[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 20, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H9982-H9986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1340

  This recession--and yes, for many it is still a depression--it's 
still hurting so many, many people. Half of all Americans are either in 
poverty, near poor, or low income. And it's really so sad that during 
this holiday season Republicans are playing with the lives of millions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  What I want to know is, why in the world won't you just bring the 
Senate bill to the floor and let the country see whose side you are on?
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Which bill, the House bill, or the House bill as amended, has a 
bigger tax cut? Which bill? My friends on the other side seem to be 
confused.
  Ms. LEE of California of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMP. I will not yield.
  I will enter into the Record the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 
nonpartisan experts who analyze our legislation, their analysis of both 
proposals. They will show that the House bill that extends the payroll 
tax for a year provides $120 billion in tax relief to the American 
worker, while the House bill, as amended by the Senate, only provides 
$20 billion of tax relief to the American worker because they only 
extend it for 2 months.

                              TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 3630, THE MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2011, AS INTRODUCED ON DECEMBER 9, 2011
                                                                              [Millions of dollars, by fiscal year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2012        2013       2014       2015       2016       2017       2018       2019       2020       2021      2012- 2016   2012- 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CHANGES IN REVENUES
 
Total Changes in Revenues a..........................     -130,060    -46,650    -11,275     13,292     40,564     13,696      9,302      3,497     11,916       7,373     -134,129      -88,346
    On-budget revenues...............................      -39,143    -16,344    -11,270     13,302     40,582     13,717      9,325      3,522     11,942       7,401      -12,873      -33,034
    Off-budget revenues b............................      -90,917    -30,306         -5        -11        -18        -21        -23        -25        -26         -28     -121,257     -121,380
 
                                                                                   CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
 
Total Changes in Direct Spending:
    Estimated Budget Authority.......................       36,839     24,915     -1,936    -12,494    -13,041    -15,491    -16,940    -17,368    -19,939     -27,481       34,283      -62,936
    Estimated Outlaysc...............................       36,699     24,915     -1,931    -12,485    -12,991    -15,451    -16,919    -17,363    -20,043     -27,520       34,207      -63,089
        On-budget outlaysb...........................      127,616     55,221     -1,931    -12,273    -12,586    -14,914    -16,372    -16,846    -19,547     -27,044      156,047       61,324
        Off-budget outlaysb..........................      -90,917    -30,306          0       -212       -405       -537       -547       -517       -496        -476     -121,840     -124,413
 
                                                           NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN DEFICITS FROM REVENUES AND DIRECT SPENDING
 
Net Changess in Deficits.............................      166,759     71,565      9,344    -25,776    -53,555    -29,147    -26,222    -20,861    -31,958     -34,893      168,337       25,257
    On-budget deficit change.........................      166,759     71,565      9,339    -25,575    -53,167    -28,631    -25,698    -20,368    -31,488     -34,445      168,920       28,290
    Off-budget deficit changeb.......................            0          0          5       -201       -387       -516       -524       -492       -470        -448         -583       -3,033
 
                                                   CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION FROM CHANGES IN CAPS ON DISCRETIONARY FUNDING
 
Totat Changes in Discretionary Spending:
    Estimated Authorization Level....................            0     -2,000     -3,000     -3,000     -3,000     -3,000     -3,000     -4,000     -4,000      -4,000      -11,000      -29,000

[[Page H9983]]

 
    Estimated Outlays................................            0     -1,214     -2,279     -2,765     -2,992     -3,160     -3,276     -3,386     -3,506      -3,632       -9,250      -26,210
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
a For revenues, positive numbers indicate a decrease in the deficit; negative numbers indicate an increase in the deficit.
b The bill would modify and extend.the payroll-tax holiday for one year, causing a reduction in off-budget revenues credited to the Social Security trust funds. The bill also would transfer
  from the Treasury to the Social Security trust funds an amount equal to that off-budget revenue loss. The off-budget receipt would offset the lost revenue and, thus, section 2001 would have
  no net off-budget effect. (Other sections in the bill would have an off-budget effect.)
c Title III of the bill would raise premiums for certain subsidized flood insurance policies, increasing net income to the National Flood Insurance Program by $4.9 billion. However, because
  many policies would continue to be subsidized and the program would continue to face significant interest costs for borrowing over the past decade, CB0 expects that additional receipts
  collected under this legislation would be spent to cover future program shortfalls, resulting in no net effect on the budget over the 2012-2021 period.


              BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THE AMENDMENT IN NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 3630, THE TEMPORARY PAYROLL TAX CUT CONTINUATION ACT OF 2011, AS INTRODUCED ON DECEMBER 17, 2011
                                                                              [Millions of dollars, by fiscal year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2012        2013       2014       2015      2016-      2017-      2018-       2019       2020      2021--    2012-2016    2012-2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CHANGES IN REVENUES
 
Title I--Payroll Tax Relief:
    Extension of payroll tax reduction (on-budget)-...         176-        98-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         274-          274
    Extension of payroll tax reduction (off-budget)-..     -19,794-      -612-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-     -20,406-      -20,406
 
Title II--Extension of Unemployment Compensation-.....           0-        -8-       -25-       -25-       -20-        -9-        -7-        -1-         0-         0-         -78-          -95
Total Changes in Revenue a............................     -19,618-      -522-       -25-       -25-       -20-        -9-        -7-        -1-         0-         0-     -20,210-      -20,227
    On-budget revenues-...............................         176-        90-       -25-       -25-       -20-        -9-        -7-        -1-         0-         0-         196-          179
    Off-budget revenues b.............................     -19,794-      -612-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-          0      -20,406      -20,406
 
                                                                              CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING (OUTLAYS)
 
Title I--Payroll Tax Relief:
    Extension of payroll tax reduction (on-budget) b..      19,794-       612-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-      20,406-       20,406
    Extension of payroll tax reduction (off-budget) b.     -19,794-      -612-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-     -20,406-      -20,406
Title II--Extension of Unemployment Compensation-.....       8,395-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-       8,395-        8,395
Title III--Extension of Health Provisions:
    Physician payment update-.........................       2,860-       -70-       -90-        40-       120-       160-       160-       150-       140-       130-       2,860-        3,600
    Other Medicare extensions and health provisions-..         490-        60-       -20-       -20-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         510-          510
        Subtotal, Title III-..........................       3,350-       -10-      -110-        20-       120-       160-       160-       150-       140-       130-       3,370-        4,110
Title IV--Mortgage Fees and Premiums-.................      -1,300-    -4,600-    -4,000-    -3,500-    -3,300-    -3,300-    -3,700-    -3,900-    -4,000-    -4,100-     -16,700-      -35,700
Total Changes in Direct Spending-.....................      10,445-    -4,610-    -4,110-    -3,480-    -3,180-    -3,140-    -3,540-    -3,750-    -3,860-    -3,970-      -4,935-      -23,195
    On-budget outlays-................................      30,239-    -3,998-    -4,110-    -3,480-    -3,180-    -3,140-    -3,540-    -3,750-    -3,860-    -3,970-      15,471-       -2,789
    Off-budget outlays-...............................     -19,794-      -612-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-          0      -20,406      -20,406
 
                                                           NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN DEFICITS FROM REVENUES AND DIRECT SPENDING
 
Net Change in the Deficits:
    On-budget deficit change-.........................      30,063-    -4,088-    -4,085-    -3,455-    -3,160-    -3,131-    -3,533-    -3,749-    -3,860-    -3,970-      15,275-       -2,968
    Off-budget deficit change-........................           0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-         0-           0-            0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
a For revenues, positive numbers indicate decrease in the deficit; negative numbers indicate an increase in the deficit.
b The bill would modify and extend the payroll-tax holiday for two months, causing a reduction in off-budget revenues credited to the Social Security trust fund. The bill also would transfer
  from the Treasury to the Social Security trust fund an amount equal to that off-budget revenue loss, The off-budget receipt would offset the lost revenue and, thus, section 101 would have no
  net off-budget effect.

  Now, I've heard my colleagues talk about their 2-month extension 
guaranteeing a $1,000 tax cut. That's just flat wrong. The Senate 
amendment caps the tax cut for that taxpayer at only $167. That's 
shortchanging hardworking Americans, and House Republicans won't stand 
for it. Let's be clear: The average American worker would have more 
than $800 in their pocket next year under the House bill.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding time.
  This argument seems a little bit confusing, I'm sure, to most people 
in America today. Several months ago House Republicans were accused of 
disagreeing with the President because, oh, gee, the idea was the 
President's, so we wanted to disagree with him. Well, here we are today 
agreeing with the President on a 1-year extension of the payroll tax 
holiday.
  Let me read a quote from what the President said:

       This Congress cannot and should not leave for vacation 
     until they have made sure that the tax increase doesn't 
     happen. Let me repeat that: Congress should not and cannot go 
     on vacation before they have made sure that working families 
     aren't seeing their taxes go up by $1,000 and those who are 
     out there looking for work don't see their unemployment 
     insurance expire.

  We passed a bill. The House bill that we passed with bipartisan 
support would provide $1,000 a year. I've heard it many times on the 
House floor as people come and say this is a $1,000 tax relief to the 
middle class. Not under your plan. The plan that the Democrats have put 
forward in the Senate, the plan put forward in the House by our 
Democratic colleagues would provide $160 worth of tax relief--$160 
worth of tax relief is what they are fighting about today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. GARDNER. So let's talk about real reform. Let's talk about real 
certainty that our economy needs.
  We've argued for $1,000 worth of tax relief to America's working 
families. You're talking about $160 of tax relief. You're willing to 
risk unemployment insurance, willing to risk a payroll tax increase 
because you're insisting on a $160 tax break when we're sitting here 
saying let's provide a $1,000 tax holiday?
  We can get our economy going again if we have the willingness to work 
with each other. And I would hope that after today there is willingness 
by our friends in the Senate to get the job done, to get our economy 
moving again, and to make sure that this country focuses on the real 
priorities: the men and women in this country looking for work, finding 
ways to make ends meet, and making sure that they're doing what's right 
for their families.
  I urge this body to do what's right--appoint conferees and get to 
doing the business of this country.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I just want to remind Mr. Gardner that in Larimer 
County, Colorado, the absence of passing this bill today will cause an 
average increase in taxes of $1,126 in that county.
  For the purposes of answering the gentleman from Michigan's question, 
I yield 10 seconds to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just wanted to say, perhaps the gentleman was confused about which 
bill I was talking about. I was talking about the Senate compromise, 
which 39 Senators voted for, which the President supported, which came 
over to the House as a bipartisan bill. That's the bill I'm talking 
about.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentlewoman from California.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me just address one point that our friends on the other side keep 
making about this 1 year. All of a sudden they want 1 year. All of a 
sudden they

[[Page H9984]]

want to do what President Obama wants to do.
  You talk about certainty. You talk about uncertainty. Nothing could 
be more uncertain than not giving the American people the secure 
knowledge and the confidence at the end of the day that their taxes are 
not going up the first of January, that 2.2 million Americans will get 
their unemployment. We can do that today.
  The Senate has already given us that certainty. We're not talking 
about just a 2-month extension. We're simply talking about putting into 
place a compromise that we could get that would get us into next year 
when we come back to finish the job and continue to get a 1-year 
extension.
  So this facade of you using this 1 year is nothing but a charade. You 
know it. It doesn't matter what the time is. You don't want anything--2 
months, 1 year, 10 years.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker.
  Let's get back to the facts. The facts are that the House bill, as 
amended by the Senate, is a 2-month bill. The tax relief under that 
bill for the average American worker is $167. The House bill extends 
unemployment insurance for a full year. The tax relief under that bill 
is $1,000. But don't listen to me--look at the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, the nonpartisan body that analyzes our legislation for the 
impact of tax policy on taxpayers. That's what they say. That's what's 
in the record.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Thank you, Chairman Camp, I appreciate 
that.
  I'm a little confused myself. I saw one of our Senate colleagues from 
New York on television this morning talking about how we needed to pass 
this 2-month extension, and he would be the first one on an airplane 
back to Washington, DC., so that we could negotiate a yearlong deal. 
I'm confused. Why don't we just do that right now. That's what the 
American people expect. The American people expect us to get this deal 
done right now and to provide them some certainty for an entire year 
versus 2 months.
  Now, this Monday morning I had a breakfast with my joint Chambers of 
Commerce in Holland and Zeeland, and we had almost 500 people there. 
And when I asked the question, who here thinks this 2-month extension 
is a good idea? Not a single hand went up. I said, okay, maybe I need 
to ask this a little differently. Who here thinks that this is a dumb 
idea to do a 2-month extension? Virtually every single hand in that 
breakfast went up.
  The American people are looking for long-term solutions. Employers 
are looking for long-term solutions. It's called quarterly reports. I'm 
a small business owner. Oftentimes people have to file quarterly 
reports. We're not even doing them the service of giving them a full 
quarter to change their paperwork; we're doing 2 out of 3 months. Now, 
you want to talk about a burden on small business, I can tell you it 
is.
  It's time for this House to go to work, which we have done. It's time 
for our Senate colleagues to do the exact same thing. Because guess 
what? My three employees--Irv, Dirk, and Larry--they're all at work 
today. Why isn't that good enough for the Senate?
  There are two things that fundamentally need to be included in this. 
First and furthermore is 12 months of certainty. Let's get through that 
debate of how we are going to offset the costs and how we are going to 
make sure that this works for the employee, the employer, those with a 
job and those without a job.
  We also need to make sure that we don't lose sight of the Keystone 
pipeline in here; an immediate 20,000 jobs that can be provided here in 
the United States, 20,000 jobs that could come to this country and help 
alleviate the need for these systems, the need for unemployment 
insurance. And it's the right thing to do.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I get it. You guys were against it. I appreciate that. Now you're for 
the middle class tax cut. You were against it, but now you're for it. 
But what I don't understand is why can't we just get through these next 
2 months and we'll come back.
  You mentioned we're running out of time. Well, we're not in charge, 
you all are. You could have done this back in September, or October, or 
November. Now it's December. I get that you were against it, now you're 
for it.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to 
address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I will do that through the 
Chair. Would you like me to repeat that?
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding this brief 
time for me to respond.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to join my friend from Georgia, Mr. David Scott, 
in trying to expose some of the hypocrisy that we are seeing playing 
out here on the House floor today. I'm just so terribly disappointed 
that House Republicans want to ignore the overwhelming bipartisan 
Senate vote a few days ago, and you are failing to realize the 
devastation that millions of Americans will experience. They are going 
to lose their unemployment benefits. The average family is going to 
realize a $1,000 tax increase on January 1.
  And let's not forget our doctors. There are some medical doctors 
sitting on that side of the Chamber. Medical doctors in this country 
who treat Medicare patients will see a 27.3 percent decrease in their 
reimbursement rates.
  We can do better than this, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to 
reconsider their position. Let's go ahead and vote for the 2-month fix, 
and let's get on into February and let's have this debate that you've 
been talking about over the last 2 hours.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, can we just inquire as to time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I would just ask the gentleman from Michigan if he might 
like to use some of his time and maybe balance it out a little more.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.
  Mr. FLEMING. I thank my friend, the gentleman, Mr. Camp, for giving 
me time to speak.
  I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this boils down to one of two 
choices here today. We're going to be either voting for a 2-month 
extension of the payroll tax or a 1-year extension of the payroll tax. 
We'll either be voting for a 2-month fix for reimbursement for 
physicians, health care providers in general, or we'll be voting for a 
1-year fix. Now, for my money, it should be 1 year versus 2 months. I 
don't understand really what the problem is.
  But having said that, let me also mention to you that this affects me 
and many of my friends back home in this way, and that is: I'm a 
physician myself, have many friends in the health profession. They're 
asking me: John, why in the world do you keep us upset like this all of 
the time? Why is it that we can't predict what our reimbursement rates 
are going to be from one month to another?
  They're desperately begging for us not only to extend that for a 
year, but for 2 years and even beyond that. They're desperately asking 
for a fix. And we've been promising them that we would try. So that's a 
lot behind what we're here today about, and that is to have a long-term 
solution to physicians.
  I also come from the small business sector, and I can tell you that 
when you do your tax deferrals or the income tax for your employees, 
that's usually done on a quarterly basis. In fact, it's always done on 
a quarterly basis. Well, how do you do it on quarterly basis when you 
only have an extension for 2 months?
  So we have the Associated Builders and Contractors and many, Mr. 
Speaker, that say that this is just absolutely, flatly untenable.
  So I encourage that both Chambers vote today to be in favor of 
sending this back to the Senate, have the conferees get together. Let's 
do it the way the Constitution asks us to do it.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton).

[[Page H9985]]

  Mr. UPTON. I thank you, my friend from Michigan, chairman of Ways and 
Means.
  Let's face it, Mr. Speaker, people across the country are not very 
happy, and they are, frankly, so tired of Washington games. They know 
that we have a divided government. They don't want a deal; they want a 
solution.
  Yes, they want to reform unemployment; yes, they want to extend the 
payroll tax deduction; and, yes, they want a doc fix. Without the doc 
fix, we put, literally, millions of Americans in jeopardy of decent 
health care because their physicians are not going to have the proper 
reimbursement from Medicare.
  But coming from the State of Michigan, I know that what Americans 
want most are jobs. This bill, the Republican alternative, provides 
jobs for Keystone, 20,000 shovel-ready jobs in a $7 billion private 
investment right away; boiler MACT regs, something that will protect as 
many as 200,000 businesses across the country; and spectrum, the sale 
of the spectrum will create literally perhaps as many as 50,000 to 
100,000 jobs as well.
  The last Congress didn't deal with the budget, and we spent the first 
couple of months of this year dealing with what we thought was Lucy and 
the football: bringing up a continuing resolution, watching it be 
extended for a week or 2, and then coming back with another one. If we 
don't deal with these issues today, we're going to have the same 
trouble in the next year, in the next couple of months.
  So let's stop playing Lucy and the football. Let's get a real 
solution to a problem that Americans want us to solve. Please support 
the Republican alternative on this and respect the wishes of the House.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I appreciate the gentleman's comments about the only 
game the American people want to see this holiday season is football, 
but the reindeer games that are going on in this House are something 
the American people do not want to see any more of.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila 
Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are doing what the American 
people have asked us to do. I thank the gentleman from New York for 
championing the cause of the American people, and I thank our whip, Mr. 
Hoyer, for understanding that we need an up-or-down vote on the Senate 
compromise and a motion for this conference that will not occur to do 
what is right for the American people.
  I've already said that the holiday season for so many has just gone 
up in smoke. The lights on the Christmas tree have just burst and the 
tree is burning. The candles throughout the house are now down and 
smoldering, and people are bemoaning the condition that Washington 
Republicans have put them in.
  Mothers, single mothers, families without are now begging for a 
lifeline; and the gigantic ship, the cruise ship, is cruising on by and 
allowing them to drown in the dusty and dark waters of this land. I 
don't understand where there is no mercy, where there is no 
understanding.
  My good friend from Michigan will see that his constituents, 70,000 
of them, will lose unemployment benefits; the Speaker from Ohio, 58,000 
will lose unemployment benefits; Texas, 134,000. They understand that 
this is smoke and mirrors.
  I said in the Rules Committee, at 7:05 last night, we had a right to 
vote on the Senate bill that was put before us. That rule was changed 
midstream.
  The American people need to understand, we had in line, through the 
Rules Committee, controlled by the Republicans, to put on the agenda 
for us to vote up or down on the Senate bill. We were not allowed to do 
that because they thought the Senate bill, for reasonable people, might 
pass. They thought that Senator Lugar's words might prevail, in the 
ears of the Washington Republicans, that said, do what is right for the 
American people. They thought Senator Snowe's words might prevail, 
which is to say, we all have disagreement, but let us not hold up 
unemployment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you.
  Let us not hold up the unemployment; let us not hold up the payroll 
tax, because those individuals said they didn't want it in the first 
place.
  Mr. President, if you have Executive order powers, let's just pass 
it; let's just rule on it; let us come back and deal with it for a 
year, because they know they're not serious, and I'm not going to see 
the holiday season go up in smoke for the American people. That is a 
disgrace.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers. I am 
prepared to close if the gentleman from New York is prepared to close.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I have two additional speakers, including myself.
  With that, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day for the American 
people. There was an opportunity with the Democrats in the Senate and 
the Republicans in the Senate. Eighty-nine of them, including my senior 
Senator, Lamar Alexander, Senator Heller, a former colleague, a 
classmate in this class, Senator Lugar, Senators Collins, Snowe, and 
others came together. They said, We need to protect the American 
people, protect the opportunity to see doctors when you're on Medicare, 
get unemployment insurance and keep the tax breaks. They came together 
and said, Let's do it for 60 days. We can come back later and then we 
can work on it for the rest of the year. They knew what was possible 
within the time allotted to it.
  Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side don't realize what 
time makes available. There is no possibility of the Senate coming back 
and having a conference committee. They are saying ``Bah, humbug'' to 
the compromise and the bipartisanship that we saw in the Senate.
  It's an unfortunate day for the American people, and I'm sorry for my 
folks who will not be able to get doctors to treat them, unemployment 
compensation, or a tax break.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I do have an additional speaker.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. 
Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I rise in opposition to this Democratic motion to 
instruct the conferees, assuming that they're going to instruct the 
conferees to adopt the Senate amendment.

                              {time}  1400

  Clearly, this House has spoken in a bipartisan way with H.R. 3630. In 
fact, we will follow this debate with a resolution, H. Res. 501, 
restating the provisions of H.R. 3630, which basically gives that tax 
break to 160 million middle-income Americans for a full year. It 
extends the unemployment insurance to 99 weeks for those who have been 
out of work for more than 6 months for an additional year.
  Last, but certainly not least, Mr. Speaker, it gives the assurance of 
the physicians in this country that provide care for our blessed senior 
citizens under the Medicare program that their reimbursement will not 
be cut 27 percent. No. Indeed, it not only mitigates that cut, but it 
pluses it up by 1 percent for 2 full years. This gives the doctors the 
assurance that they know they can continue to treat Medicare patients.
  I can't help but believe, Mr. Speaker, that the other side of the 
aisle agrees with all three of these provisions. It's beyond me that 
they would disagree with the job-creating Keystone XL pipeline, 
120,000-plus jobs. It's hard for me to understand how they could oppose 
any of that.
  No. I think really this is all about how we pay for it.
  What the Democrats want to do, Mr. Speaker, is they want to charge 
increased taxation on the job creators in this country. What we want to 
do is pay for it by freezing the pay of all these Federal employees--
yes, including ourselves--for 3 additional years in a very responsible 
way and other provisions on this side that makes sense for the American 
people.
  Reject this motion to instruct.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would remind Mr. Gingrey that his 
constituents in Cobb County, Georgia, will see a potential increase of 
$1,258 in their taxes in the absence of passing this bill today.

[[Page H9986]]

  With that, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank my friend from Michigan 
as well for this debate.
  I listened very closely and very intently to the words of Speaker 
Boehner, a man whom I have tremendous respect for, and I know that he's 
having some difficult times with his side of the aisle. I know he'd 
like to be able to wrap up business for the end of the year and be able 
to move on into next year to do good things for the American people.
  But the rejection by his caucus of the compromise bill that was 
passed in the Senate is preventing him, and I think preventing some of 
the like-minded Members on the Republican side of the aisle, to pass 
the Senate bill and go home for the holidays.
  I also listened very intently to the Speaker when he said that the 
passage of this bill today would only be a 2-month extender, that 
somehow by just passing this it would only mean about 160-some-odd 
dollars for the average American worker in tax savings.
  I would just suggest the absence of doing anything is a thousand 
dollar increase on average to the average working middle class American 
today. A thousand dollar increase, the absence of doing nothing.
  Now, we all know the Senate can't get 60 votes to even say that 
December 25 is Christmas. We understand that. They've gone home for the 
holidays already. They're not coming back. So we either pass this bill 
today or we see that no bill will pass and an increase in the middle 
class taxes will take place.
  Now, you will argue, how did we get here? I don't know. I'm in the 
minority. You're in the majority. The President suggested extending 
this payroll tax cut back in September. In fact, he wanted to enhance 
it back in September, but we didn't take it up then with the jobs bill. 
Quite frankly, we haven't taken up a jobs bill yet in this House. A 
full year has almost expired and not a jobs bill on the floor to put 
Americans back to the work.
  I listened again to my colleague Mr. Fattah from Pennsylvania when he 
reeled off a number of positive things that are happening today--that 
homebuilders' numbers are up, that the economy is improving, that we've 
seen jobs increase in this country, people who are on unemployment 
insurance decreasing. That's happening right now.
  I ask, why is it when something good happens to the American people 
and to our economy, somehow it's perceived as being bad for the 
Republican majority? Isn't that sad that somehow that's the sense that 
people have?
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can pass this bill and send the American 
people a message that we can work together on their behalf, pass this 
bill, come back, and work together in January and February.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. CAMP. The minority seems fixated on this notion that since the 
Senate passed their version of the House bill by a vote of 89-10 that 
somehow the House just needs to take their work product, no changes, 
just accept it, just vote for it.
  Well, less than 3 weeks ago, the Senate passed the Defense 
authorization bill by a vote of 93-7. Did the House just accept that 
and send it to the President? No. We requested a conference on December 
7, and a week later, that conference report was approved by the House. 
So there's no reason other than the Senate's insistence on a monthlong 
vacation that we can't do the same here to provide a yearlong solution 
to the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for a year, and a 2-
year fix on the physician payments in Medicare, what's known as the 
SGR, the sustainable growth rate formula.
  Vote ``no'' on this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on 
this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________