[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 154 (Tuesday, November 30, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H7651-H7658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 4783, CLAIMS
RESOLUTION ACT OF 2010
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1736 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1736
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
4783) to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable
cash contributions for the relief of victims of the
earthquake in Chile, and to extend the period from which such
contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in
Haiti may be accelerated, with the Senate amendments thereto,
and to consider in the House, without intervention of any
point of order, a single motion offered by the chair of the
Committee on Natural Resources or his designee that the House
concur in the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments shall
be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one
hour, with 50 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the
[[Page H7652]]
customary 30 minutes to my friend from North Carolina, (Dr. Foxx).
General Leave
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 1736.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1736 provides for the consideration
of the bill H.R. 4783, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. It makes in
order a motion to concur in the Senate amendment thereon by the
chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources. It provides 1 hour of
debate, with 50 minutes of debate controlled by the Natural Resources
Committee and 10 minutes controlled by the Ways and Means Committee.
The bill contains a number of important provisions, many of which
have already passed the House. It approves settlements in the class
action lawsuits brought against the United States Department of
Agriculture by African American farmers and against the Interior
Department by Native Americans.
The bill will fully fund America's obligations in these cases and
settles both the Cobell and Pigford class action lawsuits. Both of
these have been in the courts and settlement talks for years and years.
In Cobell, the Interior Department was ruled at fault for mismanaging
billions of dollars in grazing land, gas, and other royalties owed to
thousands of American Indians. This settlement will pay off roughly
500,000 plaintiffs in the case. In Pigford, the Agriculture Department
discriminated against thousands of African American farmers who applied
for loans and other assistance during the 1980s and 1990s.
The plaintiffs in these cases have waited decades for resolution of
this matter. Justice must not be delayed any further. Passing this
measure will bring closure for hundreds of thousands of Americans who
have been mistreated or had their rights violated by the government.
Passage will also approve four water rights settlements with American
Indian tribes, providing the tribes with funding to rehabilitate and
build new reservoirs, irrigation and water distribution systems. The
House has already approved three out of four of these settlements.
Another critical provision in this bill is the extension of Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families, also known as TANF. This comes at a time
when so many Americans are struggling financially and are due to lose
the support of this program if the House does not act. While the Senate
amendments we are considering today incur more costs in the short term,
over 10 years this bill will actually save money and reduce the
deficit.
On November 19, the Senate took up the bill, adopted an amendment in
the nature of a substitute, and passed the bill, all by unanimous
consent. The House must pass these measures without any further delay.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I am going to talk about this rule and the underlying
bill, but I have to say again, in response to our colleagues who were
speaking just before we began this debate, those across the aisle who
are in the majority by at least 39 votes, they are in the majority in
the Senate also, and they cannot continue to say that Republicans are
holding any bill hostage. We do not have the capability of holding
bills hostage in this House, and it is really a concern of mine and
some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle that our friends keep
making that comment. They can bring a bill up any time they want to,
just like we will be dealing with these five bills, six bills today.
They can't blame Republicans for their inadequacies.
{time} 1230
Madam Speaker, I have several concerns with the underlying bill that
the Democrats have brought before us today. For a start, this bill is
over 270 pages and costs over $5.7 billion; it is not PAYGO-compliant;
it was written behind closed doors in the dark of night; it does not
afford Republicans the opportunity to amend the legislation to improve
the bill and to make it more responsible to the taxpayer; and it
combines six pieces of controversial legislation of concern to my
colleagues on this side of the aisle.
While there may be merit in addressing each of these items
individually, to combine them in one single piece of legislation and to
force a single vote with full knowledge that Members and their
constituents have several outstanding concerns represents irresponsible
behavior. It does not represent the kind of governing that the people
of this country deserve.
I do want to say to my colleague across the aisle that Republicans
abhor any type of discrimination, and inasmuch as people have been
discriminated in this country in the past, we object to that. We abhor
it. So our objections have nothing to do with past discriminations but,
rather, with the way that money is being spent and the way bills are
being brought up continually under closed rules.
This bill contains two bills which settle two different class action
lawsuits and four bills approving four different water rights
settlements.
It provides $3.4 billion to approve a settlement reached by the
Department of the Interior and Native Americans to resolve the Cobell
v. Salazar case concerning the alleged mismanagement of royalties owed
to Native American tribes by the Department of the Interior.
There is merit to reaching a resolution to this longstanding case.
However, individual Native Americans and respected Native American
organizations have outstanding concerns with this settlement which they
have voiced directly to Congress. Instead of addressing these concerns,
Democrats have brought this bill to the floor under a structured rule
that does not allow Members the opportunity to fix the concerns.
One of the major concerns with this settlement is it allows plaintiff
attorneys to be paid in excess of $100 million. Since every dollar paid
to attorneys comes from the pockets of individual Native Americans,
Ranking Member Dreier offered an amendment last night in the Rules
Committee to limit attorneys' fees to $50 million, but his amendment
was rejected by the ruling Democrats, so we are unable to consider it
on the floor today.
The second individual bill contained in this legislation provides
$1.15 billion to approve the Pigford v. Glickman legal case in which
African American farmers alleged discrimination by the Department of
Agriculture when applying for loans in the 1980s and 1990s. Alarmingly,
when this case was originally brought forward in 1997, it was then
estimated that 2,000 farmers may have suffered from discrimination by
the USDA. Today, while the number widely varies, it is estimated that
approximately 65,000 potential claims exist.
Former Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer stated that, while those who
were discriminated against ``should be reimbursed,'' there are other
hangers-on trying to game the system. According to former Secretary
Schafer, ``The problem you have with the class action lawsuits is a lot
of people jump in that may be on the fringe, that maybe don't deserve
it, that sounded good because their neighbor got a check. It is very
expensive, very time consuming. Some people will get paid that probably
don't deserve it. I don't like that kind of thing. I like to settle on
merit.''
Therefore, the $1.15 billion provided in this bill may go to
claimants who do not have valid claims but, who due to the gross
incompetency of the Federal Government, may now receive fast-track
payments for up to $50,000 in taxpayer money. Approval of the Pigford
v. Glickman settlement is not PAYGO-compliant and is in addition to the
$100 million already provided for in this case by the 2008 farm bill.
The next four bills contained in this legislation are four separate
water rights settlements with Native American tribes. Taken together,
they direct the government to fund nearly $1 billion and to participate
in the construction and maintenance of the specified local water
systems.
[[Page H7653]]
The first water rights settlement included in this bill provides
$324.5 million to create a new rural water system with the White
Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona. The second water rights settlement
included in this bill provides $136 million to approve a settlement
agreement among the Taos Pueblo, the Federal Government and the State
of New Mexico. The third water rights settlement included in this bill
provides $465 million to approve the 1999 settlement between the Crow
Nation and the State of Montana. The fourth water rights settlement
included in this bill authorizes $199 million to approve the
controversial Aamodt Litigation Settlement in New Mexico.
Although some of these settlements are well-intended, there are
fiscal concerns and a multitude of unanswered questions that still need
to be addressed.
It is unclear whether these settlement amounts are in the best
interest of U.S. taxpayers. The Republicans on the Natural Resources
Committee asked the Department of Justice months ago whether these
settlement amounts represent a net benefit to taxpayers as compared to
the consequences and costs of litigation, but we have not yet received
a response.
Voting to approve these water rights settlements forces Congress to
be an arbitrator between sides involved in litigation. That is not a
role that Congress should be forced to assume without sufficient
information, information which still has not been provided by the
Department of Justice. These settlements would be better resolved at
the local level.
As Representatives, we owe it to our constituents to make sure
settlements are not being made that will overcompensate a group or
locality at the expense of the taxpayers. There is no documentation
that these settlements would save the taxpayers money, and therefore it
is unclear whether Congress is fulfilling its fiduciary
responsibilities to the taxpayer.
As my colleague from Colorado said a little bit ago, the philosophy
of our friends across the aisle is that spending saves money. That
isn't an argument that the American people are buying anymore. As you
can see, Madam Speaker, each of these six bills has individual concerns
that must be addressed on the floor of the House. Instead of affording
Members the opportunity to fix these bills, however, the bill before us
today is another representation of the failed Democrat strategy for
passing legislation: throw numerous bills together into one cumbersome
legislative vehicle; slap an outrageous price tag on it; waive PAYGO;
and call for an immediate vote under a structured rule which does not
allow for any amendments.
The American people have grown tired of waiting for real solutions to
their problems. Fortunately, help is on the way, and in January, this
House will set a new course toward protecting individual liberty and
shrinking the unending expansion of the suffocating Federal
bureaucracy. That's why I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
this irresponsible rule and on the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. In response to my friend from North Carolina, I would
say that the Republicans in the United States Senate are the ones who
have been holding up legislation just as this until they get what they
want. They put all these things together, and send it back to the
House.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, today I rise to urge the adoption of this
rule as well as the underlying bill.
I support this funding to right two historic wrongs that have
tarnished our Nation for far too long--the Pigford and Cobell
settlements. It is a sad truth that the USDA, under both Republican and
Democratic administrations, have previously engaged in well-documented
discrimination in loan, grant and trust programs.
These indefensible actions adversely affected thousands of African
American and Native American farmers. Patterns of discrimination
resulted in the foreclosures of family farms and in severe financial
hardships, some of which are still being felt to this day.
In my home State of Missouri, I have personally met with numerous
African American farmers who were misled, discriminated against and, in
some cases, deliberately deceived by the USDA. These descendants of
freed slaves were victimized by their own government time and time
again.
{time} 1240
In Congress, compensation for Pigford I, Pigford II and Cobell has
been blocked by partisan attempts to politicize this issue. This delay
is inexcusable. This is not about politics; it is a test of our
commitment to honesty, fairness, and justice for all.
Today we have a bipartisan opportunity to end this obstruction and
finally do the right thing for those whom this government has failed. I
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to exercise our shared
sense of American decency to swiftly pass this bill and the rule as we
take final action together to resolve this grave injustice.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Iowa
(Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for
yielding.
I come to the floor troubled, considerably troubled by--and in
opposition to the rule--by this Pigford settlement proposal that we've
heard about just now.
It was brought to my attention sometime after I was elected to
Congress. I had a number of Iowa USDA employees that were deployed to
Washington, D.C., and other locations to assist in administering the
Pigford I settlement. They distributed $1.05 billion to African
American farmers, some of whom were discriminated against. All of those
that were discriminated against I would agree, I think with all of my
colleagues, that they should be compensated to the degree that is
practicable by law. However, as I sat down with the individuals that
were administering the Pigford I settlement, and one of them came back
with a box of file forms and applications sick to his stomach and told
me that he had been compelled to engage in a practice that he believed
was 75 percent fraudulent at a minimum, I thought that was a high and
shocking number and put the information away until it emerged again and
again in this Congress. It emerged before the Judiciary Committee in
hearings before the committee on Pigford II to open it up again. There,
the president of the Black Farmers Organization, John Boyd, testified
under oath that there are 18,000 black farmers. As I go back through
the USDA records, I can find a peak of perhaps as many as 36,000, but
his number of 18,000 sticks in my mind. We are up to 94,000 claims,
Madam Speaker, and 18,000 black farmers. And if you presume that
everyone was discriminated against--which I reject on its face--we are
looking at something here that is a multiplier beyond what this
Congress ever intended. And as the gentlelady from North Carolina said,
an anticipated couple of thousand applicants turns into now 90,000-plus
applicants, of which perhaps two-thirds of them may be successful in
their $50,000 stipend.
There was a statute of limitations. That consent decree was closed
April 14, 1999, and since that time it has been opened up a second
time. The Ag Committee is the other component of this. Myself and
Congressman Goodlatte of Virginia are the only two that serve on
Judiciary and on Ag. There, in the 2008 farm bill, the chairman of the
Ag Committee, Mr. Peterson, put in $100 million to be the end, the
settlement of Pigford. That was going to be the end of it for all time.
We had an intense conversation on that. I said it will be an additional
$1.3 billion; he insisted that $100 million would end it. I have the
language here, Madam Speaker, that puts the cap on this at $100
million. Here we are, 2 short years later, with $1.3 billion, and the
people that I'm talking to that have administered this at higher levels
yet than those that first brought it to my attention tell me that the
levels of fraud are higher yet. And it is not just $50,000, it's
$50,000 plus 25 percent of that check that goes to the IRS to pay the
tax liability, so there's another $12,500. Judge Paul Friedman
estimated the debt that would be forgiven would be an average of
$100,000 per black farmer and another 25 percent IRS checks. So we're
at $187,500, and still this Congress has no access to the records other
than
[[Page H7654]]
those that have been spirited out of the USDA.
So it isn't just that we should not fund this; there is no deal.
There was no Congress directive that sent Eric Holder and Tom Vilsack
to sit down with John Boyd of the Black Farmers and make a new deal and
come to this Congress and say appropriate $1.5 billion additional
dollars to fund the Pigford II. That was their elective. In fact, that
was their elective in the face of Congress' direction that it would be
capped at $100 million in the 2008 farm bill. There is no deal unless
Congress authorizes this today. And if we do so, we are asking Members
that haven't had access to the information to ratify an agreement that
was put together by Eric Holder and Tom Vilsack at their own volition,
not by the direction of Congress.
The next Congress has an obligation to look into these records and
check the data and follow through the threads of fraud and be honest
with the American taxpayers and make sure that those that have been
discriminated against are compensated. But the central point here is
this, Madam Speaker: For the altogether $2.3 billion that the taxpayers
have accepted this liability, there hasn't been one USDA employee that
has been fired or disciplined, not one. And the Secretary of
Agriculture tells me he's not willing to relitigate Pigford I, he's not
willing to open up the records to allow us to look at it, and he's not
willing to allow us to look over his shoulder to assure that Pigford II
is less fraudulent than Pigford I.
For all of these reasons, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
rule and ``no'' on the bill.
H.R. 2419 SEC. 14012. DETERMINATION ON MERITS OF PIGFORD CLAIMS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Consent Decree.--The term `consent decree' means the
consent decree in the case of Pigford v. Glickman, approved
by the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia on April 14, 1999.
(2) Department.--The term `Department' means the Department
of Agriculture.
(3) Pigford Claim.--The term `Pigford claim' means a
discrimination complaint, as defined by section 1(h) of the
consent decree and documented under section 5(b) of the
consent decree.
(4) Pigford Claimant.--The term `Pigford claimant' means an
individual who previously submitted a late-filing request
under section 5(g) of the consent decree.
(b) Determination on Merits.--Any Pigford claimant who has
not previously obtained a determination on the merits of a
Pigford claim may, in a civil action brought in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, obtain
that determination.
(c) Limitation.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), all payments or
debt relief (including any limitation on foreclosure under
subsection (h)) shall be made exclusively from funds made
available under subsection (i).
(2) Maximum amount.--The total amount of payments and debt
relief pursuant to actions commenced under subsection (b)
shall not exceed $100,000,000.
(d) Intent of Congress as to Remedial Nature of Section.--
It is the intent of Congress that this section be liberally
construed so as to effectuate its remedial purpose of giving
a full determination on the merits for each Pigford claim
previously denied that determination.
(e) Loan Data.--
(1) Report to person submitting petition.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the
Secretary receives notice of a complaint filed by a claimant
under subsection (b), the Secretary shall provide to the
claimant a report on farm credit loans and noncredit
benefits, as appropriate, made within the claimant's county
(or if no documents are found, within an adjacent county as
determined by the claimant), by the Department during the
period beginning on January 1 of the year preceding the
period covered by the complaint and ending on December 31
of the year following the period.
(B) Requirements.--A report under subparagraph (A) shall
contain information on all persons whose application for a
loan or benefit was accepted, including--
(i) the race of the applicant;
(ii) the date of application;
(iii) the date of the loan or benefit decision, as
appropriate;
(iv) the location of the office making the loan or benefit
decision, as appropriate;
(v) all data relevant to the decisionmaking process for the
loan or benefit, as appropriate; and
(vi) all data relevant to the servicing of the loan or
benefit, as appropriate.
(2) No personally identifiable information.--The reports
provided pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not contain any
information that would identify any person who applied for a
loan from the Department.
(3) Reporting deadline.--
(A) In General.--The Secretary shall--
(i) provide to claimants the reports required under
paragraph (1) as quickly as practicable after the Secretary
receives notice of a complaint filed by a claimant under
subsection (b); and
(ii) devote such resources of the Department as are
necessary to make providing the reports expeditiously a high
priority of the Department.
(B) Extension.--A court may extend the deadline for
providing the report required in a particular case under
paragraph (1) if the Secretary establishes that meeting the
deadline is not feasible and demonstrates a continuing effort
and commitment to provide the required report expeditiously.
(f) Expedited Resolutions Authorized.--
(1) In general.--Any person filing a complaint under this
section for discrimination in the application for, or making
or servicing of, a farm loan, at the discretion of the
person, may seek liquidated damages of $50,000, discharge of
the debt that was incurred under, or affected by, the 1 or
more programs that were the subject of the 1 or more
discrimination claims that are the subject of the person's
complaint, and a tax payment in the amount equal to 25
percent of the liquidated damages and loan principal
discharged, in which case--
(A) if only such damages, debt discharge, and tax payment
are sought, the complainant shall be able to prove the case
of the complainant by substantial evidence (as defined in
section 1(1) of the consent decree); and
(B) the court shall decide the case based on a review of
documents submitted by the complainant and defendant relevant
to the issues of liability and damages.
(2) Noncredit claims.--
(A) Standard.--In any case in which a claimant asserts a
noncredit claim under a benefit program of the Department,
the court shall determine the merits of the claim in
accordance with section 9(b)(i) of the consent decree.
(B) Relief.--A claimant who prevails on a claim of
discrimination involving a noncredit benefit program of the
Department shall be entitled to a payment by the Department
in a total amount of $3,000, without regard to the number of
such claims on which the claimant prevails.
(g) Actual Damages.--A claimant who files a claim under
this section for discrimination under subsection (b) but not
under subsection (f) and who prevails on the claim shall be
entitled to actual damages sustained by the claimant.
(h) Limitation on Foreclosures.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, during the pendency of a Pigford claim, the
Secretary may not begin acceleration on or foreclosure of a
loan if--
(1) the borrower is a Pigford claimant; and
(2) makes a prima facie case in an appropriate
administrative proceeding that the acceleration or
foreclosure is related to a Pigford claim.
(i) Funding.--
(1) In general.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary shall make available for payments
and debt relief in satisfaction of claims against the United
States under subsection (b) and for any actions under
subsection (g) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, to remain
available until expended.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to funds
made available under paragraph (1), there are authorized to
be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this
section.
(j) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act and every 180 days thereafter until
the funds made available under subsection (i) are depleted,
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate a report that describes the status of
available funds under subsection (i) and the number of
pending claims under subsection (f).
(2) Depletion of funds report.--In addition to the reports
required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate a report that notifies the Committees when 75 percent
of the funds made available under subsection (i)(1) have been
depleted.
(k) Termination of Authority.--The authority to file a
claim under this section terminates 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would just say to my friend from Iowa that the
settlement now applies to all African American farmers who were
discriminated against, not just those that filed their claim by 1997,
and as a consequence, it's a much broader class that is being settled
with. We just can't have this kind of discrimination going on in this
country, and America needs to pay its debts and not allow this kind of
discrimination to go forward.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Ohio,
Congresswoman Fudge.
Ms. FUDGE. Thank you for the time.
Madam Speaker, here we go again. It's just a matter of delay, delay,
no, no, no.
Eleven years ago, tens of thousands of black farmers settled a
landmark
[[Page H7655]]
court case which addressed years and years of discrimination by the
Department of Agriculture. Finally, finally, today, Madam Speaker,
these farmers, these men and women who literally put food on our tables
are receiving justice.
While litigation against the USDA for discrimination against black
farmers began in August of 1997 with the Pigford and Glickman case, the
injustice has spanned decades. Over 66,000 black farmers were routinely
denied USDA farm loans or forced to wait, to wait and wait for loan
approvals much longer than non-minorities. These farmers faced
foreclosure and financial ruin because of USDA's discriminatory denials
and unconscionable actions. Many of these farmers died, helplessly,
hopelessly waiting for justice. Today, finally this Congress will pass
the funding legislation, which is about more than just money; today's
vote is about justice.
Now, make no mistake, I do indeed take issue with redirecting money
from our Nation's needy infants and children to right this wrong.
However, justice delayed is justice denied, and I would hope that my
colleagues across the aisle who keep talking about fraud, we've been
talking about Pigford for years, if there is fraud, where is your
proof? Madam Speaker, I say today that there is no fraud. The courts
have put in every single hoop they can possibly put in for black
farmers to jump through. It is time for us to pay these people their
just due.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think the debate on this bill today points out why we have such a
broken system in this country right now.
{time} 1250
The Federal Government has no business being in the farm business. We
need to get our Federal Government back to the intended purposes of the
Federal Government, which are very limited in our Constitution. Every
time the Federal Government gets involved in things it has no business
getting involved in, they go awry, and I think the arguments from our
colleagues across the aisle point that out.
I also want to point out that contrary to statements repeated over
and over again by our colleagues across the aisle, Americans have not
enjoyed any tax cuts in the past 4 years since they have been in charge
of this Congress. To the contrary, the House Republican Ways and Means
Committee has highlighted more than $680 billion in tax increases that
have been imposed on the American people since the ruling liberal
Democrats took control of Washington in January of 2009. Now, because
of Democrat inaction, the American people are looking at the largest
tax increase in the history of our country, which would affect all
married couples, all families with children, seniors, and small
businesses. That would destroy an average of 693 jobs every year
through 2020; drain $726 billion from disposable income, $38 billion
from personal savings, and $33 billion from business investments.
That would raise taxes on the 55 percent of all joint filers earning
more than $250,000 who run small businesses that employ others; cost
the average nonfarm small business owner $3,500 more in taxes; cost the
49 percent of all seniors with income below $250,000 525 more dollars
in additional dividend taxes, and cost the 25 percent of seniors with
income below $250,000 $742 in higher taxes.
President Obama's plan to allow portions of the 2001 and 2003 tax
rates to expire, resulting in steep tax hikes beginning in January of
2011 for small businesses and those earning $250,000 or more would
significantly affect the economy in North Carolina, most notably in the
number of jobs and changes in personal income.
According to the Heritage Foundation, from 2011 to 2020, North
Carolina's Fifth Congressional District would lose, on average, 1,577
jobs annually; lose, per household, $4,647 in total disposable income;
and see total districtwide individual income taxes increase by $827
million.
The job-killing consequences continue with evidence based on a
simulation of the Moody's Analytics macroeconomic model, which
indicates that an across-the-board tax increase would precipitate a
double-dip recession during the first half of 2011; leave employment in
decline throughout 2011, ultimately leading to 8.6 million fewer jobs
than we had in 2007; aggravate the unemployment rate, which would
remain above 10 percent through late 2012; promote a sluggish GDP
growth of 0.9 percent in 2011; and prevent a return to full employment
until 2015.
Although the proposal to increase income taxes for those earning over
$250,000 technically applies to 2 percent of taxpayers, the simple
truth is that the top two income brackets play a critical role in
keeping the economy running, as they already contribute 50 percent of
all tax dollars, spend 25 percent of U.S. personal outlays, and
generate 50 percent of small business income.
Those with income under $250,000 will be impacted by the increase in
dividends and capital gains taxes as 24 percent of tax filers with
incomes less than $250,000 would be hit by increased dividend taxes and
10 percent by increased capital gains taxes. Furthermore, half of
seniors earning under $250,000 would have to pay higher taxes for
dividends, capital gains, or both. Over the next 10 years, the Heritage
Foundation projects a $1.1 trillion GDP loss if current tax rates are
not extended.
The case is clear. The Democrats' misguided tax plan is motivated by
class warfare, not sound economic policy.
Fortunately, Americans roundly rejected this incompetent governance
and Republicans stand ready to promote policies to help restore
America's economic vitality.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would remind the body that we're
here to discuss Cobell v. Salazar, Pigford v. Glickman, plus the
settlement of a number of water right cases.
But even having said that, I would like to respond to my friend from
North Carolina that not even the Republican Congress that set forth
these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires thought they would go
on forever. They set them so that they would expire at the end of this
year so that this Nation would have the revenue that it needs to pay
its bills. But the Republicans who have now taken this House want to
continue those tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires so that this
country can't pay its bills as it's supposed to.
So the tax cuts, prosecuting two wars without paying for them,
allowing the bottom to fall out of Wall Street without any regulation
sent this country into a huge deficit which has to stop, and it has to
stop now.
Now, we've seen, since we've passed the Recovery Act, growth in the
economy, not that loss of 6 percent as we saw in the final quarter of
the Bush administration. But we've seen five consecutive quarters of
growth. We've seen increased employment from the private sector. We
have a long way to go, and tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires
are not the way to do it.
With that, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Texas,
Congresswoman Jackson Lee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank my good friend from Colorado,
and I will agree with you that this underlying bill is not a bill about
billionaires and millionaires.
I am delighted to rise now and support H.R. 4783, which has been
amended by the Senate. And I will tell you that this bill is not an
entitlement. It is a bill that was earned by the sweat and tears and
the loss of land and the death of many who stood for the empowerment on
the basis of the ownership of land that would generate a legacy for
those who happened to be Native Americans and, as well, justice for
those who happened to be African Americans.
I'm delighted that we have come to a conclusion on the Cobell
settlement and the Pigford settlement--one dealing with the trust lands
of Native Americans, and the other dealing with the inequities in the
Department of Agriculture dealing with black farmers.
This is the work of the Agriculture Committee, and it's the work of
the Judiciary Committee, the Department of Justice, and President
Obama's administration.
How many of you have stood alongside of farmers who have had tears in
their eyes because the only thing they wanted to do is to till the soil
and to produce for the American people? This has happened across
America. The
[[Page H7656]]
name of Shirley Sherrod, who attempted in her new appointment to make
sure that all farmers were included as related to the resources of the
Department of Agriculture. How many of you have heard of stories where
one farmer would get a small pittance of a loan and another farmer
would not just because of the color of their skin, and it would result
in a bankruptcy, a loss of land?
America is a place of equality. And so to the Apache Tribe, the Crow
Tribe, the Taos Pueblo Tribe dealing with water rights, legitimate
issues addressing native lands have now been resolved. This is not a
handout. The courts determined that the Native Americans prevailed, and
they determined over 2 or 3 years ago that the black farmers prevailed
as well. There was an inequity in addressing the question of treatment
under the Department of Agriculture.
So who are we as a Nation? We are proud Americans who have been able
to produce our own food. That has been one of the elements of our
greatness. These farmers simply wanted to do what was right by America,
and they were not allowed to do so.
And with respect to Native American lands and the trust of dealing
with, specifically, water rights, these were lands owned and designated
historically by law, but they were not treated right and we have now
addressed that question.
{time} 1300
This legislation is paid for. So I support the rule and the
underlying bill. But I don't want my colleagues to rise mistakenly to
the floor and suggest that we are handing out dollars, that we are not
paying for dollars, that we are not being fiscally responsible. We are.
And I ask my colleagues to support this.
Justice finally has arrived, and it is time for us to accept the call
to justice and provide for those who simply want to provide for the
American people in their own way. Thank you for this settlement for
black farmers and Native Americans.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I realize that we are here to debate something other than the
continuation of the tax cuts and staving off the tax increases which
are coming right around the corner. However, it is important that we
continue to remind the American people that our colleagues across the
aisle continue to refuse to deal with what's the most important issue
that we need to be dealing with. Instead, we are here day after day,
day after day naming post offices and celebrating anniversaries of
sports figures when our colleagues have known that the tax increases
were going to occur on January 1, 2011, since that bill was passed. But
they have been in control for 4 years, and they have refused to deal
with it.
Furthermore, we have a President and a Congress of the same party.
They both know this had to be dealt with, but they seem to want to
leave everything until the last possible minute and then blame
Republicans because something isn't being done. Well, ladies and
gentlemen, that is just not the case. Our colleagues across the aisle,
the Democrats, are in control. They could have brought the tax increase
bill up any time they wanted to. They refused to do it. They have left
it until the last minute. We need to remind the American people of
that, and we are not going to be told that we are holding something
hostage.
I would also like to point out to my colleague from Colorado that
when the stimulus bill was passed, what you call the Recovery Act, we
were promised, the American people were promised that unemployment
would not go above 8 percent. The Treasury Department recently issued
its Final Monthly Treasury Statement for Fiscal Year 2010. This
statement indicated the deficit for that fiscal year totaled $1.294
trillion, or 8.9 percent of GDP. This is only the second time in
history that an annual deficit has exceeded $1 trillion. When was the
last time? Last year, when again we had a Democratic President and
Democrats in control of the Congress.
Over the past 22 months, President Obama and congressional Democrats
have embarked on an unprecedented spending spree that has lowered
economic growth, reduced investment, increased the cost of borrowing,
and killed American jobs. Now, rather than reducing spending, Democrats
hope to move a $1.11 trillion omnibus discretionary spending bill that
would increase expenditures by hundreds of billions of dollars. In
doing so, Democrats are ignoring the clear message of the American
people and endangering the well-being of future generations.
Since President Obama took office in January 2009, the liberals
ruling over Washington have implemented an agenda of record spending
and deficits that's unprecedented in this country's history. Since the
liberals seized control of the White House and Congress last year,
profligate spending has led to $2.51 trillion in budget deficits. To
give a little perspective, the total amount of deficit spending in the
first 22 months of President Obama's administration is more than the
combined deficits of President Bush 43's administration over 8 years,
which were previously the highest deficits of any President in history.
In the 22 months since President Obama moved into the White House,
Democrats have spent $6.1 trillion, which is more than the first 22
months of the administrations of President Clinton and Bush 43
combined.
The Treasury Department reported that in October 2010 alone, the
government spent $24.1 billion to make interest payments on the money
it borrowed. In fiscal year 2010, the government has spent $414 billion
on interest payments, an amount equal to 32 percent of our deficit.
Americans made it very clear they want the Washington spending spree
to end. Democrats, however, have turned a deaf ear, and still want to
pass a disastrous $1.1 trillion spending bill in the lame duck session
of Congress. The growing deficits under the Democrats' leadership will
ultimately lead to a lower standard of living and less opportunity for
future generations of Americans. As spending by the Federal Government
grows to unsustainable levels, the U.S. will sacrifice its sovereignty
by becoming dependent on debt borrowed from foreign countries. As the
Nation's debt grows, confidence in financial markets will erode and
propel the U.S. into a perpetual economic spiral.
Everything from a senseless energy tax, government takeover of health
care, bailouts of the auto industry, megabanks, and the European Union,
combined with endless tax and spending increases leave the American
people sitting in amazement wondering where the imagination of these
European wannabes will lead us next.
As the American people have been scared to death witnessing the
deterioration of everything from the economy, foreign policy, and
national security, they should know that fortunately there is a choice
between the same old tired liberal agenda and new, innovative solutions
being offered by the GOP.
In September, House Republicans put forward a pledge that will put
America on a path toward economic prosperity. The pledge includes
actions that will create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make
America more competitive. Specifically, the pledge would permanently
stop all job-killing tax hikes; allow small business owners a 20
percent tax deduction against income to allow capital formation and
investment, which will stimulate business expansion and new hiring;
require congressional approval of costly regulations to reduce the cost
burden that government growth imposes on businesses; repeal the
ObamaCare 1099 requirement, to eliminate the wasteful and expensive
mandate that all businesses report vendor purchases in excess of $600
annually; immediately cut government spending to pre-bailout levels to
save at least $100 billion in the first year, and put the Federal
Government on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt,
moving away from a debt-driven economy, and eliminating the fear that
unsustainable spending has created.
The evidence is in, Madam Speaker: The liberal Democrat agenda has
failed. They need to go back to the drawing board and come back to the
American people with real solutions to their real problems. This isn't
the time to dither and blame the Republican minority for the
disappointing collapse of governance we have seen since the liberal
majority seized control of Congress in 2007.
I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to force the ruling
liberal
[[Page H7657]]
Democrats to rethink their misguided proposals by rejecting this rule
and the underlying bill to protest the liberal agenda that continues to
distract from private sector job creation and getting the economy back
on its feet.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I guess I have a completely opposite
view of my friend from North Carolina as to the importance of this
bill. The payment for wrongs against thousands and thousands and
thousands of people that were delayed under Republican Congresses,
Republican Presidents, it is about time that we settle these cases and
pay the bills to people who were either discriminated against or had
their trust moneys bungled by the Interior Department.
We actually, through the course of all this, had one Interior
Secretary under a Republican President who got herself in trouble.
Ultimately, it was all resolved. Now it's time to settle these
particular cases. Decades of litigation, decades of settlement talks.
It is a red-letter day that the discrimination and the mismanagement
that harmed so many people are resolved.
{time} 1310
That's the purpose. That's why this has been a bipartisan bill and I
hope will be a bipartisan vote later today when we take up the bill.
There are 500,000 Native Americans whose communities were deprived of
revenue rightfully and legally owed to them for commercial development
of their land. There are thousands of other Native Americans whose
communities will benefit by completing long overdue water projects.
There are also 70,000 farmers in the Pigford case who were deprived
of their ability to farm because of their race, out and out
discrimination. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will receive some
help this holiday season because we will extend temporary assistance
for needy families.
My Republican friends like to talk about tax cuts for millionaires
and billionaires, tax cuts that were supposed to expire, have been
planned to expire by a Republican Congress from the beginning of the
decade. This isn't something new. This isn't some big surprise. But the
Republicans in the House and the Republicans in the Senate would like
to hole up and do nothing until their friends, the millionaires and
billionaires, continue these tax cuts, and at the same time stop
payment and satisfaction of claims that have been long overdue to these
hundreds of thousands of Native Americans and thousands and thousands
of black farmers, as well as millions of people who need assistance
under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
This country pays its bills, doesn't just give tax cuts to the
wealthiest Americans among us. That's what this Democratic Congress is
about. That's what the Democratic Senate and this President is about.
It is about honoring our commitments and stopping discrimination.
I am pleased we are going to pass this bill today, and I hope that
all Members support it and not delay any further these rightful claims
that have existed for so long.
With that I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the
rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Madam 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 223,
nays 168, not voting 42, as follows:
[Roll No. 583]
YEAS--223
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Heinrich
Herger
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Yarmuth
NAYS--168
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Tim
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--42
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bishop (UT)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Carney
Chandler
Cleaver
Conyers
Davis (AL)
DeFazio
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, M.
Edwards (TX)
Fallin
Fudge
Giffords
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Himes
Honda
Inglis
Langevin
Lee (CA)
Marchant
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Oberstar
Ortiz
Putnam
Radanovich
Ros-Lehtinen
Shadegg
Taylor
Tiahrt
Tsongas
Wamp
Waxman
Wittman
Woolsey
Wu
{time} 1343
Messrs. RYAN of Wisconsin, SMITH of Texas, BERRY, and KING of Iowa
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H7658]]
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. Giffords. Madam Speaker, on November 30, 2010, I missed a vote on
the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4783, the Claims
Resolution Act of 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''
on this measure.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, a meeting at the Department of Commerce
prevented my presence in the House for a vote earlier today. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to concur in the
Senate Amendments to the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (H.R. 4783).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on November 30, 2010, I was unavoidably
detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 583. Had I
been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 583: ``yes''--Providing
for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 4783) to
accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions
for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Chile, and to extend the
period from which such contributions for the relief of victims of the
earthquake in Haiti may be accelerated.
____________________