passage of H.R. 9, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 19, 2012, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 177 due to a family medical emergency. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on final passage of H.R. 
9, Small Business Tax Cut Act.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 177, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes today to attend to official 
government business in Illinois. If I had been here, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 172; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 173; ``yea'' on 
rollcall No. 174; ``no'' on rollcall No. 175; ``no'' on rollcall No. 
176; and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 177.

                          ____________________