[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 165 (Thursday, December 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H7374-H7383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.J. Res. 66,
PERMANENT TAX RELIEF FOR FAMILIES AND SMALL BUSINESSES ACT OF 2012, AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6684, SPENDING REDUCTION ACT OF
2012
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 841 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 841
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 66) approving the renewal of import
restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy
Act of 2003, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to
consider in the House, without intervention of any point of
order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways
and Means or his designee that the House concur in the Senate
amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate
amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The
motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without
intervening motion.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6684) to
provide for spending reduction. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
Majority Leader and Minority Leader or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Rochester, New York,
the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules,
Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I was just thinking about the fact that
there are 26 letters in the alphabet, and we have had the first three
letters used in discussion here on the House floor today, A, B, and my
friend from Worcester brought up the letter C in talking about this. We
have what is so-called letter B. And I'm not doing a Sesame Street skit
here, Mr. Speaker. Letter B is what we are talking about, Plan B, and I
think about Plan A.
Plan A is what the majority in the House of Representatives has been
trying for the last 2 years to implement, and it's, very simply, a plan
that is designed to put into place something that, interestingly
enough, Democrats and Republicans alike say that they support. That
plan is meaningful, strong, bold plans for a simpler, fairer Tax Code.
The President of the United States supports tax reform. I'm pleased
that the President of the United States strongly supports the notion of
taking the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. That,
again, is a very positive area of agreement that we have. But I will
say that we in the majority have been trying to put into place real,
meaningful tax reform that can ensure that people will see reduced
rates, and we will generate enhanced gross domestic product growth.
Coupled with that, our Plan A, Mr. Speaker, has been designed to
bring about a reduction in the size, scope, and reach of the Federal
Government. And everyone knows what that means. Everyone knows what has
to be done to reduce the size, scope, and reach of the Federal
Government, and that is real entitlement reform.
So Plan A consists, Mr. Speaker, of two simple things: pro-growth tax
reform that will keep taxes low for individuals, job creators, and
small businesses in this country so that we can encourage that kind of
job creation to which we all, Democrat and Republican alike, aspire;
and a reduction of the mammoth size of this behemoth, which, as we all
know, encourages a cycle of dependence which has been generational, and
it's essential that we turn the core of it.
So just getting our fiscal house in order dealing with the 16-plus
trillion dollar national debt is, again, only part of that. But
encouraging individual initiative and responsibility, creating pride in
individuals by, again, paring back entitlement spending is the right
thing for us to do as a nation. That's what Plan A consists of, Mr.
Speaker.
Now, if you look at where we are today, we know 11 days from now we
are going over the so-called proverbial fiscal cliff. What does that
mean? It means that every single American who pays income taxes will
see a tax increase go into effect. We also know there will be a massive
sequester, which, as we have just passed the rule, and I guess we're
going to have a vote on that, as we've just debated the rule on the
National Defense Authorization Act, we know it could have a
devastating--devastating--impact on our national security.
We know, I think Democrat and Republican alike--not universally,
because I know there are some people who do want to go over that cliff,
but very few--I think Democrat and Republican alike by and large
recognize that increasing taxes on working Americans, in fact, will
create a scenario which will impinge on our ability to encourage the
kind of gross domestic product growth that is important for us and for
our security as well, economic security and our overall national
security.
So I think about my former California colleague, the now-Secretary of
Defense Leon Panetta, who said to this institution:
Please do what you can to ensure that we don't have that
sequester take effect. Do what you can. Work hard to try and
make sure that we can address abuse that's taken place within
the Pentagon spending, but have what is necessary for our
national security.
So as we look at these issues, we're going through a troubling time.
We have divided government, something that those nations that live
under a Westminster-type system don't have. We have a Democratic
President and a Republican House of Representatives. I happen to
believe that that creates an opportunity.
I didn't vote for Barack Obama for President of the United States,
Mr. Speaker, but I will say that I do believe that having a President
of one party and a United States House of Representatives of another
party does create an opportunity for us to work together in a
bipartisan way tackling entitlement spending.
We know that if my party had won everything, it would have been tough
for us. It would have been tough for us because of the political
attacks that would have taken place from the other side of the aisle to
take on entitlement reform. But working together now that we have,
again, a President of one party and a House of Representatives of
another party, I believe that we can tackle this issue, and that's
really what we desire. I think it's the right thing to do.
We're in the midst of very tough negotiations that are taking place
between two people, as we all know: the President of the United States,
Barack Obama, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John
Boehner. And I want to express my appreciation to
[[Page H7375]]
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I've been in the
minority. I've served in the minority up until--from 1980 until 1994,
14 years I served in the minority, and from 2006 until 2010, for 4
years I served in the minority. And it's challenging. It's not easy.
But we are, as I said, 11 days away from going over the fiscal cliff,
and we feel strongly about the need for this institution to state its
position on this. I know that we've heard that the majority leader in
the United States Senate, Mr. Reid, has indicated that he doesn't want
to bring up, if this bill passes the House of Representatives, this
measure, and the President has put out a Statement of Administration
Policy that this bill would not gain his signature.
{time} 1340
I don't think that anyone is convinced that the bill that we're going
to pass here is one that is going to end up being the agreement, but
it's very important in the negotiating process for work to proceed and
for institutions to stake their position.
We happen to believe that Mr. Boehner has really made some bold steps
in working to ensure that we do not go over that fiscal cliff, and I
think that we are in a position today where I think that the action
that we will take will be a positive step to enhance the chance for a
negotiated resolution to this.
I want to say that the process hasn't been perfect, and I'm not
claiming that everything that took place upstairs in the Rules
Committee last night was perfect. But I will say, look at what it is
that we've included: basically a reduction of $238 billion over 10
years in the reconciliation package that passed this House of
Representatives earlier this year. The measure that we have before us
that is going to be debated separately is one that is actually pared
back from the measure that passed the House of Representatives. The
only changes that have been made have been made to accommodate the date
change, putting in this month of December in place of the earlier month
this year when the debate took place.
We know what this is. And for those who might claim that the so-
called ``reconciliation package'' that we have is imposing draconian
cuts which will be devastating for those who are struggling in this
country, I remind them of the alternative, which happens to be the
sequester. It's our hope that this reconciliation package, Mr. Speaker,
will play a role in ensuring that the sequester that would be
devastating--I acknowledge it would be devastating--does not take
place. This is the alternative to the sequester, Mr. Speaker.
The package that we have will, in fact, see rate increases for those
earning in excess of $1 million. That's .19 percent of the American
Federal income taxpayers. That means that all the rest of the
Americans, an overwhelming majority, will actually avoid seeing that
tax increase go into effect.
I also would like to say that we have to remember that if you look at
the '01 and '03 tax cuts that became public law, part of that law,
current law, Mr. Speaker, makes it clear that we actually would see
those rates with the top rate at 39.6 percent. That's part of the '03
agreement that we had. So any action that we take that is less than
that top rate of 39.6 percent, Mr. Speaker, is actually a tax cut, and
we need to recognize that.
Mr. Speaker, what we're doing here--and I appreciate again the
understanding of the minority--is simply trying to move ahead with this
good-faith negotiating process that Speaker Boehner and the President
of the United States are in the midsts of. I hope that in light of the
balanced approach of this package, that we'll be able--by the way, this
package has enjoyed at least statements of support from Democrats in
the past from both the House and the Senate--I hope that this can be a
positive step as we seek to resolve just as quickly as we possibly can
this question.
We all know that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity; and our goal
is, Mr. Speaker, to put into place a policy that will have the kind of
certainty that will encourage our job creators and encourage those who
are out there seeking to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder
to have the kind of opportunity that is necessary.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
If the measures before us constituted the Republican Plan A, they
would be a package of sweeping tax and entitlement reforms. They would
provide considerable new revenues through economic growth and a
simpler, fairer tax code. They would rein in our ballooning deficit by
making our entitlement programs solvent over the long term. Together
these critical initiatives would put our economy back on the path
toward prosperity and opportunity.
For two years, this Republican Majority has worked tirelessly to
enact Plan A. We have passed dozens of bills. Speaker Boehner has spent
countless hours negotiating with President Obama. All in an effort to
advance our Plan A. I still have hope that we will reach an agreement
that will substantially achieve the goals that we have outlined: growth
and balanced budgets through meaningful tax and entitlement reform.
But the measure before us today is not Plan A. It is Plan B. Time is
running out. We are 11 days away from the end of 2012. 11 days away
from our last opportunity to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. 11 days
away from significant tax increases on every single tax payer in
America and devastating cuts to our military.
The Members of this body may disagree on many things, but we all
agree that the across-the-board tax rates that become effective on
January 1 will have a very damaging effect on our frail economy. The
first of today's underlying bills is a safeguard against the most
detrimental aspects of the fiscal cliff. It extends the 2001 and 2003
tax cuts for the 99.81 percent of Americans who make less than $1
million a year. This action protects the middle class and virtually all
small businesses. No other single action would go further to mitigate
the crisis that is looming before us.
The second of today's underlying bills makes responsible spending
cuts that will help to rein in our deficit without compromising
national security. Defense Secretary Panetta has tirelessly exhorted
Congress to avoid these draconian cuts to our military at all costs. We
are absolutely committed to getting our fiscal house in order. But we
must do so in a way that does not sacrifice our security. The
underlying spending package makes essential cuts, while ensuring that
we do not put our homeland and our troops at grave risk.
We of course want to go much further than simply limiting the worst
of the damage of the fiscal cliff. We will continue to strive for a
comprehensive solution until the tremendous challenges before us are
addressed. These challenges will not be resolved in any sustainable way
until we substantially reform our tax code and deal with the
fundamental insolvency of our entitlement programs. But we would be
utterly derelict in our duty to first do no harm if we failed to
implement these critical stopgap measures.
It is essential to recognize that current law raises taxes for every
single Federal income tax payer on January 1. Every working American,
every small business owner, will face a higher marginal rate 11 days
from now. That is the current law of the land. Today's underlying tax
bill maintains current law for 0.19 percent of taxpayers, while cutting
taxes for 99.81 percent. This is not a tax increase. It is a tax cut
for very nearly everyone. Without it, we run the real and serious risk
of plunging our economy back into recession.
Today's measures represent neither a comprehensive solution nor the
end of our efforts to reach one. It is simply action that must be taken
to protect our fragile economy and beleaguered workforce until a long-
term solution can be reached.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we're watching an attempt to perpetuate a hoax. To
everybody watching, I want to say to you don't bother to take notes, no
need to call the family to see history being made here. Just move
along. There's nothing happening here. We've got this plan that doesn't
come anywhere close to being a solution to the fiscal cliff. It's a
political gimmick, and all of us recognize that it has no chance
whatsoever of becoming law.
The process that has brought us here has been equally shameful, more
befitting a developing country than the greatest democracy on Earth. It
has been absolutely painful to watch the otherwise responsible Members
of the majority play their assigned roles, pretending that what we did
last night was normal and legitimate. Last night we saw one of the
greatest miscarriages of the democratic process in my time on the Rules
Committee. Facing the impending fiscal cliff that could devastate our
economy and harm millions of Americans, the majority decided to cobble
together last-minute legislation on a wing and a prayer.
[[Page H7376]]
Last night, the Rules Committee spent most of the evening debating
legislation that we've barely seen. We were told that there would be
two bills. Two bills actually were filed at midnight on Tuesday. One of
them disappeared. And in the waning hours, even while the debate on the
rule was taking place, a third was dropped into our laps. It turned out
to be a warmed-over bill that went through the House of Representatives
in May destroying health care, food stamps, and almost every other
possibility of people in the country to survive. That's how the
majority wants to solve the greatest economic threat facing our Nation.
With nothing less than millions of jobs on the line, does the
majority really believe that passing a bill in less than 24 hours that
will do absolutely nothing is responsible governing?
Today we're prepared to vote on this legislation and, I think,
possibly adjourn for the final time this year. If this is the
majority's final attempt to reach a compromise, then our Nation does
indeed face frightening times. If no compromise is reached, we may face
the greatest displacement of workers since 1929 as sequestration takes
effect and forces countless layoffs. How devastating is that to a
recovering economy? Every American knows we cannot let this happen;
and, frankly, I believe that every Member of Congress knows that we
never would let it happen. But after last night, I'm not so sure.
This is not a serious solution to avoid economic catastrophe. It's
just one last attack on the poor and the middle class right before we
tumble off together over the fiscal cliff. Today's bill contains many
dangerous provisions. I mentioned part C that we got last night, the
old warmed-over bill providing an average tax cut of $50,000 for
millionaires and billionaires. Meanwhile, the 25 million working
families would pay an average of $1,000 more on taxes; 11 million
families would lose a tax credit that helps to pay for college; drastic
cuts would be made to Medicare; and the important provisions of the
Affordable Care Act would be no more. They simply could not adjourn
this year without one last attempt to destroy the health care bill that
will provide health care for millions more Americans, many covered by
insurance that they have never been able to have before.
During my last election, which occurred last month, I met more than
one person who told me that they had been born--there is one person who
sticks out in my mind--she had been born with cerebral palsy, Mr.
Speaker. She told me that her whole life, while she brought up a
family, lived her life driving a car, cooking, moving, everything that
we all do and take for granted in life, she had to do without any
health insurance because having been born with cerebral palsy, she had
a preexisting condition that prevented it. It was not until she was 65
and was able to get Medicare did she have the peace of mind that most
of us take for granted that she was eligible to be covered. Why in the
world do we keep trying to be the only industrial country that does not
take better care of its people than that?
Finally, 2 million Americans would lose their unemployment assistance
right here at the holiday time. As I said before, the nutrition
assistance program would be gutted. Those unjust cuts would leave
millions struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table.
The Americans that we're talking about, those that will be suffering,
are not the ones that caused the problem in this country. They had
nothing to do with financial services and the shenanigans that were
played that brought us to our knees. Yet, continually, this House asks
them through the majority side to pay the price.
{time} 1350
Enough already. They're not to blame, and they should not be put on
the block.
Sadly, just days ago--Tuesday, in fact--it appeared that President
Obama and Speaker Boehner were close to a fiscal cliff compromise.
President Obama had made concessions, some that, frankly, as I pointed
out, our side is not that crazy about, but in the blink of an eye, the
House majority decided to walk away in 51 seconds, announcing what they
were going to do in a take-it-or-leave-it manner and introduce this
political hoax that is before us today.
Mr. Speaker, don't anybody be fooled. The American people know
better. They see through this. They know that a compromise means that
we must meet in the middle. Unfortunately, the majority continues to
think, if they pass extreme legislation and then run for the hills, the
rest of us will be forced to give in.
We've seen similar antics from the majority throughout the 112th
Congress--from holding the full faith and credit of this Nation hostage
for the first time in its history and losing our credit rating to
voting 33 times to repeal health care reform. The majority has
continually advanced a cynical and partisan agenda at the expense of
our Nation's welfare. Given this, there is little surprise that the
approval rating for Congress is at an all-time low and that historians
have said it is the least productive Congress in our history.
Mr. Speaker, in the election just last month, the American people
made their voices heard. When asked to choose between an extreme agenda
that took care of the millionaires and billionaires at their expense,
they said ``no'' in that they wanted not to be going over a fiscal
cliff, and they have made that very clear.
I think of what we have done to just the economic future of this
country by debating this fiscal cliff as long as we have, but I don't
believe, as I said, that we will actually go over it, except I'm not
really clear on what we're doing here today unless that is to cut and
run. Yet, in the process, the majority has presided over a shameful
legislative circus not worthy of this institution. When our Nation is
in desperate need of serious solutions, the majority is doing
everything in its power to avoid finding the answers.
I strongly oppose this hoax before us. I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
associate myself with the remarks that my good friend from Rochester
has made as it relates to the sequester. I agree with her completely,
Mr. Speaker. It is very important that we not let the sequester take
place, and I hope and believe that she is right, that we will not see
that happen.
Number two, I'd like to associate myself with her remarks as it
relates to ensuring that we do not go over the fiscal cliff. That's
something that is very, very desired on our part as well.
I'd also like to respond to just one point very quickly, Mr. Speaker,
before I yield to my good friend from Roseville and say that I can
provide my friend from Rochester, our distinguished ranking member of
the Rules Committee, assurance that we will not be adjourning the
Congress today and ending our work. I have said--I said in the Rules
Committee, Mr. Speaker--that we are going to continue with our work.
The action that we are going to take relates to these two measures:
again, the reconciliation package, which is designed to ensure, as my
friend from Rochester has said, that we don't see sequestration, which
we all know would be devastating if it were to take effect. It is a
package of $238 billion over a 10-year period of time. It is a very
responsible measure that is not going to be gutting programs but is
going to responsibly begin to tackle entitlement reform.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlelady from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I appreciate your yielding.
I appreciate your giving us your assurance, but I do recall that Mr.
McGovern and I, both in our turns, asked last night for assurance that
the bill that we were looking at was the bill we were going to vote on,
and all we got was doublespeak. So, while I appreciate your giving me
your assurance, I think I'll give it back to you.
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I will say again that I have
served as long in the minority as John Dingell. I have served longer in
the minority in this House, Mr. Speaker, than the dean of the House,
John Dingell, has served, and I understand. I've served 18 years in the
minority, and I
[[Page H7377]]
understand that it is challenging, and I respect that fact. To say that
as we're dealing with the very end of this session that we're not
trying to get to an agreement is a mischaracterization of where we are.
I've associated myself with the remarks of my friend from Rochester
as it relates to our quest to ensure that we don't see the sequester
take effect or that we go over the fiscal cliff, and to say that the
package that we have that deals with the reduction of $238 billion over
a 10-year period of time is, again, virtually identical to what passed
this House. It has actually been reduced by 100 pages. It's much
smaller than what was passed in May by this House, and I believe that
it's a package that is, again, one that can responsibly be a first step
towards something that we all know does need to be done. As I talk to
Democrats, there is recognition that entitlement reform has to take
place, and so I believe that that is the right thing to do.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my
very good friend, a very, very strong budget hawk, my fellow
Californian, Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the debate over the fiscal cliff has become so
hyperbolic that I'm afraid we're losing touch with common sense.
Contrary to many press accounts and many statements by Members, there
is no bill before the Congress that proposes raising taxes on
millionaires or anybody else. There is a law that takes effect on
January 1 that will raise taxes on millionaires and small businesses
filing as millionaires and on everybody else, and there is a bill to
protect everybody else from that law, which is the issue before us
today.
The President says he wants to protect everybody except those greedy
millionaires and billionaires. Well, that's precisely what this bill
does, and yet he has vowed to veto it. The truth is he wants to sock
everybody who is making over $200,000. Now, that includes 1.3 million
small businesses filing under subchapter S. That's 84 percent of net
small business income. That is precisely the income that they use to
produce two-thirds of the jobs in our economy.
The Congressional Budget Office warns us that Mr. Obama's ``eat the
rich'' crusade will actually result in throwing 200,000 middle class
families into unemployment. Ernst & Young estimates 700,000 lost jobs.
House Republicans now have a choice in that we can try to save as
many Americans from these ruinous tax increases as the President will
permit or we can end up at an impasse that assures taxes go up on
everyone. So let us pass this bill. If it doesn't work, then let's pass
it at whatever level the President will agree to. It's not as if we
haven't repeatedly warned him.
Some of my conservative colleagues say that sparing some people these
tax increases is tantamount to raising them on others. For a lifeguard
who sees 10 swimmers drowning off his beach, if he can only save nine
of them, that doesn't mean he has drowned the 10th one. And no
lifeguard would be worth his pay if he said, Well, my principle is that
nobody should drown off my beach; therefore, as a matter of principle,
if I can't save them all, then I won't save any.
As Americans watch as thousands and thousands of middle class jobs
are sacrificed on the ideological altar of Obamanomics next year, I
think this country will be a lot sadder and a lot wiser, but until
then, let's save who we can.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. This is an important moment. These bills move the Nation
dangerously closer to the cliff with only 11 days before our Nation
would go over it. They make finding common ground far more difficult
with only 11 days left to find it. These bills are not a plan; they're
a ploy. They are bills to nowhere. They undermine trust so essential
for agreement. We've just heard it.
The Republicans claim that letting the tax rate go up from 35 to 39.6
percent on income over $1 million is not a tax hike because it would
happen on its own. But then they say that if the tax cut rate would go
up on income below $1 million by happening on its own, it would be the
biggest tax increase in history. That is patently inconsistent.
{time} 1400
But far worse than the hypocrisy is the way they design their tax
provisions. For those with income over $1 million, they provide a tax
cut of at least $50,000.
They raise only one-third of the revenue contained in the Speaker's
discussions with the White House and far less than proposed by the
President. Talk about undermining trust.
It would raise taxes on 11 million middle class taxpayers--11
million--through their failure to continue the education credit, and
they hurt millions of other middle class families with their failure to
keep the improvements to the child tax credit and the earned income tax
credit.
And there is stony silence, indeed stone-hearted silence, on 2
million unemployed workers looking for work who would lose their
insurance immediately on December 29. And silence on the 27 percent cut
to doctors treating Medicare patients.
And in a deeply cynical move, so cynical, the Republicans have
decided to offer another bill to put off some of the sequester in
defense. And they pay for it how? By deep and ugly cuts to important
programs impacting seniors, kids, and disabled Americans.
The Republicans are tying themselves into knots. But in doing so,
they're tying into knots the chances for our Nation not going over the
cliff. Vote ``no'' on these bills that take us backwards, that undercut
trust, that increase the chances of going over the cliff. This is not a
plan; it's a ploy.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire of my friend how many
speakers she has remaining. It looks like she has a couple at least. I
reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I'd be happy to tell you. We expect four. I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of
the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the ranking member for the time.
Mr. Speaker, just when I thought the process in this House couldn't
get any worse, last night in the Rules Committee the Republicans
reached a new low. We originally were told that we were meeting on the
Speaker's so-called ``Plan B'' tax bill, which continues the proud
Republican tradition of protecting tax cuts for the wealthy at the
expense of middle class families and poor people.
But then we were told there would be a new bill, some kind of magical
mystery bill that was introduced in the middle of the hearing. Now I'm
not sure what to call this one, Plan B.2.0 maybe? Plan C? The We-Don't-
Really-Have-a-Plan Plan?
It turns out that the magical mystery bill is similar to the
reconciliation bill the Republicans brought to the floor a couple of
months ago. That bill was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.
It cuts $36 billion from the SNAP program, taking food off the table
of struggling Americans. Millions of households would see a cut in
their benefits. Millions of families would have less food tomorrow than
they do today. And hundreds of thousands of kids would lose their
access to free school meals. That's the Republican idea of a Christmas
present. It's enough to make Ebenezer Scrooge embarrassed.
The bill threatens Medicare, children's programs, education,
infrastructure. In short, it threatens our economy as a whole. And at
the same time, it not only protects the Pentagon budget, It increases
it by billions of dollars. Does anyone here really believe there's not
a single dollar to be saved anywhere in the Pentagon?
Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken. They've made it loud
and clear that they want a balanced approach. They want an approach
that asks the wealthiest, the most fortunate Americans, to pay a little
bit more, and that protects our seniors, our children, and our most
vulnerable neighbors. But the Republican leadership of this House
refuses to listen.
Mr. Speaker, let me say another thing about this process. I would say
to my Republican freshman colleagues
[[Page H7378]]
that you rode to power on a wave of outrage over the way the House
conducts its business. I remember the lectures and the promises and the
things that you said would change. I would say to those freshmen: you
own this now. You have officially become part of the problem, if not
the problem.
A vote for this rule is a vote for an outrageous abuse of power and a
vote against transparency and openness, and it's a vote against
accountability.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. My Republican friends
have made it unfashionable to worry about the poor and the elderly and
the vulnerable. That's crystal clear in the text of what we're debating
here today. I urge my colleagues not to turn your backs on the most
needy. Let's balance our budget in a way that doesn't lower the quality
of life or decrease the standard of living for people of this country.
We can do so much better. Instead of doing this, you should be
negotiating with the President. Go back to the negotiating table and
stop the games.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 5 minutes to
my friend from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a very
hardworking, thoughtful member of the House Rules Committee.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me the
time.
I came down here to talk about tax policy and my support for the
rule, Mr. Speaker; but I've got to tell you, when folks back home ask
me what's wrong with this place, I'm going to start playing them a clip
of this debate because there's a serious topic on the floor right now.
This fiscal cliff, I don't think there's a man or woman in this room
with a voting card who doesn't believe this is a serious issue for our
economy, for working families, and for small businesses that we're
counting on bringing us out of this recession. I believe every man and
woman in this room believes that.
And yet as we're down here trying to have that discussion, in the
short 11 days we have left to sort that out, I hear that our tax
package, which does exactly what the President has asked, though not
the levels that he asked for it, it picks winners and losers. He
campaigned on that platform. I think it's wrong. I think we ought to
keep tax rates low for everyone, but the President says no. The
President says we ought to pick some folks who win and some folks who
lose, and this tax bill does that. But it just deals with taxes
because, as my friend from Massachusetts reminded me, when I ran as a
part of this freshman class, I said let's try to make things more
simple here. Because we all know what happens at the end of the year.
Anybody who's watched this process in December knows those Christmas
tree bills that come rolling to the floor where you handle 100
different unrelated things at one time.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd be interested in polling folks who don't have
a voting card. I'd be interested in knowing what folks who've listened
to this debate believe is happening in this underlying tax bill,
because I've been told by some of the speakers on this floor that this
tax bill throws Americans off unemployment; when, in fact, it does no
such thing. No such thing.
Do we need to deal with unemployment? Yes, we do--in an unemployment
bill.
I've been told that this tax bill cuts payments to doctors. It does
no such thing. There's not one line in this bill that does any such
thing. Do we need to deal with Medicare and SGR? Of course we do.
Do we need to jumble all of these things together in a
straightforward tax bill? The answer's no.
I'm told by my friend it's not just stony silence on these issues;
it's stone hearted to be silent.
Who is it, Mr. Speaker, who believes it advances the debate, this
hard, complicated debate we have, who believes we advance it by calling
the absence of a nongermane provision stone hearted on the part of the
authors? Don't tell me about violating trust. Don't tell me about how
it is folks ought to work cooperatively together. We have that
opportunity right now, and folks are throwing it away line by line by
line.
My friend from the Rules Committee comes to the floor, Mr. Speaker,
and he says this bill throws folks off food stamps. Nonsense. Nonsense.
Every single time I go to the town hall meeting, Mr. Speaker, folks
believe if only we eliminate the fraud in government, we'll balance the
budget. Now, due to spending that both sides of the aisle are
responsible for, we're way far out of balance. Fraud won't do it, Mr.
Speaker. That's not going to be enough.
{time} 1410
But what the underlying bill does to request to eliminate the defense
sequester cuts that President Obama's Secretary of Defense has called
so dangerous, it says the only people who should get food stamps are
people who qualify for food stamps. That's right. The underlying bill
says the only folks who should get food stamps are those who qualify
for food stamps.
Now, it turns out, Mr. Speaker, like every Federal program, there's
some fraud, and so some folks are receiving taxpayer-sponsored benefits
today who have not earned them, who do not find themselves entitled to
them by virtue of their circumstances. And because this underlying bill
aims to eliminate that fraud, folks come to the floor and say, Why in
the world are Republicans throwing hungry people out during Christmas?
It's outrageous, Mr. Speaker, that we can't have a conversation about
serious things in a serious time. The outrages that my colleagues on
the Rules Committee point to from last night, I tell you, Mr. Speaker,
what happened last night is exactly what I would hope would happen in a
conversation like this.
Almost to a person, every Democratic member in that Rules Committee
and those testifying said, All we have in front of us tonight is a tax
bill. All we have in front of us is a tax bill, and every American
knows the problem isn't taxes. The problem is too much spending. Where
are the spending cuts?
And so the Rules Committee staff went to work immediately, Mr.
Speaker, and found a package, not that had never been seen before, not
that had never been read before, not that had never been vetted before,
but one that had passed this body in a bipartisan way.
They said, You know what? The criticism from my colleagues is right.
We do need to do this, and we did.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my chairman for the additional time.
There is a sense out there in this country that folks in Washington,
D.C., just want to argue about things, that they don't want to solve
anything at all.
You all made absolutely accurate criticisms last night that I'm glad
we took steps to correct. We have a straightforward tax bill today. We
have a straightforward sequester replacement bill today.
Mr. Speaker, this isn't the wrong way to do things; this is the right
way to do things. And with only 11 days left to prevent all American
families from having an unprecedented tax increase, let's pass these
bills. Let's pass this rule. Let's get to debate on the underlying
resolutions.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the distinguished ranking
member of the Committee on Small Business.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying
legislation. This measure punishes working families just to deliver
more tax breaks for the wealthy.
Under this legislation, those making over $1 million a year will
receive an average tax cut of $50,000. That is not the 1 percent. It is
the top one-third of the 1 percent. Meanwhile, 25 million working
families will pay an average of $1,000 more in taxes.
For those families that are struggling to find work in this difficult
economy, this bill is equally bad. Two million Americans will lose
unemployment benefits next month, pushing them out into the cold.
Retirees and seniors will also be hurt. With a 27 percent cut in
Medicare payments, 50 million seniors will see their health care
endangered.
Mr. Speaker, what the American people are watching right here right
now
[[Page H7379]]
is a tragic comedy, because the other side knows quite well that, even
if this legislation passes the House today, it is going nowhere. So
here we are, with time running out, rather than coming up with real
compromise, we are playing another game of political charades. That is
not what the American people want us to do.
I urge my colleagues, reject this bill so we can come up with a
solution that becomes law, addresses our fiscal challenges while
protecting working families.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 7 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. So I think the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter)
might want to exhaust some of the speakers she has.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady, the ranking member
from the Rules Committee, and I thank the chairman of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, when I mention the words Hurricane Sandy and the tragedy
in Newtown, Connecticut, many would wonder what do they have in common?
The enormous gun tragedy, a loss of 26 lives, and Americans suffering
from a devastating storm. Certainly our hearts go out for those babies
who were lost. But it really speaks to Americans in need. And I guess
that's why I'm so troubled to be on the floor today, because the
framework that we have says to America that when you're in need, we
will not, as this Congress and as this government, be prepared to help
you.
I think what is disappointing--and I know for the Speaker it is
probably the same case as I'm speaking, because just about 3 days ago
we thought there was a deal between the White House and the framework
that was offered and the leadership of this House. It's disappointing
that, in the course of a couple of days, we've come to a situation
where this plan, Plan B, raises only about $300 billion from high-
income households, and the Center on Budget Priorities suggests that
millionaires will get $108,500 per million, over $1 million in tax
cuts.
But what will the middle class get?
Plan B allows the old pre-Bush--or Bush tax cuts to continue the
itemized deductions for the rich, giving them more opportunity to keep
their money. In fact, we will lose $400 billion, under this plan, in
high-income revenues. Disappointing.
But at the same time, there is a thought that we should cut Social
Security by changing the way Social Security is calculated, so that if
a senior buys cheap food, that means they need cheap Social Security,
and we cut their Social Security benefits because we thought there was
a deal. I can't agree with that at all, cutting Social Security, and I
can't agree with recalculating how a senior gets their check.
But I will tell you that this plan raises taxes rather than reduces
it, as the President wants to do, as this House of Democrats wants to
do, as the Senate bill, where 180-plus Democrats have signed. This
raises taxes $1,000 on 25 million working families.
And then there is a mysterious bill that, I guess, suggests that we
are in the business of making cuts. But you know what that will do?
And by the way, there's no sequester plan in this plan that is here.
It cuts education, research, and national security; but it also cuts
the hardworking Americans who are yet employed, and it cuts off 2
million of them, unemployment insurance. It cuts out doctors.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlelady another minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady.
Twenty-seven percent.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I ask my friend to yield? I will yield
her an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I just wanted to inquire. I didn't understand this
``there is no sequester here.'' We're dealing with the threat of a
sequester, and our idea is $238 billion in spending reductions within
the reconciliation bill that passed the House last May is what we're
including. So I just didn't understand, if I could just ask my friend.
And I'm happy to yield her an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his inquiry.
When we started out with the Plan B, there was no sequester plan.
Obviously, there was a mysterious offering last evening.
Mr. DREIER. If the gentlewoman would further yield, let me just say
that there is a plan to respond to the sequester, and that is the $238
billion reduction over a 10-year period of time that is the
reconciliation bill that was passed by the House last May.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
In the original Plan B that I assume the Rules Committee was to
address last evening through the distinguished chairperson, there was
no sequester plan. We were in a posture of cutting education and
research.
Yes, you are right. In the creative work of your staff, as you said
right here on the floor of the House, late into the night you found the
reconciliation that had been addressed in the summer, I believe, and
all of us, a lot of us, voted against it.
{time} 1420
All of us voted against it, and we understand that that plan will
have no traction in the United States Senate. I thank the gentleman for
his work, but what I'm suggesting is there is no sequester plan. There
was no sequester plan with the Plan B. And as I was saying, if I can
quickly go back, Madam Ranking Member, without this plan, what we leave
in place with Plan B, which really troubles me, coming from the Texas
Medical Center and meeting with the hospital before I left Houston, it
cuts reimbursements for doctors seeing Medicare patients by 27 percent.
Fifty million Americans will then have their health care in jeopardy.
It cuts nutrition plans, food stamps. There is no plan.
My quiet comment, Mr. Speaker, as I close, it is in disappointment.
It is not in shrill debate. It is simply in disappointment. Because we
have Americans who are looking to us to work with the President, to
work with the Speaker, to go forward on the plan that was offered on
Monday--at least for us to debate--and to find a way to be able to
respond when people like those victims of Hurricane Sandy and Newtown,
Connecticut, call on us. That's all I'm asking my colleagues, is that
you work with us.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it
has been said here before that the bill that mysteriously appeared last
night had passed the House in a bipartisan way. Let me point out it was
bipartisan opposition. No Democrat voted for it and 16 Republicans
voted ``no.''
I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Peters).
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the
underlying bills.
In the dead of night, 5 days before Christmas, House Republicans
released legislation that they are rushing to the floor to gut funding
for health care, food assistance, and other vital social services.
Christmas is a season of giving, but sadly, Republicans are taking--
taking food off the table for millions of American families that are
struggling in these tough economic times by cutting food assistance by
$36 billion, taking the unemployment lifeline away from more than 2
million Americans who are trying to get back on their feet, and taking
funding away from block grants that provide protective services for
abused children. Why would Republicans insist on taking so much away
from our families during this holiday season? So they can give an
average $50,000 tax break to millionaires.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for millions of children, workers,
and families that are facing a real cliff. Vote ``no'' on the rule and
the bills.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to a very thoughtful colleague from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr.
Tiberi.
[[Page H7380]]
Mr. TIBERI. Let's review real quick here for everybody. We have a
fiscal cliff occurring at the beginning of next year--12 short days.
That means taxes go up for everybody who pay taxes and across-the-board
spending cuts. The Democrat alternative, the Levin bill, was rejected
on a bipartisan basis earlier this year. Our preferable bill has been
rejected in the Senate. The Speaker and the President have been
talking, but the President hasn't been serious. Not a dollar for cuts
and a dollar for revenue.
Today is an attempt to try to save most Americans, Mr. Speaker--99.8
percent of Americans--from seeing their taxes go up. Three-quarter of a
million small business owners will see their taxes go up if this plan
isn't passed versus the Levin bill. Those three-quarter of a million
small business owners employ many, many tens of thousands of people in
America who are the middle class.
The bill before us is a comprehensive bill. Mr. Speaker, it gives us
certainty. In the Ways and Means Committee we've heard testimony after
testimony from business owners, Give us certainty. The Democrat
alternative is a year. It's not even comprehensive. It doesn't even
include the estate tax. We'll be right back here again December of next
year for the 1-year patch. This gives us certainty. This gives
employers certainty. This gives jobs creators certainty. It gives
Americans who pay the alternative minimum tax certainty that they won't
ever pay it again.
Mr. Speaker, this is the right medicine for 99.8 percent of Americans
to prevent them from seeing their taxes go up on January 1. And it
gives us an opportunity the next session of Congress to provide
comprehensive tax reform that will simplify our Tax Code, that will
give us even more certainty, and more competitiveness to our employers
so the middle class can grow and prosper and we can improve our
economy.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Thank you, and I appreciate the time and the opportunity
to speak on this measure.
I'm concerned about the fiscal cliff. And it's important. President
Obama has tried to work with the opposition party and has gone from
what he was elected on--increasing taxes, for fairness, on families
earning over $250,000--to $400,000. But no, that wasn't enough. This
proposal goes to a million dollars a year. Now $400,000 is plenty
comfortable. The President's gone a long way. The fact is that there's
a lot of revenue that's being lost between $400,000 and $1 million. We
need that revenue to rectify some problems in our society, of which
there are still many.
This bill would cut funding for the National Institutes of Health.
That is our physical cliff. And I want to talk to you how this fiscal
cliff affects the physical cliff. The National Institutes of Health is
the agency that comes up with research dollars that allows our lives to
be extend and bettered. At Duke University there is a great lung
transplant program, headed by Dr. Robert Davis. Duke needs more money
to perfect their lung transplant program that's the best in the
country. But still, it's only a 50 percent chance that a person will
live 8 years with a lung transplant because the transplanted lung tends
to be rejected. They don't know why. They need know find out it. It's
National Institutes of Health funds that will find out and give people
a chance to breathe and live.
In my hometown of Memphis there's research at the Methodist Hospital.
We have Dr. James Eason, one of the finest liver transplant doctors in
the country. But throughout the country there are people in places like
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis finding cures for
childhood cancers and childhood catastrophic illnesses. This bill cuts
funds to the National Institutes of Health. They should not be cut
ever. They should be increased. And some of the funds that they are
missing are the funds that will go to people earning over $400,000 and
up to $1 million that tax relief is being given to. They don't know
right now that they might not be the people that need that lung or that
liver transplant or some other medical science cure or discovery. But
there are people out there in the lottery of life that will. This bill
doesn't take that into consideration.
Any bill that cuts funds to the National Institutes of Health will
eventually cut people's lives short--and the quality of their life--
because it's through research funded at the National Institutes of
Health that we find these cures and these new procedures. Doctors need
to be paid, hospitals need to be paid, research needs to be undertaken.
I believe the President has gone a great distance on the fiscal cliff
to get to $400,000. He's even talked about cutting some programs that
deal with the most vulnerable people, the poorest, on Social Security
cost-of-living increases, which I oppose. But the President has tried.
I hope that this bill fails and we deal with the President in a
responsible way and avoid the fiscal and the physical cliff.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to
a great member of the Appropriations Committee, our hardworking friend
from Savannah, Georgia, Ann's father, Mr. Kingston.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. Speaker, the President owns this economy. He owns the high
unemployment rate--the 23 million Americans who are unemployed or
underemployed. He owns the lack of jobs, lack of opportunities. He owns
the $750 billion annual deficit that he has had for the 4 years. It is
time for the President to step up.
{time} 1430
Now, knowing that this fiscal cliff was going to take place for well
over a year now--in fact, people have seen it coming long before then--
the President has not acted in good faith and put alternatives on the
floor for us to vote on.
What we're doing here today is three things. Number one, we are
moving a centralized negotiation back to where it should be, a
decentralized basis so that 435 House Members can vote, can speak on it
and express their opinion. Now, hopefully, beyond that, the Senate can
take it and amend it and change it and do whatever they want, but this
debate belongs inside the United States Capitol. What the Speaker is
doing today is giving us that opportunity.
Last year, we heard so much about the 99 percenters. This is going to
give tax relief to those 99 percent, and it's permanent. I know how
long it's taken us to do something with the death tax. That is in this
bill.
This is good for the economy. It's good for economic growth, and I
urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I can't say it enough, today's
legislation is a step backwards in the effort to find a fiscal cliff
compromise. Plan B, Plan C, neither one of them are serious proposals
but a gimmick designed to get headlines. By using the Halls of Congress
to play political games, the majority is making it harder to find a
commonsense and bipartisan solution to the impending fiscal cliff.
The time for these games is over. It's time that the majority comes
to the table with a serious proposal that reflects the wishes of the
American people.
Nobody wants to see the taxes raised on 25 million working families.
As I said earlier, they seem to be called upon to pay the price for the
fiscal irresponsibility of the financial district.
The American people don't want to see hundreds of thousands lose
access to nutritional programs, and I sure can tell you that they don't
want to see Wall Street reforms repealed and the historic health care
law dismantled, but all these things would happen if this bill before
us became law.
I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the gimmick proposal before
us today and return to the serious work of balancing our budget while
protecting the poor and the working class.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to this rule to make in order an amendment which will allow
the House to have a chance to vote on the bill passed by the Senate to
extend the middle class tax cuts to all persons making less than
$250,000, which has been introduced in the House as H.R. 15. Also, the
amendment would prevent the House from adjourning until we have averted
the fiscal cliff and the President has signed legislation to prevent
tax increases on the middle class.
[[Page H7381]]
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment 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. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''
and defeat the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the rule and
certainly on the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that we all know we're 11 days away from
going over the proverbial fiscal cliff. We are trying our doggonedest
to make sure that a sequester doesn't go into place. We all know that
Secretary Panetta has said that that would be a devastating thing for
our Nation's security.
I think that discussions taking place between the President of the
United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives are very
important. I also think it's important for every Member of the House to
have an opportunity to state where they stand on these issues.
The bill before us is one which actually has, again, basically
enjoyed bipartisan support. I remember when Senator Schumer made it
clear that he believed that there should not be any increase for anyone
who earns under $1 million. That was a request that he said. I know
there was a lot of discussion within the Democratic Caucus as to
exactly what that level should be. Well, this is at the level that
Senator Schumer had indicated that he supported earlier on.
I've got to say to my friend from Rochester, Mr. Speaker, we are not
planning to adjourn. We want to address this issue. We want to do
everything that we possibly can, Mr. Speaker, to resolve this just as
quickly as we possibly can.
We're just a few days away from Christmas. We are obviously still
here working. We're prepared to come back after Christmas. Sadly, many
of our colleagues are going to the funeral of Senator Inouye. That
service that will take place in Hawaii has created a challenge for us
when it relates to the schedule itself.
We understand that this is a difficult time, but we need to work
together to put into place pro-growth economic policies. I think that
there is, as I said in my opening remarks, a bipartisan quest to do
that. I congratulate the President for his call for reduction in the
corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Real tax reform is
something we've been trying to do for a while and I think can be done
in a bipartisan way. Real entitlement reform that does not hurt our
fellow Americans is something that can be done in a responsible way.
So I will simply say that this is not a perfect process, but it's an
end-of-the-session process that's going on right now to deal with a
tough, tough situation. We don't want our fellow Americans to be
hurting, especially at this time of year as we look towards the
Christmas holidays. I believe that we can see an agreement which will
work to ensure that that does not take place.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, support
the underlying legislation, both the tax issue and the effort to ensure
that we don't see a sequester take place to bring about $238 billion,
as the House passed it last May, of spending over a 10-year period of
time. This is the right thing for us to do to get on a path that can
provide certainty, which we all know is necessary.
So I urge support of the rule, and I urge support of the underlying
legislation, both bills.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 841 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
In section 1, strike ``The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without
intervening motion.'' and insert ``The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption
without intervening motion except a substitute amendment
consisting of the text of H.R. 15, if offered by
Representative Levin or his designee, which shall be
considered as read, shall not be subject to any point of
order, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.''
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 3. 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 legislation to prevent a tax increase on the middle
class, and to avert 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, 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. DREIER. With that, I yield back the balance of my time and move
the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution.
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 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House
Resolution 841 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House
Resolution 841, if ordered; ordering the previous question on House
Resolution 840; and adoption of House Resolution 840, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 184, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 639]
YEAS--233
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
[[Page H7382]]
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--184
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curson (MI)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Culberson
Grimm
Hinchey
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Larson (CT)
Lowey
Mica
Reyes
Richardson
Rivera
Shuler
Woolsey
Yarmuth
{time} 1457
Ms. ESHOO, Messrs. GEORGE MILLER of California, HOLT, BRADY of
Pennsylvania, and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. AMASH, JORDAN, and HUNTER changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on December 20, 2012, I was
not present for rollcall vote 639. If I had been present for this vote,
I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 639.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
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. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 197, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 640]
YEAS--219
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lance
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--197
Ackerman
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curson (MI)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
[[Page H7383]]
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Landry
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Burton (IN)
Carnahan
Chaffetz
Clay
Culberson
Grimm
Hinchey
Johnson, Sam
Lamborn
Lynch
Mica
Reyes
Richardson
Rivera
Shuler
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1505
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________