Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We have just come through a wrenching election. Wrenching, in large part, because of the pain being experienced by our constituents, some more than others. A pain that they're experiencing in part because they are unemployed or underemployed or working two or three jobs to support themselves and their families. We all heard that pain. We all heard that concern. At the same time as we heard the concern about the pain of economic uncertainty, we heard the concern and the fear about deficits and debt.

And so, my colleagues, we are confronted with two twin challenges: growing our economy and creating jobs, and confronting this gargantuan deficit that puts at risk our economy and the future of our children. The American public would hope that we would come together and pass that on which we can agree, that on which we can compromise.

This House, in fact, passed two pieces of legislation weeks ago and months ago. Months ago, we passed legislation which would give certainty, and my Republican colleagues talk about certainty and I agree with them. We need to give certainty to families, certainty to businesses, and, yes, certainty to those who are worried about estates. They ought to expect that of us, and we passed 12 months ago a continuation of then-existing law, $3.5 million per spouse or $7 million per couple exemption and a 45 percent rate.

But that languished in the United States Senate. It languished because, frankly, there was not a majority or at least not 40 votes to extend certainty. That was unfortunate, in my view, because I think that was an appropriate rate, and I will vote for it on this floor, embodied in the Pomeroy amendment.

And then we passed just a few days ago legislation which would say to all Americans, you will not receive any tax increase on the first $250,000 of your income if you're a married couple or $200,000 if you're an individual. All individuals, no matter how rich, no matter how poor, all individuals would have their tax capped, and very frankly, there were only a few Members on this floor on either side of the aisle who disagreed with that proposition.

But as too often happens because we don't get everything we want, we won't take something we want. That's not good for the American people, and it's not good for our country. And very frankly, only three or four Members on the Republican side of the aisle chose to vote for that legislation, notwithstanding the fact it carried out part of what they thought was appropriate, and we agreed. But it was not enough.

The President of the United States has a responsibility to all Americans, and like every President he can't get everything he wants. To that extent, he's like us. We don't get everything we want, and this bill does not represent everything I want. Those of you who have heard me debate time after time know how concerned I am about this debt and deficit, and you have seen me vote on this floor sometimes in the small minority against steps that I thought would exacerbate the budget deficit without a proper return.

This bill, the President of the United States believes, and I believe, will have a positive effect on the economy, and I think we need that. And unlike some of my colleagues, whose views I share but I have reached a different conclusion, I will vote for this bill because I don't want to see middle-income working people in America get a tax increase because I think that will be a depressant on an economy that needs to be lifted up.

But I am also concerned about the deficit, and I know we're going to borrow every nickel in this bill. I'm for PAYGO. My children, if you ask them, would say they're for PAYGO because they don't want to pay our bills. They're going to have their own bills. Unfortunately, the President and we were confronted with alternatives: Do we extend unemployment insurance when unemployment is at a 9.6 to 9.8 percent rate, or do we let them languish with no certainty? Not certainty about planning whether or not their $7 million estate can be excluded from taxes, but worrying about whether they can put food on the table tomorrow. But unemployment insurance has languished because we haven't had a deal on upper-income taxes or estate taxes being increased from $7 million to $10 million for a couple.

My friends on both sides of the aisle, we need to come together. We need to come together in dealing with this debt. We need to come together in dealing with tax reform. We need to come together in growing jobs. That ought to be the agenda of this next Congress and every Congress thereafter until we accomplish those objectives and the American people have the certainty and confidence that we want them to have.

Now, ladies and gentlemen on the Republican side, very frankly, I have not seen your economic philosophy work. Jack Kemp and I served on the Appropriations Committee, but I don't think supply side is working. Supply side, in my opinion, has the proposition that, if you do less, you get more. Nothing that I have done in life instructs me that, if I do less, I get more. And because of that, because of the concept, if you simply cut taxes on those who are the wealthiest in our society, somehow, magically, the deficit will be eliminated.

Not one year did that happen.

It happened, frankly, when we said the upper 1 percent was going to pay just a little more in 1993, and all of you opposed it--all of you, to a person. And you said it would destroy the economy. Your leader at that point in time--I'm not sure it was the majority leader at that time--Dick Armey said that this would tank the economy.

He was 180 degrees wrong.

In fact, we experienced the best economy we have seen in this country in my lifetime, with 22 million new jobs in 8 years--216,000 jobs per month in the private sector. But unfortunately, under the economic program that we adopted in 2001, we saw the worst economy, the worst job production since Herbert Hoover.

Now, I'm going to vote for this bill because I think it does help the economy, but we are paying too great a price for it because, very frankly, I don't need a tax cut. That's not to say I don't want a tax cut. But it will not affect my life, and it will not affect the economy. It will exacerbate the debt. That's not good for my children or for our country.

So I would urge all of us, as we vote on this piece of legislation--whatever decision we make--to understand the message that we all received about growing the economy. That is why the President has made this deal that a lot of us don't like, because we think that it was unnecessary to adversely affect the deficit with $700 billion.

And because we have limited it to 2 years--it's less than that in terms of just the upper income--we did not have to pay that price. But we needed to pay the price. We needed to borrow the money to get this economy moving, to get the middle income people having dollars in their pockets so they can grow the economy. And that's worth the price because we will not solve the deficit problem if we don't get our economy growing. We cannot depress at the same time we try to grow, but we grow in the short term, and we solve the deficit in a little longer term.

So I'm going to vote for the Pomeroy amendment. And then in the final analysis, I will vote for this bill. I believe that folks need certainty, as has been said.

I urge my colleagues, as we vote on this legislation, to commit ourselves on both sides of this aisle to do what America wants us to do--to come together as we did. In 1993, we didn't. Some people lost their jobs because they voted with courage and conviction and correctness.

Ladies and gentlemen, there probably is nobody on this floor who likes this bill; and therefore, the judgment is: Is it better than doing nothing? Some of the business groups believe that it will help. I hope they are right. Not only do I hope they are right, I hope if we pass this bill that they respond and create the jobs that we know they have the resources to do.

This is a jobs bill, in my view, which is why I will vote for it. It could be a better jobs bill if we invested the money that we are giving to the wealthiest in America in job growth. It is a bill that will help those who have been unemployed week after week after week and whose angst has grown and grown and grown.

Ladies and gentlemen, each of us will do our duty as we see it, but let us when we do so pledge that we will do better in the months and years to come.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source