[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.

                          ____________________