[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 199 (Friday, December 23, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2340-E2342]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 20, 2011

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
``The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Extension Act of 2011.'' This bill is 
an updated version of H.R. 3630, as amended by the Senate that sends 
the right message at a critical time for Americans.
  At the final hour, with less than three days before millions of 
Americans decide between whether to buy a toy for their child or turn 
up their heat, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
finally recognized the importance of working in a bipartisan fashion to 
provide a tax break to middle class families, to support the 
unemployed, and to prevent cuts to the payments Medicare provides to 
doctors.
  It appears returning home and facing constituents who would not be 
able to pay rent or place food on the table for their families, have 
caused House Republicans to realize that political posturing impacts 
the lives of those who can least afford it. I stand firm in my support 
of measures that will help families and those who are trying their best 
to weather the challenges caused by this economy.
  I supported the measure the Senate passed last Saturday. Although not 
perfect I believed then as I do now that it would grant the American 
people the certainty they need as we head into a new year.
  The Senate Amendment to H.R. 3630 received overwhelming bipartisan 
support in the Senate; passing by a margin of 89 to 10. After a period 
of negotiation, language has been added to provide simplicity for 
payroll administrators, and mollify my colleagues on the other side.

[[Page E2341]]

  The Senate version would allow employees to continue to pay a 4.2 
percent tax on wages, and the self-employed would be required to pay 
10.4 percent; which represents a 2 percentage point cut in taxes.
  This tax cut would provide a much-needed boost to the economy as the 
resulting tax savings could be used for investment, savings accounts, 
and for the purchase of both goods and services. This kind of 
commercial activity is what will keep the economy moving.
  The Senate Amendment removes onerous unemployment provisions from 
H.R. 3630. Namely, the provisions that would allow states to test those 
who apply for unemployment benefits for illegal drugs and a provision 
that would require a GED, a high school diploma, or attendance in a 
course to attain a GED prior to being able to qualify for unemployment 
benefits. These provisions stigmatize the unemployed and penalize those 
who without benefits may not be able to afford job training.
  In addition, the Senate amendment to H.R. 3630 removes a $300 million 
special interest provision, which had passed the House. These funds 
would have only helped a handful of specialty hospitals while cutting 
billions of dollars in funding from community hospitals. In effect, the 
Senate Amendment rejected the assault on the elderly, the unemployed, 
and the middle class that could be found in the original House version.


          Rules Committee's Last Minute Change to Their Agenda

  Earlier this week, the Rules Committee was originally scheduled to 
convene an emergency meeting at 7:05 p.m. The purpose of their meeting 
was to discuss a motion to concur with the Senate amendment to H.R. 
3630. I arrived at the Rules Committee prepared to give testimony to 
buttress the two amendments I proposed to the measure and to give my 
support to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3630.
  The Committee refused to accept my amendments and also refused to 
accept testimony; to add insult to injury, they delayed the meeting 
from 7:05 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. Again, I was prepared to speak on the 
measure and my amendments. To my surprise, the Rules Committee failed 
to discuss or bring up the motion to concur with the Senate Amendment 
to H.R. 3630.
  It is my belief that something must have occurred prior to and 
immediately after the 7:05 p.m. meeting that would cause the Republican 
led Rules Committee to drastically change its agenda.
  By 9:15 p.m. Rules began to address a completely different agenda 
which did not include the Motion to Concur with the Senate Amendment. I 
am askance by the Committee's failure to address this issue head on and 
rather choosing to bend to whatever pressures they received prior to 
meeting on the Senate amendment.
  My amendments would have made it clear that hedge fund managers would 
finally be required to pay their due share of carried interest; at 
minimum they would be required to pay the same amount in taxes, as 
their housekeepers.
  In addition my second amendment would have ensured that millionaires 
would also pay their fair share of taxes. Because of the actions of the 
Republican led Rules Committee, I never got the opportunity to express 
my support for these important amendments, nor did I have the 
opportunity to support the Senate Amendment. This was an unforeseen and 
drastic change to the agenda.


    Certain Republicans Never Intended to Support a Payroll Tax Cut

  There is little doubt that there have been factions within the 
Republican Party who never intended to support a payroll tax cut for 
middle class Americans. When the idea of a payroll tax cut initially 
surfaced there was an instantaneous reaction against the idea among 
certain conservative Republicans. The behavior of the Rules Committee, 
which changed the agenda at the last minute, is a probable example of 
these internal disagreements. Why else would they fail to bring forth 
the Motion to Concur with the Senate Amendment to allow the Full House 
to decide whether or not the Senate Amendment was the right choice for 
the American people.
  Less than two weeks ago a Tea Party Republican made it clear that he 
did not support a payroll tax cut. In order to convince him to support 
H.R. 3630 is seems that other provisions had to be added, provisions 
like the Keystone Pipeline.
  A Tea Party Republican made it clear that ``[Republican Leadership] 
certainly seem to be dragging me kicking and screaming to the `yes' 
line'' Such is the comment of a Member of Congress who wants us all to 
believe that he was undecided on a payroll tax cut. I wonder how many 
promises had to be given before the American middle class could have a 
chance of receiving a much needed cut in taxes.
  This Tea Party Republican's position was also shared by a Senator, 
who is part of the Senate Republican Leadership. This Senate Republican 
Leader voted four times against proposals to keep the tax holiday. 
According to this Republican Leader ``We get paid to vote . . .'' and 
he certainly did his duty and voted, he voted against payroll tax cuts 
for the middle class. These are examples of people who never intended 
to support a payroll tax cut, if less than two weeks ago they were 
firmly against this position. In the case of one of the two, 
commonsense and reason prevailed. In the case of the other, partisan 
politics and in-fighting appears to have won out, and the middle class 
will be paying the price.
  Washington Republicans, in general, found themselves in a quandary. 
Should they support a measure that would protect provisions in 
Medicare, extend unemployment, and provided a payroll tax cut or stick 
to partisan politics? Washington Republicans apparently did not believe 
that a break, which would have lowered the payroll tax from 6.2 percent 
to 4.3 percent, would help job growth next year.
  Then there are those, like one Republican Member of Congress, who 
express a greater concern with not giving the President what some would 
consider a victory.
  The victory would not be for the President, the victory would be for 
the American people. For the moms and dads who as a result of the 
payroll cut would be able to buy their child a new pair of shoes, place 
an additional meal on the table, or pay their rent.
  It is not a surprise that those Republicans, who dug their heels into 
the ground, long before today, are the very Republicans who are 
allowing the American people to bear the brunt of this stalemate.
  As referenced above, the version of H.R. 3630 that passed in the 
House had a list of poison pills. These nightmare provisions would have 
harmed not only the health of Americans but the health of the American 
Economy.


                              Unemployment

  Republicans targeted the unemployed by slashing 40 weeks of 
unemployment insurance. Such an action would have negatively impacted 
the lives of millions of families.
  These are the very families who are still struggling under the weight 
of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The Senate 
rejected this assault on families and the elderly.
  It was clear that our failure to act to support the Senate amendment 
to H.R. 3630 would have resulted in twenty-two jurisdictions with the 
highest unemployment rates being the hardest hit these states are: My 
home state of Texas, Alabama, California, Connecticut, DC, Florida, 
Georgia, Illinois, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, 
Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South 
Carolina, Tennessee and Washington.
  According to report released by the Department of Labor just two 
weeks ago, 3.3 million Americans would lose unemployment benefits as a 
result of H.R. 3630 compared to a continuation of current law. In my 
home state of Texas alone, 227,381 people will lose their sole source 
of income by the end of January.
  There is nothing normal about this recession. Republicans seem to 
want to blame the unemployed for their unemployment. Until it was clear 
that the American people would not stand behind Republican efforts, 
House Republicans continued to put in jeopardy tax cuts for the middle 
class and aid for the unemployed. In this economy the unemployed are 
not to blame; it is the failure of Republican leadership to bring forth 
any job creating measures before this house. Currently, there are over 
four unemployed workers for every available job, and there are nearly 1 
million fewer jobs in the economy today compared to when the recession 
started in December 2007. In our nation's history there has never been 
so many unemployed Americans without work for such a long period of 
time. Republicans are clearly out of touch.
  For every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, a study found an 
increase in economic activity of two dollars. According to the Economic 
Policy Institute extending unemployment benefits could prevent the loss 
of over 500,000 jobs. Further, a study by IMP AQ International and the 
Urban Institute found unemployment insurance benefits reduced the fall 
in GDP by 18.3 percent. This resulted in nominal GDP being $175 billion 
higher in 2009 than it would have been without unemployment insurance 
benefits.
  If Congress fails to act before the end of the year, Americans who 
have lost their jobs through no fault of their own will begin losing 
their unemployment benefits in January. By mid-February, 2.1 million 
will have their benefits cut off, and by the end of 2012 over 6 million 
will lose their unemployment benefits.
  We must act now to extend unemployment insurance and remove dastardly 
provisions related to drugs and education that do nothing more than 
insult the integrity of the jobless.
  Currently, 9.8 million people are receiving unemployment insurance in 
some form. We have 7 days to act. On December 31, federal unemployment 
insurance benefits are set to expire, which means nearly 2 million will 
be

[[Page E2342]]

cut off from unemployment insurance early next year if Congress doesn't 
act now.
  And if partisan politics is not to blame, I am not sure what else the 
issue could be as Congress has never allowed emergency unemployment 
benefits to expire when the unemployment rate is anywhere close to its 
current level of 9.1 percent.


           The Impact on Americans Poison Pills in H.R. 3630

  The reforms to unemployment and other provisions that we sent over to 
the Senate, sweeping as they were, may have been lost amid other 
features of the Republican package.


                              Drug Testing

  Under current law, states are not allowed to deny workers 
unemployment insurance for reasons other than on-the-job misconduct, 
fraud or earning too much money from part-time work. H.R. 3630 would 
have allowed states to screen those who applied for unemployment 
benefits for illegal drugs. The drug testing requirement in H.R. 3630 
is burdensome and onerous.
  Unemployment is at its highest in twenty-five years, the economy is 
in a downward spiral, millions of people are just getting by and the 
Republicans want to further degrade them.
  A worker advocacy group recently described the drug testing element 
in the House-passed bill, the ``most disturbing'' part of the 
Republican unemployment reforms. ``Devising new ways to insult the 
unemployed only distracts from the current debate over how to best 
restore the nation's economy to strong footing and the discussion over 
how to best support the unemployed and get them back to work''
  No evidence has been presented that the drug testing requirement is 
necessary because there is no evidence to support that the average 
person who applies for unemployment insurance is an illegal drug user. 
The inference that those who need this benefit must be screened for 
drugs is offensive. Hardworking Americans are depending on a benefit 
they worked to attain. The Senate amendment to H.R. 3630 removes this 
offensive provision.


                  GED/HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA REQUIREMENT

  In addition, the Senate amendment does not blame the unemployed for 
being unemployed. By this I mean, the version of H.R. 3630 which passed 
the House would deny unemployment benefits to individuals who did not 
have or were not attempting to attain a high school diploma or a GED.
  As supported by House Republicans, H.R. 3630 denies unemployment 
insurance benefits to the most vulnerable workers, those without a high 
school diploma or GEDs, if they can't demonstrate they are enrolled in 
a program leading to a credential.
  It is true that workers with less than a high school diploma are 
unemployed at significantly higher rates than workers with a bachelor's 
degree (13.2 percent v. 4.4 percent). I understand the rationale behind 
wanting to advance the skills of our nation's work force.
  Frankly, the hardships faced by those who have not attained a GED or 
high school diploma are indisputable. The labor force participation 
rate for persons without a high school diploma is 20 percentages points 
lower than the labor force participation rate for high school 
graduates. Further, approximately 70 percent of all students graduate 
from high school, but African-American and Hispanic students have a 55 
percent or less chance of graduating from high school.
  If this measure had passed as written, without the Senate Amendment, 
African-Americans and Hispanics who are already the hardest hit by this 
economic downturn will now lose access to unemployment benefits at a 
greater rate, solely based upon their educational attainment. This is 
not fair.
  Only 52 percent of students in the 50 largest cities in the United 
States graduate from high school. That rate is below the national high 
school graduation rate of 70 percent, and also falls short of the 60-
percent average for urban districts across the Nation. Over his or her 
lifetime, a high school dropout earns, on average, about $260,000 less 
than a high school graduate, and about $1 million less than a college 
graduate.
  I vehemently disagree with how H.R. 3630 chooses to address 
increasing the skills of our workforce. I do not believe we should 
blame those who for a variety of reasons were not able to attain a high 
school diploma or GED.
  We should not punish them by excluding them from benefits that they 
have earned. We should be focused on programs to encourage and retrain 
our workforce. Programs like those offered by organizations like the 
National Urban League.


                                Medicaid

  My colleagues on the other side in H.R. 3630 singled out Medicare 
premium increases that would have permanently increased seniors' costs 
by $31 billion. The Senate Amendment addresses the Medicare Sustainable 
Growth Rate, SGR, extending physician payment rates and preventing a 
27.4 percent cut through February 29th; and it addresses Medicare and 
Medicaid Extenders policies through February 29th as well. It also 
includes a simple extension of TANF through February 29th.
  If we do not pass the Senate version of H.R. 3630 this would result 
in significant changes to Medicaid, threatening healthcare resources 
for the 60 million people, half of them children that rely on this 
program to stay healthy.
  A block grant for funding or a cap on federal Medicaid spending would 
increase the cost for states and the low income families who benefit 
from the program.
  Harris County has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in 
Texas. Limits and cuts to Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the 
citizens of Texas' 18th District. Harris County averages between 
500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid recipients monthly, thousands of people 
who may not have access to healthcare under this budget.
  These cuts would hurt the doctors trying to serve soldiers and their 
families. Just the other day, I was visiting a hospital in Riverside. 
The doctors and staff were committed to the care of veterans and their 
families, many of who were suffering from PTSD. The quality of their 
care could be jeopardized without the ``Doc Fix'' which would prevent a 
significant decrease in doctor reimbursements from Medicare and will 
impact TRICARE as well.
  Currently, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services has announced 
plans to delay processing of physician claims in the hope a fix will 
soon be enacted, they can only do so until January 17 when they will 
have to start paying at lower rates with a 27-percent cut. January 17 
is the very day the House convenes for the 2nd session of the 112th 
Congress, which means there will be no opportunity for Congress to pass 
a fix before the cut kicks in.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to block a 
short term extension, the following will take place: 650,000 physicians 
and practitioners would see payment delays and a 27-percent cut in 
payments when payments are made; Over 800 rural hospitals would lose 
eligibility for ``hold harmless'' payments that help cover the cost of 
outpatient hospital services and roughly 90 hospitals would receive 
payments that do not reflect the competitive wage environment in which 
they operate; Physical therapists, occupational therapists and speech 
language pathologists would no longer be allowed to use an exceptions 
process that protects seriously injured patients from hitting an 
arbitrary dollar cap on therapy services and halting their access to 
needed care later in the year; Over half a million (520,000) low-income 
Medicare beneficiaries would no longer receive financial assistance 
with their Medicare premiums.
  This is an untenable situation to place our veterans, soldiers, their 
families, and millions of other Americans who rely upon Medicare and 
the doctors who provided that care.
  Again, I want to emphasize that if there is a single federal program 
that is absolutely critical to people in communities all across this 
nation at this time, it would be unemployment compensation benefits. 
Unemployed Americans must have a means to subsist, while continuing to 
look for work that in many parts of the country is just not there. 
Families have to feed children.
  Personal and family savings have been exhausted and 401(k)s have been 
tapped, leaving many individuals and families desperate for some type 
of assistance until the economy improves and additional jobs are 
created. The extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term 
unemployed is an emergency. You do not play with people's lives when 
there is an emergency. We are in a crisis. Just ask someone who has 
been unemployed and looking for work, and they will tell you the same.
  I am committed to producing tangible results in suffering communities 
through legislation that creates jobs, fosters minority business 
opportunities, and builds a foundation for the future. We cannot now, 
or ever, allow partisan politics to keep us from addressing the needs 
of American families, the unemployed and seniors. I encourage my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to drop these harmful policy 
riders and support the ``Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 
2011.''

                          ____________________