[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 20, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H9978-H9982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3630, MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF AND 
                        JOB CREATION ACT OF 2011

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The Clerk designated the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the motion 
is considered read.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

       Mr. Hoyer moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3630 be instructed 
     to recede from disagreement to the Senate amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Camp) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  It is December 20, and the Republicans are using it as a day to 
dissemble, pretending to support a tax cut for working Americans while 
making it uncertain and delayed.
  We, of course, as we all know, could pass the Senate bill by 2 
o'clock today, send it to the President, and provide certainty to 
working Americans come January 1 that their taxes will not go up.
  The choice, I suggest to all of you, is not between 60 days and 1 
year, because at least we all say we're for 1 year--we are for 1 year, 
we will support a 1-year extension--but we know the Senate has been 
unable to agree. So they sent us back an agreement that they could 
agree on to give us 60 days to get to that 1 year.
  Instead, House Republicans refuse to even bring the Senate's 
bipartisan compromise to the floor. Eighty-nine U.S. Senators voted for 
a compromise, and you will not bring it to the floor. You create 
uncertainty and anxiety among the public.

                              {time}  1300

  That is shameful and disappointing.
  As a result, on January 1, if there is no agreement, those of you who 
vote to send this to conference today and against this motion to 
instruct will be responsible for 160 million Americans seeing their 
taxes increase next year, for 2.3 million people seeking jobs who will 
lose their unemployment lifeline by mid-February, and for 48 million 
Americans having their access to doctors placed in jeopardy.
  Those are the stakes.
  America thought we had an agreement this weekend. John McCain thought 
we had an agreement this Saturday--and yes, Speaker Boehner thought we 
had an agreement on Saturday. America thought there was reason to hope 
that middle class Americans would be spared this entirely preventable 
tax increase.
  I tell you, my friends, if this were about the upper income tax 
increase, it would pass like lightning in your conference--like 
lightning. But no. This is about putting in jeopardy a middle class tax 
cut, and we could play political games with that. We're now witnessing 
the concluding convulsion of confrontation and obstruction in this most 
unproductive, Tea Party-dominated, partisan session of Congress. As a 
result, Speaker Boehner decided he wasn't for the agreement.
  Now let me tell you what Speaker Boehner said 6 months ago, because 
there was a lot of talk about this 1-year extension. He called 
proposals to extend or expand the payroll tax cut at that point by a 
year ``another little short-term gimmick.''
  Same rhetoric. Different circumstances. But both put at risk the 
middle class.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield myself an additional minute.
  In Senate Republican Leader McConnell's own words, ``The compromise 
that you are rejecting today was designed to pass.''
  In fact, the bill that you passed you knew was designed to fail. 
Because you knew it was going to fail, your Republican leadership in 
the Senate objected to its being considered on the floor of the United 
States Senate, just as you have refused to consider the Senate's 
compromise on this floor.
  It did so in the Senate. That bill that was designed to pass, 
according to Senator McConnell, did so in the Senate with overwhelming 
support from 83 percent of Republicans and from every Democrat, 
including the entire Senate Republican leadership and the entire 
Democratic leadership.
  Democrats, Mr. Speaker, are fighting to prevent a painful tax 
increase for the middle class. The way to do that is to pass the Senate 
compromise while we continue to work on a yearlong extension. That's 
what Senator Reid said he'll do, Mr. Speaker, and that's what we're 
prepared to do, Mr. Speaker. But we don't want to put at risk January 1 
coming and that tax cut disappearing. If they fail to pass the 
compromise, House Republicans will have to answer to the American 
people whose taxes will go up.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield myself an additional minute.
  To the innocent unemployed and to the Medicare seniors who are 
seeking services from their doctors, we must not leave this work 
unfinished just days before the holidays and New Year. That's what the 
Senate did. They gave us time. They gave the American people time. We 
ought to be bringing relief to middle class families who are 
increasingly anxious about their futures during what should be a joyful 
and hopeful holiday season.
  We ought to pass the bipartisan Senate bill. That's what this motion 
to instruct says. That's what the American people want to happen in 
Washington: to see us work together, come to agreement, act, bring 
certainty, stop the blame game. We can send the bipartisan agreement to 
the President today, and he will sign it.
  Vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct. Vote for the American 
workers, the Medicare recipient, and the unemployed. Vote for this 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to my good friend from 
New York, Joe Crowley, a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New 
York will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
instruct, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say to my good friend from Maryland that we just voted 
on the Senate amendment. It was rejected by this House.
  Just yesterday, Minority Leader Pelosi told the media, ``I don't 
think we should go to conference.'' In those same reports, the minority 
leader said that, if the House passes a motion to go to conference on 
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, she would not appoint 
any House Democrats to participate in the negotiations.
  Set aside for a moment that a conference committee is the established 
way for resolving differences between the House and the Senate. It's an 
idea that was best articulated by Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding 
Fathers and someone who provided the foundation for the rules of this 
House. Set aside the fact that Democrats are, with 2 weeks left before 
critical programs expire, refusing to work. Instead, let's just focus 
on what the leader of House Democrats said.
  The minority leader declared that she would not appoint any House 
Democrats to a conference committee. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 
has echoed those same comments. So I

[[Page H9979]]

ask them: Who are the Democrats seeking to instruct with this motion? 
If the Democrats won't even appoint conferees, how can they instruct 
conferees?
  Clearly, this is nothing more than a partisan, political stunt that 
keeps us from doing what the President has asked us to do and what 
House Republicans have agreed to do: pass a 1-year extension of the 
payroll tax holiday and a 1-year extension of unemployment benefits.
  Turning to the substance of the motion to instruct for a minute, it 
seems like we've already debated this today. The motion asks the House 
to recede to the position of the Senate, meaning the deeply flawed bill 
that would sunset in 2 months and that payroll providers, job 
providers--experts--have said would be administratively unworkable, and 
that even the administration concedes would pose challenges for 
employers.
  I urge the defeat of this motion to instruct, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just sitting here, I was contemplating the end of the year. At the 
end of the business that we will conduct today, men and women from both 
sides of the aisle will pass each other in the well or in the hallway, 
and we'll wish each other health for the New Year. We'll wish each 
other goodness, happiness. We'll all look forward to going back to our 
home districts and to spending time with our families, with our 
friends, to looking back on the year, assessing the good things that 
have happened and some of the not so good things, but primarily 
focusing on the good things that have happened to all of us this year.
  When I often say to people, ``I wish you peace. I wish you peace in 
the new year,'' I wish you a peaceful mind is what I'm suggesting, of 
getting home to relax.
  Nothing that we are doing today will give peace of mind to the middle 
class in this country. Nothing that we will do today will give them 
that peace of mind, and I think that is more than regrettable. It's 
unacceptable that men and women in this country are struggling--
hardworking middle class people who are desperately trying to keep 
their homes, to afford college educations for their children, to afford 
health care, to be able to see their doctors, who are trying to put 
food on their tables, to pay their heat bills, and maybe to afford the 
rent.

                              {time}  1310

  This is not a story that is only in my district. This is the story of 
middle America in every district, be they held by a Democrat or a 
Republican.
  What we've seen over the past few months is a complete turnaround. 
Two months ago, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle rejected 
the President's proposal for a payroll tax cut for the middle class; 
and now we're coming to the end of the year, and we're running out of 
time. And my friends on the other side of the aisle have had a 
conversion. They now see the wisdom to extending this payroll tax. But 
now they are criticizing us because we have a bill before us that has 
passed in a bipartisan way in the Senate, 89 votes, that will extend 
this payroll tax reduction for the middle class for an additional 2 
months.
  Now, I could understand that if that was all we were going to do, you 
could complain about it. But we'll have an opportunity to come back 
within the next 2 months and do it for the rest of the year. Quite 
frankly, we can make it permanent, as far as I am concerned. But we can 
come back and do that. We ought not be squabbling now about time when 
it's only 2 months.
  Don't pretend that you are working on behalf of the middle class. 
Don't pretend you are the working class hero. You are not. You are not.
  Cheryl Williams, a constituent of mine from the Bronx--one of the 
many middle class workers in my district--will have to pay an extra 
$1,000 to afford heating oil for their home if they do not get this tax 
decrease that they have been hoping for and reading about that was 
supposed to happen. Now all of a sudden, it may not happen.
  I just want to remind my colleagues, this is not ``cotton candy 
economics.'' One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. 
Ryan, used the term, This is cotton candy economics. This is not 
``cotton candy economics,'' Mr. Speaker. This is bread and butter 
economics for my constituents and for the middle class.
  The word ``disingenuous'' doesn't do justice to what is happening 
here today. This is either an extension of a $1,000 tax cut or it's 
not. It's as simple as that. It's either a tax cut for the middle class 
or it's not. A ``no'' vote is a vote against a middle class tax cut. It 
is just that simple. Don't do this now. Give the American people the 
peace of mind they deserve this holiday season. Let them know that this 
tax cut will be extended.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding.
  As I was attempting to eat my lunch, I heard my name invoked more 
than once about what I did and what I didn't do. I just want all of my 
colleagues to know that the President asked us to extend the payroll 
tax credit for a year, asked us to extend unemployment benefits, and 
asked us to extend the current payment schedule for doctors who treat 
Medicare patients.
  My colleagues and I, on a bipartisan basis, last week passed such a 
bill, the same kind of bill that was requested by the minority leader, 
the minority whip, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. 
This bill is going to cost about $200 billion. We found a reasonable 
offset to make sure that we were taking care of the Social Security 
trust fund and not depleting it unnecessarily. As I said, the bill 
passed the House with a bipartisan vote.
  Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol 
decided to do what happens around here all too often: it's too hard to 
figure it out. We're getting close to Christmas. We're going to leave. 
We're going to punt. And we're going to send a 2-month bill over.
  My colleague from New York was arguing for what's basically a $1,000 
tax cut for the average American family. And I'm here to say to my 
colleague, that's exactly what we're fighting for. As I see the debate 
today, you are arguing for a $166 tax cut because it's only for 2 
months. I am going to give the average American family a $1,000 tax 
cut; and that means doing this for 12 months, as the President 
requested.
  Who doesn't believe that if we don't do this now that when we get to 
February 28, guess where we'll be--we'll be right here doing the same 
thing that we're doing right now.
  I just think the American people expect us to do our work. We've got 
10 days to do our work. We can resolve the differences between the 
House and Senate bill. Everybody wants this extended for a year, but it 
just happens to be inconvenient for some to try to resolve it at this 
point. Why? Because we're getting close to the holidays.
  My colleagues and I are here and are prepared to do our work. We've 
just made a motion to go to conference with the Senate. As my 
colleagues know, this is the regular order of how Congress works. The 
House passes a bill. The Senate passes a different bill. We go to 
conference to resolve the differences. All we're asking is that our 
colleagues on the other side of the Capitol come back to town, sit 
down, and resolve our differences. Let's do this once; and let's do it 
the right way, for once.
  So I would say to my colleagues, we can turn the rhetoric down. We 
don't have to get overly excited. There's no disagreement here. There's 
no disagreement at all about the fact that everyone wants to extend 
this for the next year. The only question is, When do people want to do 
it? Some want to kick the can down the road and wait until February. 
Then on February 28, we'll be sitting here looking at each other in the 
same way. Why don't we just do it now and give the American people a 
real Christmas present?
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, we had 3 months to do this bill. 
Unfortunately, we waited for the last 2 weeks to take this bill up. 
It's unfortunate.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my very good friend, the distinguished gentleman 
from New York.

[[Page H9980]]

  Mr. Speaker, with all due respect in the world, the Speaker of the 
House said, We shouldn't kick the can. What they are doing, Mr. 
Speaker, is they are kicking the middle class in the stomach.
  This is a partisan middle class mugging. The only part of the middle 
class tax cut that the Republicans don't like is the ``middle class'' 
part, which is why they are trying every obfuscation, every flip-flop, 
every flim-flam, every excuse they can come up with.
  The latest excuse is, We ought to go through regular order. I cannot 
imagine a single American opening up their paychecks in January, seeing 
that there's $100 or $200 less and saying, If only they had gone 
through regular order. If only they had gone to a House-Senate 
conference. A House-Senate conference?
  I'm sure that my Tea Party Republican colleagues campaigned on coming 
to Congress to support regular order and going to conference for the 
American people. No. They came here saying they wanted tax cuts. But 
when it comes time to give tax cuts, suddenly they're saying, No, we 
don't need tax cuts. We need a House-Senate conference to debate the 
tax cuts. Give me a break.
  The American people want two things from this Congress, Mr. Speaker: 
they want tax relief for the middle class. They want a Congress that 
can compromise. House Democrats gave both. House Republicans said 
``no'' to both. House Democrats wanted a full 1-year extension of the 
middle class tax cuts. All we said is, Let the people who are making 
over $1 million pay a small surcharge on the dollars over $1 million. 
House Republicans said, No, we want to take it out of Medicare cuts. 
House Democrats said, Our partisan differences should not cost middle 
class taxpayers. House Republicans said ``no.'' The more you say 
``no,'' the more it costs the middle class.
  Mr. CAMP. Earlier, the gentleman from Maryland, the minority whip, 
said, The Senate gave us time. No, the Senate gave themselves a 
vacation. The House is prepared to work to ensure Americans don't face 
a tax hike in 2 months.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Harris).

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, Americans who are watching are probably 
going to have a deja vu. Last time they watched Congress in action on a 
contentious bill near the Christmas holiday was in 2009 when the Senate 
had plenty of time to come into town and pass the ObamaCare bill. And 
the House, under the leadership of what is now the minority party, 
thought it was just fine to do whatever the Senate wanted.
  How'd that work out for you, America?
  Today, we're actually going to do what we should be doing, which is 
going to conference and compromising with the Senate. Now, the motion 
is to concur with the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments say 60 
days. Mr. Speaker, that's not kicking the can down the road; that's 
barely nudging the can down the road.
  And why doesn't that work?
  Because as a physician, I'll tell you, the real danger to our seniors 
is passing something that's short term time and time again, which the 
111th Congress did. And I work with these docs. What they tell you, 
especially in rural areas where physicians are in shortage, they say: 
You know what? If you're only going to give me a 1-month or 2-week 
extension, as has been done, I'm going to have to stop seeing Medicare 
patients. I want to take care of Medicare patients, but that 
uncertainty that those short-term extensions create, I can't deal with 
in my practice.
  Under this, if a senior wants to see a specialist, especially a good 
specialist, they might have to wait 2 or 3 months. They're going to 
have to wait until after this extension. That specialist is going to 
say: I don't know what's happening in March. I'm not going to see those 
patients.
  The minority whip says the Republicans pretended to support a tax 
cut. I ask America, let's look at the record. We had a vote last week 
on the tax cut. Go look and see which party rejected the tax cut for 
middle class Americans.
  The gentleman from New York says we pretend to be for the working 
class.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HARRIS. I would ask that America go to House.gov and look at the 
vote last week. Which party rejected a 1-year-long middle class tax cut 
and which party was in the majority to move that tax cut?
  The minority doesn't want a 1-year tax cut. They made it clear in 
last year's vote. The Senate made it clear in this action they took 
last week.
  Yes, we're going to drag them kicking and screaming to a conference. 
It's too bad that's what the legislative process has come to. We need 
to support going to conference and compromise.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 17\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Michigan has 24 minutes.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself just 10 seconds.
  By rejecting the Senate tax cut package, Mr. Harris' constituents in 
Queen Anne's County, Maryland, will see a tax increase of $1,503 in 
2012.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time this year, Congress has failed to 
reach a consensus on a significant issue that will affect the lives of 
every American and imperil our fragile economic recovery.
  Today, we are on the brink of imposing the consequences of this 
dysfunctional Congress on those who can least afford it. If we do not 
act today, taxes will go up on 160 million middle- and low-income 
Americans. If we do not act today, hundreds of thousands of Americans 
will lose the safety net of unemployment coverage in the middle of the 
worst recession since the Great Depression. And if we don't act today, 
the doctors who are caring for senior citizens will have their pay 
slashed, placing in jeopardy their ability to provide that care. This 
is an unacceptable situation to the American people.
  We should be here as long as it takes to get this done, and we should 
be voting yes or no. Is the majority more committed to gridlock than 
progress? Once again, for the fourth time in a year, the answer appears 
to be yes. The people we represent deserve better.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador).
  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I want the American people to understand 
something very clearly: This debate today is not about policy; it is 
only about politics. It has always been about politics.
  Number one, there is no Senate bill. Our friends on the other side 
keep talking about a Senate bill. There has never been a Senate bill. 
There was only a Republican House bill. That's the only thing that we 
had.
  The Republican House bill was passed with a bipartisan majority. It 
passed this House and it went to the other House, and the Senate 
decided to amend it. When they amended it, they took out everything 
that we wanted here in the House to extend this payroll tax cut. And we 
decided today to reject the amendment.
  One of the gentlemen from the other side said some of us did not 
campaign on going to conference. You know what? We did campaign on one 
thing. We campaigned on following the Constitution and doing the things 
that the Constitution requires us to do.
  If you go back to your civics classes, it's very simple. The House 
passes a bill; the Senate passes something different; we go to 
conference. That's what the American people understand. You ask any 
third-grader about civics lessons, and they will tell you that's the 
way it's supposed to work.
  The reason they are objecting to it today is because that's never the 
way they have done it. Because their idea of compromising is making 
sure that our ideas are off the table and their ideas are the only ones 
that stay on the table. That's not compromise, that's capitulation, and 
that's what we are unwilling to do. And you're upset. You're upset 
because you're unwilling to work for the American people during this 
week and during the next week.

[[Page H9981]]

  We just voted on the Senate amendments. We turned them down. It's 
really important for the American people to understand that we have 
turned down the Senate amendments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LABRADOR. The Democrats only want to have a political tool to 
keep hitting us over the head again and again and again. They want to 
spend the next 2 months debating this issue.
  If the middle class does not get this tax cut, they will only have 
one party to blame, Mr. Speaker, and that party is the Democrats.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members that remarks 
in debate must be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I just remind Mr. Labrador that 
constituents in Lewiston, Idaho, will see a tax increase of $860 in 
2012 because of the games your party is playing.
  With that, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. 
Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be clear on what's happening here today. While 
thousands of Nevadans are struggling to make ends meet, House 
Republicans are trying to sentence this middle class tax cut to death 
by committee, by conference. Instead of allowing an up-or-down vote, 
House Republicans are trying to kill this middle class tax relief bill 
by burying it in one more Washington bureaucracy--death by committee, 
conference.
  The American people have had enough of these cynical Washington 
games. I know that I certainly have.
  If House Republicans don't want a middle class tax cut, they should 
have the courage to stand up and vote ``no.'' The 1.2 million Nevadans 
who will see their taxes go up would be grateful to know the truth. The 
28,000 unemployed Nevadans who are unemployed through no fault of their 
own, they would appreciate knowing the truth why their unemployment 
benefits are going to disappear on January 1.
  So why won't the Republicans do this? Why won't they just come clean 
and express their opposition to middle class tax relief and extension 
of unemployment benefits?
  Washington Republicans had no problem passing taxpayer giveaways to 
big oil companies making record profits. They had no problem passing 
tax breaks for corporations that shipped jobs overseas. They had no 
problem passing a bill to kill Medicare by turning it over to private 
insurance companies. But when it comes to tax cuts for middle class 
families, they say: No, no, we can't do this. We have to send it back 
to another committee, conference. Let's kill it.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time to stand up for the middle class and the 
unemployed in this country and the State of Nevada. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this Republican ploy. Let's not send this middle 
class tax cut to die in another Washington bureaucratic committee. 
Let's pass the bipartisan Senate bill and help our fellow citizens when 
they need our help the most.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  One year ago, Mr. Speaker, many of us stood in this Chamber and 
pleaded with the leadership on both sides of the aisle not to put this 
payroll tax holiday in place. It was bad policy to put it in place, and 
it's bad policy to extend it. By the end of this year, we will have 
taken a quarter of a trillion dollars from the Social Security trust 
fund. And for what purpose?
  In our candid moments, we must confess that this effort is more 
toward securing votes than securing economic growth.

                              {time}  1330

  We may point fingers across the aisle, but it's a pox on both of our 
Houses. Democrats paint themselves as champions of Social Security; yet 
they blissfully endorse taking another $120 billion out of the Social 
Security trust fund. We Republicans paint ourselves as fierce guardians 
of the public purse; yet we're eager to pretend that the payroll tax 
holiday is paid for by fleeting fees and phantom spending cuts.
  We keep hearing that we're kicking the can down the road. We're $15 
trillion in debt. Ten thousand baby boomers retire every year into a 
program that is already running in the red. Mr. Speaker, we're out of 
road. The responsible thing to do is to not extend this payroll tax 
holiday for 2 months or for 12 months.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I appreciate the gentleman's honesty.
  With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my friend from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, this is shameful. Shame. Shame. Shame. Who are we 
kidding? The Republican leadership is ignoring an 89-10 vote in the 
United States Senate, and they want us to believe they support the 
underlying bill of 12 months. That's not what they've said all year 
long. The Speaker, who was here just a few minutes ago, dismissed the 
payroll tax itself as ``a gimmick,'' and the majority leader said, 
``There are better ways to grow the economy.'' Tell that to the 160 
million Americans whose taxes will increase on January 1.
  Republicans have consistently chipped away at Medicare and managed to 
eliminate it completely in a voucher system with the Ryan budget 
earlier this year. Tell that to the 48 million seniors who are at risk 
if we don't take care of the doctors' bills through the SGR. And 
Republicans have made no secret of their desire to gut unemployment 
insurance despite the fact that it actually helps keep the economy 
moving during downtimes. More than 2.3 million Americans will lose 
benefits if we don't pass this bill, and millions more will have their 
benefits reduced.
  Mr. Speaker, are we to believe, all of a sudden, that the House 
Republicans have had some kind of a miraculous metanoia and are ready 
to compromise? That is laughable, and the actions of our colleagues on 
the other side, frankly, make Ebenezer Scrooge look like a charitable 
humanitarian today.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Southerland).
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, if we ask the American people what they want, I think it 
would be glaring. Do they want the House bill that protects seniors' 
access to doctors for 24 months, or do they want the Senate version for 
2 months? Do they want a Federal unemployment benefits extension for 13 
months, or do they want that for 2 months? Do they want payroll tax cut 
extensions for 12 months or for 2 months? Do they want a payroll tax 
break for $1,000, or do they want it for $167?
  Do they want pay freezes for Members of Congress and for Federal 
workers, or do they want those freezes to go away like the Senate 
version states? Do they want unending unemployment and food stamp 
benefits for millionaires, or do they want that to continue? Then they 
would want the Senate version. Do they want requiring Social Security 
numbers for refundable child tax credits, or do they want that to go 
away?
  This is a good one: Do they want to prevent access to welfare 
benefits at strip clubs and liquor stores like the House version we 
passed last week? Or do they want that to go away in the Senate 
version?
  If we asked the American people, I think their answer would be 
glaring and clear. They want certainty. Right now, the Senate version 
throws the American family a life preserver drifting in a sea of 
uncertainty. The House version reaches out to them and pulls them out 
of that sea of uncertainty, putting them in a lifeboat.
  I ask the American people, do you want a life preserver or do you 
want a lifeboat? Any commonsense American would say, put me in the boat 
that extends this for 1 year rather than 2 months. This isn't 
difficult. This is common sense.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I would just remind Mr. Southerland that failure to pass 
this bill will potentially mean a tax increase of $879 to his 
constituents in Bay County, Florida.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

[[Page H9982]]

  Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding. And in this 
Christmas season, let me wish all of my colleagues a merry Christmas 
and a happy Chanukah. And for our country, there is good news. It has 
just been reported that unemployment has dropped in 43 States. This is 
the most States that we've seen unemployment drop in 8 years. The 
policies that have been put in place by President Obama are working. 
Car sales are up, home starts are up, and the stock market is above 
12,000. How better off would we have been if we would just get the 
majority here in the House to agree to work with the President?
  We have three caucuses out of four that have agreed to move forward 
on keeping in place the Obama tax cuts that make work pay. That is a 
tax cut on their payroll taxes. And we have one caucus that's decided 
they want to go their own way, that somehow they know better and they 
want to go their own way. But the other three caucuses have agreed, 
let's put in place a continuation of this tax cut, and let's work 
toward a 1-year extension.
  I hear my colleagues complaining that they didn't get everything they 
want. Well, there are going to be Christmas trees all over our country, 
and there are going to be presents under those trees; but we can't 
always get everything that we want. We need to have common sense and an 
ability to cooperate.
  I would ask my colleagues, my friends, in the holiday spirit, can't 
we come together and help this President who is lifting this economy 
through policies that are working? In 43 States, unemployment has 
dropped--the most we've seen since 2003. These policies work. Let's 
keep them in place, and let's ask our Republican friends to come on, 
let's put partisanship aside and put America first because counting 
against this country is a bet that you really shouldn't place. America 
is coming back, and it's coming back stronger than ever.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  Mr. TIPTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Our colleague on the Democrat side is citing the amount of tax 
increase that Americans will have inflicted on them. That's what we're 
talking about, as well.
  We have an opportunity here, Mr. Speaker, to stand up today for the 
American people in a very clear choice: 2 months or 12 months. Easy 
math. We talked about waiting until February. It will be followed by 
March. The same challenges affecting the American people right now will 
be present then. This is our opportunity as a legislative body to stand 
up for the American people for a change rather than politics as usual. 
We can't afford to let them down. The American people, American 
businesses, and American seniors deserve some certainty, certainty that 
we can provide.
  Out of this House we passed bipartisan legislation. The Senate passed 
their version, and it now needs to go to conference so the American 
people can be better served. This issue is not one that we should be 
debating, but one we should be standing together as Republicans and 
Democrats, because this isn't a political issue. This is about standing 
up for the American people. This is our opportunity to do just that.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Might I inquire as to how much time remains, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 16\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I would just remind Mr. Tipton that his constituents in Pueblo, 
Colorado, will potentially see an increase in taxes of $780 next year 
if this bill is not enacted.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the political games that 
the Republicans continue to play. We know that an extension of 
unemployment insurance is one of the most effective ways to get our 
economy going again, and it's the right thing to do, especially because 
people are just living on the edge right now. Yet the GOP is ready to 
cut unemployment benefits for 2.2 million Americans.
  They're ready to raise taxes on 160 million Americans by $1,000. Yet 
they want to lower taxes for those in the 1 percent. The GOP is ready 
to tell 48 million seniors that they will no longer have access to 
their doctors. This is really outrageous. It's un-American, and it's 
wrong. This jobs crisis is a national emergency, and long-term 
unemployment is at unprecedented levels. We need an up-or-down vote on 
this Senate compromise.

                          ____________________