Providing for Consideration of H.R. 6169, Pathway to Job Creation Through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act of 2012; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 8, Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012; Providing for Proceedings from August 3, 2012, Through September 7, 2012; Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules; and Waiving Requirement of Clause 6(1) of Rule XIII with Respect to Consideration of Certain Resolutions
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. House Resolution 747 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 8, a bill to extend the current tax rates for all Americans for 1 year; a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 6169, which provides a legislative path for true tax reform; and for other tools allowing the House to finish its business and continue to operate during the August district work period.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, why are we here today? My friends on the left will tell you that we are here today to discuss the issue of fairness in our Tax Code. I would agree. America is the land of opportunity. We believe that the worst possible thing you can do during a fragile recovery--that feels like a recession to me--is to increase taxes. Why? Because by increasing taxes, we jeopardize another 710,000 jobs, according to the experts, 710,000 jobs.
One of those jobs could be held by one of my constituents, a friend of mine named Joe Stringer. Joe Stringer is a middle class American, 62 years old. His wife is 67 years old and on Medicare. Joe doesn't make $250,000, Joe doesn't make $200,000, not even $150,000 or $100,000, but Joe does have dividend income, like 9 million seniors around this Nation who have dividend income.
And here is the interesting fact, Madam Speaker, when we hear the left talk about taxing the millionaires and the billionaires, here is the new definition: of those 9 million seniors who have dividend income, 68 percent of them have an income of less than $100,000, 40 percent have an income of less than $50,000. But my friends on the left would categorize these folks as a member of the rich, with their tax cuts being expired at the end of this year.
We are looking at an increase in the dividend tax rate of 185 percent for millions of Americans who are on fixed incomes. These folks aren't rich. They depend on their dividend income, and yes, with the actions of the left, we would see their dividend income tax responsibility and burden go up by 185 percent. This is definitely not right. It is definitely wrong.
Now this is on top of all the new taxes that we find as a part of the Affordable Care Act, another $804 billion of new taxes on Americans throughout this Nation. And in addition to that, Madam Speaker, under their proposal, we see the death tax going from 35 percent with a $5 million elimination to 55 percent. And for farmers, folks in agriculture, and for small businessowners, their wealth is not liquid. You would have to sell your land to pay these taxes. It's what we call a ``fire sale.''
So my friends on the left would punish people who work all their lives and come up with wealth to pass on to the next generation. But in this instance the taxes would go up significantly. And that's wrong.
In spite of the results of all the surveys--yesterday we had a survey done in my district that said that 61 percent of folks would like to see the 2001 and 2003--and, oh, by the way, 85 Members of the Democrats voted for these exact same tax cuts to stay in place in 2010. It was good in 2010; it's still good right now. Sixty-one percent of folks say let's extend these tax cuts for all Americans, and let's keep those 710,000 Americans who would lose their jobs employed.
But in addition to that, the environment that we're working in right now matters; it matters significantly. Because we have over 41 months--over 41 months, Madam Speaker--of unemployment over 8 percent. It's devastating. It's devastating, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will come together here today and realize that the time for political points should be over; that my colleagues would come together today and realize that the time for trying to divide Americans is over; that we would come together today, Madam Speaker, and realize that the time for punishing success is over.
In many ways, Madam Speaker, in many ways this debate today is about the very soul of who we are as Americans: Are we going to lift everyone up as one Nation, or are we going to push some down to bring everyone somewhere in the fuzzy middle in some misguided attempt to redefine fairness? Are we going to let the foundation of this Nation continue to crack, or are we going to strengthen it for another 200 years?
We encourage--I encourage--success in this Nation. We have to ensure our children can learn about America the same way all of us learned about the land of opportunity. That's fairness that I believe in.
Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure that I note once again, reinforce the fact, that this 1-year extension that we are suggesting on the right is in fact an extension of not only the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, but also the tax cuts that passed this House in 2010 in a bipartisan fashion.
There is no doubt that an action not to extend these tax cuts is actually increasing taxes on many people in this Nation.
And, in fact, if we do extend these tax cuts, what we are actually doing is allowing current tax law to stay in place. But if we don't do that we are talking about 9 million seniors, 68 percent of whom make less than $100,000, seeing their dividend income go up in taxation by 185 percent. That's the middle class.
We're talking about how the marriage penalty will place a $591 higher tax on over 88 million families. That's the middle class. We're talking about a reduction in the child tax credit that will pose a $1,028 tax hike on 31 million families. This looks like to me that my friends on the left are willing to tax the middle class and the poor.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Trey Gowdy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure that I note once again, reinforce the fact, that this 1-year extension that we are suggesting on the right is in fact an extension of not only the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, but also the tax cuts that passed this House in 2010 in a bipartisan fashion.
There is no doubt that an action not to extend these tax cuts is actually increasing taxes on many people in this Nation.
And, in fact, if we do extend these tax cuts, what we are actually doing is allowing current tax law to stay in place. But if we don't do that we are talking about 9 million seniors, 68 percent of whom make less than $100,000, seeing their dividend income go up in taxation by 185 percent. That's the middle class.
We're talking about how the marriage penalty will place a $591 higher tax on over 88 million families. That's the middle class. We're talking about a reduction in the child tax credit that will pose a $1,028 tax hike on 31 million families. This looks like to me that my friends on the left are willing to tax the middle class and the poor.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Trey Gowdy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure that we remember the facts as they are. There's no reason for us to so quickly revise history to meet our political objectives.
In 2010, this House, controlled by the Democrats, the Senate, controlled by the Democrats, and the White House, controlled by the Democrats, passed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. So what we're talking about is a bipartisan piece of legislation that would continue the current tax law because the previous Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, decided that tax cuts were good for all Americans. And now we find ourselves, as Mr. Gowdy said, in the midst of a political season.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rich Nugent, the sheriff.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I wonder what my friend from Texas would have said, if she was still here, to the 253,000 women, small business owners, who will be impacted by higher taxes based on the actions of our friends on the left. I wonder, Madam Speaker, what my friends on the left would say to the 710,000 newly unemployed Americans because of their actions on the left? I wonder, Madam Speaker, what my friends on the left would say to the senior citizens who make less than $100,000, to the senior citizens who make less than $50,000 who would see a 185 percent increase on their taxes for their dividend income?
Madam Speaker, my friends on the left have asked a very interesting and telling question when they asked: Who deserves a tax increase? Well, we on the right have a very clear answer to that question. We believe everybody deserves a tax decrease.
Madam Speaker, with unemployment for the 41st month over 8 percent, with unemployment in south Atlanta over 9.4 percent, I would suggest, Madam Speaker, now is not the time to engineer fairness. Now is a time for us to keep taxes low.
Madam Speaker, everyone in this room can agree we need to take steps to turn our economy around. But while one side of the room wants to divide our Nation to do so, we understand that punishing some Americans in the name of helping others is not the solution. We must lift everyone up; otherwise, we will all just end up in the squishy, nebulous middle. And America isn't about being mediocre. America is about being the best, the strongest, and the leader of the free world. Let's stay there as a Nation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, the amendment instructs the Clerk to add the text of H.R. 6169 as new matter at the end of H.R. 8 before transmitting the bill to the Senate.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 747 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
At the end of the resolution, add the following new section:
SEC. 10. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the resolution (H. Res. 746) prohibiting the consideration of a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment or adjournment sine die unless a law is enacted to provide for the extension of certain expired or expiring tax provisions that apply to middle-income taxpayers if called up by Representative Slaughter of New York or her designee. All points of order against the resolution and against its consideration are waived.
(The information contained herein was provided by the Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 110th and 111th Congresses.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule ..... When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source