[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5533-H5534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1100
                REPUBLICAN INTRANSIGENCE AND OBSTRUCTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this week's middle class tax cut debate is 
unfortunately an unnecessary sequel to December's fight over extending 
payroll tax cuts. Republicans campaigned on a pledge to seek bipartisan 
solutions to our pressing challenges, but when faced

[[Page H5534]]

with a bipartisan agreement in December of last year, they chose to 
walk away. Unfortunately, they appear ready to do so again. When it 
comes to extending tax cuts to the middle class, Democrats and 
Republicans agree; both believe we ought to do so. So we have 
agreement. That agreement has been reflected in a Senate-passed bill, 
Mr. Speaker, as you know.
  So with millions faced with the uncertainty of whether their taxes 
will go up next year, why haven't we acted? This should be an easy vote 
for an overwhelming majority of Members to say, Let's extend these tax 
cuts we agree on, and then debate what we don't agree on. It should be 
easy. But the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, are continuing to do what they 
do so often, have done best this Congress--obstruct, delay, and walk 
away.
  In December, by holding hostage an extension of the payroll tax cuts 
for 98 percent of our taxpayers, Republicans walked away from the 
middle class. They walked away from their responsibility to seek 
compromise on job creation and economic recovery. They walked away from 
negotiations over deficit reduction, setting up the dangerous sequester 
that now looms at the end of the year. The sequester exists because 
Republicans pursued a policy of placing the Nation's debt at risk.
  Today, sadly, they are walking away from the middle class and working 
families once more, demanding their way or nothing on tax cuts. No tax 
cuts for the middle class, they insist, without an additional tax break 
for the upper 2 percent of income earners. In other words, we agree on 
98 percent. We don't agree on 2 percent. Rather than doing that which 
we agree upon for 98 percent of the American taxpayers, we will hold 
them hostage until we get agreement on the 2 percent. Of course if we 
agree on the 2 percent, it will add a trillion dollars over 10 years, 
if followed for 10 years, to our deficit and debt.
  Republicans' plan of tax cuts for the wealthy hasn't worked before, 
and it won't work now. Under President Reagan and both Presidents Bush, 
deficits climbed. Democrats want to return to the successful policies 
we had under President Clinton, when we had the most successful 
economy, 4 years of balanced budgets, and 4 years in which we did not 
increase the national debt.

  I say to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, 
we've had many opportunities to work together this year to address our 
challenges, but each time our Republican colleagues have walked away. 
In doing so, they broke a central promise in their pledge to America--
that is, the promise to let the majority work its will.
  We could have extended the payroll tax cuts without a fight. We could 
have found a big and balanced solution to deficits. And we could be 
voting today on a tax cut extension for 100 percent of Americans who 
make up to $200,000. Or, if they're a couple, $250,000. But in each 
case, Mr. Speaker, Republicans moved not towards the center but to the 
right to placate the extreme wing within their party.
  Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Representative Richard Hanna of New York, a 
Republican, said this about his party in Congress:

       I have to say that I am frustrated by how much we--I mean 
     the Republican Party--are willing to give deferential 
     treatment to our extremes in this moment of history.

  The gentleman from New York went on to say:

       We render ourselves incapable of governing when all we do 
     is take severe sides. If all people do is go down there and 
     join a team, and the team is invested in winning and you have 
     something similar to the shirts and the skins, there's not a 
     lot of value there.

  Congressman Hanna in this instance is right. Republicans have been 
unable to govern. Again and again, this Republican House has received 
compromise bills from the Senate but has been incapable of agreeing to 
legislation or passing a version that could become law.
  That was true on transportation. It's true on the farm bill, and it's 
true on Violence Against Women. And it's true on this tax bill. 
Examples include, as I've said, Violence Against Women and the farm 
bill, postal reform, the highway bill, FAA reauthorization, and many 
others. Instead of focusing on winning politically, they ought to be 
concerned about governing effectively.
  They could learn much from our outstanding Olympic athletes. In team 
sports like soccer and basketball, athletes who normally compete 
against each other at home have come together as one team, Team USA. 
They've won gold; they've been successful. We could be as well if we 
came together as Team USA.
  Those athletes may harbor rivalries most of the time. They may not be 
used to working together. And they all know that when the cauldron is 
extinguished, they'll once again wear different colors. But right now 
in London, they're all wearing red, white, and blue, and they've set 
their differences aside to achieve victory together. We ought to follow 
their example. Republicans ought to follow their example.
  We have a chance today to be one team and make possible what we agree 
ought to happen. Again, we agree on 98 percent of the proposal. Let's 
agree on that, and agree to debate that on which we don't agree. So I 
say to my Republican friends, stop walking away from the middle class 
and start working with us to get things done on their behalf.
  Let me quote someone I don't usually quote, Newt Gingrich, when he 
was Speaker of this House when we were considering a compromise that he 
and President Clinton had agreed to, and so many of his Republicans 
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, as you may remember, opposed Newt Gingrich's 
efforts. He said:

       I would say for just a minute, if I might, to my friends 
     who were asking for a `no' vote, the `perfectionist caucus.'

  He concluded his remarks in urging them to vote for a compromise 
agreement:

       So the question is: Can we craft a bill which is a win for 
     the American people because it is a win for the President and 
     a win for the Congress? Because if we cannot find a way to 
     have all three winning, we do not have a bill worthy of being 
     passed.

  The President has indicated he will not sign the Republican bill, and 
the Senate won't pass the Republican bill. But again, my friends, Mr. 
Speaker, as you know, we have agreement on 98 percent, and we are hung 
up because we don't have agreement on the other 2 percent.
  Speaker Gingrich went on:

       Now, my fine friends who are perfectionists, each in their 
     own world where they are petty dictators, could write a 
     perfect bill.

  And he concluded:

       In a free society, we have to have give and take. We have 
     to be able to work.

  Mr. Speaker, Americans must lament the fact that they see their 
Representatives agreeing on 98 percent of a proposition and will not 
pass it. They will not pass it because the perfectionist caucus has 
promised in many respects to one individual American we will not raise 
taxes ever. We won't pay for what we buy, even if we think it's 
important.
  Mr. Speaker, both parties have an opportunity today to stand up and 
reflect agreement and do something positive for the American people, do 
something positive for the American economy, do something positive to 
grow jobs in America. Do something that will give certainty and 
confidence to the overwhelming majority of Americans, who will say that 
Congress can work.

                              {time}  1110

  It can, as families understand they must do every day, reach 
compromise, come together, reason with one another and give and take, 
as Speaker Gingrich said.
  Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that we reflect the best in us today, not 
the worst, not the confrontational inclination, but the inclination to 
come together, to make America better and to make sure that the 
American people, who are working hard every day, don't see a tax 
increase on January 1 as a result of a ``perfectionist caucus'' 
unwilling to compromise, unwilling to pass an already-passed Senate 
bill that will give 98 percent of Americans confidence that they will 
not receive any tax increase on January 1.
  What a good thing that would be for America, for the American people, 
and for the American economy. Let's work together. America expects us 
to do that, and that's what we ought to do.

                          ____________________