[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 8, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H615-H623]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3630, TEMPORARY PAYROLL TAX CUT
CONTINUATION ACT OF 2011
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct on
H.R. 3630.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rivera). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bishop of New York 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 file a conference report not later than
February 17, 2012.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden) each will control 30 minutes.
[[Page H616]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees is very simple and
straightforward. It directs conferees negotiating extensions of the
payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance, and the SGR to file their
conference report by February 17, 2012.
Day in and day out, Members of this body come to the floor to speak
about the level of uncertainty that is hindering the U.S. economy and
stifling job growth. We have heard Speaker Boehner argue that the Bush
tax cuts must be extended in perpetuity to relieve corporations of
uncertainty. We have heard our Tea Party friends rally against the
deficit in order to reduce uncertainty for job creators.
Time and time again, we've heard our Republican colleagues speak of
the uncertainty that EPA regulations have created for expanding jobs.
Yet, when we contemplate the uncertainty created for consumers, small
businesses, doctors, and the unemployed driven by Congress' inability
to address the payroll tax extension, the SGR fix, and unemployment
benefits, our Republican friends are suddenly silent.
{time} 1620
We all remember the debate in December when, after years of touting
the benefits of tax cuts, our Republican colleagues suddenly changed
their minds when a payroll tax cut was considered, a tax cut that will
provide immediate relief for millions of Americans and will immediately
benefit the economy.
As we've debated these issues for several months, we've seen the data
and heard from economists who say extending the payroll tax cut and
unemployment insurance is good for American families, businesses and
economic growth. It isn't the silver bullet to solving all of our
Nation's problems, but it's a step in the right direction, a step that
can provide some relief to the unemployed and stimulate consumer
spending, which is fundamental to improving the overall economy.
By extending the payroll tax cut through the end of the year, 160
million Americans would continue to take home more money in their
paycheck. For a family earning $50,000 a year, that's about $80 a
month, or about $1,000 for the year.
Without the extension, that $1,000 is unavailable to families for
buying groceries or putting gas in their vehicles or buying their
children new clothes for school which, when spent at local businesses,
sparks economic activity. These facts are indisputable.
Moody's Analytics estimates that for every dollar spent on the
payroll tax cut it produces $1.27 in economic activity. JP Morgan Chase
economists also estimated that ending the payroll tax cut and halting
an extension of unemployment would shave .75 percent off the GDP next
year. Macroeconomic Advisers provided a similar analysis last year,
stating that allowing the pay roll tax cut to lapse would reduce GDP
growth by .5 percent and cost the economy 400,000 jobs. A job loss of
that magnitude would destroy the improvements in employment we've seen
since President Obama took office.
Last week, the Labor Department reported that 243,000 jobs were added
to the economy in January, marking the 23rd consecutive month of
private sector job growth. The unemployment rate also fell to 8.3
percent, the lowest point since February of '09. Now, we clearly still
have a long, long way to go, but failure to extend these critical
programs would stifle the progress we have seen thus far and thwart
future growth.
But Americans don't know if they'll have that extra $80 a month to
spend come March 1, and businesses are equally uncertainly about
whether or not their customers will have that extra income to spend.
Yesterday, Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told
the Joint Economic Committee that it is vital, vital to extend both the
payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, which together could add .9
percent to GDP if done for the whole year. He also said the failure to
do so would deal ``a significant blow to the economy, cutting growth by
almost one full percentage point.''
We must extend both the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance.
Unemployment insurance provides temporary relief to Americans who lose
their jobs through no fault of their own. In a sense, it's a bridge to
reemployment. The average weekly benefit in 2011 was $300 a week.
That's $1,200 a month. Take that away and millions of unemployed
Americans lose a lifeline to put gas in their tank to get to that job
interview, or to hire a babysitter while they go out to look for a job.
Every little bit helps to get them back on their feet, and that's all
Americans want to do, get back to work.
In every recession since 1957, the Federal Government has stepped in
to provide additional support for unemployed workers. Without an
extension, 5 million people will exhaust their benefits by the end of
2012.
Furthermore, under the GOP proposal in December to adjust the
unemployment program, 3.3 million people would lose their unemployment
benefits.
The Council of Economic Advisers estimates that if unemployment
benefits are not extended, the economy can be expected to generate
478,000 fewer jobs. That's fewer jobs by the end of 2014, an estimate
that is consistent with CBO projections. CBO also estimates that $36
billion spent on unemployment insurance would raise GDP between $14
billion and $54 billion, or about .22 percent.
The Economic Policy Institute has also estimated that extending
unemployment through next year would create $70 billion in economic
activity and a .4 percent increase in GDP. While these estimates differ
somewhat, they all point to one thing, increased economic activity.
Yet, here we are, debating whether or not this vital lifeline should
be extended for an additional 10 months. For struggling families, this
is a frightening time to find our elected leaders squabbling about the
Keystone pipeline and requiring drug testing for unemployment benefits.
As American families continue to struggle, so too do American
businesses. A survey done in 2011 by the National Federation of
Independent Businesses found that 53 percent of small businesses said
lack of demand is an impediment to growth. Extending the payroll tax
cut and unemployment will put additional money in the hands of
Americans who will, in turn, spend that money on necessities like food,
clothing, and travel.
When consumer spending represents roughly 70 percent of our economy,
the policies that create the environment for growth will be the ones
that get Americans spending again, and we can do that by putting more
money back into the pockets of Americans struggling to make ends meet.
It's not just American workers and the unemployed facing uncertainty.
Medicare doctors and patients are too. If we don't act, the SGR formula
responsible for Medicare physician payments will cut reimbursement by
27.4 percent starting on March 1. A cut this large will force more
doctors out of Medicare at a time when doctors find it difficult to
treat Medicare patients, pay employees and keep their practices open.
A 2011 MEDPAC survey found that 2 percent of Medicare patients
reported having big problems finding a physician. That may not sound
like a lot, but previous surveys showed patients having relatively few,
if any, problems.
In addition, a 2008 survey done by the Center for Studying Health
System Change found that about 14 percent of physicians accepted no new
Medicare patients, and a 2010 survey by the American Medical
Association found that 17 percent of physicians were restricting the
number of Medicare patients in their practice. If we fail to find a
permanent solution to the SGR, these numbers will only rise, and
Medicare patients will not receive the care they need or deserve.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress must act to end this uncertainty. I urge my
colleagues to support this simple motion to instruct, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we've seen this motion to instruct before; and it calls
on the conferees, of which I'm a member, to act, and to do so by
February 17, I believe is the date that's been suggested. We would like
to act. In fact, we await
[[Page H617]]
an alternative from the Senate. The conference committee has met and,
led by our very capable chairman, Dave Camp of Michigan, we've held, I
believe, three or four open joint House-Senate Republican-Democrat
conference discussions, meetings which hadn't happened around here.
Certainly in the last Congress I don't think it ever happened. And
we're doing it in the broad daylight, and we've had four of those, and
our staffs are having some discussions.
But you've got to go back and understand that the House, under
Republican leadership, actually passed a 1-year extension of the
unemployment benefits. The House, Republican led, passed a 2-year doc
fix, which meant for seniors who are on Medicare that the physicians
they rely so much on for their health care, those physicians would
continue to be able to afford to see them and not face a 27.4 percent
cut in the reimbursement rates.
Now, here's the deal. We passed that, and we funded it, and we did it
for 2 years, not 2 months--2 years. We did the payroll tax, as it's
called by my friends on the other side of the aisle, payroll tax,
middle class tax, working-American tax cut for a full year.
Now, there's a debate about whether that should be offset or not,
because our party has said, you know, when we reduce the tax burden on
hardworking middle class Americans, families and job creators, we
shouldn't have to go raise somebody else's taxes to do that.
Now, the difference on this, if we're talking about Social Security
taxes, this is about reducing the amount of money that you and I, Mr.
Speaker, you and I pay into Social Security and every working American
that pays into Social Security. We're saying, you get to reduce how
much you pay into Social Security by this 2 percent.
Now, those of us on this side of the aisle believe that the Social
Security trust fund has been raided once too many times by both parties
over time, but that should stop. And so if we're going to reduce how
much goes into Social Security, we should offset that somehow so that
the fund is not drained, and that can be done in a multitude of ways.
But it should be done because otherwise it's less money going into
the Social Security trust fund. And I think we'd all have to admit, as
the actuaries do, that at the end of the day, the Social Security trust
fund is not the best funded trust fund on the planet, and we are going
to need to do some work to secure the retirement of future generations
in Social Security.
{time} 1630
So back to the point here, the House passed all of that. We did a 1-
year payroll tax reduction so that hardworking middle class Americans
would have tax relief. They'd have that extra money in the pocket, and
Lord knows they need it, especially when you see what's happened under
this President with energy costs.
I think gasoline was $1.86 a gallon when President Obama took office,
and we now go to the pump and it's somewhere between $3-something or $4
and pushing over $4 depending on where you are in America. You've got
to have a little extra money just to try and keep up and take your kids
to soccer and go to school and go to work. It's hard out there.
So we passed that, a year extension of that, and a full year
extension of unemployment for those who have struggled in this horrible
economy. There have been 11 recessions since World War II. This is the
worst in terms of a recovery from a recession.
When Ronald Reagan was President, we had a horrible recession in the
early eighties. We came out of that recession, and if it were at the
same pace now as then, you'd create something like 15 million, 16
million new jobs, which means virtually everybody who's unemployed and
still uncounted, because a lot of people who have fallen off the
unemployment rolls aren't counted, all of them would have jobs if we
were growing at the same pace we did when President Reagan was in
office and we came out of that recession.
But we're not. The policies really haven't worked. The so-called
stimulus that the American taxpayers were told if it would just pass,
somehow unemployment would never get above 8 percent. Now, a trillion-
plus dollars later with interest, payments that the next generation
will get to pay back, we're somehow supposed to celebrate unemployment
that's dropped to 8.3.
I'm glad to see the improvement. I'm glad to see the job gains in the
private sector. For goodness sakes, my wife and I have been small
business owners since 1986 in Oregon. I understand what it's like to
sign the front of a payroll check and the back and to grow a business
and to deal in good times and in bad.
But the long and short of this is this is a horrible recession, so
coming out of this we need that bridge. We put some reforms in
unemployment to help people, to lift them up, to give them incentive
when they're out there for a year, year and a half, 2 years that maybe
we could help them get a better education, encourage that, allow States
to encourage that, to help them get a GED, because all of the data
shows that if you have a high school diploma, if you have a GED, the
odds of you getting hired are much higher.
Then we gave the States the opportunity to do drug screening.
I've heard from a lot of employers in my district out in rural Oregon
that say, We do drug tests, and Congressman, you'd be shocked at how
many people apply for the job and can't pass the drug test. Well, if
you can't pass the drug test, then maybe you really aren't actively
seeking work in a way that's legitimate because you can't get hired and
yet you're on unemployment, so why don't we do some sort of screen,
figure out that problem that you have, and help you then get treatment.
So we said to States, we're going to do away with a Federal decision
that's, I don't know, 20, 30, 40 years old that said States don't have
this authority. I think States could actually manage this pretty well.
That was in the bill the House passed.
So we did all of these things: A 1-year reduction in the taxes people
pay into Social Security, the payroll tax deduction, a 2-year fix for
your physicians who treat our families on Medicare. Both of my parents,
they're gone now, they were on Medicare. My wife's parents, who've also
passed away, they were on Medicare. This is an incredibly valuable
program. But we passed a 2-year fix for them.
The 1-year for unemployment and the 1-year for the middle class tax
cut. All of that went over to the Senate. And this is probably
something maybe we can agree on here. What we got back from the other
Chamber was a 2-month extension of those things.
Now, some of us stayed around here when the House said, Really? A 2-
month, when this is a 1-year and 2-year problem? Why don't you appoint
some negotiators? So the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, appointed
the negotiators through the House side. We hoped that the Senate would
appoint negotiators. They didn't. They didn't appoint anybody. In fact,
they left town.
Eventually, when nobody showed up after we'd been here for a week,
trying to see if we couldn't bring both sides, the House and the Senate
together, Republicans and Democrats, work out something more than a 2-
month deal, they wouldn't show. And we ended up passing a 2-month
extension. Which by the way, Mr. Speaker, puts us right back where we
are right now. Which is why we have this motion to instruct from my
friends on the other side of the aisle calling on the conference
committee to get its work done by the 17th.
So we have worked for that. In fact, the last time this was voted on
here it was overwhelming. I think there were only 16 ``no'' votes in
the House. So we want to get this done, too.
Now, the Republican conferees have met today, as we've done over the
last week or two. The Democrat Senate conferees, by the way, they had a
retreat today down at the Nationals ballpark in some meeting room.
There was a planning retreat. Both parties have had these in the House.
But it just sort of caused a pause in the effort because the Democrats
were all off at a policy retreat today from the Senate, so we weren't
able to accomplish much today.
But we hope to get something from the Senate because, you see, they
go into the conference and they had this 2-month effort against our 1-
year. So we can't negotiate against ourselves. So we're waiting for a
proposal back from the Senate, which we hope to get soon. If we do,
tomorrow we'll meet at 10 o'clock. Republicans, Democrats,
[[Page H618]]
House and Senate to try and work this through. We want to get this
done. The American people deserve to have us get this done. We're
working on a way to do that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for a
couple of quick comments.
We all have the same set of facts. The Senate conferees were
appointed on December 23, the very same day that the provision that
we're talking about passed the House by unanimous consent. The
conference committee did not meet until the 27th of January for the
first time. That's one.
Two, we talk about the Reagan recession. The Reagan recession was
nowhere near as severe as the, let's call it the Bush recession. The
GDP fourth quarter of 2008 declined at an annual decline of over 8
percent. Most severe recession we have had since the Great Depression.
Jobs lost.
Last 14 months of the Bush administration, we lost jobs every single
month, culminating in his last month in office, a job loss of 735,000
jobs. President Obama has been President for 36 months. We've had job
growth, private sector job growth, in 23 of those months.
Drug testing, one comment: Over 400,000 Americans have lost their
jobs in the last 3 years as a result of corporations outsourcing to
other countries.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield myself another 30 seconds.
So these are people who lost their jobs, ready, willing, and able to
do them, lost their jobs as a result of, really, corporations
unrelentingly pursuing profits at the expense of middle class
Americans. Do we really want to add insult to injury and tell them if
they need unemployment, they're going to have to be drug tested?
I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. The major reason why this motion to instruct is timely is
the answer to this question. What will we know after February 17 that
we don't know now? There is going to be no new information. So what
would justify the delay?
What we know now, number one, is that Republican economists and
Democratic economists say that this is a very fragile recovery, that
we're all happy that the unemployment rate is going down, but we're all
concerned that it's unacceptably too high. And when you have Republican
and Democratic-aligned economists saying unanimously to take this money
out of the economy at this time would stall the recovery, we all agree
that we can't do that. So that's not going to change between now and
February 17.
Secondly, we know that on the pay-for, we have clear lines of
division on this. If you have a pay-for that basically takes with one
hand what was given in the other, in other words you cut spending on
things that help middle class families in order to pay for a 2 percent
reduction in their payroll tax, that zeroes out the stimulative effect.
So from a macroeconomic point of view, it does no good for the
economy, when all of us assert that our goal is to help the economy.
The second question is political tactics, and the political tactic of
this Congress has been brinksmanship. On December 10, when we just
about turned the lights out on government, it was a last-minute
agreement that finally kept them on. It included a tax provision that
extended the high-income tax cuts, added $800 billion to the deficit,
and created some significant anxiety in the markets as to whether this
institution could do its job.
{time} 1640
Fast-forward to August of 2011 and to the fiasco--that's the only
word that can be used--of this House of Representatives actually having
a debate about whether it was legitimate for the people of this country
to not pay their bills. That caused enormous anxiety in the markets. By
the way, that hurts the economy.
In December of last year, we were in the payroll tax fight, and this
is where I think we get to the heart of the matter. There is a
difference of opinion on the payroll tax. The Democratic side is
essentially for it, and it was very clear the Republicans were against
it, and there was kicking and dragging when the Speaker came back with
the unanimous consent and overrode the action that had previously been
taken.
So the reality of the situation we're in now is that the other side
is saying, yes, yes, yes, they're for a payroll tax reduction; but
their actions say, no way, no way, no way.
It's time to act.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both
sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 21 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WALDEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, thankfully we're in a leap year, because we have 2 weeks
to the day to come to an agreement to extend the payroll tax cut, the
doc fix, and the important unemployment benefits.
We can't let taxes go up for the American people by $100 billion.
Let's get this clear what this costs. Yet the majority is willing to
bail out certain banks, to protect billionaires from having their taxes
go up by one dime, and the majority has to be dragged kicking and
screaming to provide the middle class a little help.
The gentleman from New York was absolutely correct to compare what
the Reagan administration faced--and I thought they did a good job in
responding to the problem--to this almost catastrophe off the cliff,
which is a stretch beyond one's imagination. It doesn't stand up to
logic. So far this year, the economic indicators have shown some
improvements, not what you would like, not what I would like, not what
the gentleman from Long Island would like. Well, we're going in the
right direction. I'm sorry if some folks on the other side don't like
that, but that's what's happening.
We've had 23 months of private sector job growth and increases not
since the mid-nineties in manufacturing. When the President raised his
hand in January of 2009, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. Now the
unemployment rate dropped to 8.3 percent, which is nowhere either side
wants it to be. However, the failure to pass a payroll tax cut would
put the brakes on our economic growth by reducing our gross domestic
product by $28 billion off the bat. The recovery is still fragile. The
States, including my home State of New Jersey, have an above average
unemployment rate. Unfortunately, the failure to pass an extension
would also hurt New Jersey more than almost every other State.
First, folks living in Bergen County, they lose $1,400. Now, that may
not seem like a lot if you're paying a tax rate of 13.9 percent--hint,
hint--but it is a significant amount of money directly in the pockets
of the middle class families in northern New Jersey. Nationwide, the
failure to pass an extension would reduce employment by $350,000.
We all agree, Mr. Speaker, that this payroll tax cut is a good thing,
but we disagree profoundly as to how we're going to pay for this. I
know it's tough for you to come to the well to find places to pay for
it since you didn't pay for anything.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. PASCRELL. In New Jersey, this means the construction industry
would lose over $100 billion in sales; manufacturing would lose $285
million in sales; and real estate professionals would lose $159 million
in sales. Overall, there would be a reduction of over 11,000 jobs.
This is totally unacceptable. The answer to job creation and economic
growth is in front of our faces. Help the middle class grow with tax
relief and smart investments now. Put it in context.
Mr. WALDEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to just address a couple of points.
First of all, my dear friend from New Jersey, when he talks about the
Congress bailing out the banks, may want
[[Page H619]]
to talk to his colleague from New York since, I think, he voted for
TARP in that process. Anyway, he may want to have that discussion right
there.
You two are pretty close together. You can kind of work that deal
out.
Mr. PASCRELL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALDEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PASCRELL. We were all in on this for good or for bad, and we
could level the same criticisms about bailing out the auto industry.
Some banks took advantage of it and played it straight; some did not.
Mr. WALDEN. In reclaiming my time, I don't disagree with that. I
didn't support some of those bailouts either, although I did vote to
make sure their financial system didn't collapse. My point is we faced
some tough problems. We actually got over the hump in a bipartisan way,
and we can do that here.
The interesting thing is that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are the ones who, I believe, in most cases voted against the
long-term payroll tax reduction the Republicans put forward; they voted
against the 1-year extension of unemployment and the 2-year doc fix.
Mr. PASCRELL. May I respond?
Mr. WALDEN. Wait a minute. I've got a couple of other things I was
going to share with you first.
So that's what the House passed; right?
What we got back from the Senate was the 2-month short-term that
we're all upset about. Because I agree with you. Having been a small
business owner, there were a couple of things that were bad about that
2-month extension, which we actually, in the end, tweaked and fixed.
One is just doing the payroll--trying to get the formulas, the
calculations, the software in your payroll system. All that had to be
changed for employers, and we actually got that fixed at the end, which
is a good thing.
Going forward, we need long-term predictability and certainty, and
that's what Republicans thought and Speaker Boehner thought in the
beginning, which was, why don't we stop kicking these cans down the
road on short-terms and get away from these problems that were such an
issue last year that riled the markets, as one of our colleagues said
earlier. Why were we forced into this mess with short-term continuing
resolutions that time and again we came right up to the brink on? Why?
Because, under Speaker Pelosi, my friends on the other side of the
aisle did not produce a budget nor did they fund the agencies for the
full fiscal year.
Mr. PASCRELL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALDEN. No, I won't, not at this moment. Don't leave. I'll get to
you.
I've got to finish this because this is the problem with the
dysfunctional nature of what happened here in Congress 2 years ago,
which then, when we took the majority in January of last year, we
inherited--no budget--just like our colleagues on other side have not
produced a budget in more than 1,000 days. They still haven't produced
a budget. If you and I were on a board of directors of some nonprofit
and if we didn't do a budget every year, they'd rightfully say that
you're being malfeasant, that you're not doing your job.
So the House passed a budget. The House, under Speaker Boehner, also
funded the government. That wasn't easy, but we only have a majority on
a good day in a third of the process, so we had to work with our
friends on the other side and with the President downtown. At the end
of the day, though, we funded the government for the rest of the fiscal
year.
You talk about anxiety in the markets and all that. By the way, in
having brought some stability back to government, in having seriously
said we have to pay for spending and cuts by cutting spending, the
market now is at the highest level it has been since the crash in '08
or thereabouts. So it is coming back. Now, that doesn't help the
average Joe out there on the street necessarily or people trying to
find work, and there has been a lot of effort to try and deal with
that, but we have a long way to go. I agree with my colleague that none
of us is happy at 8.3. None of us was really happy at 10 or, in parts
of my district, at 16 percent unemployment, so we have a long way to
go.
I would yield just briefly.
{time} 1650
Mr. PASCRELL. I would agree with much of what the gentleman is
saying, and we need a bipartisan solution.
Mr. WALDEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. PASCRELL. The problem is, you've failed to mention that how you
paid for this is what really caused the disagreement, whether it was
August or even December. Even December, go back to December when we had
another opportunity, and we did not rise to that occasion. If you are
not willing to at least come together and compromise on how you pay for
these things--I know it's a difficult thing, and I respect the
integrity of your words and yourself when I say this through the
Speaker. I say this wholeheartedly and full-heartedly. If we can't
agree on how we're going to pay for the payroll tax cut because if you
look at what you've suggested--you're suggesting that we go deeper into
the general budget and cut things that are near and dear to not only
yourself--
Mr. WALDEN. I'm going to reclaim my time because you actually have
time, and you might want to get some yielded on that.
The point is, the discussion we are having right now is on how to pay
for it. That is the discussion we are having with the Senate, and there
is disagreement. But there should be no misunderstanding that it was
the Republican House that put forward the 1-year extension of the
payroll tax cut for these same working-class folks. It was the
Republican House that put forward a 2-year fix for the docs so they had
certainty in their medical practices and could continue to see seniors
on Medicare. And it was the House that passed the 1-year extension on
unemployment. We just think the ``spend it even when you don't have
it'' days are over.
This country's job outlook is affected because of this country's
government's failure to cut spending. We don't have a revenue problem;
we have a spending problem. There is nothing that has a longer chance
of living in America than a government program created in Washington.
We have got to do a better job. It's not easy. The hardest thing you
can do in this job is to tell somebody ``no.'' But you know what, for
too many times, too many people in this Chamber over the years have
only said ``yes'' to spending and creating new programs. That has to
change.
So we did have a debate about increasing the debt ceiling. And for
the first time we said, It's not going to be that automatic Democratic
Dick Gephardt rule that said, when you pass a budget, you raise the
debt ceiling automatically. We thought it was time to have the debate.
As painful as it was, as difficult as it was to say, We have to offset
this increase in deficit by cutting spending, I know, as a small
business owner, our small business would have been broke if it had been
run as this government runs.
Now there are good times and bad times in government, and you can
work around some level of borrowing and some level of deficit. But it
isn't far from this porch out here to the debt crisis Greece has and
Portugal has and the European countries have and are facing right now.
We have time to fix that; and that's why we're saying rather than cut
the funding going into Social Security and not replace it with
something else is a mistake. That is what we're saying.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield myself 30 seconds.
The gentleman referenced my vote on TARP. I did, indeed, vote for
TARP. I found myself in pretty good company. Mr. Cantor voted for TARP.
Mr. Boehner voted for TARP.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for this
opportunity.
We got some welcome economic news last Friday that companies added
about 250,000 private sector jobs. It's long overdue, and we hope and
pray that it continues for many, many
[[Page H620]]
months to come. The country is coming back, but we have a very long way
to go.
I think one of the reasons why the country is coming back is because
at the beginning of 2011, everybody who earned a wage in this country
got a fairly substantial tax cut so that they would buy more in the
stores and maybe eat a little bit in the restaurants and buy more goods
and services. And I think that and some other things started to work.
The worst thing that we could do would be to interrupt that recovery
by failing to extend this tax relief for middle class Americans. I'm
willing to take at face value that I think almost everyone in this
House agrees with that proposition. And I think everyone agrees with
the proposition that it would do great harm to our economy not to make
this happen.
Here is what I think stands in the way of where we are and where we
need to get to: in any negotiation, you can't succeed by negotiation
through ultimatum. There are some things that I really think ought to
happen. I, frankly, think the way to pay for this is a very small tax
surcharge on the very wealthiest Americans. I think that those who make
more than $1 million a year, who have gotten, by the way, 90 percent of
the pay increases in this country over the last decade, I think asking
them to contribute to deficit reduction is a fair and reasonable thing
to do. I think it's what we should do. But I don't think we should make
it an ultimatum. And I don't think our party is making it an ultimatum.
The problem here, as I see it, is that the last time we went around
in this 1-year extension, we heard from the other side two very
important matters that I think are rather extraneous to solving this
problem. The first had the functional effect of a cut in unemployment
benefits. Now, at a time when there are four unemployed Americans for
every one open job, I think to presume that the unemployed are lazy or
are not working hard to find a job is really just factually incorrect
and, frankly, indefensible. So we don't agree with extending this
recovery by cutting the unemployment benefits of people out there
looking for work. We just don't think that's a good idea. Then the
other ultimatum came on the issue of the pipeline. And there are all
different views on the pipeline--some pro, some con--within both
parties.
I hope that what we're able to do is to stop the negotiation by
ultimatum and extend this for the rest of the year. And the purpose of
Mr. Bishop's amendment needs to be looked at. There is no good reason
why this can't be done by the 17th of February. Frankly, it should have
been done by the 17th of January. And we all made this decision at the
end of December. There was no reason why this couldn't have been done
in the month of January, but here we are.
When the American people have a dispute in their family, in their
business, at the labor negotiations table, at their school board, no
matter where they are, they do not negotiate by ultimatum. Neither
should the Congress. And, frankly, when I heard from the other side in
December that we must do the pipeline or no extension of the tax cut,
you know, we must cut unemployment benefits or no extension of the tax
cut, that's no way to run the country. And that's not what we ought to
do.
Mr. WALDEN. How much time remains on each side, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 13\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from New York has 10\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to just point out a couple of things so we get on the
same terms here. I was actually here until the 23rd day of December, as
were the Republicans appointed to be conferees. I don't know that
Leader Pelosi had appointed Democrat conferees at that point. I don't
think in that process she had yet, although she did somewhere
thereafter. Maybe on the 23rd, but not in between. The Senate wasn't
here. And even though we tried to get them to appoint conferees prior
to that, they did not. So on the 23rd is when we finally said, It's
over. They weren't coming back, and we ended up agreeing to the 2-month
extension, which leaves us here.
Now, my friend from New Jersey talked about this should have been
done by January 17. Well, there's only one problem with that: the
Senate didn't come back into session until the 24th of January. The
conferees could have met during that period. In fact, we would have met
during that period; but, frankly, there were Members--probably from
both parties and both Houses--who were not available to meet. And I
know for sure in the Senate, some of the conferees were not available
to meet because they weren't exactly in the country. So that wasn't
going to happened until we were both in session.
I believe the State of the Union was Tuesday night, the 24th. I
believe that's the day the Senate came back. I may be off by a day. But
that's why this thing didn't start up. Which, by the way, is why in
December we begged the Senate, Why don't we work this out December 23?
Why don't we work this out December 22, 21, 19, 18, go on back. We were
ready and we stayed, and they chose not to. They had a big vote and
said, We're going to do 2 months. We'll see you at the end of January.
So that is where we are.
{time} 1700
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALDEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. Is the gentleman asserting that the Senate was in recess
until January 24?
Mr. WALDEN. I believe it was.
Mr. ANDREWS. That means that the gentleman must support President
Obama's appointments to the Labor Board?
Mr. WALDEN. Reclaiming my time, that's cute and clever. You and I
know that's not exactly the same issue. And I would assert that if a
different President, a different party had done that, you might share
the same concerns that some of us have. We were not officially in
recess, but they were not in town, either. Both Chambers open and close
every 3 days. That's how it's been done in the recent past.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield myself 30 seconds so we all have the
same set of facts.
It's my understanding that the chairman of the conference committee,
Mr. Camp, was on a codel to South America during the period of time
that the gentleman from Oregon cites, and it is up to the chairman of
the conference committee to call the conference.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from New York for
the time.
Mr. Speaker, this matter of whether to extend the payroll tax for
middle class Americans for 160 million Americans is a no-brainer for
most Americans. It has to be done. 160 million Americans should get a
tax increase because the Republicans don't want to share the sacrifice
of cutting spending and balancing our budget? We have to pay for the
sins of the Republican majority who want to balance the American budget
on the backs of working class Americans, seniors, veterans, and the
middle class? That makes no sense. It's not right.
Now, my colleague from the other side of the aisle says that the
Democrats want to take money from Social Security to pay for this.
That's not true, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, that is obviously not
true. This is from the party, Mr. Speaker, that wanted to privatize
Social Security. The Republicans wanted to privatize Social Security,
and everyone knows it.
I'm not going to yield.
The Republicans just voted last year to end Medicare.
So the American people are not fooled about whose side the
Republicans are on and whose side the Democrats are on, Mr. Speaker.
The Democrats are for working people, for the American middle class,
for seniors, for veterans, for labor. So the Republicans say, Mr.
Speaker, that they want 160 million Americans to have their payroll
taxes go up. They want 50 million senior citizens in America to be
threatened with the loss of health care because they are going to deny
the doctors who treat the seniors full reimbursement for their
treatments. And they want to cut unemployment benefits that put food on
the table for tens of millions of Americans who are out there looking
for work because the Republicans do not want to share the sacrifice.
They want to cut spending on
[[Page H621]]
the backs of the middle class working Americans and seniors.
They voted to privatize Social Security. They voted to end Medicare.
Who is anybody kidding when they say that this bill to extend
unemployment benefits, to keep the payroll tax cut for 160 million
Americans, and to keep seniors having doctors care for them because the
doctors will still get full Medicare reimbursement has anything to do
with seniors? The Democrats are for Social Security, Medicare, and
seniors, and everyone knows it.
It's time for our Republican colleagues--I'm a Democrat who voted
against TARP and for the car company bailout--to get their priorities
straight.
Vote for this continuation of unemployment benefits, for unemployment
insurance, and full payment to doctors who take care of our Nation's
seniors.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
set the record straight.
First of all, my colleague who just spoke, it was his party that
raided Medicare as part of the President's health care legislation by
$500 billion. That's a fact.
Now, when he says that my party ended Medicare, that is not a fact.
And, in fact, PolitiFact, the independent arbiter of what we all say
here to see if it's truthful, said that the notion that that is true is
the biggest untruth of the year. They gave it that award because they
knew that it wasn't true. And I know it's not true.
Now, I'm trying to figure out what my friend, and he is my friend,
means when he said that this isn't somehow raiding Social Security's
trust fund because the payroll tax that is at issue here that is being
reduced by 2 percent is the payment that, if it were made, would go
into Social Security. That's the payroll tax.
I won't yield at this moment. You wouldn't yield to me. I'll let you
use your folks' time.
Now that is being offset. And by the way, the offsets that we are
talking about as part of this legislation almost in every case received
bipartisan support in this House, and sometimes overwhelming bipartisan
support. And many of those offsets were actually recommended by the
President of the United States, Mr. Obama, as part of a different
package as things that he thought made sense.
And so we said, you know what? Maybe there's some common ground here.
The President recommended some of these offsets as ways to reduce
government spending and pay for other things as part of the
supercommittee process. And so if he thought it was okay there, maybe
we can finally find some common ground, and we'll say you like that
there, and so we'll use that here so we don't increase the deficit,
don't hurt jobs, and don't leave our kids with an unimaginable debt.
So Republicans are the ones who've said, We're not going to let you
raid Social Security. We'll reduce the payroll tax payment, the Social
Security tax payment, but we're going to offset it so that the fund is
not any further reduced. I think that's an important principle that I
would hope we would all share.
And so I just say that it was the President's health care plan that
took $500 billion out of Medicare. I don't know, I'm a fan of Medicare.
I've seen what it does for seniors. I saw what it did for my parents
and my wife's parents. I want to make sure it's preserved for the
future, just like I want to make sure Social Security is as well.
That's why we shouldn't rob the fund.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds for
two quick comments.
I don't know a single Democrat, not a single one, who believes that
we should diminish the Social Security trust fund to handle this Social
Security payroll tax reduction. We all believe that the Social Security
trust fund should be held harmless.
Second, with respect to Medicare, the Affordable Care Act does indeed
reduce the rate of growth of Medicare going forward by $500 billion. I
will point out that every single Republican in this Chamber voted for
that very same reduction in the rate of growth when they voted for the
Ryan budget.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. I thank my friend.
We are here as stewards of our Nation, and we must be here to care
for the people of our Nation, to care for those who are working hard
every day trying to survive, trying to pay their mortgages, trying to
pay their car payments, get their kids in school. And all they're
looking for, 160 million Americans, is a continuation of a tax cut. We
should be for that.
Those millions who are unemployed are also looking for help. They're
looking for recognition that they've earned these unemployment
benefits. This isn't welfare. It is an earned benefit, unemployment
insurance. We should make sure they get that benefit.
Now, why do they need it? It's pretty obvious. People have to pay
their mortgages or their rent. They have to feed their family, and they
have to put clothes on their kids' backs. They need this unemployment
insurance.
I have trouble understanding, Mr. Speaker, this proposal that's
before the Congress in this bill, H.R. 3630, that would discriminate
against Americans who aren't employed, who don't have a high school
diploma, by saying if you're going to get unemployment benefits, you
have to go to school. Well, that sounds good, but then it doesn't give
them any resources to do so. This sounds too much like urging people to
pick themselves up by their bootstraps and then stealing their boots.
We should give people unemployment benefits, and if they have time to
go to school because they don't have a job, we should be paying for
that as well. That helps to uplift the knowledge level in America, and
then when our economy comes back, we'll have a better-trained
workforce.
Now, this other proposal which would allow States to subject all of
those who apply for unemployment insurance to drug test needs to be
looked at.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. KUCINICH. Has anybody in this Congress suggested that those who
are getting a bailout should take a drug test? That those who have oil
depletion allowances should take a drug test? That those who were the
recipients of the Bush tax cuts in the top bracket should take a drug
test? No. We say the poorest of the poor should be subject to drug
tests. I mean, come on. Get real.
{time} 1710
We need to create jobs in this economy, and there's one way to do it.
We could create 7 million jobs debt-free with what's called the NEED
Act, the National Employment Emergency Defense Act. Government needs to
create these jobs debt free. We don't have to have the unemployment
level we have. We shouldn't be having this debate.
Mr. WALDEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what Americans really want is a job. I don't think
there's any disagreement between us that that should be our goal.
That's why as part of what the Republicans put in the bill that went to
the Senate is a plan to auction off spectrum that would generate
upwards of 700,000 jobs, according to some studies--700,000 jobs. It
will spur innovation and spur technology. That's in this bill that
we're fighting for because this is a sector that can grow good-paying,
family jobs that can keep America in the lead on innovation and
technology.
So the legislation, the American Jobs Act, which I authored, is in
this legislation. It's a part of this bill. It would generate net $16.7
billion to help pay for extending unemployment or to help pay the
Social Security trust fund so that it doesn't have to be depleted.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Reed).
Mr. REED. I thank my good friend from Oregon for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I have sat on this conference committee now for a bunch
of months, and there's been a lot of money spent in Washington, DC, and
elsewhere around this Nation saying that the Republican Party is the
Party of No. Well, let me tell you as I sat in this conference
committee what I heard, and yesterday was the best example of it.
I heard commonsense proposals in the House bill brought to the
conference committee, brought to the Senate Democrats and said, Look,
we have all supported this. Ninety percent of
[[Page H622]]
these pay-fors for the policy that we're trying to enact, the
President--the Democratic President--supports. And what I heard
repeatedly yesterday was, No, no, no. We are not going to accept these
pay-fors. Even though our President said we'll accept them, even though
we've supported them in the past, what I heard yesterday was, No, we're
not going to pay for it.
So I think to the American people there is a clear division here.
What we stand for in the House Republican side and in this Chamber is
that we are going to pay for the decisions coming out of Washington,
DC, going forward.
And I will have to say that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, and my particular colleagues in the Senate on the Democratic
side of the aisle, have tried to go back to the old politics of do you
know what? Let's just call everything emergency spending and we don't
have to pay for it. That's old-school politics. That philosophy is done
and over with because the hardworking American taxpayers back at home,
Mr. Speaker, deserve for us to pay our bills, and that is what we're
doing.
I am all for true dialogue. If the Senate is not going to accept the
pay-fors that are in the House bill, then send over whatever proposals
you have to cover this bill, especially when we're talking about Social
Security taxes and when we're talking about payroll taxes that are the
sole revenue to fund Social Security.
I've met so many constituents back at home, Mr. Speaker, that have
repeatedly told me, Why are you cutting these taxes? Why are you
jeopardizing Social Security? And what I have said to them is, I
believe that you need to keep your money, not give it to Washington and
let them waste it and spend it on policies that are out of here. But
what we will do is I will stand and make sure that Social Security is
made whole.
That's what I'm looking for in this dialogue is that we come
together, recognize that the politics of old is done and we will pay
for our decisions. And once that happens, I am confident we can come
together and do what hardworking taxpayers in America want us to do,
and that is extend the payroll, take care of the unemployment, and take
care of our doctors so that physicians can see our seniors in America
and that Medicare is preserved.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Michigan
(Mr. Peters).
Mr. PETERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise today in support of Representative Bishop's Democratic motion
to instruct conferees.
If Congress doesn't act by the end of the month, Americans that have
lost their jobs through no fault of their own will begin losing the
unemployment benefits keeping their family afloat in these very
difficult times. This is why I'm leading my colleagues in sending a
letter to the conference committee urging them to preserve current
levels of unemployment benefits. Families receiving unemployment
benefits are already facing significant challenges, and pulling the rug
out from underneath them would damage our economy and force these
Americans into poverty.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues like to talk about uncertainty.
When they're not pushing tax cuts for the rich as a cure-all for the
economy, they're blaming uncertainty supposedly created by Wall Street
reform or environmental protections for slow economic growth.
If my Republican colleagues want to know what real uncertainty is, I
suggest they pick up the phone the next time one of their constituents
who is staring down the expiration of their unemployment benefits
calls. Real uncertainty is not knowing if you're able to pay for heat.
Real uncertainty is not knowing if you're able to pay for groceries.
Real uncertainty means spending a year or more looking for a job and
barely scraping by with unemployment benefits while some in Washington
want to play politics with the livelihood of these Americans.
Uncertainty is exactly what Republicans are creating by their refusal
to come to the table and pass a full extension of unemployment benefits
and the payroll tax cut.
I support Representative Bishop's motion to instruct conferees
because it will direct conference committee members to stop the delay
and issue their report next week. American families cannot afford to
wait any longer.
Mr. WALDEN. How much time does each side have remaining, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think this has been a good, thoughtful, and lively debate because I
think we've been able to show each other, through you, Mr. Speaker, the
fact that the House did its work.
House Republicans put forward a proposal to extend unemployment
benefits for a full year, and we paid for it. We put forward a proposal
to give working middle class taxpayers a reduction in the amount they
pay into Social Security, but we backfilled that money so that Social
Security's trust fund was not depleted. And we said to our physicians
out there who take care of our seniors that they would have certainty
and not face a 27.4 percent cut in their reimbursement rates under
Medicare and that they would have that certainty for 2 full years. So
the facts are clear what the House passed.
We also included in this legislation to try and drive new job
creation in the high-tech sector by auctioning off spectrum that would
generate $16.7 billion and upwards of 700,000 jobs. That's a high-end
number, but let's say it's half that. There are estimates all over the
place. But a few hundred thousand jobs would be a really great thing,
especially in technology and innovation and everything that would come
from that. That's in this bill.
What we got back from the Senate was 2 months--2 months--2 months--
and a failure to even come to the table. So the Republican conferees
from the House have been willing to meet anytime, anywhere. And, in
fact, under Chairman Camp's leadership, we have met in public with our
counterparts.
Frankly, we've had some good discussions across the table. I want to
make that clear, as well. Between the Republicans and Democrats, House
and Senate, those of us on the conference committee I think you would
say, even though we may have disagreements, we've had good discussions.
And now we need to get the work done.
In order to get the work done, we have to have some alternative
proposals from the Senate, which hopefully we're going to get, maybe
even tonight. I think that would be helpful because then we would know
what their position is, because this is kind of a different sort of
conference. We had a year bill; they had a 2-month bill, and most of
that 2-month bill became law. So it's been kind of an awkward
conference for the Senate to try and figure out how to do this, and the
House has a full year or 2-year extension, depending upon the items at
issue here.
So we'll meet again tomorrow at 10 o'clock, is my understanding, in
conference, either in private or in public. I don't know. That will be
up to the chairman. But in any case, I don't care when or where. I'm
ready. Mr. Reed from New York who spoke earlier is ready, and my other
conferees are ready. We were ready in December to get this done, we
really were, and we still are. And we're committed to the working
American people and those who are trying and struggling to find jobs to
make sure they have that unemployment insurance. They deserve that,
they need that, and we're committed to providing that.
{time} 1720
So, Mr. Speaker, on that note, I don't think there will be any
objection on this floor to approving the motion to instruct conferees
to get their work done by the 17th. I'll certainly support it, as I
have and nearly everyone in the House has.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. In closing, let me just make it unmistakably
clear: there is not a single Democrat that is advocating diminishing
the Social Security trust fund. We all agree that the Social Security
trust fund must be made whole. That is why we are fully accepting of
the fact that this tax cut--unlike every other tax cut that's been
passed in this Chamber in the last 10 years--should be fully paid
[[Page H623]]
for so that the Social Security trust fund is not diminished.
Secondly, I want to thank Mr. Walden and Mr. Reed for their service
on the conference committee; it cannot be an easy conference. I would
just ask that as you go forward, you be guided by what Leader Cantor
has said. What Leader Cantor has said is that we should pass what we
can agree on, and we should leave the issues on which we can't agree to
another day. It certainly appears as if we agree that we need to extend
the payroll tax deduction, we need to fix the SGR, and we need to pass
unemployment insurance.
So, let's pass it. Let's leave to another day contentious issues like
mercury emissions, like the Keystone pipeline, like drug testing. Let's
pass what we can agree on. Let's debate those other issues--they're
important, they deserve a full debate--but let's not let them stand in
the way of a tax cut for 160 million Americans, access to Medicare
physicians for 50 million Americans, and keeping millions of Americans
at least with some lifeline with respect to unemployment insurance.
I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit, and I thank
the gentleman from Oregon for a spirited debate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________