Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 160 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 160 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6714-H6723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 827 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 827

Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time through the
legislative day of December 28, 2012, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Fairport, New York, my
dear friend, the ranking member on the committee, Ms. Slaughter,
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. I rise today in support of this rule, which will
provide this body the ability to consider legislation under suspension
of the rules for

[[Page H6715]]

the remainder of this Congress. However, I would prefer not really to
be here today talking about this resolution. I was speaking with the
gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter, a few minutes ago, and we concluded that it
sounds a lot like Christmas, and that's why we're all here. It must be
Christmastime, and so we're going to work all the way through. But I'd
like to be home with my constituents, I'd like to be home with the
family, I'd like to be doing things. But the reality is that Congress
will have to remain in session for the holiday season because we're the
ones that said we would help solve the problems of this country, that
we would step up to the plate on behalf of the American people and make
sure we did what we said we'd do, and that is to make life better for
people. We set the dates, we set the timing, and that's why we're here.
So while families all across the country are with their loved ones,
we will be here working. We said we would, and what we're going to wait
for is our two sides, our leaders, the President of the United States,
Barack Obama, Speaker John Boehner, certainly Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, to lead those efforts to find a legislative deal that is
designed to avoid America and this country, including our government,
from going off the fiscal cliff. We have heard a lot about that. We are
speaking about it. We've had discussions on the floor today about it.
That's why we're here. And we're trying to make sure that we, as
Members of Congress from both parties, are here trying to help resolve
that so we can still do work in between that period of time.
So, 2 weeks ago, House Republicans proposed this solution of trying
to make sure that we would have an answer. The President has come back
with a solution, and we now know where to point where. Our friends, the
Democrats, are insisting upon a tax increase to move forward, and
Republicans are saying, hold on, hold on; we need new revenue, but we
don't need new taxes, especially taxes on small business owners that
are the creators of jobs in our economy. And so Republicans are saying,
we're not going to fall victim for being for the President's ideas and
the Democrats' ideas that destroy 700,000 American jobs.
So, here we are. We're here. We're going to stay here in town.
Republicans have resolved to stay here. We said we'd sit at the table,
we said we would do the American workers' and the American people's
bidding at the table to make sure that we have a bipartisan answer, and
that's what we are going to do.
So we all remember that following the election in November that our
Speaker, John Boehner, committed that this body would continue working
with the President to reach a compromise that averts the fiscal cliff.
Avoiding the fiscal cliff is what we should continue to do, and we
should work very diligently. So for my friends that wonder why we're
here, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, our families, we're here. We're going to
keep working. We're going to work day in and day out, and we're going
to hope that our leadership, including the President, is able to make
counteroffers until we reach that exact point where a deal can be done.
This is not just about negotiating. It is about finding an answer for
the American people. By the way, for people that think this is all
about politics and the things that are going on, perhaps it is, but
it's going to take both sides--two sides, two willing partners--to want
to come to an agreement. That's why we're still in town.
To date, I know we've not seen a lot of progress, and I know we are
worried about it. But I would remind us, and I believe this is true,
that the President said he is going to stay at the table, he is going
to work with Republicans, he is going to get a deal that's good for the
American people, and the President said this during the election, and
so I think we're here to make sure that is what happens.
Mr. Speaker, in less than 20 days, in addition to the beginning of
the New Year, we're going to find out that we also have a new set of
taxes that have already been agreed to by the Congress. Ms. Pelosi,
when she was Speaker, and the President ran through something that the
President likes to call ObamaCare. But there are massive taxes already
ahead in law for the American people, many of which we're just now
becoming aware of. I guess that's what happens when you don't read the
bill before you pass it. But every single American will see their
personal taxes already go up, and that's before we get to whatever
happens with the fiscal cliff.

{time} 1240

This is an arbitrary across-the-board tax increase, the combination
of which will mean that if we are unable to resolve the fiscal cliff
without raising taxes, we'll already see a lot of new taxes as a result
of the health care law on financial transactions, on insurance
programs, on every single working American. That's why we have Speaker
John Boehner trying to present President Obama with an alternative that
says rather than raising taxes, which is already going to happen on
January 1 from this massive new tax increase that was in the health
care bill, why don't we find a way to understand and have the economy
take that in hand first.
I know the President stood here at the State of the Union address and
said we're not going to spend one dime of taxpayer money. I know the
President stood here and said every single American can keep their own
insurance plan. I know the President has made these promises to the
American people, and these are the things that we're going to have to
understand about January 1 of next year. I believe that's why we need
to have John Boehner be successful, and the President, to make sure we
avoid further tax increases because we already have a massive tax
increase that's going to take place. This would, in essence, be a
double whammy on not just a fragile economy, but an economy that is in
far worse shape with a country that is far more in debt and much more
at risk today.
So you and I understand, the CBO has estimated some 2 million
American jobs would be at risk because of the ObamaCare implementation
and its massive impact on the free-enterprise system and taxation,
combined with what would be this new--if the President gets his way--
tax increase on working Americans and, in particular, small business.
While much has been made about the debates surrounding tax rates,
there is, I think, a larger picture that we need to consider. We should
focus on employment and jobs. Instead of trying to necessarily aim for
fairness just by using this weapon against small business, we should
focus, I think, on job creation.
We understand that if the President's bill passes, we will lose
700,000 jobs. That means 700,000 Americans and their families would
then qualify, I presume, for unemployment, and it would mean that we
begin the new year once again on a negative pathway. That's why we are
here today talking and trying to have our leaders of this great Nation
make sure that we avoid this.
This country is in desperate need of an economic kick-start. Lower
taxes, we believe, through stimulating job creation and job investment
and by stimulating the economy, will allow all Americans not only to
keep their jobs but also to keep more of their own hard-earned pay. In
fact, President John F. Kennedy, I think, agreed with us when he said:

It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and
tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to increase
revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.

That's exactly where we are. Republicans are arguing not to increase
taxes at a time when the American economy is struggling, when families
are struggling. Let's not ask them to go into their pockets and pay
more to a government that simply wants to spend more of this money.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues and I remain committed to
staying in Washington, D.C., to try and get this done. Between now and
then, what this rule is all about is saying that we're going to put us
to work on solving some of the ideas and issues that remain in the
workplace where there are answers with suspension votes. So that's why
we're here today pending conference reports and decisions that need to
be made.
I encourage my colleagues to support this rule with a ``yes'' vote,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.

[[Page H6716]]

I do want to thank my true and good friend, Mr. Sessions, for
yielding this time; and I want to congratulate him on his ascension to
the chair of the Rules Committee. I look forward to working with him.
I think, though, what we want to do this morning perhaps is debate
the health care bill one more time. It's not enough that this House in
the last term debated it 32 times at least to try to repeal all or part
of it, and we know that not a single person on the other side voted for
that bill. But as it gets more and more popular in the United States, I
think sooner or later they'll wish that they had.
There is one comment I need to make before I get to the business at
hand, and that is the notion that it was rammed through in the middle
of the night. The health care bill went through the entire committee
process. There are pieces in there that Republican members of
committees put in. Although they may not want to admit it, they're
there. In addition, the Democratic Caucus, under the leadership of
Nancy Pelosi, went over that bill line by line three times. I remember
it well.
But let me get to the business at hand because, Mr. Speaker, I
haven't seen an honest day's work from Congress here in quite a while.
Earlier this year, the Columbia Broadcasting System News reported
that it costs $24 million a week to run the House of Representatives.
But for the last month, the majority has spent the money on shuttling
us back and forth to Washington and then asking us to sit here and
twiddle our thumbs. No more. It's time to get down to brass tacks and
give the American people a return on their multimillion dollar
investment. We need to start right here and right now by passing the
tax cut for the middle class. We could do it tomorrow. All we have to
do is take up the Senate bill. It's right there.
In addition to that, we ought to really take up the Violence Against
Women Act from the Senate, not the House bill. The House bill did not
include numbers of women in America under this act: Native American
women, gay women, and immigrant women. We couldn't tolerate that. So
let's take the Senate bill and pass it. That bill has reduced domestic
violence 67 percent. We need to reduce it 100 percent, but we cannot do
without that. It's terribly important.
The farm bill is important, but we'll get to more of that. I cannot
say enough that we absolutely need--and I think so many people this
morning on 1-minutes made the point clear. I know that numbers of
Republicans want to do it in a bipartisan way. What we can do is what
we've already agreed on, and that is that the middle class should not
have a tax increase, but that the richer people in this country should
be paying their fair share. There is simply no reason for this delay.
Once those tax cuts are passed, then we can move on to the countless
other issues that I've already mentioned that demand our attention. We
can extend unemployment insurance. It's set to entire on January 1 and
will affect millions and certainly affect our economy. We can give
support to millions of Americans struggling to recover from Hurricane
Sandy. We can begin an open debate, as I said, on the Violence Against
Women Act.
Historians have said that this term of Congress these last 2 years
has been the least productive in American history. That is not anything
to be proud of, but the majority seems to be intent on keeping that
title. They spent 2 years taking vote after vote to repeal health care
and even more time to make sure that the $4 billion subsidy to the big
oil companies stays intact. It's shameless, and we need to do more than
that. The people who sent us here deserve more than that. We should not
be crying out in the wilderness to work. We have been sent here to
work, and we need to get down to it in the final hours of this
Congress. We have always had the threat of a working Christmas. If we
have to do it to get things done, I'm certainly willing to do that. But
the majority should help solve the Nation's most pressing issues.
That's why we're here. Do not actively choose--as that's what's going
on--to leave the work unfinished.
As we sit and wait for the negotiations on the fiscal cliff, there is
always other legislation that is ready, that could be done now, could
help our markets, could relieve the minds of employer, could give
security to the middle class and people below that; and we certainly
ought to be doing it.
All we're doing now with today's rule is giving the majority the
freedom to spend the rest of this month and the rest of this year on
minor, noncontroversial legislation. I refuse to give this blank check
to a majority that has yet to show any interest in completing
outstanding work.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing today's rule so that we
can try to get back to work. This Wednesday should be the day we start
doing our job to provide real solutions to those we represent who have
real problems.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1250

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman makes a number of good points. We did
pass in the House the Violence Against Women Act. It passed on May 16
of this year, 222-205. The House has passed, by the way--256 of our
colleagues to 171--what's called the Job Protection and Recession
Prevention Act. It was passed on August 1.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield in just a second.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would have extended all current rates and
would have compelled Congress to enact meaningful tax reform in 2013.
We passed this. We've said we ought to do what we should do, and that
was back in August.
I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank you, Mr. Sessions, because I know you, and I
know that you understand that I've already talked about this. That bill
that passed this House excluded a large number of women. Basically,
what this House said with that vote was to go ahead and beat them up,
that we don't want them covered.
After the election, after what everybody has been through, after what
the American public thinks about what a large number of our cohorts
believe here, surely to goodness, you would not recommend that that
bill become the law of the land. The simple thing we're asking for is
to take up the Senate bill, which covers everybody in domestic
violence.
Mr. SESSIONS. In reclaiming my time, I do appreciate the gentlewoman
in that we will be engaged in many of these debates. We have been in
the past, and we will be in the future. I think the gentlewoman makes a
good point.
We offered this bill. We debated it. We passed it. We are waiting for
the Senate to get to a point at which they can get to conference. I
mean, this is how this thing works. We're not going to take the Senate
bill and pass it. We passed our bill. Now, if we could get to
conference, where the Senate and the House get together and they
resolve their differences, then we can bring it back, and we'll have a
bill. That's supposed to be how this place works. It's not where we
pass our bill and then, all of a sudden, we decide we're just going to
take the Senate bill and repass it and negotiate with ourselves. I
think what we need to do is to stick to what we understand, and that is
that we are waiting for the Senate to come and do business with us.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to a young, new member
of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. He will
be our chairman next year, and I'm looking forward to his leadership.
We are kind of setting the tone for what's going to happen next year.
I said all through the fall, Mr. Speaker, that this was going to be
that opportunity, that we were going to have to kind of define where
this Congress was going to go for the next 2 years.
I'd say to my friend from New York, for whom I have great respect and
with whom I've enjoyed working on the Rules Committee for 2 years, Mr.
Speaker, that this rule today does exactly what my constituents back
home have asked me to come back to Washington to do. The gentlelady
cited bill after bill after bill that I have been proud to support to
try to rip the

[[Page H6717]]

President's health care bill out by its roots. We absolutely worked
hard at that. Of course, the Senate hasn't cooperated with us and the
President hasn't cooperated with us, so we weren't able to get that
done.
What this rule does is to say let's move beyond those controversial
topics, and let's move beyond those topics that we know we could jam
through. For Pete's sake, there's a Republican majority in this House.
We could jam through absolutely any piece of legislation we wanted to
jam through. But what this rule says is that that's not the way to
finish out the year. The way to finish out this year is to make sure
that we're grabbing each piece of legislation out there that has
bipartisan support. Let's grab each piece of legislation out there that
folks have been laboring on for 2 years, that folks have brought
together a consensus around and brought together a majority behind, and
let's pass those things.
I think that's fantastic. I think that's fantastic that every single
bill that Members have been investing their energy in they'll now have
a chance to move to the floor. My frustration is, what about the bills
that we've already worked on here in a bipartisan way that have yet to
be taken up on the Senate side?
I heard from my constituents in a town hall meeting last night, and
somebody said, Rob, why do you always put everything off until the last
minute? Why didn't you deal with this sequester earlier?
I said, Do you mean like back in May when the U.S. House passed the
only sequester replacement bill to have been passed in this town? It
was back in May.
He said, Okay. Maybe that takes care of the sequester problem, but
why didn't you fix these tax rates?
I said, Well, we did. As my friend from Texas just pointed out, what
about back in August? In a bipartisan way, we passed a bill in this
House to extend current tax rates for everyone in order to prevent tax
rates from going up.
Then I took another question from one of the folks who said, But what
about that Senate bill people keep talking about? What about the Senate
bill? Why won't that get a vote in the House?
I said, Well, actually, it's quite unusual in the Rules Committee.
You don't see it very often when a tax bill is coming to the floor. The
Rules Committee back in August, when we were voting on taxes in
general, waived all the points of order, took all the roadblocks out of
the way, in kind of an unprecedented way, to allow what we call the
Levin amendment, which was, basically, exactly the plan the President
has been pushing, which is to raise taxes on family-owned businesses,
to punish those job creators.
We took that vote here on the House floor, and I'm proud to say that,
again, in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats came together,
rejected class warfare, and said let's get behind a program that
expands the economy for everyone. We passed that tax bill back in
August, then again in September. Again, in being worried about this
defense sequester that's coming up, we took up the bill from the
gentleman from Florida to say, how could we deal with these defense
sequestrations in a responsible way?
So I go back to May when this House did its work. I go back to August
when this House did its work. I go back to September when this House
did its work. There is proposal after proposal after proposal that, as
the gentleman from Texas said, we could take to conference tomorrow.
If I could ask the gentleman from Texas, because you know better than
I: I know this rule allows for suspensions to come to the floor, but
what about that? What about when the Senate decides to get to work and
takes up the companion legislation to some of these bills that we've
passed in the House? Will we be able to move to go to conference?
Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman's engaging me. I would say
to you there is nothing in this rule that will preclude our taking a
conference report or any business on what we might call ``regular
order'' that would require a rule to come forth.
Mr. WOODALL. So, as the gentlelady from New York was talking about
some of these important pieces of legislation coming to the floor,
you're saying, if the House appoints conferees and if the Senate
appoints conferees, we can get together and bring legislation back to
the House for every piece of legislation that she has on her agenda?
Mr. SESSIONS. The gentleman would be correct, and we do expect those.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
This is exactly the kind of deliberative House that I came to be a
part of just 2 short years ago. We have the ability to get these things
done in the next few days. I reject the idea that I read over and over
and over again, Mr. Speaker, that this House has been delaying action.
This House got it right. We got it right in our budget in April of
2011. We got it right in our budget in 2012. We got it right when we
passed a sequester replacement. We got it right when we passed a tax
replacement--and we're getting it right with this rule today, Mr.
Speaker.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to our
leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Ranking Member.
Mr. Speaker, why did I sort of smell smoke when I heard this debate?
It's reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. The American
people are waiting for us to get the job done here, not to make a
myriad of excuses about why stuff hasn't been done.
You're bringing up a rule that says we should have a suspension
authority? Let's bring the middle-income tax cut up under suspension. I
believe--and I am willing to take the chance--that this House would
give over two-thirds of a vote to the middle-income tax cut.
Do I detect your smirk to mean that you don't think Republicans will
vote for a middle-income tax cut, Mr. Sessions? Should I take it to
mean that you will continue to hold middle-income tax cuts hostage,
giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country?
The unfairness of it is appalling. The fact that it increases the
deficit is disgraceful, and that it does not create jobs is a big
mistake for us to make.
What we are asking for in this rule is to say ``no'' to the previous
question so that we can take up a rule that says that we cannot leave
here until we and unless we pass the middle-income tax cut, whatever
else happens on a whole myriad of other issues that relate to the
cliff. This matters, what happens here. It matters that we get the job
done. It is relevant to the lives of the American people.

{time} 1300

As we gather here--we, a country of great family tradition, of family
values, of commitment to faith, faith in ourselves, our families and
our God, our country--we are away from home while people are lighting a
Menorah candle, a Chanukah candle, while people are trimming trees and
the rest of that. Okay, we're here to do our job. But we hear from the
Republican side that they might not be ready to relieve the pain and
curiosity that American families have about whether we are going to get
this done. They are going to put this off until the very last minute,
as to whether the markets will have confidence on how to grow the
economy and create jobs and remove all doubt--remove all doubt in the
full faith and credit in the United States of America.
Every time you come to this floor, it's an existential question: Why
are we here? We are here to do the people's work. Let's sit down, get
it done, and move forward, instead of filling the agenda, however
worthy some of those initiatives may be; instead of, not along with,
passing a middle-income tax cut.
This is also reminiscent of a year ago. The President proposed, the
Senate Democrats and Republicans voted for the payroll tax holiday. The
Republicans in the House resisted, painted themselves into a corner
until they had no choice. The issue had been made too hot for them to
handle, and they finally had to come around to supporting the payroll
tax holiday.
And here we are again.
One hundred percent of the American people will receive a tax cut
when we pass the middle-income tax cut. The wealthiest people in our
country will receive a tax cut up to their income of $250,000. We're
asking them to pay a little bit more for what they make over

[[Page H6718]]

$250,000 a year to help reduce the deficit, to help grow the economy.
Grow the economy. That growth is what is essential. If you want to
reduce the deficit, create jobs.
So why aren't we doing that? Why are we just having all this
subterfuge and this, that, and the other thing? Why are we being told
to make a reservation on Christmas Eve and one on the day after
Christmas to come back. Is there not an appreciation for the Jewish
holidays, the Christmas holidays, Kwanzaa, all the other things that
families come together around, bonding rituals important to the
strength of our society? Do we not care about that? Well, the American
people do. And they want to shop for it. They want to have family
dinners and they want to exchange gifts, as is the tradition. But they
really don't know if they're going to be able to pay the bill in
January for their purchases in December.
The President has been very clear: Democrats have agreed to $1.6
trillion in cuts, much of it voted on--all of it voted on already
either in the Budget Control Act or in other actions taken by this
Congress in the course of this Congress. We have already taken a
savings of over a trillion dollars, redirected savings in Medicare to
prolong its life and to increase benefits. That would be $700 billion
in the Affordable Care Act and now another $400 billion or such in the
President's budget. We're committed to that.
Where are the tax cuts? Where are the tax cuts for the middle class
that would inject demand into the economy and would therefore create
jobs and create growth? Where are the revenues that we would get if we
did that and then had the additional participation of those who make
over $250,000? Where is the revenue that the Republicans are willing to
bring to the table? All we've seen from them is a letter. All we've
heard from them is that they don't want to tax the rich. All we know is
that the public is very much on board with everyone in our country
paying his or her fair share.
And so this rule today that says give us authority to have other
bills brought to the floor, well, if one of those bills is the middle-
income tax cut, we're happy with that. But if that isn't the plan, then
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question because
that will then enable us to bring a rule to the floor which calls for
bringing forth the middle-income tax cut before we leave here.
Again, we support the President and his proposal, which is fair,
which reduces the deficit, which creates jobs, and which will work for
the American people.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my dear friend, the
gentlewoman from San Francisco and minority leader, I'm delighted that
she came down to engage us on this very important issue. The
gentlewoman does recognize and know that the House on August 1, in
fact, did exactly what she is suggesting today, and that is to take
action on what the future tax rates would be in this country. And on a
bipartisan basis, 256-171, this House of Representatives said let's
understand that now is a bad time to raise taxes on the American
people; and let's extend for a period of time all of what are known as
the tax cuts which allow America to keep working. We passed it 256-171.
Mr. Speaker, I'll insert into the Record a chart that exists on the
House Budget Committee that shows the choice of the futures. And one
future that was presented, this slide that I've got that's on the House
Budget Committee is essentially about the current pathway as the
President would choose as outlined in his budget that the gentlewoman,
Ms. Pelosi, spoke of that got no votes in the United States Senate. Not
one vote. No votes here, the plan that the President has presented
which would substantially not just raise taxes, but substantially raise
spending.
If you isolate the President's ideas of simply raising taxes on
whatever he calls the top 2 percent, those who have a household income
of $250,000 and above, what you essentially do, Mr. Speaker, is very
quickly lose 700,000 American jobs. And that's the answer that this
administration fails to include in their talking points, that there's a
huge impact. And part of that impact, Mr. Speaker, comes from the
problem where dividends, and dividends are that money that comes back
as a result of an investment, would rise essentially from 15 percent to
whatever a person's top tax rate is--meaning it could go, at least
under the scenario that the President wants, to 39 percent. That means
from 15 to 39 percent.
That window, that value in between is what people reinvest in their
companies. They reinvest that many times in small business, and that's
the job creation element. When you make this rate go up, you
arbitrarily take away some 700,000 American jobs that need current
capital every day, a small business owner, reputting that money,
reinvesting that money for the life of their business.
And this is the part that we believe as Republicans, that we stand on
the side of saying we shouldn't lose American jobs just for the sake of
fairness, of what the President, what the minority leader is down
arguing for, of increasing taxes.

{time} 1310

So it's obvious to Republicans that what we believe we stand for is
creation of jobs and making sure that that capital that's invested in
the economy continues.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant Democrat
leader.
(Mr. CLYBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, when the so-called supercommittee failed last year to
overcome the obstruction of the Tea Party Republicans and their leader,
Grover Norquist, to achieve a fair and balanced plan for deficit
reduction, economic growth, and job creation, I said it would take a
decisive national election in order to settle the matter. I believe
President Obama's victory on November 6 was very decisive and pretty
definitive.
During the campaign, President Obama very clearly laid out his
vision, and the American people strongly affirmed his position. The
President won all but one of the swing States, 62 percent of the
Electoral College, and carried the popular vote by more than 4\1/2\
million votes. Democrats added to our numbers in the House and Senate
and captured a House popular vote by more than a million votes.
In February 2010, President Obama began the process to reduce our
deficit by establishing the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Since that time,
many bipartisan groups have made recommendations on how to reduce the
deficit, and they have all been in agreement: We need a balanced deal
that requires shared sacrifice from all Americans, including the
wealthy.
In 2011, we began to reduce the deficit, but we did it entirely
through spending cuts, over $1.5 trillion, and have asked nothing of
the most fortunate.
In 2012, the American people spoke. It is time for balance and shared
sacrifice, and the first step is to allow the Bush tax cuts for income
over $250,000 to expire. But that is a debate for another day. Now we
must do what we agreed on, extend the tax cuts for everyone on their
first $250,000 of income.
The proposals put forth by the Republicans since the election and
their refusal to extend the middle class tax cuts, which we all agree
should be extended, are just more of the same obstructionism.
The time for posturing is over. It's time for our House Republicans
to accept the express will of the American people and get beyond their
pledge to a special interest lobbyist here in Washington, D.C.;
although, frankly, I fail to see how voting to cut taxes violates a
pledge to never raise taxes.
We need to defeat the previous question.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind the gentleman that
Republicans have already passed the bill for the middle class tax cut
on August 1 of this year, and it passed 256-171. We're now waiting for
the Senate to act on that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'll gladly yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the vice chairman of the
Democratic Caucus.

[[Page H6719]]

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
If you're in the middle class, shouldn't it feel like you're in the
middle of America? Yet the politics of extremism is pushing the middle
class to the very edge--the very edge.
Our House Republican colleagues continue to ignore the calls from the
American people to extend middle class tax cuts now. That politics of
extremism is threatening to raise taxes on the middle class by the
amount of about $2,200 starting January 1.
Republicans should, once and for all, join with Democrats and the
American public to bring the bipartisan, Senate-passed middle class tax
cut bill to a vote on the House floor. Passage of the bipartisan middle
class tax cut bill ensures that 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent
of small businesses don't see a single tax increase next year.
Democrats and two-thirds of the American people agree with a growing
number of Republicans who are telling their Republican colleagues, Take
the 98 percent deal; take the 98 percent deal.
My friends, this is not the time to put a foot on the brake of our
economic recovery that we're beginning to experience. It's time to get
our work done.
Remember, colleagues, where we were 4 years ago. Four years ago,
November 2008, our country was hemorrhaging 800,000 American jobs. This
November, we got the news, 146,000 new jobs. It's time to continue that
progress.
Let's stop abiding by these pledges to special interests and start
abiding by our pledge to the United States of America and to the people
who elected us to serve the interest of all Americans, not those of
special interests. Let's pass this middle class tax cut bill now.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just make sure that the
speaker that was up here, Mr. Becerra, understands that on August 1 of
this year we passed a bill to extend tax cuts for the middle class,
256-171. We've already done that, and it's now awaiting Senate
approval.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I want to
thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for his efforts as well.
Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we talked a lot about, correctly,
creating certainty, alleviating uncertainty, alleviating angst among
our people and among our economy.
We have an opportunity to bring certainty to a large segment of the
America that they will not receive a tax increase on January 1. We have
that ability because the United States Senate has acted on a bill which
will allow us to do that.
Even if we don't take their bill up, we could take a bill that Tim
Walz has introduced. Congressman Walz has introduced a bill which will
say to the 98 percent that we've talked about, You won't get a tax
increase. I think that we have agreement on that. As the gentleman from
Texas indicated, we have agreement on that.
I think there's not anybody here--or very, very few at least, on
either side of the aisle--who doesn't say that those who are making
$250,000 or less as families or $200,000 as individuals, or less,
shouldn't get a tax increase.
Now, there are some who say that those above should not get a tax
increase either. I understand that. But we have disagreement on that.
The American people are frustrated by the fact that even that on
which we have agreement we can't move. That's their frustration. They
understand that we have policy differences, but they are hopeful that
when, at least, we have agreement on an issue that we can move it. And
if we did so, think of the confidence.
Mr. Cole, former--had your job as the chairman of the Campaign
Committee, said let's pass this. Let's give the middle class, the
working people of America, a Christmas present, a sense of certainty, a
sense of self-confidence, a sense of well-being. That will be good for
our economy, but certainly good for them individually and as families
as well.
So I would urge my colleagues on the Republican side and my
colleagues on the Democratic side, vote against the previous question.

{time} 1320

Now that's somewhat esoteric, Mr. Speaker. Those watching us say,
What does that mean, voting against the previous question? What's the
previous question? That's some sort of political jargon that they use
in Washington.
What it means is, if we vote against the previous question, we will
then be empowered to bring forward the middle class tax cut bill and
we'll put it on the floor, and Mr. Walz will be our leader on this
because he's put it in the hopper.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. HOYER. We'll put that on the floor, and every Member of this
House, all 435 Members, will have the opportunity to say to the
American people, Yes, on December 12, we're going to tell you that on
January 1 your taxes will not go up.
Give us that opportunity. Give us that opportunity to say ``yes'' to
the American middle class. Give us the opportunity to say ``yes'' to
certainty in our economy. Give us the opportunity to say ``yes,'' we
agree on something, and aren't you proud of the fact that when we
agree, your Congress can act? Let's say ``yes.''
Vote ``no'' on the previous question, and then vote ``yes'' for the
middle class.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman, my dear
friend from Maryland, whom I have not only regular conversations with
but enjoy very much. I would once again remind the gentleman that on
August 1 of this year we passed, 256-171, an idea that would be about
not losing 700,000 jobs by doing it the way that our friends the
Democrats want to do it.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. It's never wrong to do the right thing twice.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, it is wrong to lose 700,000 more
American jobs, and that's the practical effect.
The minority leader and our speakers here all day want to talk about
sequestration. The sequestration came as a result of a promise, a deal,
an agreement that we as Republicans and House and Senate and the
President agreed upon that we would come to an agreement upon how to
cut some spending. The President says it's absolutely essential. Now
they want to back away from the deal.
Well, here's what their deal is:
Their deal is, among other things, about the new taxes that will take
place. Here's one of them that we know will happen already under law:
Medicare DSH payments paid to qualifying hospitals that serve low-
income patients will be reduced by 75 percent starting October 1, 2013,
in addition to the $700 billion that will be transferred away from
senior care. And I know we had an election where we talked about this.
One person tried to explain, Well, that's not really right. Those were
to a certain group of people that may be rich. But it's right here, to
low-income hospitals. That means that we're going to have hospitals
that no longer will serve seniors because their payment rate got cut by
75 percent. Tax increases, tax increases on health care; tax increases,
as we learned last week, when it was announced that all insurance plans
will now be paying an extra $63. Those are passed on to customers,
consumers.
This is an outrageous government takeover of health care, and now
what they want to do is diminish another 700,000 jobs. No, sir, we're
not going to fall victim to that.

[From the House Committee on Small Business]

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is currently
being implemented. The following table lists some of the
provisions affecting small businesses that take effect in
2013.

[[Page H6720]]

PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT--PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE IN 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Law, Section Consequences for
(Effective date) Description small businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicare Tax Increase........... The Medicare Part Small businesses
P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9015 A tax rate on structured as
(January 1, 2013) wages increases pass-through
from 1.45% to entities that
2.35% for those earn over the
single filers threshold amount
earning over will pay a
$200,000 significantly
($250,000 for higher Medicare
married joint Part A tax rate.
filers). A new Small businesses
and additional relying on
3.8% tax will be unearned income
assessed on will be taxed an
unearned income additional 3.8%
such as taxable
capital gains,
dividends, rents,
royalties, and
interest for
taxpayers with
modified adjusted
gross income
(MAGI) over
$200,000 single
and $250,000
married joint
filers.
New Medical Device Tax.......... A 2.3% excise tax Higher costs for
P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9009 will be levied on the manufacturers
(January 1, 2013) manufacturers, of medical
producers, or devices are
importers on the likely to be
sale of most passed on to
medical devices health care
that are not entities (often
directly marketed small and solo
to consumers. practice
physicians and
hospitals) and
patients who rely
on them. Several
device
manufacturers
have already
announced job
cuts in
anticipation of
this tax.
Decrease in Deductions for The threshold for Given the
Medical Expenses. claiming an increased
P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9013 itemized qualifying
(January 1, 2013) deduction on threshold, fewer
medical expenses small business
rises from 7.5% owners and
to 10% of workers may be
adjusted gross permitted to
income for those claim itemized
under age 65 deductions for
effective in medical expenses.
2013; for those
65 or older, the
10% threshold
will be effective
after 2016.
Limit on Flexible Spending Caps FSA The new limit
Account (FSA) Contributions. contributions at increases the tax
P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9005 $2,500 per year. burden for small
(January 1, 2013) business owners
and employees
with FSAs.
Elimination of Deduction for Prior to ACA, The number of
Employer Part D Subsidy. employers were employers
P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9012 able to deduct offering
(January 1, 2013) the cost of prescription drug
providing plans for
Medicare Part D Medicare-eligible
to retirees and retirees is
also were not likely to
taxed on the decrease, as
subsidy they there will be a
received for reduced incentive
providing this to sponsor such
coverage. ACA plans.
eliminated the
additional
deduction
employers receive
for providing
Part D coverage.
Reduced Medicare Medicare DSH Small hospitals
Disproportionate Share Hospital payments, paid to that currently
(DSH) Payments. qualifying receive Medicare
P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 3133 hospitals that DSH payments may
(October 1, 2013) serve low-income find their DSH
patients, will be payments reduced.
reduced by 75%
starting October
1, 2013. A
hospital will
receive an
additional
payment based on
three factors: 1)
the remaining
pool of DSH
payments that
would have been
paid absent these
changes; 2)
current estimates
of the uninsured
compared to the
estimate for
2013, the last
year before the
expansion of
coverage; and 3)
the hospital-
specific share of
uncompensated
care. The
estimate of the
percentage of
individuals who
are uninsured
will be decreased
by 0.1 percentage
points for FY2014
and by 0.2
percentage points
for each year
from FY2015-
FY2019.
Reduced Medicaid In FY2012, Small hospitals
Disproportionate Share Hospital Medicaid DSH that currently
Payments. allotments to receive Medicaid
P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 2551 as states (i.e., the DSH payments may
modified by Sec. 10201(e); maximum amount of find their DSH
P.L. 111-152: Sec. 1203 (October federal matching payments reduced.
1, 2013) funds that each
state is
permitted to
claim for
Medicaid DSH
payments) totaled
$11.3 billion.
Medicaid DSH
allotments to
states will be
reduced by $500
million in
FY2014, $600
million in
FY2015, $600
million in
FY2016, $1.8
billion in
FY2017, $5.0
billion in
FY2018, $5.6
billion in
FY2019, and $4.0
billion in
FY2020. The
Secretary of
Health and Human
Services is
responsible for
determining how
to distribute the
aggregate DSH
reductions among
the states using
some broad
statutory
guidelines.
Increase in Medicaid Medicaid Medicaid payments Small and solo
Payments for Primary Care. for primary care practices with
P.L. No. 111-418, Sec. 1202 services physicians
(January 1, 2013) furnished by specializing in
physicians with a family medicine,
specialty general internal
designation of medicine, or
family medicine, pediatric
general internal medicine will
medicine, or receive larger
pediatric Medicaid
medicine will reimbursements
increase to 100% (equal to 100% of
of Medicare Medicare
payment rates for payments) for
CY2013 and CY2014 primary care
(i.e., January 1, services for a 2-
2013 and December year period
31, 2014). beginning in
January 2013.
State Notification Regarding States will have Small businesses
Exchanges. indicated to the with 100 or fewer
P.L. 111-148, Sec. 1321 Department of employees for 50
December 14, 2012, February 15, Health and Human or fewer
2013) Services by employees, at
December 14, 2012 state option) may
whether they will be able to
be creating a purchase
state-based insurance through
American Health these exchanges.
Benefit Exchanges All non-
and Small grandfathered
Business Health plans offered in
Options (SHOP) the individual
Exchanges. A and small group
state must markets (both
declare its inside and
intention to outside an
create a exchange) must
partnership cover certain
exchange by minimum benefits
February 15, (the essential
2013.. health benefits).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by Small Business Committee Republican staff.
Sources:
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Reform Source,
Implementation Timeline, 2012.
The Commonwealth Fund, Health Reform Resource Center, Find Health Reform
Provisions Tool, 2012.
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, Timeline of
Major Provisions in the Democrats' Health Care Package, 2010.

I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself 2 seconds to say it is not a government
takeover of health care. It will be performed by private insurance
companies.
I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my colleague from New York for yielding me this
time.
Ladies and gentlemen of America, this is not a mirage. We are
actually here in this building, the U.S. Capitol. America, your
Congress is in session and we're here to work, yet my Republican
colleagues refuse to bring up the middle class tax cut bill that is
right behind me at this desk.
My colleague from Texas can continue to talk about what happened in
August of this year--staging votes for the election that took place.
And we know the results of that election. What our constituents are
concerned about is what happens in January if and when we fail to do
our work here, now, and also to expose that the vote that took place in
August was a vote to continue the Bush-era tax cuts, the very same tax
cuts that got us into the mess we're in right now. They're doing that
because they're holding hostage the 98 percent of Americans who will
receive a tax cut under Mr. Walz's bill that's at the desk today. And
they're holding them hostage to make sure that the wealthiest 2 percent
continue to get that tax cut.
Our economy is 70 percent consumer-driven. That means when the middle
class spends more, we all benefit. When the opposite takes place, when
they spend less, we all are worse off for it. Holding the middle class
hostage by threatening to raise their taxes not only hurts the American
families, but it also hurts America's businesses.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. CROWLEY. I think we owe it to our constituents to take this one
single vote to ensure the middle class won't be held hostage any
longer, one vote to give them the economic certainty that they so
desperately need now, and one vote to keep our middle class spending
and investing in creating jobs for American businesses. But we can't do
that, ladies and gentlemen of America, unless our Republican colleagues
allow Mr. Walz's bill, which is at our desk right now behind me, up for
a vote on this floor. That's why I will vote against the previous
question, so that we can come back and have an opportunity to include
Mr. Walz's bill in that package.
We're here. We're ready. Let's vote.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. SESSIONS. The gentleman from New York, a very dear friend of
mine, really, I think, got something wrong. What we're trying to extend
is the law that President Obama signed into law as a result of
bipartisan action 2 years ago, and the economy was better then than it
is now. We were trying to extend the tax cuts that President Obama was
asking us to do, and that's what we simply did in August again. So it
is a President Obama last-signed bill that we're trying to offer an
extension of.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Speaker, my discharge petition at the desk is really an approach
that the American people spoke loudly in. Every single one of us just
came through an election, and the message was abundantly clear to me:
Why do you continue to bicker? Why do you continue to stand on the
floor and make these ridiculous Kabuki-dance statements with one
another when it shouldn't be that difficult? We came out of a
Constitutional Convention, and when they asked James Madison

[[Page H6721]]

what the secret to this new government was: compromise, compromise,
compromise.
Mr. Speaker, to sit here and do what we're doing--not bringing this
forward and releasing the tension on the middle class, making sure the
economy knows there's stability amongst taxes--is holding our economy
back. And to be very honest, it's insulting to the American people.
This is a Nation that won two world wars. This is a Nation that split
the atom. This is a Nation that put a man on the Moon. This is a Nation
sending pictures back from Mars from Curiosity.
Sign the discharge petition, bring it to the floor, get 435 votes,
put it online for 24 hours, send it to the President, and by 3 o'clock
tomorrow, the big chunk of the fiscal cliff is done. Don't insult the
people with things that aren't true. Don't tell them that it's not
about compromise, and don't sit here and pretend like we're working
when we're not. They know better. They're smarter. They deserve better.

{time} 1330

Bring the discharge petition to the floor, allow Members to vote for
it, give the American people what they want--stability and a Congress
that works--and let's move on to other pressing issues.
Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 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, there's a lot of disagreement about the
future of our country. There's disagreement over how to handle
spending--what should be cut, what should be reduced, what should be
increased. There's disagreement over how much and when to raise the
debt ceiling. These are very important questions.
There's a disagreement over whether taxes should or should not go up
on income over $250,000 a year. Our friends on the other side in good
faith believe that's a bad idea. We know the economic history tells us
that the last time the rates were at the level of 39.6 percent, 600,000
new businesses were formed and 23 million new jobs were created, so we
think it works.
But there's something that everyone says they agree on, and that is
that income up to $250,000 a year should not have a tax increase.
Everyone on both sides says that when January 1 shows up on the
calendar there shouldn't be a tax increase on the middle class people
of this country, that their first paycheck on the first Friday of the
New Year should not have more taken out of it so as not to hurt our
economy or hurt those families. Now, we all say we agree on this. It
seems to me the right course is to put a bill on the floor that says
exactly that, that says that for income of less than $250,000 a year,
the tax rates for every American should stay where they are now and
there should not be a tax increase.
My friend from Texas says that the majority did that in July. That's
not quite right. What the majority did in July was to keep the rates
low for people making less than $250,000, but also keep them low for
people making more than $250,000. We just don't agree with that. Why
don't we take the 98 percent that we agree on and vote on it right now?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.
If we don't do this, 19 days from today 98 percent of the American
people--really 100 percent of the American people--get a tax increase.
They have more taken out of their checks. It will hurt shoppers in the
stores, diners in the restaurants, it will hurt jobs across the
country. So why don't we take the 98 percent that we agree on right now
and put it on the floor right now. By voting ``no'' on the previous
question, that's what we can do and should do.
Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the ranking member on the Rules Committee, Ms.
Slaughter, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that my Republican friends are turning this
House of Representatives into a place where trivial issues get debated
passionately and important ones not at all.
The bill that we are talking about right now on the House floor
basically gives the majority who run this House the authority to bring
up suspension bills from now until December 28. Suspension bills, for
those who don't know, are bills really of not much consequence, by and
large. They are bills that most of the time could pass by a voice vote.
Last night in the Rules Committee the distinguished ranking member,
Ms. Slaughter, suggested that instead of doing suspension bills we
ought to be doing bills of some consequence, like reauthorizing the
Violence Against Women Act, doing postal reform, doing a farm bill, or
what we're talking about right now--passing a middle class tax cut
extension. Those are real things that mean real things to real people
in this country, and yet we're not talking about any of those things.
We're talking today about basically doing not much of anything between
now and December 28.
Last night in the Rules Committee we were told, well, we're trying to
negotiate a deal on this fiscal cliff. Well, the reality is that there
are a few Members of this House who are probably in discussions with
the White House about trying to work out a deal, but the vast majority
here, Democrats and Republicans, are being asked to do nothing. Last
night we came back and we voted on one bill, to approve the Journal.
That's all we had to do last night, to approve the Journal. We haven't
reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act. We haven't extended the
middle class tax cut. We haven't reauthorized the farm bill--I can go
on and on and on--but we had to come back and have a Journal vote last
night.
The time has come for us to get back to work. The election was clear:
the views advocated by Governor Romney and the Republican majority were
rejected. The President won comfortably. Democrats won more seats in
the Senate, we won more seats here in the House. I think it's a pretty
clear message that the American people think that we ought to do what's
right in terms of balancing the budget, and that is ask the Donald
Trumps of the world to pay a little bit more.
We have already cut, I should say to the gentleman, $1.5 trillion in
discretionary spending. A lot of those cuts are in programs that I
think help people. So, $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending we've
already cut, and my friends on the Republican side are saying that
Donald Trump can't pay one penny more. Give me a break. Give me a
break.
This is about fairness. This is about justice. This is about doing
the right thing. At the very minimum, we should be debating now not
suspension bills, but we should be debating the extension of the middle
class tax cut. That is why we need to vote ``no'' on the previous
question, to allow us to bring this bill to the floor.
If my Republican friends say they agree with us on a middle class tax
cut, fine, let's vote it, vote overwhelmingly for it. You don't have to
agree on everything to agree on something. Let's give the middle class
certainty. Let's vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, my friend, who
formerly was the vice chairman of the Rules Committee. I would like to
remind him that when he was the vice chairman of the committee, almost
half of the 3,075 bills considered under suspension in the 110th and
111th Congress were for post offices and Federal building namings, or
resolutions, or things just like National Pollinators Week.
What we're trying to talk about is, at the end of the year, since
we're going to be here waiting for the ``big deal,'' that we're going
to make sure that we can take ideas that still exist and reside on a
bipartisan basis.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. I just want to say when we were in charge, we were able
to walk and chew gum at the same

[[Page H6722]]

time. We passed some pretty important and substantive legislation that
I'm proud of. We should be talking about real things that matter to
real people right now instead of just extending the suspension
authority.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question.
The message from my constituents and from the American people is loud
and clear, and that's to extend the middle class tax cuts now.
Republicans are simply holding hostage tax cuts for 98 percent of
Americans and 97 percent of small businesses to give more tax breaks to
the wealthiest Americans.
Now, Democrats have a commonsense solution, and we can't wait around
any longer as real proposals languish while the House GOP gets its act
together. Spearheaded by Congressman Walz, Democrats last week filed
the Walz discharge petition to automatically bring to the floor the
Senate-passed middle class tax cuts--which the President has said that
he will sign immediately--and overwhelmingly Members have signed this
discharge petition.
My point is we don't have any time to waste. We can pass this
extension of the middle class tax cuts now as we find a bold and
balanced and fair agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. There is a
consensus that we do this. So why are the Republicans holding this
hostage?
Once again, let us vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let's bring
this middle class tax cut up now. It is the solution.
Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have no further requests for time, Mr. Speaker, and
I wondered if my colleague is prepared to close.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentlewoman for asking. I have no further
speakers and will allow her that opportunity, and then I will close.

{time} 1340

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Speaker, we should be doing one thing today, and that's passing
the continuation of tax cuts for the middle class. The American people
couldn't be more united in their support for a tax cut, and there's no
reason for delay. The Senate has already passed the bill that we could
take up now. It's here at the desk. Members across our aisle agree,
quite intelligently, that we must not let middle class taxes go up.
With such common ground, why would the majority waste another minute
before ensuring that the taxes will not go up on the middle class? The
answer isn't clear to me. I simply cannot fathom it. But if the
majority won't take action, we will.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer
an amendment to the rule that says two things. One is first that we
will pass a bill to extend the middle class tax cut, and second that we
will pass legislation that will avoid the fiscal cliff and the chaos
that would ensue.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment to the
rule in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to
defeat the previous question so that we may put our rule on the floor.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule if we are unsuccessful, and yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentlewoman
from New York, for this vigorous debate that we had on the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, top to bottom, the leadership of the Democratic Party
has been on record here again today saying they want to increase taxes
on small business. They want to increase taxes on family-owned
businesses and people who get up every day and want to employ people
and work harder. Small business is the engine of our economy, and our
friends, the Democrats, want to punish them through taxes for fairness
issues.
Well, I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, we've got a bunch of problems in
this country, and that's why we're at the fiscal cliff. This thing is
not as a result of taxes, it's as a result of spending and too many
people not having jobs to be able to pay in not just their taxes, but
to be able to sustain our economy.
So we have millions of people that are unemployed and drawing
unemployment compensation. We're seeing disabilities rise at a rate of
16 percent every year. One thing which we note is that just before
President Obama took effect, the White House figure showed the Federal
budget was $2.9 trillion. Next year's estimate is going to be $3.8
trillion. This is a 31 percent increase in spending in just 4 years.
We have someone as President, our great President, who is hung up on
taxing and spending. What we need is a House of Representatives that's
hung up on jobs and job creation, the American product,
entrepreneurship, creativity, and competition with the world. The next
new great ideas will not come from this body but from the creativity of
the American people.
This is what Republicans are trying to keep alive in our country, the
idea of self-reliance and working hard and taking care of people that
are not just in your house but are in your neighborhood, your cities,
our States, the vibrancy of our country. We are headed over the fiscal
cliff after 4 years of leadership from this President who is running--
running--directly to the fiscal cliff, and he has even said, and his
Secretary of the Treasury said, We don't mind jumping off this cliff.
Mr. Speaker, we should not be having that kind of attitude. We should
have the attitude that we're for everybody. We want to be for American
entrepreneurship and especially small business, because it's small
business such as family farms, small business such as electrical
companies and people who put their name on the buildings, the creative
people who get up to go to work every day. That is who we're going to
hurt.
We're not just going to hurt them, we're going to hurt their business
families, the people they have had employed, small communities, large
communities, but small business which is the engine of our economy.
That's really who we're going to punish.
Lastly, we should not do it at this time, just like we should not
have 2 years ago, but I guess we were aiming for an election at that
time, and now the President does not have one ahead of him.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 827 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 2. It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent
resolution providing for adjournment or adjournment sine die
unless the House has been notified that the President has
signed a bill to extend for one year certain expired or
expiring tax provisions that apply to middle-income taxpayers
with income below $250,000 for married couples filing
jointly, and below $200,000 for single filers, and other
provisions to address the so-called ``fiscal cliff.''
____

(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused,

[[Page H6723]]

the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked
the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled
to the first recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.

____________________