[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.

                          ____________________